Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So I was thinking with all the philosophies that have been conjured up by the various philosophers. How many of them were successful or happy?

    How many of them raised kids?

    and if any did, did those kids grow up to be prosperous?

    Thats my main point.

    My second point is that many philosophies are about accepting things and letting go.

    but won't living by that way make you a push over? and accustomed to taking crap from people? I struggle to see how having you self esteem lowered and being bullied would ever be a positive way to lead your life.

    Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth. WWII saw them be led to the slaughter.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    So I was thinking with all the philosophies that have been conjured up by the various philosophers. How many of them were successful or happy?

    How many of them raised kids?

    and if any did, did those kids grow up to be prosperous?

    Thats my main point.
    Define success, define happy.

    (Original post by Mick.w)
    My second point is that many philosophies are about accepting things and letting go.

    but won't living by that way make you a push over? and accustomed to taking crap from people? I struggle to see how having you self esteem lowered and being bullied would ever be a positive way to lead your life.

    Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth. WWII saw them be led to the slaughter.
    Seems like you're talking about a very small section of philosophy. In saying the meek will inherit the earth (but not its mineral rights), I'm fairly sure he would mean after their death.

    Which philosophers are you talking about?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think what you're talking about is arm chair philosophers, philosophers who sit about talking about things that don't really matter using overly complicated lexis to keep others out of the debates.

    Look at Wittgenstein. Didn't have any children (though he was HIV positive and homosexual, two things that were by no means acceptable by societies standards, I don't think gay adoption was much of a chance).

    He died just after writing On Certainty (didn't have a chance to edit it).

    What did he achieve? Well he wrote many fascinating books that paint language in a new light for many people. He essentially debunked most of the pseduo intellectualism found in epistemology. He wrote so that he could be understood by anyone and believed philosophy should always be applicable to the real world. So if you're going to have a metaphysical theory it better have a use beyond being 'possible' but without credibility or helping people by seeing what reality is in a different light.

    If you're going to say 'I know that this is my hand' you better be showing a new mechanism to 'know' it is your hand or have a reason to doubt it's your hand (and this might all be a dream doesn't count) otherwise you're waffling on about nothing.

    He pretty much spat at arm chair philosophers, and he was a philosopher. Perhaps you'd benefit from reading up on PI and OC?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Before the 19th century, Philosophy used to comprise a lot more than it currently does.

    Technically, politics, psychology and sociology departments to name a few are splinters from philosophy.

    So are the sciences although it was important that they were splintered off as it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature and human laws can be treat as 2 entirely different things.
    Well, for the purpose of making it easier for philosophy teachers anyway who don't necessarily want to have to think about quantum mechanics when they can just 'override it all' by thinking about Descartes instead.

    For many, being a philosopher just means asking questions and struggling to give answers.

    Not so with properly great philosophers- and I don't just mean famous ones. It is one of life's little tragedies that some (certainly not all) of the greatest self taught philosophers (and there are up to 7 billion of those) outside of academia probably appear to many people largely 'without much depth' or at least 'with little sense of life's hardships'.
    It's like looking at a smooth sailing ship and not taking account of the complicated mechanics inside which consistently operate.

    Of the very most famous philosopers, I most feel some sorrow (out of respect for their greatness) for Socrates and Nietzsche. They both seem to have been understandably tortured by the unthinking complacency of most of their fellow people.
    Although we mostly have Plato to thank for regarding Socrates as great.

    Nietzsche gets criticised for making points rather than arguments but I believe that he had much to say about human psychology and sociology.

    But, yes, it's kind of bull**** in terms of the effect that me wanting an Aristotelian 'everything in moderation including moderation' world (say, as might have been a norm in the 1950s) will have on modern liberal Britain. I think that possibly there might be a country that is best suited to every outlook.

    'Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth. WWII saw them be led to the slaughter'.

    That's a very good point. And straight to heaven the religious would say. But in what state does it leave the earth for some of their murderers (or any murderers) to still be breathing 50 years later? Why should 2 generations of people be expected to have hopefully idyllic childhoods when the more knowledgable of them will know that murderers- any murderers - are still breathing the same air? But, in many places outside of corporate fancy dress and a tiny celebrity world, the world has become coarser, less formal. It's as if increased wealth (including social security of course) has actually decreased inner wealth of character and, therefore, decreased any need to impress good and presentable people. In short, the world is less truly meek now because it has taken on the appearance of faux weakness instead of the stiff upper lip of old. Not only did the truly meek die but so, by degrees, did the desire to be truly meek. A strange combination of laissez faire socialism and laissex faire capitalism, particularly evident in Britain, caused that. The UK's been heading towards being an anti-industry, anti-intellectual, basket case more or less since the end of World War 2 and the creation of the NHS in 1945 and only optimism - and some talent- in the fields of music, comedy, theatre and architecture has given the impression that this is still a proper country compared to the one of old.
    Sorry I'm off topic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    Define success, define happy.



