Is there a purpose to philosophy?

Reply to Darkneos I thought it a good post - suitable for answering the question from a novice, 'what is philosophy all about?' Gave it an upvote.

Quoting Darkneos

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught.

I'd put it that everyone has the potential to think philosophically.

I don't agree that everyone is a philosopher, though. Everyone has the potential to think scientifically, artistically, and so forth -- insofar that a person connects to that group of thinkers then they can think like such and such.

So it goes with philosophy.

There is something to learn.

Now, if I were leading a discussion with people face to face Reply to Wayfarer is right. "The Big Questions" or simply "wondering" are what philosophy is all about.

In responding to a Quora post: Even there I'd say not everyone is a philosopher, though they could be: some people wonder about stuff and are willing to hear other perspectives, and some aren't.

If you aren't willing to listen or wonder then even though you could think philosophically you are no philosopher.

Quoting Darkneos

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us.

I agree with this below:

Quoting Moliere

I'd put it that everyone has the potential to think philosophically.

I don't agree that everyone is a philosopher, though. Everyone has the potential to think scientifically, artistically, and so forth -- insofar that a person connects to that group of thinkers then they can think like such and such.

So it goes with philosophy.

I can think scientifically but I am not a scientist. Ditto many subjects, including philsophy. Expertise and having done some required reading, ought to be factored into this for my money.

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher?

Quoting Tom Storm

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher?

Minimum standard, by my lights in the world we live in, is being paid to do it.

But surely you see how inadequate that standard is. It's just the minimum standard in the world we happen to live in (and it's likely the person paid to do it has expertise, especially given how competitive those roles are)

Quoting Moliere

Minimum standard, by my lights in the world we live in, is being paid to do it.

Well there's probably an intersubjective component to any disciple setting standards for credentialling. Some, of these are more reasonable than others.

I'm not sure getting paid is enough. Not everyone accepts such a neoliberal frame even within our ethically bereft capitalist cultures. But I see what you are getting at.

Some might argue that the production of original philsophy of a sufficiently high standard might be a hallmark. Hard thing to establish. Soem level of competence or expertise seems to be needed. But ultimately I suspect it has to be based upon some intersubjective definitional criteria. What do you think, setting aside capitalism...

Quoting Tom Storm

What do you think, setting aside capitalism...

That's me jumping into the ether of wonder. I too frequently occupy my thoughts with meta-philosophy and its possible purposes.

If I had to draw one example: Socrates is philosophy. Plato is commentary. The Gadfly is doing philosophy not at the "bare minimum" but at the point where it's unquestionably philosophy.

"The Health of the City" -- though I'd expand that to the globe at large in thinking about philosophy proper regarding The Gadfly.

Reply to Moliere interesting. Seems reasonable. If we say someone is an engineer or doctor or lawyer, sociologist or stamp collector it seems fairly easy to define. Is philosophy different?

Reply to Wayfarer I'm going to assume that's sarcasm because in the same post he links to how all that is pointless:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-profound-thought-that-you-have-had/answer/David-Moore-408?comment_id=487011320&comment_type=2

Reply to Moliere

Quoting Moliere

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher?
— Tom Storm

Minimum standard, by my lights in the world we live in, is being paid to do it.

But surely you see how inadequate that standard is. It's just the minimum standard in the world we happen to live in (and it's likely the person paid to do it has expertise, especially given how competitive those roles are)

And it shows how the world we live in has changed. Up until recently, most notable philosophers wrote outside of academic environments and lived off of other jobs or inheritances. These include
Maimonides
Machiavelli
Montaigne
Descartes
Spinoza
Locke
Leibniz
Rousseau
Hume
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Peirce
Nietzsche

Quoting Joshs

And it shows how the world we live in has changed. Up until recently, most notable philosophers wrote outside of academic environments and lived off of other jobs or inheritances. These include

Right but the point in the link was that everyone is one which is what I disagree with. Most people I argue don't really think much about why things are the way they are.

Some philosophies argue such questions don't matter, which is ironic.

Quoting Joshs

And it shows how the world we live in has changed. Up until recently, most notable philosophers wrote outside of academic environments and lived off of other jobs or inheritances. These include

'I’m not sure if our comments reflect the times, or just our own thinking. Maybe no one agrees with us.

But if times have changed, do you think that’s because the circumstances were different, the role of philosophy changed, or something else entirely?

Don’t all of the people you mention share competence, and perhaps even innovation, in common?

How many people known as philosophers today would actually produce original work, do you think?

How would you go about defining what it means to be a philosopher?

Reply to Darkneos Completely different thread. But really, if you’re going to debate Quora threads why not do it on Quora? Do you expect the contributors here to weave between here and there just because there’s some question you want answered?

Quoting Darkneos

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught.

I don't know, I guess it depends on interpretation. I think everyone is a philosopher in some sense insofar as they have accepted or rejected some set of values or other.

On the other hand, not everyone thinks for themselves, and I think this probably includes at least some professional philosophers. Does one need to be an original thinker to be counted as philosopher?

The "publish or perish" demand on academic philosophers has probably led to a plethora of mediocre works.

Quoting Janus

I think everyone is a philosopher in some sense insofar as they have accepted or rejected some set of values or other.

Is this philosophy the way putting a band-aid on a shaving cut counts as medicine? :wink: Would your example not be unavoidable unless you were dead? If you had to drill down further is there anything more specific you might say?

Quoting Wayfarer

Completely different thread. But really, if you’re going to debate Quora threads why not do it on Quora? Do you expect the contributors here to weave between here and there just because there’s some question you want answered?

Well judging by the last thread I made about it the dude doesn't really respond to any critiques of what he says so I want a second opinion from people a bit more versed in philosophy than me.

Reply to Darkneos Fair enough. But I did notice that the thread was 6 years old. He might well have moved on.

Quoting Janus

I don't know, I guess it depends on interpretation. I think everyone is a philosopher in some sense insofar as they have accepted or rejected some set of values or other.

Yeah but if the bar is that low you could make the case for any sort of ticket machine being a philosopher since it "Accepts or rejects some set of values or other".

