Dank Memeston

Philosophy in your life

53 posts in this topic

This part might give more insight for why I ask these questions, of you want to read it. If someone could somehow edit the questions out of the spoiler that would be great. I cant do it on my phone for some reason of find a way to create a line after the spoiler.

 

 

I recently became confident in the idea that I enjoy philosophy. In regards to that I assume I am a skeptic, although whether or not I am casual or hardcore is something I have still yet to decide.

To be honest, after coming to this understanding I have come to an impass as I personally do not know what people think of the subject and how often they employ the related (although everything is related and not at rhe same time but that is besides the point) critical thinking and decision making methods associated with the subject.

To put this whole mess bluntly, I don't know what the common stance is on this sort of activity in the current world. I know a lot of it is that I don't know when or how to adk people about the subject, which is furthered by my insecurities with the subject itself. 

My main issue is that it seems the community that actively participates in discourse and discussion is extremely small, the (not well researched) biggest forum outside reddit on the internet being about the third of the size of dgz. I guess I was just surprised that there were so few participating when it has had such a far reaching and long history. I could compare it to specific sciences but the fact that those could have the same community base as a millennia old practice makes me feel insecure about philosophy as a whole. 

This then draws me to the reason for creating this topic. I suspect that a lot more people have these sort of thoughts than they let on and just dont want to think about them as it is just considered a distraction from their life that is pointless and gets in the way of their work. This has a lot to deal with my insecurities with intelligence and relating to other people as I am still unsure if I am dumb or smart or average or if I am just as clueless as everyone else or if everyone just had it figured out more then me or... it doesn't stop so I am posting this to hopefully figure out a bit more of how people think about the subject and use it.

There are also issues with the uniqueness of my own and others ideas and some amount of nihilism in the mix although I know this is just a part of the whole depressed mood I am in in regards to this subject.

I guess it may also be important to point out that the field I am currently most interested in is ontology/epistimology.

 

 

 

Questions:

Does philosophy impact your life in any way? Currently and/or in the past?

Do you ever stop thinking about a question because "I don't want to think about that!" and if so why? Examples?

How often do you have thoughts that you would consider "philosophical" and if so how often and do you have an example?

How important do you feel philosophy is in regards to society?

OR

Any casual thoughts on the subject of philosophy?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a happy existentialist - our own life is the only certainty which means it's important to derive as much happiness from it as possible 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Hume believed skepticism was the purest form of philosophy and in that sense it plays a role in my life every day. I like to play devil's advocate to absolutely everything because i like arguing and thinking. I don't mind if i'm wrong/right/ out-thought by someone else, I just love spitballing ideas and stuff. Dunno if this helps you with what you were thinking about.

 

I work a dead end job in a clothes shop stock room but i have lots of intelligent co workers and we speak about philosophy a lot and i really push them to take it to the most basic level since im one of the few in third level education. For example some people believe you should trust no one and nothing and others think you should trust carefully. Someone like me who breaks it down to the most fundamental level like, why when you take a step down on the stairs do you trust not to fall down through an die, might believe trust is just necessary to live. I like thinking of things like this. Again dunno if this was what you were getting at.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am a mystic, a pantheist, an animist, a determinist, and an absurdist. i embrace buddhism, shinto, taoism, thelema, hermeticism, rosicrucianism, and theosophy as philosophies. most of the time i believe we live in a simulated reality and i try to ignore it because it's impossible to find empirical evidence that it's true. i am also a metaphysical solipsist but i hardly show that i am because if it's true then there can only be one and it seems to make no sense thinking about it all the time. anime i've watched like the melancholy of haruhi suzumiya, kino's journey, mushishi, boogiepop phantom, serial experiments lain, haibane renmei, hundred stories, fate/stay night, fate/zero, black lagoon, xxxholic, hell girl, flcl, fullmetal alchemist, naruto, yu-gi-oh!, dragon ball z, pokemon, digimon, and parasyte have been philosophical influences in my life.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i solved all philosophical problems in yugioh

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a martial arts fan (and even if you're not), I would recommend watching this brilliant interview of Firas Zahabi. He's one of the best Mixed Martial Arts trainers in the world, in addition to having a degree in philosophy, and is an avid reader of Marcus Aurelius.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i mostly like the popular philosophers like jean jaques rousseau. his kind was always at odds with the educated aristocrat philosophers. voltaire was very famous during the enlightenment too. but he was really only known by educated people and really dismissive of rousseau, who was popular with regular people. he was one of the first really popular authors where everyone that could went out to get his books when they were published, instead of them just being circulated among the educated ppl.

like this is how he starts off his discourse on the arts and sciences which was his entry to an essay competition to answer the question of whether morals were being improved or degraded by the renewal of the arts and sciences. he won 1st place and then took up writing full time after that instead of composing.

