Do you really love philosophy?

About “lol”: “[size=150]l[/size]oving [size=200]o[/size]r [size=150]l[/size]iking”? Then it would be YOUR thread, YOUR eternal “lol”.

Okay, that is what you want. I see. You want all threads to be YOUR threads.

Again: This thread is about that what the title, the topic of this thread declares.

Your “example of how communication gets shut down” is nonsense because all threads of all webforums make the same sense. The fact that threads have titles, topics, is very much meaningful, reasonable, and useful. Why can’t you accept titles, topics of threads? It’s just stupid.

If one doesn’t like a thread, one can even “leave” it and look for another thread. Why do you glue so much to this thread? Do you love or merely like derailing?

And if I asked you “do you really love tomatoes”, then you would also respond, probably for years and with absurd words and signs like “lol”. How many lols have you posted on ILP? Billions? Trillions?

You are not alive, Arcturus Descending, you are lol.

My point was that your main focus was on liking or loving it. But you are correct, It is Your thread. Let if possess you, if you will.

Gee, I hesitate to even put in that despicable smilie here but I will anyway. LOL
No, I do not want all threads to be mine. Most I couldn’t actually handle truth be told. i suppose though that what I would “like” is to be able to put in my own 2cents about a particular thread, my own perception of it. I certainly didn’t mean to step on your toes in here.

You’ve already established this.

.
I know that I am not the brightest light bulb in this place but - but I do not find the above to be true - they do not all make the same sense, common sense or otherwise.

I have no problem accepting the above. I don’t think it was even a problem which I had until you just made it one. I was simply observing that the thread didn’t go any further than liking or loving philosophy. But I suppose that all you were and are looking for is confirmation as to whether or not someone likes or loves philosophy.

I don’t glue so much to this thread although I do have a certain amount of sticktoitiveness in my character. I was just trying to understand where it was going tis all. So where is it going?

Ah geez, I just can’t help myself. [size=200]LOL[/size]I wouldn’t even begin to know or to care to know.

Maybe you might want to try and do better than that? That’s not even logical.
If I’m laughing out loud, wouldn’t that be proof not only of my existence but that I might indeed be very much “alive” in a joyful wondrous sense?

You might not begin to answer this, but perhaps my dealings with you in this thread point to my answer to the thread’s quesition. But take the time to really think. The answer might not be so obvious to you.

Philosophy is supposed to be about Wisdom. But wisdom has two faces;

1. Truth
2. Behavior

When pursuing the truth aspect; logic, language construct, ontology, epistemology, and so forth are all relevant.
But when pursuing the behavior aspect; attitudes, poetry, fantasy, and imagination take the forefront.

So in answering a question such as “Do you love philosophy”, one has to consider which aspect of philosophy. Some love the reasoning aspect. Some love the poetic aspect.

What I find interesting is that very few even consider the Wisdom aspect. That is the part they never get to resolving because they are so focused on its components. It is like loving biology or science but never worrying about what comes of so much narrow focus on it. The forest is lost for the love of studying trees.

Philosophy in it’s broadest sense, is systematic search for the ultimate reality. It does not and cannot be subject to the objection that there are no absolutes, since any expression entailing that falls victim to particular definitions of the absolute. Such objection regarding the invalidity of that notion, de-objectifies the implied meaning with a suggestive demand to specific definitional use. Such objection will invalidate the axiomatic use of language.

In simpler terms, just because we cannot define absolute reality is no conclusive negation of such a concept. =Which is founded on the notion that all concepts which have historical staying power are useful, and it usage which is founded on the need for such.
An interesting example is, 'if god did not exist, he would need to be invented). Therefore, he exists by virtue of that invention. -And again, 'all invented things have a useful application, therefore they acquire existenze., or a way of being in the world.

Nevertheless: at last there is an answer to the question. But if the one who should answer the question changes the question, then consequently no satisfactory understanding is possible anymore, although an answer is given (whichever).

Arminius,

Philosophy is like life, Arminius. It’s an ongoing process of thought - questions, answers, discoveries, transformation, ad continuum.
Where is the rule which says that the one who SHOULD(?) answer the question, has to answer that particular question?
Should is kind of absolute isn’t it? Philosophy is not the same as organized religion.
Sometimes it is another question, or an evolved one, which adds more to the discussion.

No “lol” - congratulations, Arcturus Desending!

