Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

Post Number:#46  Postby ape » April 18th, 2009, 8:01 pm

Martin Ekdahl wrote:All forms of art, philosophy, science, belief, psychology and so on are inter-tangled with each other. I consider empathy the highest form of fantasy (i.e. imagination), which is a sign of intelligence. Showing empathy with others is imagining how they feel in a given situation. Art, philosophy, science, belief, psychology is different angles of the same picture - our existence (and existence itself). Empathy/Fantasy is the key to this picture. It is what helps us solve the puzzle, if we so are called Newton, Darwin, Einstein or anything else.

ape:
Xlnt!
That is why Empathy or Pity in/en/em Love prevents alzheimer's: Love connects everything.
Hate disconnects everything.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#47  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 19th, 2009, 6:45 am

ape wrote:
Martin Ekdahl wrote:All forms of art, philosophy, science, belief, psychology and so on are inter-tangled with each other. I consider empathy the highest form of fantasy (i.e. imagination), which is a sign of intelligence. Showing empathy with others is imagining how they feel in a given situation. Art, philosophy, science, belief, psychology is different angles of the same picture - our existence (and existence itself). Empathy/Fantasy is the key to this picture. It is what helps us solve the puzzle, if we so are called Newton, Darwin, Einstein or anything else.

ape:
Xlnt!
That is why Empathy or Pity in/en/em Love prevents alzheimer's: Love connects everything.
Hate disconnects everything.


Maybe respect/love/empathy is "seeing the whole" and not only "its parts"? Hate often tend to root in the lack of feeling loved. A person experiencing being pushed into a corner probably doesn't experience him/herself a part of something great but only threatening. That is being blinded by frustration for the moment (or a whole life) unable to connect.
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

Post Number:#48  Postby ape » April 20th, 2009, 1:24 pm

Martin Ekdahl wrote:Maybe respect/love/empathy is "seeing the whole" and not only "its parts"?

Ape:
Yes! Seeing all parts of the whole auto includes all parts, and seeing all the parts automatically includes the whole: so loving all words auto includes the whole and all parts of all men and all things.

Martin Ekdahl wrote:Hate often tend to root in the lack of feeling loved.

Ape:
Hate is always rooted in hating the lack of feeling loved and so compounds the problem in myself as hated and in the other hater.
Example:
When I hate you for hating me, I've just compounded my Hate for myself, and with compound interest.

Martin Ekdahl wrote:A person experiencing being pushed into a corner probably doesn't experience him/herself a part of something great but only threatening.

Ape:
A person, who hates himself as a pusher and as pushed and as a threat and as threatened, when experiencing being pushed into a corner and threatened, auto re-experiences him/herself as hated, and thus as not a part of something great but only threatening.

But the person who loves himself as such re-experiences all pushing and threats with Love and so is able to react from the widest range of choices: push back in love, in Love push back not,

threaten back in Love, in Love threaten not,

run away in Love or stand up in Love,

etc and etc in Love.

So no matter what the situation and no matter his response or non-respeonse, he re-experiences and responds to all his experiences in Love.

Martin Ekdahl wrote:That is being blinded by frustration for the moment (or a whole life) unable to connect.

Ape:
Yes, for the moment and all moments of life when I am blinded by my blinding Hate for blindness.

"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

A thought transfixed me:
for the first time in my life I saw the truth
as it is
set into song by so many poets,
proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers.

The truth--that Love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire.

Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart:
The salvation of man is through Love and in Love.

I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world may still know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved.

In a position of utter desolation,
when a man cannot express himself in positive action,
when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings
in the right way--an honorable way--
in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment.

For the first time in my life, I was able to understand the words,

"The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory.""
Viktor Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning
      

Awesome.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#49  Postby Martin Ekdahl » April 21st, 2009, 4:08 am

ape wrote:
Martin Ekdahl wrote:Maybe respect/love/empathy is "seeing the whole" and not only "its parts"?

Ape:
Yes! Seeing all parts of the whole auto includes all parts, and seeing all the parts automatically includes the whole: so loving all words auto includes the whole and all parts of all men and all things.

Martin Ekdahl wrote:Hate often tend to root in the lack of feeling loved.

Ape:
Hate is always rooted in hating the lack of feeling loved and so compounds the problem in myself as hated and in the other hater.
Example:
When I hate you for hating me, I've just compounded my Hate for myself, and with compound interest.

Martin Ekdahl wrote:A person experiencing being pushed into a corner probably doesn't experience him/herself a part of something great but only threatening.

Ape:
A person, who hates himself as a pusher and as pushed and as a threat and as threatened, when experiencing being pushed into a corner and threatened, auto re-experiences him/herself as hated, and thus as not a part of something great but only threatening.

But the person who loves himself as such re-experiences all pushing and threats with Love and so is able to react from the widest range of choices: push back in love, in Love push back not,

threaten back in Love, in Love threaten not,

run away in Love or stand up in Love,

etc and etc in Love.

So no matter what the situation and no matter his response or non-respeonse, he re-experiences and responds to all his experiences in Love.

Martin Ekdahl wrote:That is being blinded by frustration for the moment (or a whole life) unable to connect.