The point is more to examine the things that you hold and why you hold those to be true, that's generally the core of philosophy in my experience.

Quoting Wayfarer

Fair enough. But I did notice that the thread was 6 years old. He might well have moved on.

You say that but he cared enough to leave an (IMO "pissy" comment) when I questioned his notion of purpose in another thread I made so who knows TBH.

I cited the link because it's posted in the intro post he made, the one you upvoted. However that post seems to negate the one he made about what philosophy's purpose is.

Reply to Darkneos Well, can't be helped. There's an old cartoon, some guy typing away on his monitor, saying 'can't come to bed yet, dear, someone on the Internet is wrong about something.' As an old forum habitué that was a little too close to home ;-)

Quoting Wayfarer

Well, can't be helped. There's an old cartoon, some guy typing away on his monitor, saying 'can't come to bed yet, dear, someone on the Internet is wrong about something.' As an old forum habitué that was a little too close to home ;-)

It's not really that so much as wondering if there is a point that is valid or I'm just being incredibly gullible again. I don't have a good filter for what's right and wrong on the internet.

Reply to Tom Storm Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that everyone identifies themselves as a philosopher. Is anyone who identifies themselves as a philosopher a philosopher? Like anyone who identifies as an artist is an artist? They don't have to be good. There are good and bad philosophers just as there are good and bad artists.

What I was suggesting is that everyone has a propensity to extoll some set of values or other, and if philosophy is "love of wisdom", which amounts to "how best to live" or in other words ethics, then I think most people have some interest in that. Of course some might buy into the idea that the best way to live is not to give a fuck. I dislike the idea of 'philosophy as profession' in any case. I see philosophy as being one of the most basic characteristics of humanity. As Heidegger says "Dasein is the being for whom its being is an issue". (Roughly paraphrased because I couldn't be bothered to look it up).

Quoting Darkneos

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us.

Today, I see it this way: the purpose of philosophy is to provide some relief to those who wonder about the state of affairs in life.

Quoting Janus

They don't have to be good.

Yes, I've often thought this is a key point. People often want to say someone isn’t an artist because they’re bad. But to me, being good is not inherent in the term artist.

Quoting Janus

Of course some might buy into the idea that the best way to live is not to give a fuck

Yes, I've often aspired to this, philosophically speaking, anyway. But there are too many cute and counterintuitive ideas out there not to be at least half-interested in the subject.

Quoting Janus

I dislike the idea of 'philosophy as profession' in any case. I see philosophy as being one of the most basic characteristics of humanity.

My prejudice is that unless someone has genius of some kind and can generate innovative theories without any special training (e.g., Wittgenstein), or unless they have some expertise that allows them to see the world differently, who cares what they think? The banal pap that might occur to anyone (like me) doesn't sound all that interesting.

Reply to Joshs True -- it's almost an inversion of Socrates who bragged he didn't do it for money.

I wouldn't want to make that a necessary condition, though -- the "minimal" condition I was thinking of was the most inoffensive possible condition: If a person is paid to do philosophy, and does philosophy, how would we not say that person is a philosopher? What could we possibly mean?

Socrates could make a distinction between philosophy proper and sophists so we'd have to do something along those lines to get at a more robust notion of the philosopher.

But if we can't even answer the question of "Why wouldn't a person who is paid to do philosophy, is trained in philosophy, and does philosophy not be a philosopher?" then that seems like a "minimal" requirement in that it's easy to use and see.

But it doesn't get at what a philosopher really does or even what we really mean by the honorary use of "philosopher" -- and it's definitely an answer predicated upon our social world: Since most people think professionals know things and thereby get compensated in relation to that knowledge and the market it would follow that the philosopher who does the same must also know things, etc. But that only designates some contemporary philosophers and doesn't get at the deeper question of "Is there a purpose to philosophy?" and doesn't make sense of the list of greats that you point to who we'd also be stupid to deny as philosophers even if they were not paid to do philosophy.

Reply to Tom Storm

Quoting Tom Storm

Don’t all of the people you mention share competence, and perhaps even innovation, in common?

How many people known as philosophers today would actually produce original work, do you think?

How would you go about defining what it means to be a philosopher?

To be a philosopher means thinking philosophically, whether one does that in an exceptional or mediocre way. So what does it take to think philosophically? Ask the average person a profound question about the nature of existence (the nature of time and space, the origin of value and feeling) and they are likely to mention quantum physics and the block universe, quote Einstein or rehash the latest models in evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience. Why do they do this? Probably because the spread of the sciences into territory of questioning previously restricted to philosophical speculation has convinced many that philosophical reflection was used in the past as a poor substitute for ascertaining the hard empirical facts. According to this thinking , now that our sciences are advanced enough to tackle such questions, philosophy should be relegated to a secondary role as ‘’clarifying’ the logical implications of the latest brilliant scientific discoveries.

I was one of those people who believed that philosophy as ‘cutting edge’ knowledge was obsolete due to the success of science and its superior method, until I read Heidegger in my mid 20’s. This led me to a host of other contemporary philosophers whose understanding of the world I believe exceeds the grasp of the most advanced scientific inquiry. My point isn’t that the sciences are not capable of catching up. It is that to think philosophically is to recognize that science is inherently conventional. That is, there are certain starting presuppositions that it takes for granted and therefore does not submit to questioning. It is the role of philosophical inquiry to make explicit this implicit starting point and submit it to questioning.

Reply to Darkneos

For me, philosophy consists of discovering problems. A problem is discovered in the unthought-of relationships between objects, situations, beliefs, systems of thought, etc., about which concepts are invented. This can be done in a profound or superficial way. But the more profound the philosophy, the more problematic it is. Philosophers train themselves by reading other authors in order to discover problems that require an updating of the virtual. The problem of justice encompasses subjects, social relations, legislation, ethics, and morals, all of which establish virtual relationships with each other that the philosopher must shape and update into new concepts that make you think differently through new concepts.