  • The following pages contain a discussion of one of the most sublime and interesting of all moral questions. It is not concerned, however, with those metaphysical subtleties, which of late have found their way into every department of literature, and from which even our academic curricula are not always free. We have now to do with one of those truths on which the happiness of mankind depends.
  • I foresee that I shall not readily be forgiven for having taken up the position I have adopted. Setting myself up against all that is nowadays most admired, I can expect no less than a universal outcry against me: nor is the approbation of a few sensible men enough to make me count on that of the public. But I have taken my stand, and I shall be at no pains to please either intellectuals or men of the world

i love rousseau <3

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

epicurus is my nigga and he found the truth

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually consider myself a little bit of a philosopher. 

Yes, philosophy does impact my life. I think that philosophy is a major drive for me. It boosts my self esteem, it gives me reason, it helps me answer my own questions and helps me identify myself. Some of my own personal philosophies I dedicate my life to. They tend to be a bit nihilistic, but also optimistic. Like even though its so bad, there is a way. Those kind of thoughts help me through my bad days a lot, and on my average day, give me the determination I need to get things done. I find it to be very important. 

Absolutely not. If I have a question, I must have an answer, however, some answers I find hard to accept and ignore for a moment. 

Very often actually do I have philosophical thoughts. Everyday almost? Maybe I'm wrong, idk, I never tried to keep track, but one thing is for sure, I am always thinking. 

I actually have posted philosophy on DGz. I remember one in particular that grumpig helped me finalize with something he said. It goes something like this:

"Life is nothing, trying to take something from nothing is just stupid. By hoping, you are attempting to take something from life, you are expecting something from life. Hope is a weakness, as it leads to disappointment. Never hope. Be accepting of all possible outcomes and be prepared for them. You will not be disappointed, you will not be sad, and when goodness does happen, it will be all the sweeter. Eliminate hope and you eliminate a major weakness."

Philosophy is important to society because no one really knows. It is our guide. Very important. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done very little research on like, book stuff, and I don't know exactly how to identify different types of beliefs, I just kind of do my own thing and ask other people questions, rather. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I rarely post here, I am quite literally a philosopher-in-training.

(The Nietzsche picture is mostly just for the excellent facial hair, however. It was either him or Chester A. Arthur.)

Since philosophy has had some impact upon my life, I figure I can speak of it to some extent with regard to the OP's musings about its everyday prevalence. Though I can only give my personal life experience, which I supremely doubt is generalizable, I'm tempted to say something like the following:

 

1. Philosophy is readily accessible but rarely by accident.

What I mean by this is that most people I know have a strong interest in philosophy, but it's only aroused once someone introduces them to it. In this sense, someone with a philosophic mindset can turn almost anyone into an interlocutor. Really, it's moreso that few people ever even attempt to question claims or assertions, particularly long-held or "sacred" ones. It's the putting of scrutiny upon common claims, especially everyday ones, that produces a curious sensation in people with even a passing interest in thinking. I've had these sorts of conversations with a number of people over the years. Almost every time, after several hours of talking like that, I would receive a strong thanks or appreciation for the mere act of pointing out philosophy's existence.

 

2. Philosophy is extremely difficult, and effective philosophers are much rarer.

From a practical view, a good philosophical partner has two things: intelligence and open-mindedness. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the latter is much more important than the former. As you might imagine, it's extremely difficult to find someone who is perfectly open-minded. Even the best philosophers have vaguely partisan views on certain matters; the worst have only partisan views. The issue here is that philosophical discourse usually requires a starting point. To find a starting point, one often needs to look for areas of agreement, tossing aside beliefs that are firmly held yet not easily justifiable. Many people can be taught or coerced to be more open-minded, and when I talk to others philosophically, I ruthlessly probe them on seemingly trivially correct beliefs.

However, few people demand such extreme open-mindedness of themselves without being prompted. Those that do are often led to skepticism.

(It's something of a running joke that every aspiring young philosopher goes through a period of skepticism in graduate school. I'd cast suspicion and envy upon any that didn't.)

As far as intelligence goes, it's extremely useful when it comes to philosophy but in less obvious ways than might be expected. Firstly, a person that is intelligent yet close-minded makes for a poor philosopher. If one isn't looking to examine beliefs or assertions and revise them if necessary, he isn't much of a philosopher. That's philosophy's bread and butter.

