The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Coincidentally, when I finished the post above I started reading an essay about Habermas and Derrida. The author, Richard J. Bernstein, begins by discussing “their flesh and blood experiences” as opposed to a disinterested analysis of their disembodied texts. Briefly, for Habermas it the experience at the age of 15 or 16 of a “the first rupture, which still gapes” of being struck by the ghastliness of what had happened Nuremberg and inhumanity of those were arguing over procedural questions of the trial. This, he said, led to his lifelong investigation into the pathologies of modernity. For Derrida it was the experience of the Algerian war as a child and the feeling that the world was about to end.
LuckyR:
Hence why I used the word "many", instead of "all" or "most".
your circumstances probably force you to consider the Big Questions much more than a professional philosopher does/did
In any case, my comment was aimed at what the perception of the professional philosopher might be of anyone reading this thread, not to take issue with what you said.
Does pain ennoble us? When you're suffering intense intermittent pain, you try and brace yourself against it's onslaught. It's no good, though. As David Hume said: "The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation". No anticipation of pain can equal it's intensity. And when that intensity comes, you're thrown completely off balance. I'm not sure just how ennobling that is.
And yet, pain anchors us in-the-moment in a way no pleasure is capable of. Pleasure diffuses the mind and the senses. On the other hand, pain has a laser-focus which cuts through our pretentiousness. Maybe that's what nobility's all about. The thing is, though, the animal-part of me runs from pain while my human nature's too cowardly to embrace it's possibilities.
I hide behind the anodyne affects of my medicine. I often fantasize about stoically facing my pain; but, any pain which is capable of rattling my bowels is way too scary for any paper-stoicism. I draw a distinction between pain and suffering: pain is a purely animal-response; whereas, suffering is the noble acceptance and endurance of pain. It's the sublimation of the "animal" to the "human".
But, if suffering is virtuous, then I've proved to be a venal and cowardly man. Why can't my better angels be as virtuous as I need them to be? I'm clearly more animal than human, even though I wear the face of a civilized man. Is everyone as shallow and pretentious as I am; or, is it just me? This conundrum of mine has caused me as much pain as my organic ailments. Thus sayeth the philosopher in me.
Platos stepchild wrote:Does pain ennoble us? When you're suffering intense intermittent pain, you try and brace yourself against it's onslaught. It's no good, though. As David Hume said: "The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation". No anticipation of pain can equal it's intensity. And when that intensity comes, you're thrown completely off balance. I'm not sure just how ennobling that is.
And yet, pain anchors us in-the-moment in a way no pleasure is capable of. Pleasure diffuses the mind and the senses. On the other hand, pain has a laser-focus which cuts through our pretentiousness. Maybe that's what nobility's all about. The thing is, though, the animal-part of me runs from pain while my human nature's too cowardly to embrace it's possibilities.
I hide behind the anodyne affects of my medicine. I often fantasize about stoically facing my pain; but, any pain which is capable of rattling my bowels is way too scary for any paper-stoicism. I draw a distinction between pain and suffering: pain is a purely animal-response; whereas, suffering is the noble acceptance and endurance of pain. It's the sublimation of the "animal" to the "human".
But, if suffering is virtuous, then I've proved to be a venal and cowardly man. Why can't my better angels be as virtuous as I need them to be? I'm clearly more animal than human, even though I wear the face of a civilized man. Is everyone as shallow and pretentious as I am; or, is it just me? This conundrum of mine has caused me as much pain as my organic ailments. Thus sayeth the philosopher in me.
These sorts of things are why I addressed your previous post in the first place. You are being way, way too rough on yourself. Pain just is. But you are having chronic pain (as opposed to acute pain). Chronic pain is very different from pain alone (I know you know this already). Chronic pain isn't about pain alone, it is about mood alteration, depression if you will. Dealing with pain is one thing, pondering: "Why me?", Why can't I play with my daughter?" debating the fairness of it all. That is a much more complicated issue than a 10 point scale of discomfort.
Dealing with these existential questions is what makes lots of folks dealing with chronic pain review philosophical issues. They aren't more "noble", their circumstances forces these ideas into their consciousness.
Platos stepchild, I agree with LuckyR. I do not find you shallow and pretentious. Quite the opposite. I sense a deep source from which you draw. I do no think that suffering is virtuous and do not believe that medication to relieve pain is hiding or cowardly. If you find living with medication easier to endure than the pain then you should not increase you suffering by belittling yourself for taking pain medication.