Imagine a happy group of morons who are engaged in work. They are carrying bricks in an open field. As soon as they have stacked all the bricks at one end of the field, they proceed to transport them to the opposite end. This continues without stop and every day of every year they are busy doing the same thing. One day one of the morons stops long enough to ask himself what he is doing. He wonders what purpose there is in carrying the bricks. And from that point on, he is not quite as content with his occupation as he had been before. I AM THE MORON WHO WONDERS WHY HE IS CARRYING THE BRICKS.

:fire: From satisfied swine to sad Socrates ...

Reply to Joshs Thanks

Quoting JuanZu

For me, philosophy consists of discovering problems. A problem is discovered in the unthought-of relationships between objects, situations, beliefs, systems of thought, etc., about which concepts are invented. This can be done in a profound or superficial way. But the more profound the philosophy, the more problematic it is. Philosophers train themselves by reading other authors in order to discover problems that require an updating of the virtual. The problem of justice encompasses subjects, social relations, legislation, ethics, and morals, all of which establish virtual relationships with each other that the philosopher must shape and update into new concepts that make you think differently through new concepts.

Well profound might be more open to interpretation than anything else. Plenty of things are problematic without being profound.

I wouldn't say it's discovering problems, more like wondering why. Then again that also raises the question of "why" does the why matter.

Reply to 180 Proof That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives.

Reply to Darkneos Have they considered the benefits of dehancing their lives?

If "my life" is that which I desire and what I desire feels bad then even by the psychological egoist's standards dehancing one's life could lead to a better outcome than enhancing it.

Suppose the love of money within a career that's rewarding. Then one can enhance their life by volunteering for more work and obtaining more reward. There are only so many hours in the day, though, and if they have loved ones then this enhancement can lead to sorrow and loss in some other regard that the enhancement didn't consider.

Which is a long winded way of saying: It's worthwhile to think and reflect. "Enhancement of life" might not be all it's chalked up to be.

Reply to Darkneos

For me, reducing philosophy to the "why" is a simplification. But there is something interesting implicit in what you have said. To say why the "why" is important is to say that in order to do justice to philosophy in terms of its goal and purpose, you must do more philosophy. For example, my idea of what philosophy is (the discovery of problems) is linked to the ontology I adhere to (the virtual, the problematic and the actual). This is why different philosophers, according to their own philosophy, have different ideas about what philosophy is and what it is for. There is no single answer to what philosophy is; it depends on the philosophy from which you position yourself. In other words, meta-philosophy is philosophical in itself.

Quoting JuanZu

There is no single answer to what philosophy is; it depends on the philosophy from which you position yourself. I

I think this is a good point. For some people philosophy is about fixing the plumbing (Midgely) and for others it's about existence disclosed (Heidegger).

Quoting JuanZu

For me, reducing philosophy to the "why" is a simplification. But there is something interesting implicit in what you have said. To say why the "why" is important is to say that in order to do justice to philosophy in terms of its goal and purpose, you must do more philosophy. For example, my idea of what philosophy is (the discovery of problems) is linked to the ontology I adhere to (the virtual, the problematic and the actual). This is why different philosophers, according to their own philosophy, have different ideas about what philosophy is and what it is for. There is no single answer to what philosophy is; it depends on the philosophy from which you position yourself. In other words, meta-philosophy is philosophical in itself.

Well you could just become a Pyrrhonist and say "nuts to all that".

Reply to Darkneos If only I could quell my curious desire -- opting into becoming a pyrrhonist is much easier than becoming one, let's say.

Quoting Darkneos

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us.

Quoting Tom Storm

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher?

Being a "Philosopher" is usually someone who does it for a living such as educators, scholars, and thinkers who publish books critiqued by peers. Time and effort spent, not money, defines them.

You will find that there are methods common among them:

1. Studied extensively the writings of those who came before them.
2. Formed analyses and critiques towards other philosophical works.
3. Formed their own theses to debunk or agree with other philosophical works.
4. Tried not to re-invent the wheels, but built up on previous works by others.
5. Got their works analyzed and critiqued by their peers before and/or after publication.

Quoting L'éléphant

Being a "Philosopher" is usually someone who does it for a living such as educators, scholars, and thinkers who publish books critiqued by peers. Time and effort spent, not money, defines them.

You will find that there are methods common among them:

1. Studied extensively the writings of those who came before them.
2. Formed analyses and critiques towards other philosophical works.
3. Formed their own theses to debunk or agree with other philosophical works.
4. Tried not to re-invent the wheels, but built up on previous works by others.
5. Got their works analyzed and critiqued by their peers before and/or after publication.

Nice. That would have been my guess too. I think 4 is particularly relevant. Most of us are in the wheel reinvention business.

Quoting Tom Storm

Most of us are in the wheel reinvention business.

:grin:

I don't remember who that thinker was who commented on this behavior against other philosophers who seemed to have been doing it in their writings. But yes, there was a mention of this behavior within the philosophical community.

Quoting Darkneos

"So, we come full circle via a strange loop. Every experience of every entity including ourselves engenders expression which contributes to ongoing conceptual construction.

That feedback is philosophy - the way whose truth is our life. It is inseparable from a human, being. "


I found this part odd because humans seemed to have survived a long time before philosophy so I wouldn't say it's truth is our life.

Not that I'm in full agreement with the quoted remark, but my take on the issue of "Is there a purpose to philosophy":

Yes: improved eudemonia … obtained via greater wisdom … toward which one supposedly has an affinity. Hence, "philo-sophia". Or at least that’s the traditionally maintained view. In contrast, a significant portion of the modern view holds it that wisdom in all its forms (artistic, analytic, scientific, etc.) is worthless, replacing its esteem with esteem for ever greater cash wads and power over others … which are also esteemed in the name of the very same end of improved eudemonia. And something tells me that ethics has something to do with this general bifurcation. One does on occasion hear a child being praised for being wise beyond their years, but I’ve never yet heard praise in the form of “loaded with cash beyond one’s years” or else “domineering beyond one’s years”.

I also as of yet don’t see why the same generalized dichotomy of means toward the very same end of improved eudemonia would not have been around since the dawn of mankind: same brains throughout, just different outfits and such.