The statement “philosophy is like life” is exaggerated. Philosophy is not merely “like life”, and life is not merely a “process of thought - questions, answers, discoveries, transformation, ad continuum”. You may say it poetically, okay, but then your statement is more art than philosophy. So if you like/dislike or love/hate poetry, you do it more relating to art than to philosophy. Anyway, you may say that art influences (for James: affects) your relationship to philosophy, so that your answer to my question (“Do you really love philosophy?”) could be: “Because art influences my relationship to philosophy my relationship to philosophy is …” Then I would know what your relationship to philosophy is, probably also whether you like/dislike or love/hate philosophy. AND: you would respect the title, topic of this thread!

Philosophy is the attempt of those who call themselves philosophers, to be “as dead as possible”. How does that sound? So, in that case philosophy might be like “life” because the philosophers are like “dying people”, but I would not say that philosophy is like “life”, although I am a friend of philosophy, especially of life philosophy.

The “rule” is (in) the title, the topic of this thread, but it is not really a rule, but just a matter of course, an implicitness. I guess your next question is: “Why?”. But if you don’t know it on your own, then it is useless to continue this conversation. Do you really think that someone who presents the title, the topic of his thread with a question, does it only just for fun? Or anorther example: Do you think that the rich are rich only for the fun of it? Only just for fun?

Too many questions? Where are the rules which dictate the number of questions per post, per thread, … per life?

“Do you really love Philosophy?”

“2 the point of self destruction: the neglect of the petty and mundane which sustains us all.”

“Would you mind explaining what you mean?”

That’s actually a bigger question than you might realize and overlaps into our cultural history as a whole –for instance, the arts. When we start our process as the creatively and intellectually curious, we start, based on our heroes (such as Van Gogh, Marx, Socrates, Jimi (both Hendrix and Morrison( etc.( with romantic notions of the tragic soul carrying the burden of the world. But what we ultimately find is that it is the petty and mundane matters that wear us down (and this is especially the case in America with its unconditional embrace of producer/consumer Capitalism and the tyranny of the functional –that which can be translated into dollar value: that constant struggle to devote our resources to pursuing our higher selves in an economic and social environment that in too many small ways demands our resources for its interests. And do not be fooled by the Randian myth that Capitalism is the only means by which we can find our higher selves. The greatness it champions must always stay within the perimeters of capital and what can be translated into profit: a formula for mediocrity if ever there was one.

(Note, for instance, the way that cable TV has gravitated towards the lowest common denominator through reality shows because they produce the same (if not more (profit for less investment than creating actual art.)

Every day that I spend on here, every day that I spend around an hour reading in preparation for this, feels like a violation of God and country in that I could be devoting that time to the numerous petty and mundane responsibilities imposed upon me by everyday life. And there would be any number of people who would argue that I clearly have my priorities wrong. I could, for instance, devote my intellect, creativity, and time pursuing more profitable disciplines. I did that for 5 years and it did work to extent that I have a decent job. But having abandoned my liberal and fine arts disposition to do so, it eventually began to feel like a carrot on a stick. I mean to what extent do you need to pad your resume before you actually achieve financial security? That is given that I am making reasonably good money while struggling as much as I ever have financially because of the petty and mundane little demands that have accumulated in my life –many of which were forced upon me because I happened to be the one with resources?

But as hard as this is, as hard as it feels to go on when the barbarians are always at the gates, it is for this very reason that I am always reminded that I must go on. As Camus argues:

“All arguments for beauty are ultimately arguments for freedom.”

I have to go on out of a stubborn rejection of the notion that the worth of my point A to point B must be based on how society and the market rewards it. While we believe in things like afterlives, higher powers, and higher principles (such as Capitalism (our point A to point B is all there is: consequences be damned.

This is why I would respectfully disagree with those who argue that you can’t love philosophy, but only like it. They sound like people who think of it as little more than a hobby (something they can just do in their spare time (as compared to a way of life –which is fine if that is all you want from it. And that way of life being one that goes against the general flow of things (the market, responsibility, and the tyranny of the functional (duty as the Buddhists would put it (you had better goddamn well love what you’re doing (to the point of self destruction if that’s what it takes (in the face of the opposition you will find yourself up against.

Arminius

.
You’re correct - there was no rule there - neither implied but definitely not implicit.

Well, from the title itself, one might perceive it to be just for fun - at the very least, not an important one…one might perceive it even to be simply an afterthought though I know it wasn’t to you.

?

That would depend on the individual. I don’t think that Bill Gates is rich just for fun. He worked diligently and hard for those riches, his father was a farmer I think, and they aren’t solely for his sake either. I don’t think that the value he holds in his riches are solely for their own sake, if I said that correctly, but for a greater use.
Someone else born into those riches might not see how valuable they could be for other humans beings, including him/her -self. Those riches are for them solely fun to be used hedonistcally to further their own cause and self-indulgence. For example, they have so much money or so much coming to them it wouldn’t occur to them to use some of it for an education, to define, refine, their life.
Others use their riches, not for fun, but to gain power and authority and to use and abuse it.