    Seems like you're talking about a very small section of philosophy. In saying the meek will inherit the earth (but not its mineral rights), I'm fairly sure he would mean after their death.

    Which philosophers are you talking about?
    well I was watching this
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...bJ4RAFkRtmAN3P

    it includes some classic greeks: plato, aristotle, epicurus, zeno of citium
    and others such as heidegger, nietzsche, sartre

    I was struck by how many philosophers were single and without children.

    but Isn't having children one of the fundamental things about human beings?

    I mean lets go through the above list.

    ok so
    Zeno was successful in terms of people liked what he had to say and he seemed to enjoy his time studying philosophy. however he invented stoicism which encourages killing yourself and he also died from holding his breath? he also had no family.

    plato seems to have been quite successful except again never started a family of his own.

    aristotle seems to have done well and actually had a family despite being a pedophile and having sex with a small boy.

    epicurus seems to have found happyness however its happyness without a family.

    heidegger basically abandoned his wife and kids cheated on them with jews despite being a nazi supporter and then left to live in solitude and apparently renouncing nazism. he died of natural causes (or so I believe?)

    nietzsche seemed equally as depressed as heidegger. and again seems to have abandoned his family in favor of being a recluse who I was told had a mental breakdown and died in his 40s. however i've seen others say he died of a brain tumor or syphilis.

    Sartre wasn't a happy guy either and once more had no family. however he did achieve a lot.


    but the amount of them that didn't raise successful families is something I find very interesting.

    and im pretty sure one of the main things about life is producing life yourself. its very natural.

    yet so many philosophers have done it badly.

    kinda reminds me of how freud despite all his psychological theories never successfully treated a patient.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I think what you're talking about is arm chair philosophers, philosophers who sit about talking about things that don't really matter using overly complicated lexis to keep others out of the debates.

    Look at Wittgenstein. Didn't have any children (though he was HIV positive and homosexual, two things that were by no means acceptable by societies standards, I don't think gay adoption was much of a chance).

    He died just after writing On Certainty (didn't have a chance to edit it).

    What did he achieve? Well he wrote many fascinating books that paint language in a new light for many people. He essentially debunked most of the pseduo intellectualism found in epistemology. He wrote so that he could be understood by anyone and believed philosophy should always be applicable to the real world. So if you're going to have a metaphysical theory it better have a use beyond being 'possible' but without credibility or helping people by seeing what reality is in a different light.

    If you're going to say 'I know that this is my hand' you better be showing a new mechanism to 'know' it is your hand or have a reason to doubt it's your hand (and this might all be a dream doesn't count) otherwise you're waffling on about nothing.

    He pretty much spat at arm chair philosophers, and he was a philosopher. Perhaps you'd benefit from reading up on PI and OC?
    yes im certainly interested in Wittgenstein now. but whats PI (pseudo intellectualism?) and OC(On certainty I assume yes?)

    thanks
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    yes im certainly interested in Wittgenstein now. but whats PI (pseudo intellectualism?) and OC(On certainty I assume yes?)

    thanks
    Philosophical investigations and you are correct, On Certainty, both are books he has written!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    but Isn't having children one of the fundamental things about human beings?


    and im pretty sure one of the main things about life is producing life yourself. its very natural.
    Sneezing is very natural. But what comes out is not necessarily a necessary thing for the world.

    Similarly, when a sperm fertilises an egg, what comes out is not necessarily a necessary thing for the world.

    Of course what comes out is conscious. But only because it was made in the first place. It was not necessary that it be made. Unlike sneezing which is probably necessary.

    Of course, it could be said that nothing is necessary in this world.

    In which case, I must conclude that either reproduction is selfish or it must aim to serve a current or future 'problem'.

    But what possible problem should there be that only a child, as opposed to the children or adults who are already in the world, could possibly fix it?

    The answer is none. Nothing that a more rational, humanist, caring society couldn't address.