Quoting Darkneos

That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives.

My guess is that such people do not pursue philosophy as a way of life.

I have come to see that philosophy is a practice like meditation, exercise, learning musical instruments, tai chi, martial arts, and similar enterprises. As with all such practices, the goal is self-awareness. Philosophy is a practice that focuses on becoming more aware of our internal mental processes. This is certainly how it is for me.

Quoting Darkneos

That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives.

It's certainly not for everyone. The average person engages in something because they seek immediate benefit. Or as they'll put it "for it to be useful eventually." It's almost like an advanced form of language. People use it to "sound smart" and "impress others" and of course to better cope with and appreciate the ups and downs of this hectic thing we call life. Unfortunately, it doesn't "work" on people smarter than yourself.

Besides, the average person just scrolls through TikTok or any social media feed and all the "helpful" quotes that resonate with the average person, or to be fair, stood the test of time organically, are all right there and all you have to do is repeat it around others to sound smart. Sort of self defeating, but not entirely I suppose, seeing as it does proliferate wisdom to the common man, which arguably, was the purpose. I imagine Socrates or any one of these wise people just got annoyed at the average person and wanted to "fix" them, thus making the world a better, or at least less annoying place. Just my theory.

Reply to T Clark :up: :up:

Reply to T Clark very good :up:

I like what Wittgenstein said about the purpose of philosophy: "To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle."

Reply to Ciceronianus Yes. But so often the fly is comfortable where it is.

Quoting Banno

Yes. But so often the fly is comfortable where it is.

You joke, but I think this is fair. I like my bottle, it's home. In a similar way, why leave Plato’s cave when there’s a permanent puppet show and everything is warm and predictable? And we know the sun causes cancer...

Reply to Banno
Reply to Tom Storm

There's no place like home, it's said.

Quoting Banno

Yes. But so often the fly is comfortable where it is.

Aren't you comfortable where you're at? You can't really think there's no knowledge left anywhere that would fundamentally alter your sense of understanding of the world or perhaps even yourself. Can you?

Ignorance is bliss. There's nothing wrong with that. Until there is, I suppose. :confused:

Quoting Darkneos

Yeah but if the bar is that low you could make the case for any sort of ticket machine being a philosopher since it "Accepts or rejects some set of values or other".

The point is more to examine the things that you hold and why you hold those to be true, that's generally the core of philosophy in my experience.

The ticket machine cannot state that it has accepted or rejected values. The ability to state what is on one's mind would seem to be a minimum requirement for doing philosophy

I agree with you that an important part of philosophy consists in questioning one's assumptions and conclusions, but the rudiments of philosophy consist in having assumptions and reaching conclusions.

Quoting Tom Storm

Yes, I've often aspired to this, philosophically speaking, anyway. But there are too many cute and counterintuitive ideas out there not to be at least half-interested in the subject.

Oh, I agree—I'm interested in any and all speculative ideas, even though I take many, even most, of them with a grain of salt.

Quoting Tom Storm

My prejudice is that unless someone has genius of some kind and can generate innovative theories without any special training (e.g., Wittgenstein), or unless they have some expertise that allows them to see the world differently, who cares what they think?

I tend to agree with Hegel that the history of philosophy consist, for the most part, in "the same old stew, reheated", and I think any interesting new ideas in philosophy have always come on the back of science.

Reply to Tom Storm, Reply to Ciceronianus then is the purpose of philosophy showing the way out, or shaking the bottle?

Reply to Banno Annoyingly:

Both/and/or

or

Something else.

Quoting Banno

then is the purpose of philosophy showing the way out, or shaking the bottle?

Apparently, per one of the mods here, "all language is art." Therefore, all art is language. Perhaps, it can be best likened to painting a picture. Not necessarily a nice picture, but an accurate one. To the best of one's ability, of course. And once presented to another, it's up for that person to compare and contrast that to the one they've painted themselves, be it unrealistic, unwarranted, inaccurate, or any or all of the above. To decide if one's interpretation of the world could not be improved, if not slightly. And we all know, in systems theory, relatively slight and seemingly nominal changes can have quite deep and everlasting effects. :smile:

Quoting T Clark

I have come to see that philosophy is a practice like meditation, exercise, learning musical instruments, tai chi, martial arts, and similar enterprises. As with all such practices, the goal is self-awareness. Philosophy is a practice that focuses on becoming more aware of our internal mental processes. This is certainly how it is for me.

Well we can't really be aware of our internal mental processes since much of it happens unconsciously.

Quoting Ciceronianus

I like what Wittgenstein said about the purpose of philosophy: "To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle."

The irony though is that philosophy also shows there is no way out of the bottle. Rather philosophy is more getting into someone else's bottle (which is sorta what he's doing with the remark, albeit unknowingly).

Quoting Banno

then is the purpose of philosophy showing the way out, or shaking the bottle?

Not really, it shows that you can never really know if you're out of it. Plato's cave is fine and all but the assumption in there is that we know what being out of the cave looks like. The painful reality is that like 50 different thinkers all believe they know what's outside the cave.

Reply to Banno Reply to Tom Storm Reply to Darkneos
My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed.

Philosophy's "purpose" is flourishing –
to understand and practice aligning expectations (i.e. judgments) with reality.

Quoting Darkneos

Well we can't really be aware of our internal mental processes since much of it happens unconsciously.

Sure we can. You’re right that you don’t have access to everything. But then again, the kinds of subjects that philosophy covers tend to be associated with conscious attention and intention. It’s also true that the more aware you become, the more of your unconscious mental activity becomes conscious.

Quoting Darkneos

Plato's cave is fine and all but the assumption in there is that we know what being out of the cave looks like.

As opposed to the assumption that we don't know what being out of the cave looks like...

Reply to T Clark Yep. That we know about our unconscious shows that it is not outside of our ruminations...

Quoting Ciceronianus

The fly bottle is self-imposed.

Yep.

Quoting Ciceronianus

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed.

I like this.

