Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
My question is whether it is moral, and/or whether it is logical to discuss real philosophical questions without following the ideas you find.
I can think of a couple ways this can go:
1. It is okay not to apply your philosophical ideas, because the nature of philosophy is that it is fallible, and "who's to say that the things you think now are the correct things?" For example, there was a time when I was super nihilist and anti- human, and I'm glad I stuck to the armchair during that philosophical phase rather than do stupid, immoral things to myself and others.
2. It is not okay to not apply philosophical ideas, because if you know what you should be doing, or at least have a good idea of it, the act of not following through in real life is counterintuitive. To give an extreme example, I know it's wrong to murder people for no reason, so if I go outside and starting slaughtering innocent people, I should be held accountable for my actions. The same should logically go for any action of any degree, of which the actor is a conscious moral agent.
3. It is okay to not apply philosophical ideas, because one should not take life too seriously, and constantly pressuring oneself to be exactly correct in every little facet of one's life just becomes overwhelming and stressful (I've had times when I met real, observable health problems because I was causing myself too much stress over whether I was living a moral, philosophical justifiable life, and how I could never be sure, so I had to allow myself to back off of the philosophy for a time).
If you have any input on this question, I'm very curious and eager to discuss.
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
When I go shopping for food I try not buy certain items, or the products of certain companies, but it doesn't dominate my life. I may sometimes buy things from a company that, on fuller consideration, I would have avoided, but there is a practical limit to how much time and effort I can devote to the problem. You would finish up being like a rich Jain with servants going in front of you to brush the street in case you stand on an insect.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
Yes, but speaking in terms of epistemology, where should one find the balance between acting justly and acting conveniently? A die-hard philosopher would say that anyone who does anything, even waking up in the morning, without a defensible reason for it, is wrong to do so. On the antithesis to that point, a non-philosopher would see that viewpoint as silly, misguided, or too serious, and be confident in their ability to instinctively be doing the right thing. That or they just don't care much for being moral and logical. But I view a life without morality and logic as worthless, at least in regards to my own life, so that's not an option. And the die- hard philosophy route is no good either, as I discussed in my original post.Spraticus wrote:It's a bit like the problem posed by mindfulness; if you think too much about every little detail of life you get nowhere. Or if you try to be totally mindful in every action, you lose sight of the big picture. I can also see parallels with the question of whether someone can be totally evil? Well, no; getting out of bed in the morning is not evil. Taking a shower is not evil, (unless the intention is to wash off evidence). Life is not as simple as that. We need to get on with living and that takes up a lot of our time in mostly neutral acts.
When I go shopping for food I try not buy certain items, or the products of certain companies, but it doesn't dominate my life. I may sometimes buy things from a company that, on fuller consideration, I would have avoided, but there is a practical limit to how much time and effort I can devote to the problem. You would finish up being like a rich Jain with servants going in front of you to brush the street in case you stand on an insect.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
The answer of how best to live is to live in pursuit of the answer - to inquire, to question, to examine. But this is not an answer that is meant for everyone. The Socratic way is the way of reasoned argument. Reasoned argument leads only to what seems best. It is thus tentative, provisional, and subject to change in the face of better arguments.
What seems best, however, cannot be measured by reason alone. The examined life is both in pursuit of and guided by self-knowledge. We see things not simply as they are but as we are. And to the extent that we know ourselves we can know how true we are to ourselves, and thus, we can become true to ourselves.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
That's a good point, I'd been regarding philosophy as the act of thinking, and planning, and such. I forgot (or didn't know) that philosophy is also an examination. Perhaps the problem with the die-hard philosopher worldview is that it has no regard for the "not knowing, but examining" aspect? I assume that's what you're getting at.Fooloso4 wrote:An interesting question. For me philosophy is what Socrates called the examined life. It involves both an examination of how one lives and an examination of how one ought to live. It is at the same time both theoretical and practical. It is an examination of one’s ideas, beliefs, and practices. Such inquiry is informed by Socratic skepticism, that is, knowing that one does not know. It is called by some zetetic skepticism. The zetetic skeptic does not claim that nothing is knowable, but is aware that we do not stand on solid ground and do not build on an unshakable foundation of truth. This can all too easily lead to radical relativism and nihilism. The zetetic skeptic is aware that not all values are equal, and that our inability to establish moral absolutes via reason or divine authority should not occlude the fact that we are not indifferent with regard to what we value and shun.
