Do you really love philosophy?

If you are in love with philosophy because of aesthetics, then please let me know.

I was referring to this;

"I remember reading what James (JSS) said - that logic needs to go before metaphysics and i kind of go along with that. "

Once again, Arturus, I agree that JSS makes a compelling point -that is since we tend to arrive at metaphysical conclusions via logic and lack the empirical means of confirming our metaphysical assertions. Still, I would argue (with some reservations and self questioning (that the import of Logic is propped up by metaphysical assumptions about how we must interact with reality.

That said, you make some compelling points yourself.Unfortunately, I am at the outre or coda phase of today’s process. I hope to get back to this.

But you can combine this with ethics and make it matter of value statements.

If you are in love with philosophy because of ethics, then please let me know.

Thank you for that, Jimmy. You ARE so astute. :mrgreen:

You really need to stop drinking that rum, you know. :stuck_out_tongue:
You might want to define “powerful” here for me, but only if you choose to.

i tend to agree that logic must come first in seeking these ultimate answers. But then again, being the skeptic, lol maybe not always first. What about the use of one’s imagination and senses? Well of course the senses do play a part in the formation of logic. Or does logic take these into consideration in the first place? Perhaps they’re all harmonized. (rambling).

Heh??? :-k

Can you explain what you mean by this - give me an example? When you return that is.

Provided that one can be “in love with philosophy”, I would like to know something about the reasons(s) or even cause(s) for that “love” and wether it is becasue of merely one area, or more areas of the philsophy, or the philosophy itself as a whole.

Is “loving philosophy” similar to i.e. “loving god(s)”, “loving logic”, “loving mathematics”, …?

For me the ‘love’ can be a kind of joy [sometimes despair] in the mind, it feels warm and it rewards us when we resolve something. Not thinking like a philosopher is a dullness in the mind [to me anyhow] just like not being in love with a person is.

Probably just that we are an instrument with those kinds of responses and rewards. Then however we express that gives us said rewards and responses, possibly the same thing in religion when people love god, or in children when they love a teddy bear.

Ok, but if I were to characterize modern philosophy post Hume as it relates to his doubting, I would say it connects well to one strand of early philosophy, scepticism. The fact is there is the effect of the uncertainty which undermined not only a complete and lasting resolution, but that of love of God, ergo Man, and Love of anything is seen nowedays as a very precarious and recurrent phenomena having little stability or even meaning. The fuzzy feeling one gets in the inside, is basically a good feeling for one’s self, we are never too sure what others are feeling. we can only try to ascertain that by expression of others by what they say they feel. often, these types of measures are again open to interpretation.

That “sounds” good, but it could be something between loving a teddy baer, the parents, the sisters, or God on the one side and loving in the sense of liking (interestingly this can not be used as a verb with the ing-form) philosophy on the other side.

In a world of a society that lives in a “foam” (Peter Sloterdijk), everything has merely “little stability or even meaning”.

Orb

Although scepticism is a negative way of thinking, its positively negative. I think society needs more, i don’t get why so many classics are classics, when they are boring shit. Everything is a bit too ‘yay’ for me these days, salesmen saying ‘sell sell sell’ as if a positive instruction, when its actually just moronic. Not to mention that our governments and societies have devious intent or worse, a knowing ignorance in some of their politics/attitude [e.g. the unemployed, mentally ill, the old], which again is just unintelligent.

true. but that is the old apology for the faustian transgression.apologists and sceptics are aimicable bedfellows

absolutely, in the old sense of the word, when meaning could not be reversed. but, today, reversals are commonplace, and for every negative there seems to be a positive. a step in the right direction. the foam of dealing with reality vs logic.

Orb, do you mean something like ‘we need both’, the sceptic wants something new, and when that change occurs their same scepticism makes a complaint about it. Then that humanity is in that soup - so to say.

What are you even saying? Sexuality is a survival mechanism, not a product of luxury. Same with communication and emotions. Rich people did not sit down and decide to make up emotions one day.