It may be of little solace but we are listening and moved by your plight and your elegant philosophical reflections.
I want to take the throbbing incidence of anticipated pain and let it fuel my philosophical insights. Nothing is more visceral than pain; it's more primal than even hunger or sex. I've been unable to hotwire the experience, though. Just to set things straight, I don't wonder "why me?". There is no "why" to wonder about. I just want to create some meaning to my pain, something to justify it.
I believe in what Jean-Paul Sartre called "good faith". And, I've been searching, in good faith for an elusive meaning to suffering. The flip-side, though is what Sartre called "bad faith". Is my need to understand what's happening to me pressuring me into adopting some false value, by which I could then understand my pain? Maybe, in spite of my vehement disavowal, I'm still wondering, "why me?".
I suffer from intense neuropathy. But, part of my pain comes from phantom limb syndrome. My brain is insisting there's more to my body than there actually is. What if the same impulses are insisting there's some meaning to all this which actually isn't there, which in fact can never "be there"? Maybe the "hot wiring" is deeper than I can reach, and is misfiring in some fundamental way.
What if we're doomed to believe that meaning exists, or at least can be created by brute force? The impulses of my brain insist there's a limb which doesn't exist. I have to at least entertain the possibility that my brain's impulses are also insisting there's meaning which doesn't exist. If the pain I'm suffering from "just is", then the same is true of everything else I've experienced.
The naked possibility that suffering exists without a substratum of meaning is both startling and demeaning. It tenses my body in much the same way the pain does. Whatever happiness I've snatched from life would likewise have no "substratum". That reduces my happiness, as well as any memories of it to some beastial realm where "meaning" lies in cascades of synaptic impulses, firing with blind indifference. Human dignity is therefore farcical. Thus saith the philosopher in me.
Platos stepchild wrote:I want to take the throbbing incidence of anticipated pain and let it fuel my philosophical insights. Nothing is more visceral than pain; it's more primal than even hunger or sex. I've been unable to hotwire the experience, though. Just to set things straight, I don't wonder "why me?". There is no "why" to wonder about. I just want to create some meaning to my pain, something to justify it.
I believe in what Jean-Paul Sartre called "good faith". And, I've been searching, in good faith for an elusive meaning to suffering. The flip-side, though is what Sartre called "bad faith". Is my need to understand what's happening to me pressuring me into adopting some false value, by which I could then understand my pain? Maybe, in spite of my vehement disavowal, I'm still wondering, "why me?".
I suffer from intense neuropathy. But, part of my pain comes from phantom limb syndrome. My brain is insisting there's more to my body than there actually is. What if the same impulses are insisting there's some meaning to all this which actually isn't there, which in fact can never "be there"? Maybe the "hot wiring" is deeper than I can reach, and is misfiring in some fundamental way.
What if we're doomed to believe that meaning exists, or at least can be created by brute force? The impulses of my brain insist there's a limb which doesn't exist. I have to at least entertain the possibility that my brain's impulses are also insisting there's meaning which doesn't exist. If the pain I'm suffering from "just is", then the same is true of everything else I've experienced.
The naked possibility that suffering exists without a substratum of meaning is both startling and demeaning. It tenses my body in much the same way the pain does. Whatever happiness I've snatched from life would likewise have no "substratum". That reduces my happiness, as well as any memories of it to some beastial realm where "meaning" lies in cascades of synaptic impulses, firing with blind indifference. Human dignity is therefore farcical. Thus saith the philosopher in me.
Considering these issues is exactly what I was referring to initially. Why wouldn't anyone in your position not consider those topics among others?
Ultimately, in the historical, time-honoured sense, a philosopher is an original thinker. Those persons who exemplify philosophy are original thinkers. The rest are thinkers, not philosophers.
In regards to love of philosophy, those persons are philosophologists: followers of certain schools or perhaps the lot.
In my estimation, “philosopher” is the highest honour that can be bestowed on a Westerner. Consequently I prefer “philosopher” to be descriptive of great achievement in philosophy.
-- Updated October 28th, 2016, 7:21 am to add the following --
I should add that, while you may private consider yourself a philosopher, in the "original thinker" context that I have stipulated, society does the the recognising, hence the status is not yours to choose and the question is redundant.