The answer of how best to live is to live in pursuit of the answer - to inquire, to question, to examine. But this is not an answer that is meant for everyone. The Socratic way is the way of reasoned argument. Reasoned argument leads only to what seems best. It is thus tentative, provisional, and subject to change in the face of better arguments.
What seems best, however, cannot be measured by reason alone. The examined life is both in pursuit of and guided by self-knowledge. We see things not simply as they are but as we are. And to the extent that we know ourselves we can know how true we are to ourselves, and thus, we can become true to ourselves.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
That is part of it. Academic philosophy is largely an intellectual discipline, but it has not always been that way. It was for the ancients a way of life. Socrates called himself a physician of the soul (psyche), that is, a psychologist. The interlocutors in the Platonic dialogues are of central importance, not simply as historical figures but with regard to who they are in character and temperament.Perhaps the problem with the die-hard philosopher worldview is that it has no regard for the "not knowing, but examining" aspect? I assume that's what you're getting at.
Examining is not passive observation, but is a critical activity that leads to change based on an evaluation of what one observes and finds wanting or in need of improvement.
Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both remain within this tradition:
We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge--and with good reason. We have never sought ourselves--how could it happen that we should ever find ourselves? It has rightly been said: 'Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also' [Matthew 6.21]; our treasure is where the beehives of our knowledge are. We are constantly making for them, being by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit; there is one thing alone we really care about from the heart--'bringing something home.' Whatever else there is in life, so-called ,'experiences'--which of us has sufficient earnestness for them? Or sufficient time? Present experience has, I am afraid, always found us 'absent-minded': we cannot give our hearts to it--not even our ears! Rather, as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself into whose ear the bell has just boomed with all its strength the twelve beats of noon suddenly starts up and asks himself: 'what really was that which just struck?' so we sometimes rub our ears afterward and ask, utterly surprised and disconcerted, 'what really was that which we have just experi- enced?' and moreover: 'who are we really?' and, afterward as aforesaid, count the twelve trembling bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being--and alas! miscount them.--So we are necessarily strangers to ourselves, we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law 'Each is furthest from himself' applies to all eternity--we are not 'men of knowledge' with respect to ourselves. (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals)
Working in philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more a working on oneself. On one's interpretation. On one's way of seeing things. (And what one expects of them.)
(Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, 16)
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
So examination is more of something that happens to us, than something we plan and execute?Fooloso4 wrote:Ozymandias:That is part of it. Academic philosophy is largely an intellectual discipline, but it has not always been that way. It was for the ancients a way of life. Socrates called himself a physician of the soul (psyche), that is, a psychologist. The interlocutors in the Platonic dialogues are of central importance, not simply as historical figures but with regard to who they are in character and temperament.Perhaps the problem with the die-hard philosopher worldview is that it has no regard for the "not knowing, but examining" aspect? I assume that's what you're getting at.
Examining is not passive observation, but is a critical activity that leads to change based on an evaluation of what one observes and finds wanting or in need of improvement.
Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both remain within this tradition:
We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge--and with good reason. We have never sought ourselves--how could it happen that we should ever find ourselves? It has rightly been said: 'Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also' [Matthew 6.21]; our treasure is where the beehives of our knowledge are. We are constantly making for them, being by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit; there is one thing alone we really care about from the heart--'bringing something home.' Whatever else there is in life, so-called ,'experiences'--which of us has sufficient earnestness for them? Or sufficient time? Present experience has, I am afraid, always found us 'absent-minded': we cannot give our hearts to it--not even our ears! Rather, as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself into whose ear the bell has just boomed with all its strength the twelve beats of noon suddenly starts up and asks himself: 'what really was that which just struck?' so we sometimes rub our ears afterward and ask, utterly surprised and disconcerted, 'what really was that which we have just experi- enced?' and moreover: 'who are we really?' and, afterward as aforesaid, count the twelve trembling bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being--and alas! miscount them.--So we are necessarily strangers to ourselves, we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law 'Each is furthest from himself' applies to all eternity--we are not 'men of knowledge' with respect to ourselves. (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals)Working in philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more a working on oneself. On one's interpretation. On one's way of seeing things. (And what one expects of them.)
(Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, 16)
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
No, it is something that is done deliberately. It is, as Nietzsche describes it elsewhere, a matter of stripping away all that is false about oneself in order to reveal one’s self to oneself. We do not know ourselves because we lack the courage to see the truth about ourselves. And so, we seek elsewhere. We look, as he says in the quote: “to bring something home”, as if self-knowledge is something we could go out and gather. We are “by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit”. And yet we are also: “as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself”. Although preoccupied and immersed in ourselves we look outside ourselves for what we seek, as if there is some treasure to be found that can be brought home.So examination is more of something that happens to us, than something we plan and execute?
What happens to us, our experience is not understood because we are preoccupied with ourselves and do not pay attention. We think that what we are looking for must be a treasure of transcendent value, hence “divinely preoccupied”. We may hear “the bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being” but we miscount them for:”we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law 'Each is furthest from himself' applies to all eternity”. Why for all eternity? Because eternity is our divine preoccupation. We are immersed in ourselves in so far as we seek eternity for ourselves. This is why he calls us “winged creatures”. We fly off in search of eternity for ourselves but away from ourselves, our experience, our life, our being and thus “we are necessarily strangers to ourselves”.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
I'm having an almost comical amount of trouble understanding your point here.Fooloso4 wrote:Ozymandias:No, it is something that is done deliberately. It is, as Nietzsche describes it elsewhere, a matter of stripping away all that is false about oneself in order to reveal one’s self to oneself. We do not know ourselves because we lack the courage to see the truth about ourselves. And so, we seek elsewhere. We look, as he says in the quote: “to bring something home”, as if self-knowledge is something we could go out and gather. We are “by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit”. And yet we are also: “as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself”. Although preoccupied and immersed in ourselves we look outside ourselves for what we seek, as if there is some treasure to be found that can be brought home.So examination is more of something that happens to us, than something we plan and execute?
What happens to us, our experience is not understood because we are preoccupied with ourselves and do not pay attention. We think that what we are looking for must be a treasure of transcendent value, hence “divinely preoccupied”. We may hear “the bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being” but we miscount them for:”we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law 'Each is furthest from himself' applies to all eternity”. Why for all eternity? Because eternity is our divine preoccupation. We are immersed in ourselves in so far as we seek eternity for ourselves. This is why he calls us “winged creatures”. We fly off in search of eternity for ourselves but away from ourselves, our experience, our life, our being and thus “we are necessarily strangers to ourselves”.
Examination is more of one opening one's eyes and observing oneself, rather than just living life blind of the Self? Which actually sounds sort of Buddhist, or more of an Eastern concept than a Western, but that's what I'm getting at the moment.
- Edge
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: April 27th, 2015, 9:48 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
That said, I believe you can be philosophical and not necessarily follow a particular philosophy that you believe to be morally superior. For example, I eat meat and I have zero intention of not eating meat, yet I know that the industries that give us most of our meat in grocery stores are brutal and barbaric and immoral. I do not think it necessary to treat animals badly _because_ they are "food". I would not hesitate to put myself in harms way to protect an animal were someone try to abuse the animal in front of me, in fact I have gotten into physical confrontations for this very situation on more than one occasion. Is it an "out of sight, out of mind" scenario? Maybe it is.
I believe eating meat and vegetables is healthier for us as humans and will not stop eating meat, but _when_ I think about the industries, I do feel bad for the animals, and I actually get angry sometimes. I was thinking about this very quirk of my personality a couple days ago and find it interesting that I came upon this topic and am interested in any feedback on my opinion on the topic.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
Suppose an anthropologist was studying my life. Her examination would be a matter of passive observation. She would not interfere or try to change what she saw. My examination of my own life, however, is a critical examination. I question and evaluate what I do and say and think and attempt to change those things I do not approve of. But of course I can only do so based on who I already am. Who I am is a matter of who I become through the process of removing all that is hateful and false about myself.Examination is more of one opening one's eyes and observing oneself, rather than just living life blind of the Self?
There is a similarity. Enlightenment is not something that can be given or found in the way a treasure can. It is, in Nietzsche’s words, not something we can take home. It comes when we remove the barriers. They may differ, however, in that Nirvana is often conceived as transcendent, but then again, that may just be another barrier.Which actually sounds sort of Buddhist, or more of an Eastern concept than a Western, but that's what I'm getting at the moment.
In the quote from Wittgenstein he said that philosophy is working on oneself. The connection with architecture may seem odd, but I think he said this at the time he helped design his sister’s house. The house was very austere, shorn of all ornamentation. There was nothing that did not have a specific function. No false gestures - adding columns as a matter of style, for example. Everything was deliberate.