The more interesting point, however, is that intelligence can be misleading when it comes to philosophy. In my opinion, without the proper tools of reason (logic and mathematical proof), intelligence can lead one far too easily astray. What I mean by that is that intelligence is most effectively used when thinking rationally. I consider this to be best epitomized by reasoning logically, insofar as that is possible. Curiously, there are limitations on logic from a practical standpoint, so a supremely articulated philosophical argument closely resembles an (in)formal mathematical proof. (However, this opinion is controversial. There are pockets of philosophers that would heartily reject this assertion, and many more that pay mere lip service to the claim but do not follow it.)

Tangentially, in my view, mathematicians are often either extremely effective philosophers or have zero interest in philosophy at all. (This hinges upon the open-mindedness of the individual at hand. Perhaps Allen has an opinion on this?)

 

3. Philosophy is nearly useless and more often detrimental.

At its core, philosophy is about questioning things. In life, when one questions things like order or directives, it is often more difficult to fulfill what is required. This is fine for more theoretical pursuits and lifestyles, but it can be a burden for anyone with a very boring or straightforward job, no matter how well it pays. The mere act of questioning produces hesitation, and depending upon the results it might also produce resentment toward the task at hand. The issue is that once one beings to question things, it is difficult to go back to a life of not questioning things. For people with many straightforward directives in life, philosophical questioning often reduces effectiveness or willingness to carry out such directed tasks. This is the downside to philosophical activity.

Really, as far as I'm concerned, philosophy is only of use to the small fraction of people who live lives of theoretical pursuits. The most obvious example is that of theoretical scientists. While experimentalists can often subsist without putting common scientific precepts to scrutiny, those positing new theoretical frameworks can be of great reward by utilizing philosophy. However, philosophy itself is only supplementary in such cases to a more primary knowledge base (often a science of some sort). Philosophy in and of itself only merely makes one better at theoretical pursuits; it does not actually teach these pursuits.

This puts a skilled philosopher in a curious position: better able to treat of theoretical pursuits yet unexplored by others. Aside from scientific research, off-hand the only concrete example of a role where this is particularly useful is that of political ruler. An effective ruler must be able to effectively sort through a wide array of complex theoretical problems, often ones that are not even anticipated. Specialists function (far) better in some of these particular areas of course, but only philosophy prepares one for a theoretical-generalist position, which, quite frankly, is a job that rarely exists.

 

 

I don't know of how much use everything I said is though. I went full-on Earl with the comment length, after all. (That's good, right?)

Of note, however, is that Duelistgroundz's trial by fire method of improving Yu-Gi-Oh! play is far more pleasing philosophically than almost anything you'd find on Pojo or the like. It's part of what brought me to the site initially.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to reply to everyone's posts but I have to sleep and can only work in a phone atm. I would like to say thank you for your responses and that they have all helped me understand a lot more about the subject.

There are a few thing I would like to ask, although idk if one is answered so easily.

What does it mean to be an existentialist? I get the general idea but idk what you mean by calling yourself an existentialist as I currently dont consider one who holds existential beliefs = existentialist, or at least I dont see it as being so simple.

Where do you believe the concept of a question being philosophical begin and where does it end? Ex. Is it better to get the apple or the orange? Do the answers make the question or is it the question itself? Are there other factors like the way it is spoken or the mindset when giving the question? Is the idea of a question being able to have philosophical qualities just a fallacy that is generated by the flexibility of casual/lazy/uneducated use of the english/other language(s)? This may also just be me not understanding how concepts begin and end and that it may all be purely subjective based off of general rules. The prime reason for asking this is my mom asked a similar question to the one above as a response to me askong her if she ever has any philosphical thought. I had this on my mind before but due to the fact I encountered the issue so soon I thought to ask it here. 

I would also like to say, sort of in response to the uselessness of philosophy which i do agree with to some degree, that I currently feel, which is just that atm, that I may be able to employ such questions to find methods of altering ones thoughts in ways suchbthat they can start to alter their personality to some beneficial respect. I know this is already employed in some fassion, atm i only see it as anecdotal or casual advice, but do see it in way that is described with the intent of the subject. Then again it may all be bullshit and just a feeling based off of some prior experience.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the terms because I've never really been a philosophy wonk, but I could lay out certain beliefs I have about life/existence. 

-A method/act/belief is only valid if it increases and betters the conditions of a people, with the least amount of harm involved, and the more efficient method of doing this is to be taken over all others.

-I'm a believer in spirituality, but even then beliefs about the spirit must be of some personal/tangible benefit....or at least isn't detrimental to physical, mental, and economic well being. If not it isn't necessary.

