Many people misconceive "philosophy". They will gloss over its meaning, encase it within a (static) term, mummify it. They simplify, reduce, and strangle- too weak to face the intensity of "philosophy" head on.
Philosophy is never a settled manner. If I say, "My philosophy on life is...," I betray the spirit and origin behind of the term. Philosophy describes a process- not an end, not a guiding purpose to follow. The true philosopher "philosophizes"; he constantly questions his values, spiritual way of life, his guiding problematic. More than this, he EXPERIMENTS. Rather than establishing "what life is", the philosopher (in its truest sense) seeks to explore (firsthand) "what life could be", acutely aware of the infinite ocean of possibility.
philosophy, the love of not-knowing, to burn on this, laid bare to the overwhelming complexity of reality (a sun in the NIGHTsky)
_______________________________________________________________________
"The results of all the schools and of all their experiments belong legitimately to us. We will not hesitate to adopt a Stoic formula on the pretext that we have previously profited from Epicurean formulas" (Nietzsche)
The only reason I am still typing (anywhere below the line) is because this stupid site won't let me post anything short and concise which has already met the purposes I intended. I guess this is as good a time as any to ask if anyone reading has any interests in Georges Bataille?
Philosophy is just ideas of pople trying to explain the unexplainable
When you get deep enough into language, you find no word has a definite, singular meaning. "Philosophy" can be approached as "just ideas of pople trying to explain the unexplainable", but what I argue is that there is something much deeper which drives such explanatory ideas from the core, and that this driving force maintains a much more genuine tie with the true notion of "philosophy".
Philosophy can be interpreted as an "explaining which does away with the unexplainable". It can also, more beneficially in my mind, be approached as spiritual exercise having nothing to do whatsoever with explanation. To be alive is to give unceasingly, it is to pour out one's life force until the point of dying. How one gives away their vital charge, how one lives, holds an infinite range of possibilities. The spiritual exercise of philosophy, in my mind, constantly explores new modalities of life- by LIVING them. To explain away reality (or even to become caught up in the game of theoretical explanation at all) is to stop short, to fail in philosophizing, to give up and prove weak in the face of a constantly fluxual reality (which one must accordingly constantly react to and experience) and instead pretend reality is fixed, set, to allow a constant "as it is" (so that things can be explained "as they are"); this is to ignore the marvelous complexity of reality from which all value is derived, to freeze up in the face of life- TO CEASE TO LIVE (in the fullest sense).
Its about having the constantly adaptive view. Whenever something which makes more sense hits your perception you are willing to accommodate rather than assimilate it into your mind.
Accommodation is the process of readjusting your mind to what is newly presented as to have an updated collective fluid type of thought (which is how I Live).
Assimilation is the process of fitting in your new knowledge improperly (a lot of the time at least) into your old formula or way of though, which often loses what is to be gained through knew knowledge.
Piaget’s Accommodation Vs Assimilation defines what it is to be an open minded person, an being an open minded adaptive thinker is the only way to truly be a philosopher...
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
In one sense, yes, "accommodation" does strike at the meaning of my post; in another, the term severely reduces the rich complexity of what I meant to convey (and somewhat misses the point).
The fact is, the abuse of "philosophy" which I first mentioned is actually an approach many people take towards their way of living, an approach which often leads to depression and negation of the value of life in general. A life in which the purpose is "known" (also, a life whose processes are "understood") becomes a dull, mechanical life; one simply goes about their way as if they are "going through the motions".
For example, consider your own belief: "Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality." By adopting this understanding, you alter your entire life experience. (To the extent that you adhere to your belief) Life, for you, is empty of choice, of the experience of CHANCE and the rush of the unknown. You miss (ignore) the sovereign, and settle for the lowest form of life: that which is pre-determined.
I would like to iterate, first of all, that your deterministic view of life is indeed a belief, and not a fact by any means. Determinism as an "absolute" explanation to reality is wholly outdated. When you reach the extremes of our knowledge, the principle of "cause and effect" ceases to apply; CHAOS abounds. A common example: consider a speck of dust floating in the air of an attic. No one can predict with certainty the path which it travels. When you reach an even smaller level, that of subatomic particles for example, many cases exist where even prediction of probability is impossible.
Your take on reality is indeed a static philosophy, and as such devalues your experience of life. "Philosophizing" in its most genuine sense means approaching life as if nothing is "settled" or "determined", per say. We all have a history of past incidents which have occurred and we can not go back in time to change them. This past doubtless has some effect on our experience of the present moment (It is the foundation out of which we grow). HOWEVER, the future is completely undecided. When we live in the present, we are conscious of this element of open possibility of the future; when we live (in the present), we reconcile the open possibility of our future with the a past of "now-closed-off possibility".
To philosophize is to experiment with the open possibility of what our life could be, given we actively alter it from what it already is. To live life in this way, with this chancing spirit! Show me another way that yields such VITALITY
It's cold, and yes it does make it often appear fruitless, but thats the reality of the cicumstances.
Apparently you missed the entire 20th century (and prior) scientific movement centering on Chaos Theory.
I know most people would like to believe in the illusion of control, but all you do and all that has occured since the expansion of the universe has happened like a chemical reaction. Everyone likes to feel as if they have control over their world, not having that would be horrifying to a less sound minded person. As to chaos theory, there is still not exterior variable working outside the system upon the system, and if there was, it would also be connected and then cancel itself as exterior. There is nothing outside of everything, if thats an easier way for you to think about it. There is no such thing as random, and no emptiness within the body we live within, therefore we are connected to an acting on everything(no matter how slight). It is this kinda of thinking that brings you to the conclusion of predisposition... any questions or indiscrepancies fire away, I'd be happy to fill any gaps you see.
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
Predisposition (determinism, in other words) is a theory about reality. Theories about reality are not innate in our minds, we are not born "knowing" them. We come to theories by abstracting from real life experience. For instance, Joe has seen 50 apples, and 50 apples only. Every time he's seen one, it has been red. Thus, Joe generalizes and abstracts the theory that apples are red. That everything that happens is predisposed to happen is another theory that we (or, rather, some) have abstracted from our experience. In order to prove that theory as factual reality, you would have to first prove that you have experienced it in every event that has ever occurred and will ever occur. Unfortunately (for that cause), human experience is not infinite- it is limited. Just like Joe has never seen a green apple, and thus would dismiss their reality, you have (supposedly) never witnessed a chaotic (unexplainable) event, and thus BELIEVE chaos is an unreal notion. No theory can be proven as fact. (Not even the Chaos Theory. I merely brought it up in discussion to show you that others have abstracted from experience a theory which entirely opposes yours.)
I would further argue that the adoption of one theory (like your theory of determinism), believing this theory to be fact, has the consequence of severely prejudicing (limiting, blinding even) your perception of reality. What I mean is, If I were to take your belief as fact, then I would be affect myself to evaluate my experience on these terms only. For instance, I, believing all is predisposed, see an event occur. I predict an outcome, yet this outcome does not follow. Because of my belief, I evaluate that a variable must be in play of which I was not aware. Were I not a believer in your theory, I might evaluate my perceptions differently; perhaps I would judge that the event is simply an example of chaotic activity. In truth, neither assessment is "correct", they are merely two possible approaches to the same experience. (Theory affects perception just as strongly, if not more, than perceptions affect theory.)
By the way, I want to strongly emphasize that just because I don't think any theory can be "true" doesn't mean that I think theories are useless. I would argue that theories are founded on usefulness (and are sustained for this reason also). Who can deny the value of the ability to assess an event as explainable and predisposed? All our technology has been derived by use of this theory. For instance, one day someone noticed that when gas comes into contact with fire, it ignites and exudes energy. Now, this causal relationship has been harnessed to create things like powerful weapons and automobiles. However, that's where theories stop: usefulness. This is why we make them. To extend them into the realm of objective ("factual") validity (Predisposition as reality) is not only pointless, it also shows an essential misunderstanding of their nature.
Furthermore, when one does adopt a theory as such, the theory does not just lose all "practical" affect. The difference is that, when taken as absolute fact, the effect on the person is negative and harmful; it leads one to deny the value of life rather than affirm it. Many who see life as predetermined feel as if they are simply "going through the motions", experience becomes dull and empty; we grow to live like machines; we become DEPRESSED. A bleak and depressed lifestyle, all because one misunderstood the nature of a theory and took it for reality. Theories, as practical devices, are meant for our benefit, not detriment.
You're first paragraph just re-explained Allegory of the Cave... I fully understand that a given perception builds a perspective. It would seem I understand this more than you, as I apply it to all pieces of the universe.
To the second paragraph, I never believed it as complete fact, I even meantion that the universe being without gaps is still up in the air, its just a logical way to live on a planet where everything within the body(earth) is an a way a controlled experiment. As to perdicting outcomes, humans can not yet, you need to be what humans define as god(all knowing and all predicting) to do such a thing. Just because we dont have the science yet to fully predict an outcome(even something as simple as weather) doesn't mean its impossible for a greater intelligence, something all knowing could predict all things. At the smallest level, if zoned in on a specific even with enough technology anything predictable. Lets say you want to know how someone will respond to a stimuli, if you had the exact chemistry of their brain and were aware of how it would process the information you could then know the response it would give. Just like a psychological biological test of any simple creature can be somewhat (because the technology and knowledge of the chemicals is not fully there) predicted. With a good enough knowledge of how a chemical machine(such as an animal) would respond, you could scan its brain and body with devices and predict its actions to the instant.
I am aware it is theory, but that because there hasn't been enough in depth study(or intellect) to make it a fact as it may be to many beinging which have evolved and experienced much more than we have, we haven't even got off our planets doormat yet.
Accepting this theory does not undermind the value of life, its simply a realization of what life is. The closer you become to anticipating all things, the closer you are to being a god.
Being cold minded and less culturally trained does not necessarily make one less able to enjoy live, I enjoy living with the proper realization of my chemical surroundings. It solidifys the setting, as sad as it may be to some that you're not some special snow-flake that gets to live forever I'mm happy not living ignorantly blissful. As part of my theory also, I by knowing this and feeling this am meant to, so I'm in no way changing the outcome, as I realize change is not without our power. I accept that knowledge is the greatest power there is, and thats what a strive towards. There is nothing flawed about that, as much as it fails to be surprised and become energized by simple reactions.
I believe in the possiblity of any knowledge being relative just as you, but you can't cut out found truths based on the objectivity of all things percieved, and you have to use the knowledge at hand to the best of your abilities.
It's ironic that you address the human situation as if we had no control over our lives, when in fact, as I explained above, control is the very foundation of the theory of predisposition which you so admire. The theory of determinism (cause and effect) arose simply because it helped us control our environment and the events, its what allows us to create technology.
You claim that what horrifies most is the notion of complete lack of control; thus we pretend total control of our situation in order to soothe our "unsound" minds. What "horrifies" me, however, is the notion that things are too controllable, TOO PREDICTABLE. Adopting this notion means to empty life of its spontaneous vivacity. I feel most alive is when I take a risk, when I lay it on the line. This sense of the unknown gives things value. What would a life be devoid of value? A horrifying one.
There are two extremes to control: total lack (absolute chaos) and total possession (absolute order). Practical usage of theory (as explained in above post) provides a meeting point between the two in human experience.
You're just saying I'm right, you're horrified by a lack of surprise. As your culture has trained you to seek entertainment and not reality.
I dont believe in a mid point of solidity to the universe. Its an all or nothing, you cant partly respond predictably.
You were right about one thing- I have absolutely no interest in "seeking reality" (at least not for its own sake). Your entire belief rests on the presupposition that reality should be sought (you blindly assumed the value of "seeking reality"). If you had never assumed this presupposition, you would have never searched for an answer and come to your precious theory. Did you ever stop and think "why ask 'what is reality'"? Ever consider whether this question was even worth asking? No, you blindly followed along (Apparently you and Plato, both, failed to escape "the Cave").
I, on the other hand, did ask. The conclusion I came to is that the question of reality proved utterly pointless when separated from (when not subordinated to) the inquiry into enhancing life experience. I will live this one life I have, I will experience it. What value does explanation of the CONSTRUCT of "reality" have for me when I could be focusing on enhancing my experience of the one life I have.
At the base of ANY theoretical explanation rests the presupposition you maintained. At the base of that presupposition lies ignorance (the failure to inquire thoroughly).