    Due to human selfishness, ignorance, laziness, lack of proactive help by people towards others this is a hard world. And it would be much easier on children if there was actually some consensus between the existing people in the world as to how much that child is actually wanted or needed in this world.
    It sounds harsh but it's better to be harsh on a concept of a child than a real child face the harshness that a cruel adult world often exerts on a child, leading to yet another future cruel adult being created.

    The policy of 'every child is a blessing' is sadly not treat like that in practice by the adult world. Wealth and/or formal education / self taught education inequalities / political outlook differences confuse matters so much that the birth of every child and the aims of its parents for that child should ideally be carefully measured as much as possible.
    Complete liberty is merely organised anarchy in disguise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Before the 19th century, Philosophy used to comprise a lot more than it currently does.

    Technically, politics, psychology and sociology departments to name a few are splinters from philosophy.

    So are the sciences although it was important that they were splintered off as it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature and human laws can be treat as 2 entirely different things.
    Well, for the purpose of making it easier for philosophy teachers anyway who don't necessarily want to have to think about quantum mechanics when they can just 'override it all' by thinking about Descartes instead.

    For many, being a philosopher just means asking questions and struggling to give answers.

    Not so with properly great philosophers- and I don't just mean famous ones. It is one of life's little tragedies that some (certainly not all) of the greatest self taught philosophers (and there are up to 7 billion of those) outside of academia probably appear to many people largely 'without much depth' or at least 'with little sense of life's hardships'.
    It's like looking at a smooth sailing ship and not taking account of the complicated mechanics inside which consistently operate.
    exactly theres a distinct lack of studying the smooth sailors in life. not the celebrities or people of high status and power. but the happy people who are successful at family.

    theres a lot of people out there who have the key to happyness and have just never thought to share it cause they didnt know how rare it was.

    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Of the very most famous philosopers, I most feel some sorrow (out of respect for their greatness) for Socrates and Nietzsche. They both seem to have been understandably tortured by the unthinking complacency of most of their fellow people.
    Although we mostly have Plato to thank for regarding Socrates as great.
    And thats what I mean. I seem to find this pattern of philosophers that are in despair with the way things are or either focus on not caring about anything at all.



    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Nietzsche gets criticised for making points rather than arguments but I believe that he had much to say about human psychology and sociology.
    yea sometimes I consider Nietzsche as much of a poet as a philosopher.


    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    But, yes, it's kind of bull**** in terms of the effect that me wanting an Aristotelian 'everything in moderation including moderation' world (say, as might have been a norm in the 1950s) will have on modern liberal Britain. I think that possibly there might be a country that is best suited to every outlook.

    'Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth. WWII saw them be led to the slaughter'.

    That's a very good point. And straight to heaven the religious would say. But in what state does it leave the earth for some of their murderers (or any murderers) to still be breathing 50 years later? Why should 2 generations of people be expected to have hopefully idyllic childhoods when the more knowledgable of them will know that murderers- any murderers - are still breathing the same air? But, in many places outside of corporate fancy dress and a tiny celebrity world, the world has become coarser, less formal. It's as if increased wealth (including social security of course) has actually decreased inner wealth of character and, therefore, decreased any need to impress good and presentable people. In short, the world is less truly meek now because it has taken on the appearance of faux weakness instead of the stiff upper lip of old. Not only did the truly meek die but so, by degrees, did the desire to be truly meek. A strange combination of laissez faire socialism and laissex faire capitalism, particularly evident in Britain, caused that. The UK's been heading towards being an anti-industry, anti-intellectual, basket case more or less since the end of World War 2 and the creation of the NHS in 1945 and only optimism - and some talent- in the fields of music, comedy, theatre and architecture has given the impression that this is still a proper country compared to the one of old.
    Sorry I'm off topic.
    thanks and you've raised some interesting points there too. Got me thinking.

    Something I'm always startled by though is how many religions and philosophies promote the idea of acceptance and letting go and not caring about things.

    Like the whole prisoner looking at the bars vs the prisoner looking at the stars.

    The prisoner looking at the stars who's accepted his fate will never even think about trying to solve the problem and figure out a way to escape.

    I also think as you said about impressing good people. Thats gone out the window due to money. Good people don't sell. What sells is "It's mr steal your girl". Now you can actually aspire to get fame and fortune by being publicly depraved.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    As an analytic philosopher this thread makes me meh.

    Except for the Wittgenstein appraisal. Wittgenstein said a lot of profound things and honestly I think he's still being slept on and that all modern physics is wrong because it disagreed with him (or a straw-man of him).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.