You can't avoid holding philosophical positions. And I find that often the people most dismissive of philosophy are the people trying to push their own (e.g. Creationist sites are often even more derisive of philosophy departments than they are of evolutionary biologists, say).

That said philosophy as a formal area of study does require certain cognitive skills and a lot of patience. Not everyone can do it.

I often regret not studying philosophy at Uni, but on the other hand, I do glaze over sometimes in very abstract discussions on definitions. And there are several topics in philosophy that I feel are pretty silly but have reached the threshold where you can't just question the whole premise any more.
I probably don't have the chops for it.

Quoting Banno

As opposed to the assumption that we don't know what being out of the cave looks like...

That's kinda the point. We imagine the cave and what we think being out of it looks like, but the reality is we can never know. Pretty sure solipsism pointed that one out.

Quoting Ciceronianus

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed.

That doesn't really track. You mention belief in an external world that can't be known and yet showing it the way out as if there is an "out" of it and mind/body dualism was pretty much disproven with modern neuroscience. But the external world can be known, more or less, and if not it's a safe assumption to make (also how would it be a misconception?). That's not really leading out of the bottle though so much as keeping them in one. But also if you are arguing the "external world cannot be known" then there is no "world" for it to be part of. In that sense the bottle is inescapable.

Hence why your statement doesn't really follow.

Also the bottle being a part of the world doesn't make it any less trapping. You aren't really correcting misconceptions so much as putting others in it's place.

The fly bottle isn't self imposed either, it's representative of the cave a la Plato, and suffers from the same problems. That being we assume we know what being out of it looks like. But as I said you're just going from one bottle into another.

I think his quote is made in the sense that he is largely ignorant of how philosophy is.

Quoting T Clark

Sure we can. You’re right that you don’t have access to everything. But then again, the kinds of subjects that philosophy covers tend to be associated with conscious attention and intention. It’s also true that the more aware you become, the more of your unconscious mental activity becomes conscious.

Nope, not how it works. The fact that it's unconscious means you cannot be aware of it, no matter how much more aware you become. It's out of the scope. Vision is one example of this, you brain predicts what might happen based on past data and corrects for errors, but you cannot tell. To you it seems seamless, that's something no amount of awareness will change.

Quoting 180 Proof

Philosophy's "purpose" is flourishing –
to understand and practice aligning expectations (i.e. judgments) with reality.

Funny how it manages to do the opposite of that, especially when philosophers can't agree on reality.

Quoting Tom Storm

I like this

It's self refuting if you think about it. Like if there is no "External world" that kinda renders philosophy moot.

Reply to Darkneos
Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves.

Quoting Ciceronianus

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves.

But is it truly unfair to suggest that perhaps just because someone finds what one values in life to be false they're suddenly "a fly trapped in a bottle?" Surely that's dehumanization, an ego run amuck that only finds value in one's life choices and mindset by comparing anything different to something insignificant. Isn't that sad? A cry for help?. Love corrects. Hate condemns. Real talk. :100:

Quoting Ciceronianus

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves.

But again that would require there to be an external world, one which you doubt is true. You see how that doesn't really add up?

There is nothing to say that you being "out" would lead to thinking of you as an organism interacting with the rest of the world. Again philosophy often contradictions that notion as that would still be being in the bottle. Getting out of the bottle, ironically means accepting there might not be a world or others with which you are a part of.

Quoting Outlander

But is it truly unfair to suggest that perhaps just because someone finds what one values in life to be false they're suddenly "a fly trapped in a bottle?" Surely that's dehumanization, an ego run amuck that only finds value in one's life choices and mindset by comparing anything different to something insignificant. Isn't that sad? A cry for help?. Love corrects. Hate condemns. Real talk. :100:

Not really, comparison is what we do.

Reply to Outlander
I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated.

Quoting Darkneos

That's kinda the point. We imagine the cave and what we think being out of it looks like, but the reality is we can never know. Pretty sure solipsism pointed that one out.

Saying things such as that is how the fly constructs their bottle.

Some more:
Quoting Darkneos

The fact that it's unconscious means you cannot be aware of it, no matter how much more aware you become.

Quoting Darkneos

Getting out of the bottle, ironically means accepting there might not be a world or others with which you are a part of.

Seems you may be on your own on this one.

Reply to Darkneos

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it.

Quoting Darkneos

It's self refuting if you think about it. Like if there is no "External world" that kinda renders philosophy moot.

I don't think that's the right reading of his post. See Reply to Ciceronianus last post.

Quoting Ciceronianus

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated.

Just because someone without the necessary skills to not only survive but thrive in a different environment or set or circumstances would themself feel (or perhaps truly be) "trapped" in said environment or circumstance, literally has nothing to do with anyone else who would not feel or be trapped in said environment. We assume everyone has our own weaknesses, and that these weaknesses are not personal flaws or faults, but merely a result of reality, or the world in which we all live, when they're simply not.

Just because someone convinces themself, or perhaps an entire society or even the whole world a given something is true and that a given something else is false, doesn't mean what they have convinced themself or others of is actually true or false.

Sure, most people have unhealthy habits or frames of mind they would benefit from immensely "breaking free from." The first step to recovery is realizing you have a problem, so they say. But unfortunately, human nature has a tendency to abuse truths and half-truths with the goal of advancing a personal benefit or agenda that ultimately doesn't benefit anyone but the purveyor. This is, or at least should be, common knowledge at this point.

Essentially, we can be content in our own flybottle, so long as we can condemn others to theirs, or at least our idea of others being restricted, which by de facto means we are free, or at least more free, which is in fact a lie. At least in some scenarios. See crab mentality.

Quoting Ciceronianus

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated.

But according to you there is no out as in the external world isn't known.

Quoting Ciceronianus

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it.

But there is an external world, otherwise there is no way you could be part of it. It would not exist only in your head or a dream. We are BOTH observers and participants of it, well that's the assumption anyway. Like you said, the external world cannot be known for certain so it could just be in your head.

Being free of the fly bottle, ironically is just flying into another one, as one cannot know if there is a "World out there" and it's not just a figment of the mind. Ergo, nothing to participate in.