?
There are never too many questions - I value the questions almost as much as the answers - at times, even more so. Questions keep us curious about life but not all questions are valid ones. Some are meaningless to me - such as, what did you have for dinner last night. Who cares.

If you look to your left, you’ll see them go flying out the window. I’m tempted to laugh here. I actually just did but out of a deep and growing respect for you, I shan’t put that thingy in here.

Did you happen to look to your left when you read that? If you did, nothing wrong with that. It would have been natural to.

[b]Introduction to the Five Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy can be divided into five branches which address the following questions:

Metaphysics Study of Existence What’s out there?
Epistemology Study of Knowledge How do I know about it?
Ethics Study of Action What should I do?
Politics Study of Force What actions are permissible?
Esthetics Study of Art What can life be like?

There is a hierarchical relationship between these branches as can be seen in the Concept Chart. At the root is Metaphysics, the study of existence and the nature of existence. Closely related is Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know about reality and existence. Dependent on Epistemology is Ethics, the study of how man should act. Ethics is dependent on Epistemology because it is impossible to make choices without knowledge. A subset of Ethics is Politics: the study of how men should interact in a proper society and what constitutes proper. Esthetics, the study of art and sense of life is slightly separate, but depends on Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.

[/b]

So, do I really love it? I can’t speak in terms of “love” here since that’s a term I at least try to use for human relationships but I could say that it greatly interests me. When I am in here (ilp) having a discussion, especially depending on certain categories, I am capable of really getting turned on - my mind gets turned on - it’s a challenge to me and a struggle sometimes. I am very curious about human beings, especially myself, and the universe.

I would say that the one above which least turns me on is politics and the one which most turns me on is metaphysics and ethics. I don’t really consider myself to be a philsopher per se in that I do not have the knowledge nor brain matter of many in this forum. I’m certainly no scholar or academic as some in here are. I’m not saying I’m stupid - I’m far from stupid. But I am really interested and have my own perspectives though I try to stay on the fence of skepticism but not deliberately so - I just can’t help it. I am trying to question more - not to know it, especially when it comes down to metaphics. Aesthetics is there too.

There, that’s all I have.

“Introduction to the Five Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy can be divided into five branches which address the following questions:

Metaphysics Study of Existence What’s out there?
Epistemology Study of Knowledge How do I know about it?
Ethics Study of Action What should I do?
Politics Study of Force What actions are permissible?
Esthetics Study of Art What can life be like?

There is a hierarchical relationship between these branches as can be seen in the Concept Chart. At the root is Metaphysics, the study of existence and the nature of existence. Closely related is Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know about reality and existence. Dependent on Epistemology is Ethics, the study of how man should act. Ethics is dependent on Epistemology because it is impossible to make choices without knowledge. A subset of Ethics is Politics: the study of how men should interact in a proper society and what constitutes proper. Aesthetics, the study of art and sense of life is slightly separate, but depends on Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. “

What you are describing here is what was introduced to me through Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy. This was the first philosophy book I ever read and one I picked up in a second hand store at a time when I was primarily focused on being a musician. (I thought it, at the time, my manifest destiny to be a rock star.)The idea was to see how Aristotle’s Categorical would influence my music –which goes to show how willy-nilly and naive my understanding of philosophy actually was at the time.

However, the order of the list went Metaphysics, Logic, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Politics, which I only point out because it goes to the hierarchical sense of it you have –something I will go into below.

But before I do, I want to cover another point you made:

“I don’t really consider myself to be a philosopher per se in that I do not have the knowledge nor brain matter of many in this forum. I’m certainly no scholar or academic as some in here are. I’m not saying I’m stupid - I’m far from stupid. But I am really interested and have my own perspectives though I try to stay on the fence of skepticism but not deliberately so - I just can’t help it. I am trying to question more - not to know it, especially when it comes down to metaphysics.”

First of all: welcome to the club. I like to think of myself as more of a writer who happens to enjoy writing about my experience with philosophy. I have no formal training either. Still, having been a musician, poet, writer of fiction, and artist, I find myself, in middle age, seeing philosophy as the poetry and art I am attracted to. And we can assume that the intellectual and creative curiosity that brought you here in the first place precludes you from being “stupid”, that is since most people go through their lives having no interest in philosophy whatsoever –in fact, will sometimes even resist and dismiss it as pointless or even dangerous. That is, of course, unless you vehemently disagree with something I am saying, in which case you would be a complete moron. On the other hand, I would expect the same to be the case from your perspective if the dynamic were reversed. So I think we can agree that the previous assumption has a little more credibility than the latter sentiment.

