Psychology of Philosophers

look around and notice it with others too. We simply don’t realize that so much of what we think we know, who we listen to, the company we keep, the jobs we do, and how we generally live our lives, is determined by factors beyond our control — the time and place you are born, your genes, your parents and upbringing, your culture and peers, early life experiences, education, etc.

I wonder to what extent the stuff we read and write about is simply a product of our class, our parents class and education, and our upbringings — but also by the levels of energy we possess, how strong our stomachs are, how anxious or stressed we are, whether we’re sleep deprived or not, if we carry with us much physical pain, etc. Very different philosophies (and lives) can come out of such simple things.

We simply don’t realize that so much of what we think we know, who we listen to, the company we keep, the jobs we do, and how we generally live our lives, is determined by factors beyond our control — the time and place you are born, your genes, your parents and upbringing, your culture and peers, early life experiences, education, etc.

I wonder to what extent the stuff we read and write about is simply a product of our class, our parents class and education, and our upbringings

Neitzsche touched on the physiology and general health of philosophers. He saw Kant as anemic, but admired the likes of Plato.

Nah

It does sound that way to me. I take it you don't experience it that way.

Why does it sound that way to you?

I think a big part was not simply curiosity, but fear

I look around and notice it with others too. We simply don’t realize that so much of what we think we know, who we listen to, the company we keep, the jobs we do, and how we generally live our lives, is determined by factors beyond our control — the time and place you are born, your genes, your parents and upbringing, your culture and peers, early life experiences, education, etc.

don't think so. But that's off topic. So I'll leave it.

My reading life grew through adolescence, especially when I became depressed in sixth form, and by the time I left school reading philosophy and related areas was an integral part of my life. It was partly sparked by the tension between religion and science too.

However, that doesn't mean that all people who are interested in are 'troubled souls', but they usually have some reason to go beyond conventional common sense understanding.

Our 'intellectual facilities' like to think they are above it all, not affected by all the good and bad stuff that compose our histories.

We are all products of forces beyond our control - not just those of geopolitics and economics, but the ideas and very language we use to communicate.

Does my social status and my environment contribute to how I think? To a large extent sure. But since I cannot live two lives in separate environments, I cannot say...

Left politics - being mocked by a school friend's family because my family couldn't afford a dish washing machine.

Something close to eliminative materialism - have suffered from people behaving incongruously with how they describe and motivate their actions. Minds are made for confabulating.

Philosophy in general - who knows. Threat modelling? Making sense of a world which doesn't make sense? Growing up in places where what intuitions are taught/expected to work don't work at all. Needing to think like this to survive.

In the years since, I’ve come to realise that maybe a lot of my quest was motivated by the ‘God-shaped hole’ that was left when I declined Anglican confirmation.

For me, I think it was primarily curiosity. I just want to know how it all fits together. What happens next. It's fun, play.

That's one of the main points of philosophy - to get beyond those cultural, social, and historical factors to the extent possible.

A. What had 'motivated' my interest in philosophy?

B. Which aspects of my biography 'determine' my philosophical commitments?

I’m completely confused by this one! The fault could very likely be mine alone.

You needed to think philosophically to survive in a relatively unstable environment— does that sum it up?

Interesting, but I can’t say I fully see the connection. Was it that being mocked made you more aware of your class position?

So fear of the unknown was a big factor, especially when the stories of a fundamentalist Christian uncle became less convincing and additional questions were asked. But where did the fear come from? It wasn’t only the thought of hell — after all, lots of kids get told that and aren’t particularly afraid of it — and certainly most don’t develop a love of philosophy.

how strong our stomachs

That appears to me to be on topic, but I agree we should leave it. :grimace:

Left politics - being mocked by a school friend's family because my family couldn't afford a dish washing machine.

Oh, I should have said: dishwasher? We didn’t even have dishes.

Just out of curiosity - is this some kind of accusation that I'm "cold and uncaring" because I "don't believe in minds" and "don't care how individuals are treated"?

Or maybe we don't understand one another at all.

maybe we don't understand one another at all.

Have you said something about yourself and I missed it?

Likely. I will generally interpret someone telling me my perspective is "cold and brutal", without invitation or further comment, negatively. Perhaps if you used more words, I would have understood you.

In old-fashioned psychological terms, one needs to establish an unproblematically robust ego first, before considering a philosophy that negates or transcends it.

At some stage in this confessional thread one might start to see a pattern; so far the obvious pattern is that philosophers like to display their examined lives, and think it serious and worthwhile to do so. And who am I to disagree?

before we became devotees of angst.

I see you're a big fan of Euripides.

he image of cheerful philosophers torturing lawyers is just too delicious; we'll just slowly pour the whiskey into the bottle until the flyster either flies or floats out.

Well, as portrayed by Aristophanes

And that may be a fool’s errand. I think that’s Neitzsche’s point anyway. I tend to agree. But you did say “to the extent possible,” so I take your point.

Name one cheerful philosopher.

I became convinced, and still am convinced, that what philosophers had to say in this respect was said long, long ago as part of the effort to determine how best to live. That took place before Christianity, before Romanticism, before people came to understand that "God is dead" and despaired because of it, before nihilism, existentialism; in short, before we became devotees of angst.

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers.

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers.

Name one cheerful philosopher.
— Ciceronianus
Democritus (et al).

Thus, I've always had a strong affinity for Epicureanism

Stoicism for me, but like Seneca, I have great regard for Epicurus

Very well stated, but the point could equally be made that philosophy used to contemplate these larger questions, but that its scope has been deliberately narrowed by those modern exponents of it that you mention, perhaps to avoid the very kind of self-examination that the OP is trying to elicit. Enables those exponents to conceal themselves behind the jargon of professionalism and to direct awkward and embarrasing questions into thickets of technicalities.

Consider for example Kierkegaard, a philosopher with whom I am only sliightly familiar. But his entire ouvre is very much first-person oriented and addressed to questions of just those kinds.

know little about that VERY Melancholy Dane, Kierkegaard, but he seems more a theologian or commentator/apologist for religion than a philosopher.

But to what extent is philosophy useful to this self-examination as you call it?

'The unexamined life is not worth living' is one of the Socratic maxims. Philosophy itself means, not just the 'love of wisdom' but 'love-wisdom' and it's cultivation. I've been following a series of posts on Medium by a scholar of stoic philosophy, and that is its entire focus.

The unexamined life, yes. Not the unexamined "me."

Pierre Hadot, classical philosopher and historian of philosophy, is best known for his conception of ancient philosophy as a bios or way of life (manière de vivre). His work has been widely influential in classical studies and on thinkers, including Michel Foucault. According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

But I understand these are merely short quotations, though there seem to be quite a few along these lines. They strike me as a bit gloomy. But I don't mean to characterize all of his work.

The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

then 16 I lost 'my religion' (I'd realized I did not 'believe in' Catholicism or the God of the Bible) and then @17 had my first philosophy class (textbook – From Socrates to Sartre).

I feel there's a connection between philosophy and a willingness to look analytically at things which hurt the eyes. Do you?

At some stage in this confessional thread one might start to see a pattern; so far the obvious pattern is that philosophers like to display their examined lives, and think it serious and worthwhile to do so.

Name one cheerful philosopher.