Quoting Tom Storm

I don't think that's the right reading of his post. See ?Ciceronianus last post.

It is, especially since it doesn't seem like they understand what they are saying with "External world" in air quotes. Suggesting it cannot be known means there is nothing to be a part of since it's all in your mind.

External world and reality means there is a world to be a part of that does not depend on you for its existence. I feel that much should be obvious to gather from what I'm saying.

Quoting Darkneos

t is, especially since it doesn't seem like they understand what they are saying with "External world" in air quotes. Suggesting it cannot be known means there is nothing to be a part of since it's all in your mind.

External world and reality means there is a world to be a part of that does not depend on you for its existence. I feel that much should be obvious to gather from what I'm saying.

See the comment, perhaps, more in the tradition of phenomenology or a more constructivist orientation, for which I have sympathy. It does not match your interpretation that there is "nothing and it's all in the mind".

I do not think it is clear that humans make direct contact with a world external or transcendent to our interactions and cognition, which is a perfectly standard philosophical position, whether you are talking about Kant, Heidegger, or the more prosaic Hilary Lawson. To quote the lesser known philosopher, Norman Bates, "We're all in our private traps."

Quoting Tom Storm

See the comment, perhaps, more in the tradition of phenomenology or a more constructivist orientation, for which I have sympathy. It does not match your interpretation that there is "nothing and it's all in the mind".

But that is what is meant especially since it started with "The external world that cannot be know" by their own words. Your assessment is still incorrect.

Quoting Tom Storm

I do not think it is clear that humans make direct contact with a world external or transcendent to our interactions and cognition, which is a perfectly standard philosophical position, whether you are talking about Kant, Heidegger, or the more prosaic Hilary Lawson. To quote the lesser known philosopher, Norman Bates, "We're all in our private traps."

It's actually a minority position among philosophers. Most generally regard there to be a world outside themselves, Kant merely said that we don't directly perceive it. Heidegger was kinda nutty on that end. The private traps kinda loses it's teeth when you realize he said that to other people which like means he thinks there is a world outside him (also the character is fictional).

But given the success of science it could be reasonable to say we do directly make contact with it. Albeit indirectly and it's approximations they're too consistent to default to instrumentalism anymore.

More or less it's a position you have to accept to get anywhere in philosophy otherwise you're dead in the water. Without external reality philosophy is rendered moot.

Quoting Darkneos

But that is what is meant especially since it started with "The external world that cannot be know" by their own words. Your assessment is still incorrect.

It's interesting how you consistently interpret this wrongly. To say that the external world cannot be known is by no means the same as saying there is no external world. And I am not committed to either. I am stating that I have sympathy for a constructivist view, which resonates with other philosophical schools.

Quoting Darkneos

It's actually a minority position among philosophers.

That's an ad populum fallacy. Philosophy is not a popularity contest.

Quoting Darkneos

Kant merely said that we don't directly perceive it. Heidegger was kinda nutty on that end.

I am also saying that I have sympathy for the view that reality is a human construct an act of embodied cognition and that we don't experience it directly.

Quoting Darkneos

More or less it's a position you have to accept to get anywhere in philosophy otherwise you're dead in the water.

You're dead in the water until you learn to read others with more care.

Quoting Darkneos

But given the success of science it could be reasonable to say we do directly make contact with it.

That's just amusing. A kind of naïve scientistic or materialistic position worthy of a Dawkins. There are many arguments against this notion. Let's just take one of them: the very success of science itself depends on models, abstractions, and instruments that mediate our experience. What we have are theoretical constructs and measurements, not unfiltered access to reality.

Postmodernists would go further and argue that 'success' is a socially constructed standard: science’s predictive power doesn’t show us reality as it is, but only that our current frameworks work within the language games and practices we’ve built. In other words, science is one way of making sense of the world, not a privileged window into some mind-independent truth.

Of course, you might ask, who cares what the postmodernists say? And anyone can use that approach to dismiss any school of thought that doesn’t please us.

[quote/Outlander]Just because someone convinces themself, or perhaps an entire society or even the whole world a given something is true and that a given something else is false, doesn't mean what they have convinced themself or others of is actually true or false."[/quote]
-- Outlander

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between true and false and actually true and actually false. More generally speaking, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.

Quoting Darkneos

... philosophers can't agree on reality.

Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask:

Reply to Darkneos
It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference.

Quoting 180 Proof

Yeah, just like physicists "can't agree on" the ontology of quantum physics, and yet ... :mask:

That's a bit more complicated.

Quoting Tom Storm

It's interesting how you consistently interpret this wrongly. To say that the external world cannot be known is by no means the same as saying there is no external world. And I am not committed to either. I am stating that I have sympathy for a constructivist view, which resonates with other philosophical schools.

It might as well be saying there isn't one if it cannot be known. But again it's not really true that it cannot be known. Kant might have thought that but that doesn't make it so.

Quoting Tom Storm

That's an ad populum fallacy. Philosophy is not a popularity contest.

It's not ad populum fallacy, also you're the one who claimed it first by saying it's a standard view yet when I say it's not suddenly it's a fallacy. Though I would argue philosophy is a popularity constest.

Quoting Tom Storm

I am also saying that I have sympathy for the view that reality is a human construct an act of embodied cognition and that we don't experience it directly.

I don't, sounds like a looney thing to think, especially since embodied cognition has fallen out of favor due to it's flaws (and evidence against it).

Quoting Tom Storm

You're dead in the water until you learn to read others with more care.

That might be more you than me, I've got their words yet you want to insist it's something else.

Quoting Tom Storm

There are many arguments against this notion. Let's just take one of them: the very success of science itself depends on models, abstractions, and instruments that mediate our experience. What we have are theoretical constructs and measurements, not unfiltered access to reality.

Not a very strong argument given the results pretty much speak for themselves. Either we are accurately contacting and modeling some sort of external reality (more or less "accurately") or we've just gotten lucky that everything works out. Occam's Razor would seem to favor the former.

Quoting Tom Storm

Of course, you might ask, who cares what the postmodernists say? And anyone can use that approach to dismiss any school of thought that doesn’t please us.

TBH yeah, who cares what they think? There hasn't been anything really useful out of that school but just undermining things (or trying to).

Quoting Tom Storm

Postmodernists would go further and argue that 'success' is a socially constructed standard: science’s predictive power doesn’t show us reality as it is, but only that our current frameworks work within the language games and practices we’ve built. In other words, science is one way of making sense of the world, not a privileged window into some mind-independent truth.

Doesn't really alter the results though, science so far has been our best method for understanding and shaping reality so that criticism kinda falls flat. They can dress their complaints all they want but they don't have anything better or more consistent so........

Ordinarily I'd give that more credence but given the success of science at what it does it's about as close to mind-independent truth as we're gonna get. There isn't much reason to think it doesn't show reality as it is (despite what postmodernists argue, and their protests aren't worth a hill of beans). I'd go further that it's not a language games thing anymore.

Maybe their just bitter because they don't have a better method, that's what it sounds like. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I can't argue with the results. Maybe they should just quit while they're behind, those arguments might have held water back when it was just Natural Philosophy, but not now.

Postmodernism is better when directed at the arts, politics, things like that, but when it comes to science it just ends up looking weak. Again the results speak for themselves, we're kinda past "language games".

Quoting Ciceronianus

It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference.

External to one's perception, or in the case "mind independent". In other words the opposite of solipsism. An external world means a world that exists outside your head (not a dream for example or some hallucination). It doesn't depend on you to exist. Solipsism argues (unfortunately rather effectively) that we cannot be sure there exists such a world and it could just be a figment of our imagination.

Yeah none of us doubt it but we can't really demonstrate it to be true, it's just an assumption we make.

Quoting Darkneos

It's not ad populum fallacy, also you're the one who claimed it first by saying it's a standard view yet when I say it's not suddenly it's a fallacy. Though I would argue philosophy is a popularity constest.

I said it's an orthodox philosophical view that reality can't be fully known. I'm not saying this to imply it's popular, but rather to point out that it's an established position for us to contend with. It's on the philosophical "menu" and not, as you seem to think, something that is automatically ridiculous just because science seems to work.

Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other. Take care.

Quoting Tom Storm

I said it's an orthodox philosophical view that reality can't be fully known. I'm not saying this to imply it's popular, but rather to point out that it's an established position for us to contend with. It's on the philosophical "menu" and not, as you seem to think, something that is automatically ridiculous just because science seems to work.

Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other. Take care.

When you say something is a standard view you're implying a degree of popularity, even the context of your post showed as such.

That's not really what I'm saying at all. There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known". Again science it a strong argument that we don't have to directly engage with it to know it (which would explain why it's findings frequently go against our intuitions).

Then you bring up Postmodernism when it's criticisms of science (which I understand but....) don't really hold. They can call it language games and models and things like that but time and again the results speak for themselves. It never claims to have perfect knowledge of the world and acknowledges it could all be wrong, but we currently don't have a better method for understanding reality, and this one is working really well. Shockingly IMO.

Really just seems like you give up when called out.

Quoting Darkneos

When you say something is a standard view you're implying a degree of popularity, even the context of your post showed as such.

No, I’m saying that a particular view is simply on the menu. If you can’t tell the difference between a statement that contextualizes an idea within philosophical discourse and an ad populum argument, then we’ve got bigger problems than the nature of reality.. :wink:

Quoting Darkneos

There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known". Again science it a strong argument that we don't have to directly engage with it to know it (which would explain why it's findings frequently go against our intuitions).

This I do largely agree with.

Quoting Darkneos

It never claims to have perfect knowledge of the world and acknowledges it could all be wrong, but we currently don't have a better method for understanding reality, and this one is working really well. Shockingly IMO.

I don't disagree with this either and have made the same point elsewhere on the forum. Which is why I have tended to describe myself as a methodological naturalist and not a metaphysical naturalist.

Quoting Darkneos

sounds like a looney thing to think, especially since embodied cognition has fallen out of favor due to it's flaws (and evidence against it).

It’s very much part of the current thinking of writers like Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch, and Shaun Gallagher. What evidence do you have that it has fallen out of favour? I don’t think it was ever “in favour” as such, just part of the philosophical menu. The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson has been a significant topic of discussion on this site for a few years.


Quoting Darkneos

There is a difference between "we don't directly engage with reality" and "reality cannot be known".

Indeed and I am unsure what reality is meant to be and whether it can be known. Which is not the same thing as saying it cannot be known.

What is reality?

Quoting Tom Storm

No, I’m saying that a particular view is simply on the menu. If you can’t tell the difference between a statement that contextualizes an idea within philosophical discourse and an ad populum argument, then we’ve got bigger problems than the nature of reality..

Seem more like you're playing loose with popularity when it suites you, that's the problem.

Quoting Tom Storm

It’s very much part of the current thinking of writers like Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch, and Shaun Gallagher. What evidence do you have that it has fallen out of favour? I don’t think it was ever “in favour” as such, just part of the philosophical menu. The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson has been a significant topic of discussion on this site for a few years.

I don't think science ignores human experience per se, but rather new discoveries tend to pull more and more of that ground from philosophy.

I mean I've heard of that book but looking through it read more like misunderstandings than any real argument for human experience. I mean just looking into neuroscience you can find how much of our experience of reality is illusory in a sense, vision comes to mind. What you see is more your brain predicting what might happen based on past data while correcting for errors if it's wrong. You don't notice this though.

As for consciousness, strong evidence points to a neuroscientific basis. Doesn't matter if you guys talk about it often on this site, doesn't make it accurate.

The blind spots are closing.

Quoting Tom Storm

Indeed and I am unsure what reality is meant to be and whether it can be known. Which is not the same thing as saying it cannot be known.

What is reality?

I would say reality is "this" (gestures around myself), so far haven't really encountered a better view.

Though the question of what is reality is much less important than how to live IMO. Even if I had a solid answer the bigger problem would be what to do with it or my life after the fact.

Kinda reminds me why Buddha never answered questions on what is "reality" and such because it didn't really matter. I kinda like his stance.