__________________________________________________________________
"You're just saying I'm right, you're horrified by a lack of surprise. As your culture has trained you to seek entertainment and not reality."
I'm not horrified by the "lack of surprise" in itself, I'm horrified by the lack of value. Yes, you're right, I did choose one approach because it held more value. I based my decision on value, you based yours on validity. This is where we differed, and this is where you erred. If you fail to see the error (failed to see "reality's" foundation in "value"), please refer back the first section of this post.
I'm choosing not to reply to your first post in this heading because I believe my reply to the second (just above) addresses the central issue in both (or at least an issue which, unless settled otherwise, robs the significance of any arguments in the first).
Where you claim others "live ignorantly blissful," I would like to accuse you of far worse: living ignorantly "cold-minded".
Well, if you like achieving nothing and living as a blissful beast, thats your boat. I just must say its universally unsound, and self defeating to not seek understanding who and what and where and when you are. Let go of writing post on "philosophy" because the people who started the feild were like me, seeking understanding, not a path to come ignorant rational of enjoyment, they gave their lives for the knowledge to carry on, you disgrace them.
Get Real?
Achieving nothing? Training myself to live with a torrential overflow of vitality is achieving nothing? What, exactly, was it that you achieved- a theory of the way things work?
And now I am "self-defeated" because I abandoned a question which rested on ignorant, premises and shaky grounds (or rather, a lack of ground altogether)?
The people who "started" the field of "philosophy", by the way- the Stoics, Epicureans, the Cynics, (any of the Hellenistic schools)- they did not philosophize to "understand reality". They actively PRACTICED philosophy as a way of dealing with reality, with life, in the way they thought best. Only relatively recently has philosophy (mistakenly) become associated with pure theoretical enterprise.
"Philosophia"= "Love of Wisdom". The Hellenistic schools spiritually practiced which approach to life was wisest (in their eyes).
THUS the title of my original post, "Joys of 'Philosophy'". The post was a re-orientation of the aim and act of philosophy; a re-orientation back to the true heart of philosophy, back to its birth. Of you and I, who is it that brings disgrace?
I know I'm absolutely barraging you right now, but there's a question I just have to ask.
"[Spiritual] Health is an extreme state, an excess; when one has it, one is innocent, careless. The more intense one is, the more there is a love of adventure, a love of going at things with no idea of what is going to happen. The unknown appears laden with charm."
Let us suppose "determinism" is indeed the reality we live in. Nonetheless, you must admit (and I believe have in one of your previous posts) that we have a choice whether or not to perceive reality as such (i.e. some people choose to believe they are in total control of their lives). This being the case, and you having only one life to live, to experience, would you not choose to approach your life with the philosophy expressed in the quote just above rather than the philosophy expressed in your signature quote? How could you not?
And if you would claim you would not because it is "weak" to turn your back on reality,
does pride really mean more to you than happiness? (I am sorry if I am too presumptuous in guessing your answer)
I hate when people make light of great philosophers. I am required to take a LA 101 class at my college and the theme is "what does it mean to be human?". People in the class get on my nerves. We are reading Plato's Cave and some people take it just as it is said, but it so much more than that and when the teacher tries to get them to look deeper for the meaning they call Plato stupid and dismiss him like he's nothing. It's Plato! Just because you don't understand him doesn't make him stupid. Am I right?
I gave a 5 minute speech on plato.. I respect him and their situation back then a ton, Allegory of the caves a great story, it proves we're a product of our environment, and shows the ignorance an environment can imprint, and shows the faultiness of the structure of society, which are just products of the civilization.
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
When I study philosophers I find it most beneficial, as a professor once taught me, to make an extreme effort to see things the way they see them, to really meditate on their approach to life and reality and try to make it your own. Only in this way can we truly understand the value they have to offer. All systems and statements can be argued against, but in doing so, you preclude any chance of benefit from the thinker before you even begin. Forget the validity of their theories and try to cultivate in yourself the spiritual approach (what they felt deep down inside) which they exude in their writings. Always work to understand the philosopher before you work against him- in this way you will both take more from him and have a better ground from which to fight against him.
That being said, its quite possible I misunderstood your complaint and that the people in your class simply fail to understand the power or mechanics of the metaphor of Plato's cave.