Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Good philosophy must be a physical activity. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice.

    Disregarding the truth-value of that statment by Diogenes, it is the difference between talking about philosophy or pondering about it in one's armchair, and actually putting it into practice, applying it to life, which forces us to do.

    True philosophy, good philosophy, dangerous philosophy, is life philosophy, it is a doing. It is not mere questioning, although without the question there would be no philosophy. It is not dead and not a concept (not a Kantian thing), but alive like a dance. It is physical. It should affect every fibre of your being. Life forces us to posit values as well. Socrates said "to live is to be sick a long time...I owe Asclepius [the god of medicine] a ****". That might well be Socrates' philosophy in a nutshell. Socrates was no philosopher. He was too sick to practice philosophy. With Socrates comes the Greek dissolution, the dissolution of philosophy in general.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    I disagree. Philosophy is about discovering wisdom, not necessarily displaying or disseminating it. There is such a thing as an armchair philosopher, and he may through his intellectual pursuits become very wise. Is he not a philosopher? If not, why not?

    A person is the same person whether or not they leave their armchair, and thus a philosopher who studies privately but not in public is likewise still a philosopher. Is it intrinsic to the definition of a philosopher that he must practise his philosophy physically? Is the love of wisdom not enough?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    The things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice.

    Disregarding the truth-value of that statment by Diogenes, it is the difference between talking about philosophy or pondering about it in one's armchair, and actually putting it into practice, applying it to life, which forces us to do.

    True philosophy, good philosophy, dangerous philosophy, is life philosophy, it is a doing. It is not mere questioning, although without the question there would be no philosophy. It is not dead and not a concept (not a Kantian thing), but alive like a dance. It is physical. It should affect every fibre of your being. Life forces us to posit values as well. Socrates said "to live is to be sick a long time...I owe Asclepius [the god of medicine] a ****". That might well be Socrates' philosophy in a nutshell. Socrates was no philosopher. He was too sick to practice philosophy. With Socrates comes the Greek dissolution, the dissolution of philosophy in general.
    I agree. That's why Nietzsche is so interesting, because he focuses on the individual and how they might live their lives and be successful (I suspect your post was influenced by him). Philosophy is love of knowledge, so if it doesn't speak to you then you might as well ignore it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I disagree. Philosophy is about discovering wisdom, not necessarily displaying or disseminating it. There is such a thing as an armchair philosopher, and he may through his intellectual pursuits become very wise. Is he not a philosopher? If not, why not?

    A person is the same person whether or not they leave their armchair, and thus a philosopher who studies privately but not in public is likewise still a philosopher. Is it intrinsic to the definition of a philosopher that he must practise his philosophy physically? Is the love of wisdom not enough?
    In response:

    Does wisdom perhaps appear on the earth as a raven which is inspired by the smell of carrion? - Friedrich Nietzsche.

    Philosophy, good philosophy, is all embracing, it is Joie de Vivre, love of life. Philosophy is a living thing. And wisdom must set limits for itself or else it is not very wise at all. The love of wisdom is not enough; the doer alone ultimately learns.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    In response:

    Does wisdom perhaps appear on the earth as a raven which is inspired by the smell of carrion? - Friedrich Nietzsche.

    Philosophy, good philosophy, is all embracing, it is Joie de Vivre, love of life. Philosophy is a living thing. And wisdom must set limits for itself or else it is not very wise at all. The love of wisdom is not enough; the doer alone ultimately learns.
    Then is the philosopher the lover of wisdom or the practitioner of wisdom? I think it ought to be the former; all wise men are philosophers, but not all philosophers are wise men.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Then is the philosopher the lover of wisdom or the practitioner of wisdom? I think it ought to be the former; all wise men are philosophers, but not all philosophers are wise men.
    The philosopher must be able to philosophise because the principle of obtaining knowledge is to question and peer-into knowledge, but the spirit of philosophy must be a living one or else it is dead knowledge. Therefore, a genuine philosopher must be able to live his philosophy.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    The philosopher must be able to philosophise because the principle of obtaining knowledge is to question and peer-into knowledge, but the spirit of philosophy must be a living one or else it is dead knowledge. Therefore, a genuine philosopher must be able to live his philosophy.
    I agree that a philosopher must philosophise, and so in that sense he is actualising his philosophy, but this may be done with a pipe in the bedroom. What is 'dead knowledge'? And if it is anything, why is it important for the categorisation of 'real' philosophers such as Nietzsche versus 'pseudo' philosophers such as Socrates?