Quoting Darkneos

Kinda reminds me why Buddha never answered questions on what is "reality" and such because it didn't really matter. I kinda like his stance.

Well, that's mostly my position too, for the most part, but more as someone who also has sympathies for pragmatism. But I remain curious and open to most arguments.

Quoting Darkneos

As for consciousness, strong evidence points to a neuroscientific basis. Doesn't matter if you guys talk about it often on this site, doesn't make it accurate.

Nothing anyone says here is necessarily accurate. I have no firm view on consciousness, as I am not an expert. This matter is far from settled, and a couple of assholes on the internet are unlikely to solve it.

Quoting Tom Storm

I have tended to describe myself as a methodological naturalist and not a metaphysical naturalist.

:up: The older I get the more comfortable I am with the latter (which entails the former); however, I prefer philosophical naturalist instead.

What is reality?

(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/747203

(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/871001

Quoting Tom Storm

Well, that's mostly my position too, for the most part, but more as someone who also has sympathies for pragmatism. But I remain curious and open to most arguments.

I used to care about the answer too much until I realized I had no idea what I'd do when I got there. I forgot how to "live" life and was more obsessed with answers than the process.

Reply to 180 Proof That last one I found funny, as if there is a burden of proof for suggesting there is NOTHING supernatural. For me I might fall into methodological naturalism if only I have yet to meet a better tool than science for discovering things about the world. I know it's not perfect but so far people who claim to hate it don't got anything nearly as reliable or successful as it.

That first post though I couldn't really make much heads or tails out of, except for the parts about "intuition" and trying to eliminate misconception and what is "not real". The first part isn't really possible because intuition is sorta how philosophy starts. The other two are more like chasing your tail in practice.

Same with the idea of "illusions of knowledge", it's more accurate to say knowledge evolves not really that there are illusions of it. Also not aligning our expectations with reality is how humans advanced this far, so it doesn't really cause suffering per se. Planes likely wouldn't' exist if humans did that, among other things.

Quoting 180 Proof

What is reality?

Oh I almost forgot, neither of those links answered the question or had anything to really add to it.

Quoting Darkneos

Oh I almost forgot, neither of those links answered the question or had anything to really add to it.

What kind of answer to "what is reality?" are you looking for?

Quoting Darkneos

Nope, not how it works.

Yup, that’s how it works. From the web.

Freud recognized two different types of processes, the preconscious, which contains thoughts that can easily become conscious, and the unconscious proper, which holds repressed material that cannot be directly accessed.

Quoting T Clark

Freud recognized two different types of processes, the preconscious, which contains thoughts that can easily become conscious, and the unconscious proper, which holds repressed material that cannot be directly accessed.

Now how on Earth could anyone discover that, other than just guessing in a manner of which seems to offer no room for any argument to the contrary? Of course there are thoughts that become conscious (everything has to come from something), and of course it's possible there's "repressed material" (or perhaps universal, uniform human nature, that may be specific to given cultures or societies and periods of time) that can, by said universality, be "proven" or otherwise elicit an observable response. They call this the "crucial development period", which suggests the first few years of life where the brain is developing will fundamentally have everlasting affect on the brain and person for the rest of their natural lives.

Yes, it can be proven, more so than not, if a person lived in a household of violence and instability, depending on their inclination toward flight or flight, may have a propensity for unwarranted violence. Or, perhaps the opposite, and have an irrational disinclination toward confrontation. Similar to a household where the parent inappropriately touched the child, that child may likely either struggle with boundary issues and is prone to tendencies of a rapist, or, the opposite, and they could fear all physical touch and human intimacy altogether.

The interesting thing is how he makes a decision to completely classify this as something unique from the animal kingdom, where such similarities and parallels can easily be found. And for that I respect.

Freud recognized two different types of processes, the preconscious, which contains thoughts that can easily become conscious, and the unconscious proper, which holds repressed material that cannot be directly accessed.

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore.

Quoting 180 Proof

What kind of answer to "what is reality?" are you looking for

The two you posted.

Quoting Outlander

Now how on Earth could anyone discover that, other than just guessing in a manner of which seems to offer no room for any argument to the contrary?

It didn't say Freud discovered it. It said he recognized it. I also recognize it based on my own experience. I wouldn't have put it in my post otherwise.

Quoting Darkneos

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore.

None of this is true

Quoting Darkneos

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore.

It is, much of what Freud thought turned out to be wrong.

Philosophy leads to doctrines or principles. Principles are more important than practicality. It sets the standard for our actions.

When you break the principles, be it secular or religious, you get an estimation of how deviant your actions have become. You feel bad when you go so far. Even though you're not following the principles line by line, it's working as a compass. But when there is no principle, you'll have no direction. You'll have no restraint. You'll have nothing to shape your life. Be it personal moral codes or societal. Much like law and order.

A purpose to philosophy? Over thousands of years we have decimated forests and plantations to make paper and print books - please tell me there are purpose to this! Please tell me there are purpose to a book that could be read, its content be scrutinised, argued about and understood - perhaps even contribute to this thing we call [i]knowledge[/I]. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that philosophy has purpose. And perhaps the question may lead to some interesting conversations.

Perhaps a better question would be if philosophy has utility. To which the obvious answer must be yes - if not, it would have been discarded. But then, what, exactly, is this utility and how could we find more of it?

Quoting Darkneos

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us.

To say that everyone is a philosopher sounds democratic, but in reality it’s an illusion. Most people live by inherited routines, without pausing to question them. And that’s not a moral flaw—it’s simply the inertia of daily life. To philosophize requires discomfort, and our minds often resist that.

That said, it doesn’t mean we are condemned never to philosophize. Every one of us has the potential and the opportunity to do so: the ability to stop, to ask, to look at the world with new eyes. But that potential usually lies dormant, because we prefer the comfort of what we’ve been taught over the uncertainty of genuine thought.

Nietzsche in Dawn says that philosophy imitates the natural sciences (ones that imitate real life experimentation and classification) but it's just a form of entertainment, basically.