-Believes in free will. 

I think I'd base a lot of my thoughts and actions off of these three. Question I usually stay away from are the fatalistic ones in nature...I guess I'm just stubborn in that regard. I never really thought of myself as any kind of philosopher or felt like any of my thoughts are philosophical; I just live through the day, acting in my best interest.

As for its usefulness to society, the image I have of philosophy is one of people debating the fundamentals of nature, society, etc just for the sake of it...and that I think is worthless. Not to say that's what philosophy really is, but that's the image I've always had of it. If it's true nature is applicable to everyday situations and even better, society as a whole, then yes I'd change my view of it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had visions like seto kaiba no joke

my dreams are so vivid

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all very overwhelming; the world, life, consciousness. 
I often have meandering thoughts and questions that lead to more about literal everything and to that the idea itself. 
I am not sure if this information I am creating and receiving is something to be related to others in some form beyond casual.
It is hard to figure who else has these thoughts and in turn hard to figure out how they relate to the common man.
Questioning this idea, that the common man doesn't gather any great gain from philosophy, is certainly plausible but where does it lead you?
It is also hard to quantify and understand how my supposed lacks-ofs and surplus-ofs (in terms of sensations and perceptions) effect this whole situation, as interpreting and conceptualizing reality is subjective.
I then question what mental maturity is?
Is it having come across these questions throughout your life?
Your reaction to each guides your fate towards ever reaching the next. 
To this way it is ever even worth it to give the "unenlightened" these questions?
Is it worth discussing them for these and other people so that they may learn from us?
Certainly people may find these questions with others to share their experience with but for the people whom it is alone, do these thoughts help them in some way?
Does being the person there to help others immediately when they are faced with these questions mean that philosophy is in everyone?
Can philosophy theory and analyzing get through to the others who need it most?

Is a philosopher a being one who separates the act of asking these questions from their intended purpose?

Certainly these thoughts are inhibiting to those with limited cognitive processes but where do we determine that?

For every one you write down it took a non-singular number of thoughts to give way to its creation. 
Is it worth even trying to express these thoughts if people will find no joy or positive gain from it beyond critical moments of thought in their life?

And finally, is it worth all this time I spend pondering? Is it worth it to others when I do not know if it is worth it to myself?

Overall these kinds of questions are non-ending for me and I am not sure if this is something I should be concerned about. Surely I could try my hand at the field of philosophy but the idea itself is something that I am not sure I am able to live up to. I mainly posted this thread because I am having a very hard time with life atm, perceptually, and found this way of thinking I had be having for the past 5-10 years to not be distasteful. Maybe it is a bit self-indulging which is my primary area of concern.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps one of my favourite quotes can help you out

"Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality. Materialism and dialectics, on the other hand, need effort. They must be based on and tested by objective reality. Unless one makes the effort one is liable to slip into idealism and metaphysics."

-Mao

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very profound group of statements which I am still trying to understand.

At this moment it is probably best for me to figure out something I want to do and then get a way to support that. I need a lot of focusing and learning for what is to come but I appreciate all the responses made to this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dank Memeston said:

That is a very profound group of statements which I am still trying to understand.

At this moment it is probably best for me to figure out something I want to do and then get a way to support that. I need a lot of focusing and learning for what is to come but I appreciate all the responses made to this thread.

Try reading philosophical literature. Maybe get into some occultism. I know a bit about the hermetic teachings and I can assure you that they have impacted my point of view on life.

Try this for starters.

These have interesting things to think about. Getting into this type of stuff is just so neat. The laws of the pendulum are so cool too. If you want more I can help you out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is neither black or white.

It is in a gray area.

 

Which do you believe it more correct or which do you use more often? Why?

 

Of course you can swap out the descriptive words and alter the structure of the sentence, this is just a basic version of whatever it is im trying to describe.

 

I would describe the former as more specific and descriptive then the latter but I do not believe one os more correct than the other. Also I use the former more often then not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly feel like I am both a Happy and a Christian Existentialist because I feel like freedom is import to love and live your live to the fullest and to derive all the happiness from it and that includes, for me, the freedom to have faith in a higher being. My happiness is to have a relationship with God but also understand that others have not found that yet and that they live their lives and eventually reach that state. Also that all people are blank slates and can become ultimately evil or good, and that it is the influences around them both higher and man that form their moral compass. 