Ape:
Yes, for the moment and all moments of life when I am blinded by my blinding Hate for blindness.

"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

A thought transfixed me:
for the first time in my life I saw the truth
as it is
set into song by so many poets,
proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers.

The truth--that Love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire.

Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart:
The salvation of man is through Love and in Love.

I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world may still know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved.

In a position of utter desolation,
when a man cannot express himself in positive action,
when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings
in the right way--an honorable way--
in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment.

For the first time in my life, I was able to understand the words,

"The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory.""
Viktor Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning


Awesome.


A beautiful quote!
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".
User avatar
Martin Ekdahl
 
Posts: 245 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 11:01 am
Location: Rostock

Post Number:#50  Postby Toronto » April 21st, 2009, 3:09 pm

The philosopher king can never really be a philosopher so long as he remains a king. I must contend that I am neither, but I have higher aspirations to be a king than a philosopher.
Toronto
 
Posts: 150 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 2:03 pm

Post Number:#51  Postby ape » April 21st, 2009, 11:36 pm

Toronto wrote:The philosopher king can never really be a philosopher so long as he remains a king. I must contend that I am neither, but I have higher aspirations to be a king than a philosopher.

Just as a man, you right now have an aspiring philosophy to be a king, which makes you a manly philosopher and a philosophical man,
so too as a king,
you would definitely have a philosophy, which would make you a philosophical king---which automatically makes you a kingly philosopher!

And even as you are a philosopher, we wd want you to be King, a Philosopher-King!
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#52  Postby mahdi-azimi » May 1st, 2009, 10:51 am

yes, I am. but in future!
mahdi-azimi
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 1st, 2009, 10:34 am

Post Number:#53  Postby ape » May 1st, 2009, 12:20 pm

mahdi-azimi wrote:yes, I am. but in future!

Hi Mahdi-azimi,

Welcome!

Yes, you are and will be!
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#54  Postby ontologic_conceptualist » May 1st, 2009, 1:41 pm

whitetrshsoldier wrote:What kind of self-indulgent post is this?


Isn't most "Philosophies" self indulgent, even though a "philosophy" may relate to an outward perspective of how a thing or things should be, they stil are and always will be personal oppinion when it comes down to it & just because some others may adopt a like thinking or even identical "philosophy", it will still be that person's choice, so yes...this and all other posts(including my own !!!) is indeed "Self Indulgent" ;)

LOL !!!
User avatar
ontologic_conceptualist
 
Posts: 518 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 3rd, 2009, 9:59 am
Location: Mobile, Alabama

Post Number:#55  Postby ontologic_conceptualist » May 1st, 2009, 1:43 pm

Toronto wrote:The philosopher king can never really be a philosopher so long as he remains a king. I must contend that I am neither, but I have higher aspirations to be a king than a philosopher.


Indeed, this statement in and of itself is a "Philosophical Asperation" LOL !!!
User avatar
ontologic_conceptualist
 
Posts: 518 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 3rd, 2009, 9:59 am
Location: Mobile, Alabama

Post Number:#56  Postby Toronto » May 1st, 2009, 4:22 pm

An aspiration would not be consider by the Socratic view of philosophy to be philosophy at all (unless it was an aspiration to the pursuit of philosophy itself).

Just as a man, you right now have an aspiring philosophy to be a king, which makes you a manly philosopher and a philosophical man

Such logic would lead us to the conclusion that Mussolini was a philosopher as well.

you would definitely have a philosophy, which would make you a philosophical king---which automatically makes you a kingly philosopher!

Rule, in the Socratic view at least, is done only though opinions. Opinions are not philosophic. Hence, when one rules they cannot be ruling with philosophy.
Toronto
 
Posts: 150 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 2:03 pm

Post Number:#57  Postby ape » May 1st, 2009, 5:08 pm

[quote="Toronto"]
Such logic would lead us to the conclusion that Mussolini was a philosopher as well.
Ape:
And that logic would be logical and right.
Mussolini and Machiavelli, as every man is, were lovers of wisdom: philosophers as well.

Their problem was the usual one with lots of philosophers: they were Lovers of wisdom out of Hate for fooldom.

Machi even had his own Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you expect or wd expect them to do to you.

Good rule when praticed in Love of self as all others, but bad rule when applied in any Hate for self as any others.

Toronto:
Rule, in the Socratic view at least, is done only though opinions. Opinions are not philosophic. Hence, when one rules they cannot be ruling with philosophy.
Ape:
QED?
Is that your final ruling? Smile

Do you mean that it is your ruling or your philosphy or your opinion that Rule is done by opinions and not by philosophy?;)

Hmmmmmm

And do you mean that a philosophic opinion is not philosophy, but only an opinion?:)

And do you mean that an opinionated philosophy is not an opinion, but only a philosophy? :)

I, with bated and baited breath, await clarification on your ruling or opinion as to what is your philosophy on rule by opinion. :)
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#58  Postby Toronto » May 1st, 2009, 7:11 pm

ape wrote:And that logic would be logical and right.
Mussolini and Machiavelli, as every man is, were lovers of wisdom: philosophers as well.