I've tired of shoveling s h i t. Disregard everything I've said. I no longer want to be in this conversation. So, F-u-c-k me, again and again, and again!!!
-- Updated October 31st, 2016, 7:59 pm to add the following --
Plato's stepchild wrote:I've tired of shoveling s h i t. Disregard everything I've said. I no longer want to be in this conversation. So, F-u-c-k me, again and again, and again!!!
This vitriol represents an unpleasant memory, which ironically is why I'm compelled to philosophize.
Platos stepchild wrote:I've tired of shoveling s h i t. Disregard everything I've said. I no longer want to be in this conversation. So, F-u-c-k me, again and again, and again!!!
-- Updated October 31st, 2016, 7:59 pm to add the following --
Plato's stepchild wrote:I've tired of shoveling s h i t. Disregard everything I've said. I no longer want to be in this conversation. So, F-u-c-k me, again and again, and again!!!
This vitriol represents an unpleasant memory, which ironically is why I'm compelled to philosophize.
I call myself 'an amateur philosopher.' It works, I think. I'm not a professional, nor have I written a book or an essay. Maybe I'm not a good reader either. But I do think a lot. On those that have been discussed for thousands of years by a variety of philosophers.
To be completely honest I don't consider myself a philosopher more of a complainer and a grumbler disheartened and dissatisfied with Humanity. I have some strong beliefs I find myself angry when I use phrases like Jesus Christ or God Almighty as I have no belief in the former, but I have been socially program with these things as a child and they seem to be stuck within my vocabulary catchphrases completely meaningless. But according to most of the post I've read I'm a philosopher of one kind or another I'm certainly not a highly educated person although I have a high IQ I just found education unsuitable but when I find something of interest I do research in to it preferably in paper form or hard copy form rather than electronic form but I am enjoying this forum.
I don't consider it an important distinction, but yes. Philosophizing just pondering about things. So if you occasionally ponder about something, then you are in the philosopher club. But again, who would consider that any kind of meaningful badge?
Reddit wrote:I don't consider it an important distinction, but yes. Philosophizing just pondering about things. So if you occasionally ponder about something, then you are in the philosopher club. But again, who would consider that any kind of meaningful badge?
From what I observe of life around me, I have to ask what I consider a reasonable question; What percentage of the people you've met, have ever opened their minds to 'thoughts' that require the 'thinker' to rise above that which is commonly shared by the masses? From my own rather broad experience, I conclude it is an embarrassing small percentage; hence, we seek pretty much alone.
Mortalsfool wrote:
From what I observe of life around me, I have to ask what I consider a reasonable question; What percentage of the people you've met, have ever opened their minds to 'thoughts' that require the 'thinker' to rise above that which is commonly shared by the masses? From my own rather broad experience, I conclude it is an embarrassing small percentage; hence, we seek pretty much alone.
When you listen to people after they've heard an idea that is ugly to them, you will often see philosophical thought. With any concept that's been forced into their head, if they dislike it, or it hurts them, it will spur philosophizing almost naturally, like some defense mechanism.
Very few people will find each and every idea they come across digestible. And few people will find every idea easy to understand. Both of these situations make people think.
Mortalsfool wrote:
From what I observe of life around me, I have to ask what I consider a reasonable question; What percentage of the people you've met, have ever opened their minds to 'thoughts' that require the 'thinker' to rise above that which is commonly shared by the masses? From my own rather broad experience, I conclude it is an embarrassing small percentage; hence, we seek pretty much alone.
When you listen to people after they've heard an idea that is ugly to them, you will often see philosophical thought. With any concept that's been forced into their head, if they dislike it, or it hurts them, it will spur philosophizing almost naturally, like some defense mechanism.
Very few people will find each and every idea they come across digestible. And few people will find every idea easy to understand. Both of these situations make people think.
I have to ask you, because I think otherwise, where are those that are confronting philosophical thought because of ideas 'forced into their head? The masses have more interest in titillating servings of the Kardashians, rather than spending droll time necessary for considering serious problems, and these are indeed 'ugly' and demand thought; like, global warming, starvation, warmongers, gun haters, **** political correctness, and all the other dailynews. The masses can never be accused of 'thinking'; either by force, or invitation.