 

I am a mess in my personal philosophy. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy generates knowledge. Knowledge isn't a goal by itself: you can know everything there is to know, but if you don't do anything with it, that'll still suck. It's a tool. But it's the most important tool. When I say knowledge, I don't mean knowing random facts or absorbing as much information as possible. When I say knowledge, I mean knowing what's going on, what's important, how you can change things, why you would want to. Basically the effect one thing can have on another, and knowing how you can affect it. 

I love philosophy, but I think it's one of the most misused things there is: both now and in the past, and probably in the future as well. That doesn't stop me from using it though, as I can use it the way I think it's useful. Basically, I think about things a lot, then when I come to conclusions, I trust them completely. That's not to say I think I'm always right, or that I think I know everything, it's just that I don't think there's a better alternative. Think about it: society is often wrong. Mainstream opinions are often wrong. Great people can know a lot about certain stuff, but a chess grand master doesn't necessarily know shit about political views or social structures, for example. So there's not much to go by. There aren't people which I fully trust to follow, so I only follow my own theories. Thing is, I consider myself open-minded, so I'm constantly thinking how I could be wrong / how others could be right. Often times I admit I don't have an opinion on a subject, or that I don't have any real knowledge of it. In a way, I'm using philosophy as my guide through life, so yeah I don't think I would be able to excel at much in life without it. If I had to name the one skill that I think most defines me, I would pick philosophy (or 'philosophizing', for that matter). I don't think there's any topic I try to avoid, although I don't like subjects that are just about 'general knowledge', as I find that quite boring. 

I sometimes almost feel like everything in the world is already solved, that the answers are already there, but that people just don't know it. For example, if you take the knowledge of all top mathematicians, physicists, biologists etc. and put it all together, I'm pretty sure you can solve most things in life quite easily, for example things such as yugioh, or to a lesser extend maybe, even social relationships and stuff. Seeing as a lot of these things are solved, one thing that I like to do lately is just think about standpoints that seem really absurd. 'Radical', is the word people would probably use. Not because I actually believe them, or because I'm playing devil's advocate, but rather because I'm interested in how far you can go. It's quite a challenge I think. How open-minded are you? Can you be objective, even if your conclusions could have drastic effects? For example, some of the questions would be:

- Is there any reason not to be egoistic?
- Is dying actually bad?
- Should we kill people (for example, you know someone's a terrorist/rapist/whatever, but the law won't help you because, well, maybe you're in a country where police is corrupted or whatever)?
- Can we proof being happy is better than not being happy?
- If so, then isn't a junk who's using drugs to maximize happiness, then committing a painless suicide before becoming old/sick/losing his job etc, a winner at life? If not, then can we conclude there are things more important than happiness, or happiness not being relevant at all?

I could put it like this: 'The law doesn't tell us what's good and what's not. We decide what's good and what's not, and based on that, we make the law.' Same could be said for society, or individuals, etc. People use backward rationalization a lot, but doesn't work when you want to understand things thoroughly, and once you reach the point where you do, you can create a better society, or at least a better life for yourself. 

Note that I definitely don't advocate any of these things, and I don't think about committing them myself, so I hope I don't get banned for this post or anything. However, I don't think we should be afraid to explore these topics, and for me personally it keeps my mind busy when I'm bored. 
 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2016 at 0:18 PM, DarthChocoboz said:

John Hume believed skepticism was the purest form of philosophy and in that sense it plays a role in my life every day. I like to play devil's advocate to absolutely everything because i like arguing and thinking. I don't mind if i'm wrong/right/ out-thought by someone else, I just love spitballing ideas and stuff. Dunno if this helps you with what you were thinking about.

 

I work a dead end job in a clothes shop stock room but i have lots of intelligent co workers and we speak about philosophy a lot and i really push them to take it to the most basic level since im one of the few in third level education. For example some people believe you should trust no one and nothing and others think you should trust carefully. Someone like me who breaks it down to the most fundamental level like, why when you take a step down on the stairs do you trust not to fall down through an die, might believe trust is just necessary to live. I like thinking of things like this. Again dunno if this was what you were getting at.

do you mean david hume? you're in the same country he was from right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dank Memeston said:

It is neither black or white.

It is in a gray area.

 

Which do you believe it more correct or which do you use more often? Why?

 

Of course you can swap out the descriptive words and alter the structure of the sentence, this is just a basic version of whatever it is im trying to describe.

 

I would describe the former as more specific and descriptive then the latter but I do not believe one os more correct than the other. Also I use the former more often then not.

 

gray areas dont exist they're just smaller black and white areas we're either too lazy, stupid, or unequipped to define

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rather you want to call those little black and white areas en masse "grey areas" is semantics but the point is removing a phony mysticism from them

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.