How we interpret things, whether it be texts or events or people should not be automatic. There is a connection between interpreting and how we see things. And how we see things is determined by who we are. The parenthetic remark about what we expect of things is important because, on the one hand, how we see things and how we interpret them is strongly influenced by what we expect to find there, and, on the other, we have expectations about life, love, the world, people, and ourselves that should not go unquestioned. Much of our anger, disappointment, and disillusionment is due to our own expectations of how things are or should be.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
This makes more sense, thanks. But that is not armchair philosophy, so how does it tie in to the question? Is it moral to seek the academic answers examination will give you, without actually going through the process of examination?Fooloso4 wrote: Suppose an anthropologist was studying my life. Her examination would be a matter of passive observation. She would not interfere or try to change what she saw. My examination of my own life, however, is a critical examination. I question and evaluate what I do and say and think and attempt to change those things I do not approve of. But of course I can only do so based on who I already am. Who I am is a matter of who I become through the process of removing all that is hateful and false about myself.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
“That is part of it. Academic philosophy is largely an intellectual discipline, but it has not always been that way. It was for the ancients a way of life. Socrates called himself a physician of the soul (psyche), that is, a psychologist. The interlocutors in the Platonic dialogues are of central importance, not simply as historical figures but with regard to who they are in character and temperament.”
“Examining is not passive observation, but is a critical activity that leads to change based on an evaluation of what one observes and finds wanting or in need of improvement.”
“Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both remain within this tradition:”
“An interesting question. For me philosophy is what Socrates called the examined life. It involves both an examination of how one lives and an examination of how one ought to live.”
“The definition of "armchair philosophy" seems to be a bit vague, I've heard it used in a few different meanings, but I mean to define it here as the act of discussing philosophy for its own sake, without necessarily intending to apply that philosophy in one's life.”
This is clearly a fairly random selection of bits from different people’s posts. (and in reverse order)
There seem to be two questions here. What is armchair philosophy, and whether it is morally acceptable and I get a sense that the general concensus is that it is definitely suboptimal behaviour not to examine your life and put the conclusions into practice. This seems to be a rule for the philosophically oriented. I get the impression that most people don’t ever bother themselves too much with examining their lives unless they are faced with some sort of crisis. The philosophically inclined are probably in a minority and basically people who are just born that way. We all think that our chosen way of being is best, unless we have psychological difficulties. So what is left is whether you should apply your conclusons to your life. If you ask the question in the form, “is it immoral to know better and not do it?” the answer becomes more obvious. Yes it is immoral. How immoral might depend on how bad your life is and how much better it could be.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Armchair philosophy- good, or potentially immoral?
One point I was getting at is the rejection of the separation of philosophy as an subject matter for discussion and the subsequent application of the result of what is discussed. One’s life is the subject matter, but not a subject matter that is adequately addressed as if we are talking about something external to us.But that is not armchair philosophy, so how does it tie in to the question?
“Armchair philosophy” is talking about philosophy, but if it is for the sake of talking then it is not for the sake of doing philosophy. It is kind of like talking about exercise. It may be of interest but of limited value. I would not say that is potentially immoral.
“Real philosophical questions” is a vague notion. Much of what academic philosophers do has little or no relevance to life. A quick look at the journals confirms this.
With regard to different ways it could go:
I think this needs to be evaluated in terms of the potential harm the idea might cause. Your examples of nihilism and anti-human are on point. But we also need to be careful not to go too far in the opposite direction and conclude that since we cannot be sure that what we are doing is right, we should not do anything."who's to say that the things you think now are the correct things?"
2. This is not a matter of acting on a philosophical idea but rather of not doing what you say is wrong. If there is a philosophical issue here it is whether you should do something you know is wrong, but that is not what you are asking. There is a difference between being held accountable for doing something wrong and being held accountable for not doing something you know is right, but no one is held accountable for not doing something wrong. There is also a difference between doing what we may judge to be right as the result of philosophical reflection or moral deliberation and doing something that we believe to be right as a social norm or personal conviction.
3. The idea that one should not take life too seriously is a topic for philosophical consideration. But I might think it right and yet still take things too seriously. That is a matter of temperament. But then again it may be something that I want to work on changing about myself.
As to being exactly correct, that is a disease that philosophy can correct. The proper philosophical attitude, in my opinion, is a form of tentativeness based on awareness that life is too messy and things too complicated for us to be exactly correct based on our limited perspective. Wittgenstein said that it is a characteristic of the philosophical temperament to be at ease with uncertainty.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023