Okay! Now that we’re agreed on that, I’m not sure where you got your order, but I mainly have to work from the Durant order because that is the one I’m familiar with. First of all, I would deal with the issue of the hierarchy by pointing out that the term at the end, politics, is propped up by the terms before it: ethics which is propped up by aesthetics which is propped up by logic which is propped up by metaphysics. This, in turn, creates a hierarchy which runs:

Metaphysics<Logic<Aesthetics<Ethics<Politics

But there are problems here –outside of the fact that such a hierarchy tends to offend the contemporary sensibility. For one, many into philosophy would tend to see politics as a common matter and metaphysics as the highest use of our minds since metaphysics is what would establish the very foundation of how we should run society. In that case, the formula would be:

Metaphysics>Logic>Aesthetics>Ethics>Politics

But the problem with this is that we have, over time, realized that our metaphysical statements tend to be a little more influenced (founded upon (our political situation than we might realize, especially since we tend to establish a metaphysical foundation based on what will ultimately change our political situation. So now we have formula that reads in way that does not necessarily start with the first line here, but is rather an infinite regress that leads to:

Metaphysics>Logic>Aesthetics>Ethics>Politics
Politics>Ethics>Aesthetics>Logic>Metaphysics
And so on
And so on

Another problem is that a lot has changed since Durant published his book in 1929, mainly the developments of Phenomenology, Existentialism, and post structuralism and post modernism and the terminology that has come with it. So now we can revise and write the formula (in its basic sense(as:

Metaphysics/Ontology (since Ontology is a metaphysics with its feet on the ground of Being)>Logic/Epistemology (since both are about what we can know and are at the bottom of the analytic break from the continental)>Aesthetics/Ethics (since both are about value statements which, in turn, lead to how we organize>the social/political

And much as we did with the old school formula, we must reverse this into the same kind of infinite back and forth without beginning or end.

Of course, thanks to guys like Rorty and Deleuze (with and w/out Guattarri (we are no longer committed to such linear schemes. Now we are perfectly free to use whatever aspect (at any point in the process (is practical for the sake of discourse (Rorty) or bounce from the Metaphysical/Ontological to the Ethical/Aesthetic to the Logical/Epistemological to the Political/Social in any way that serves creative thought in the vast rhizomatic network of Deleuze and Guattarri: look at them as little more than tools in our philosopher’s toolbox.

Popular buzzwords on philosophy boards:
Reason, Objectivity, The Scientific Method…
Be wary of them every time you see them:
they are usually the result of TlBs
(Troll-like Behaviors(
flashing them like badges of authority
to get
(actually to force
(you to play in to their guru complexes

I have, yet again, gotten myself kicked off another philosophy board for the love of philosophy.

I have done as much on this board.

But do not confuse that for a lack of love for the board, philosophy, or Humean.

As Humean (my friend (well knows:

I hate Trolls…

They interfere with the flow of discourse.

Are all people who interfere with the flow of discourse trolls?
And what does that have to do with the question “Do you really love philosophy”?

Those who truly love philosophy, love the idea of being able , by virtue of an un channelled, unrestricted flow of thought, to find the means,as to be able to merge with that which we has come to be properly called ‘consciousness.’, with the aim of merging with the timeless essence of man, with whom he may abide in an eternal union.

Not to nitpick, but actually Logic must come before metaphysics.

 If i were to ask You 'why is that', You would have to find reasons for it, and that would be begging the question.  Therefore, i will not ask that, but perhaps suggest that time may not actually consist within the  being of consciousness, or rather, the consciousness of being.  Therefore meta physics and logic may be concurrent.

“Not to nitpick, but actually Logic must come before metaphysics.”

I can see why you say that James, that is since Metaphysics is the result of how the brain works in the face of reality. Still, that depends on a metaphysical assumption that the brain has an actual grasp on reality.

Still, it was a compelling point.

“If i were to ask You ‘why is that’, You would have to find reasons for it, and that would be begging the question. Therefore, i will not ask that, but perhaps suggest that time may not actually consist within the being of consciousness, or rather, the consciousness of being. Therefore meta physics and logic may be concurrent.”

Not to mention, obe, that the answer would be based on a metaphysical assumption about the relationship between reality, mind, and the brain. Logic is after all, as is suggested by thinkers like Chomsky and Pinker, a product of the language we use to interact with the world which is, in turn, a product of the physiological structures of the brain.

And from a postmodern perspective, via the vast rhizomatic network of D & G, they may be concurrent.

Once again, I would argue that we need to reconsider the linear relationship between the terms.