    To not recognise Socrates as a philosopher is a very peculiar idea to me. Philosophy is an accommodating field with as many peaks as there are mountain paths. There are many ways to reach the top, and many views to see.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I agree that a philosopher must philosophise, and so in that sense he is actualising his philosophy, but this may be done with a pipe in the bedroom. What is 'dead knowledge'? And if it is anything, why is it important for the categorisation of 'real' philosophers such as Nietzsche versus 'pseudo' philosophers such as Socrates?

    To not recognise Socrates as a philosopher is a very peculiar idea to me. Philosophy is an accommodating field with as many peaks as there are mountain paths. There are many ways to reach the top, and many views to see.
    True philosophy begins in the outdoors, the long country walks over vast fields and tundras, climbing mountains, reaching the high peaks. That sort of thing. The best philosophical ideas are sought in physical activity because it is away from the comfort which is so personal. Nature is impersonal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So we should all live our personal philosophies and advertise and detail them on our facebook or something like that thus everyone who reads will soon learn which philosophies are worthwhile and which are stupid. Measured by each "philosophers" quality of life and not by their level of arrogance and the number of fancy pieces of paper saying they're well smart glued to their walls. We'll also see who is stupid and who is worthwhile when we see who practices the same philosophy despite a continued absence of happiness and contentment. And we'll see who is lovable ...probably those who define good will as a little bit more than you stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours. The value of a philosophy is defined by the quality of life that it produces when put into practice.




    philosphers: those who dare to think for themselves usually to disastarous consequences.

    He understands 99% of what is but he thinks not upon the 1% that actually matters to him. It's not that he forgets himself. It's just that he's never taken the time to understand himself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    True philosophy begins in the outdoors, the long country walks over vast fields and tundras, climbing mountains, reaching the high peaks. That sort of thing. The best philosophical ideas are sought in physical activity because it is away from the comfort which is so personal. Nature is impersonal.
    Seems to me like you have sheltered yourself in a logical bunker. You have taken the part of Philosophy you like and defined it to be "good" philosophy. A different person might do the same about a different part and his position will be just as easy to defend.

    Wiki says:

    "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

    That means that a more or less consensual meaning today, so it's good enough for me. You're still free to define "good philosophy" as a search for the perfect hot dog, though. There is really no logical argument I can put forth against that.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    True philosophy begins in the outdoors, the long country walks over vast fields and tundras, climbing mountains, reaching the high peaks. That sort of thing. The best philosophical ideas are sought in physical activity because it is away from the comfort which is so personal. Nature is impersonal.
    Except there's so much of philosophy which is about people - dualism, for example, or the closely related idea of "the causative powers of the brain" as the answer to why we appear to have free will and other objects don't. I contend that the best philosophical ideas are found in the lab - philosophers of the past didn't have much of a scientific method, but we do, and we have the means to prove or disprove some philosophical ideas. For example, the fact that we can study brain damage has told us that, essentially, dualism is exceedingly unlikely, since damage to certain areas of the brain causes certain types of malfunction of both the body and the thought processes, so we know that the brain is at least inextricably linked with human thought. For the time being, anyway; when nanotech comes along, we might be able to extract the patterns found in the brain and run them on something else, but that's a long way off; that would prove once and for all that there's nothing special about the brain that lets it do thinking, entirely using science.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.