By the Socratic view of a philosopher, Machiavelli I shouldn't think would be one. And I certainly wouldn't call Mussolini a "lover of wisdom".

Their problem was the usual one with lots of philosophers: they were Lovers of wisdom out of Hate for fooldom.

In the Socratic view, they are lovers of different "fooldom".

Machi even had his own Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you expect or wd expect them to do to you.

That's not the golden rule, the golden rule is do unto others as you believe they "should" do unto to you, not how you think they will.

Do you mean that it is your ruling or your philosphy or your opinion that Rule is done by opinions and not by philosophy?;)

I am ignorant as to what you mean so please, for my sake, rephrase the question.

And do you mean that a philosophic opinion is not philosophy, but only an opinion?:)

Thereby making the term "philosophic opinion" being an oxymoron.

And do you mean that an opinionated philosophy is not an opinion, but only a philosophy? :)

No, it simply wouldn't be considered philosophy (according to this view, and I am only speaking in the Socratic sense of philosophy and not my own). Philosophy is the constant question of opinion/social convention, and it is the questions themselves and the engagement in dialectic is the practice of philosophy. The opinions reached through philosophy are not themselves.
Toronto
 
Posts: 150 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 2:03 pm

Post Number:#59  Postby ape » May 1st, 2009, 9:35 pm

Toronto wrote:By the Socratic view of a philosopher, Machiavelli I shouldn't think would be one. And I certainly wouldn't call Mussolini a "lover of wisdom".

ape:
By what the word philosopher means, every body is one since every body loves to be wise..with most not knowing that how to be wise is in Love of fools, since the first thing a wise man knows is that he is a fool.

Toronto wrote:In the Socratic view, they are lovers of different "fooldom".

ape:
Fooldom is ontologically both the opposite and composite of wisdom:
therefore, there is not only fooldom which is different to wisdom but there is also fooldom which is the same as wisdom. And vice versa.

Toronto wrote:That's not the golden rule, the golden rule is do unto others as you believe they "should" do unto to you, not how you think they will.

ape:
It works out to the same thing when you love opposites and see that opposites are composites.

In Hate of opposites, we must not only conclude as you do: that they are only different, but also that they don't work or are very hard to work.

Toronto wrote:I am ignorant as to what you mean so please, for my sake, rephrase the question.

ape:
lol

When you made this ruling:
"Rule, in the Socratic view at least, is done only though opinions. Opinions are not philosophic. Hence, when one rules they cannot be ruling with philosophy."

when you said that rule is done only thru opinions which are not philosophic,

you were actually making a philosophical point or philo. ruling about how to rule or what constitutes rule!

So how can you rule without philosophy when at the same time you have a philosophy that no philosophy rules? lol

So to re-phrase:
are you saying that your philosophy of rule is that there is no rule by philosophy but only by opinions that are not philosophic when all opinions are also based on a philosophy? smile

Toronto wrote:Thereby making the term "philosophic opinion" being an oxymoron.

ape:
Exactly!

BUT, -----that conclusion is problematical ONLY IF we hate morons or any phiolosphy!

With Love for oxymorons, there is NO problem!

In Love, that oxymoron proves that you must mean something else: ste!

In that Love, that st else makes perfect sense and makes your oxymoronic rule wise:
there is a rule of no rules;
there is philosophy of no philosophy;
there is a religion of no religion;
there is an opinion that is no opinion;
there is a problem that is no problem.

Example:
In Buddhism, there is a rule that there must be all detachment and no attachment.

So does that mean that being attached to detachment is a problem?
Yes, BUT ONLY IF we hate attachment!

So Buddha MUST mean and have meant st else:
He means
there shd be all detachment from Hate of any words,
and
there must be attachment to Love of all words.

Or, vice versa:
No detachment from Love of all words.
All attachment to NO Hate for any words,
or all attachment to Hate for NO words.

Case solved.
Story done.
QED.

So too in Socrates' oxymoronic rule, in which there are only opinions and no opinion is philosophic, he means that
there shd be NO philosophy of Hate for any philosophy,
and
there are to be only opinions based on The Opinion of Love(TOOL) for all philosophy,
and
that all rule is based on that TOOL!
QED.

Toronto wrote:No, it simply wouldn't be considered philosophy (according to this view, and I am only speaking in the Socratic sense of philosophy(SSOP) and not my own).

ape:
Correct....based on that SSOP.

Toronto wrote: Philosophy is the constant question of opinion/social convention, and it is the questions themselves and the engagement in dialectic is the practice of philosophy.

ape:
xlnt!

Toronto wrote: The opinions reached through philosophy are not themselves.

ape;
?
Was some sentence-ending word omitted?
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Re: Do you consider yourself a philosopher?

Post Number:#60  Postby innocentbystander » May 1st, 2009, 11:29 pm

philoreaderguy wrote:Do you consider yourself a philosopher? Do you think other people do? Why or why not?


I do. Not speaking for others.
"Philosophy" brings together love and wisdom. I try to do that.
innocentbystander
 
Posts: 21 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 1st, 2009, 10:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST