What is Philosophy?

I do like that.
I feel wine is best enjoyed in company, so that its quality, and the enjoyment of it, might be shared.

The Greeks watered their wine down...
To this day the expression "put some water in your wine" implies an adjustment of potency or of your passions, or expectations.

Wine was called the "nectar of the gods" so it was considered a pharmakon a medication that is itself toxic...like wine.
The myth of Socrates' constitution, his ability to consume vast amounts of wine without becoming intoxicated implies his tolerance for wisdom, philosophical insights that would make others ill, or vertigo...or nauseated...or bringing out the individuals true self, i.e., his underlying personality concealed beneath a public character/caricature, a cultivated social image.

Philosophy is not about certainty, but about striving for certainty. The act of becoming, of manifesting self in the form of the ideal to the degree which it accrues a greater precision of truth. The nature of need and suffering precisely derives from a longing for an end to it, which is why people want a finality to philosophical questions in answers and solutions. The scientific method has been used and abused in modernity to supplant philosophy as a solution to attain certainty when it is also based on exactly the same approach of striving. Therefore, the uses and abuses of philosophy come from this same need for absolute truth, or striving, approaching absolute truth. The difference between world denial and affirmation.

Lev Shestov wrote:

What is Philosophy?--In text-books of philosophy you will find most diverse answers to this question. During the twenty-five hundred years of its existence it has been able to make an immense quantity of attempts to define the substance of its task. But up till now no agreement has been reached between the acknowledged representatives of the lovers and favourites of wisdom. Every one judges in his own way, and considers his opinion as the only true one; of a consensus sapientium it is impossible even to dream. But strangely enough, exactly in this disputable matter wherein the agreement of savants and sages is so impossible, the consensus profanorum is fully attained. All those who were never engaged in philosophy, who have never read learned books, or even any books at all, answer the question with rare unanimity.

True, it is apparently impossible to judge of their opinions directly, because people of this kind cannot speak at all in the language evolved by science; they never put the question in such a form, still less can they answer it in the accepted words. But we have an important piece of indirect evidence which gives us the right to form a conclusion. There is no doubt that all those who have gone to philosophy for answers to the questions which tormented them, have left her disenchanted, unless they had a sufficiently eminent gift to enable them to join the guild of professional philosophers. From this we may unhesitatingly conclude, although the conclusion is for the time being only negative, that philosophy is engaged in a business which may be interesting and important to the few, but is tedious and useless to the many.

This conclusion is highly consoling as well for the sage as for the profane. For every sage, even the most exalted, is at the same time one of the profane—if we discard the academical use of words—a human being, pure and simple. To him also it may happen that those tormenting questions will arise, which ordinary people used to bring to him, as for instance in the case of Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych or Chekhov's professor in The Tedious Story. And then he will of course be obliged to confess that the necessary answers are missing from the great tomes which he has studied so well. For what can be more terrible to a man than to be compelled in the hard moments of his life to acknowledge any doctrine of philosophy as binding upon him?

For instance, to be compelled to hold with Plato, Spinoza, or Schopenhauer that the chief problem of life is moral perfection, or in other words, self-renunciation. It was easy for Plato to preach justice. It did not in the least prevent him from being the son of his time, or from breaking to a permissible extent the commandments which he himself had given. By all the evidence Spinoza was much more resolute and consequent than Plato; he indeed kept the passions in subservience, but that was his personal and individual inclination. Consistence was not merely a property of his mind, but of his whole being. Displaying it, he displayed himself. As for Schopenhauer, it is known that he praised the virtues only in his books; but in life, like many another clever, independent man, he was guided by the most diverse considerations.

But these are all masters, who devise systems and imperatives. Whereas the pupil, seeking in philosophy an answer to his questions, cannot permit himself any liberties and digressions from the universal rules, for the essence and the fundamental problem of any doctrine reduces to the subordination not merely of men's conduct, but of the life of the whole universe to one regulating principle. Individual philosophers have discovered such principles, but to this day they have reached no final agreement among themselves, and this to some extent lightens the burden of those unhappy ones who, having lost the hope of finding help and guidance elsewhere, have turned to philosophy. If there is not in philosophy one universal principle binding upon and acknowledged by all, it means that it is permitted to each man, at least for the meantime, to feel and even to act in his own way. A man may listen to Spinoza, or he may stop his ears. He may kneel before Plato's eternal ideas, or he may give his allegiance to the ever-changing, ever-flowing reality. Finally, he may accept Schopenhauer's pessimism, but nothing on earth can compel him to celibacy on the ground that Schopenhauer successfully laughed at love.

Nor is there any necessity at all, in order to win such freedom for one's self, to be armed with the light dialectic of the old Greek philosopher, or with the heavy logic of the poor Dutch Jew, or with the subtle wit of the profound German. Neither is it necessary to dispute them. It is even possible to agree with them all. The room of the world is infinite, and will not only contain all those who lived once and those who are yet to be born, but will give to each one of them all that he can desire: to Plato, the world of ideas, to Spinoza, the one eternal and unchangeable substance, to Schopenhauer, the Nirvana of Buddhism. Each of these, and all the other philosophers, will find what they want in the universe even to the belief, even to the conviction, that theirs are the only true and universal doctrines. But, at the same time, the profane will find suitable worlds for themselves.

From the fact that people are cooped up on the earth, and that they must put forth efforts beyond belief to gain each cubit of earth, and even their illusory liberties, it by no means follows that poverty, obscurantism, and despotism must be considered eternal and original principles, and that economical uniformity is the last refuge of man. A plurality of worlds, a plurality of men and gods amid the vast spaces of the vast universe—this is, if I may be forgiven the word, an ideal. It is true it is not built according to the idealists. Yet what a conclusion does it foreshadow! We leave the disputes and arguments of philosophers aside, so soon as we begin to speak of gods. According to the existing beliefs and hypotheses the gods also have always been quarrelling and fighting among themselves. Even in monotheistic religions people always made their God enter a fight, and devised an eminent opponent for him—the devil. Men can by no means rid themselves of the thought that everything in heaven goes on in exactly the same way as it does on the earth, and they attribute all their own bad qualities as well as their good ones to the denizens of heaven.

Whereas it is by far the most probable that a great many of the things which are, according to our notions, perfectly inseparable from life do not exist in heaven. Among other things, there is no struggle. And this is well. For every struggle, sooner or later, develops inevitably into a fight. When the supply of logical and ethical arguments is exhausted, one thing is left for the irreconcilable opponents—to come to blows, which do in fact usually decide the issue. The value of logical and ethical arguments is arbitrarily assigned, but material force is measured by foot-pounds and can be calculated in advance. So that where on the common supposition there will be no foot-pounds, the issue of the fight will very often remain undecided. When Lermontov’s demon goes to Tamara’s cell, an angel meets him on the way. The demon says that Tamara belongs to him; the angel demands her for himself. The demon will not be dissuaded by words and arguments: he is not built that way. As for the angel, he always considers himself doubly right. How can the issue be decided? At last Lermontov, who could not or dared not devise a new solution, admitted the interference of material force: Tamara is dragged away from the demon exactly as the stronger robber pulls his prey from the weaker on earth.

Evidently the poet admitted that conclusion, that he might pay his tribute to the piety of tradition. But in my opinion the solution is not pious, but merely blasphemous. In it the traces of barbarity and idolatry are still clearly visible. The tastes and attributes of which earthly despots dream are attributed to God. By all means he must be, he desires to be, the strongest, the very first, just like Julius Caesar in his youth. He fears rivalry above all things, and never forgives his unconquered enemies. This is evidently a barbarous mistake. God does not want to be the strongest, the very first, at all. Certainly—for that would be intelligible and in accordance with common sense—he would not like to be weaker than others, in order that he might not be exposed to violence; but there is no foundation at all for attributing to him ambition or vainglory. Therefore there is equally no reason to think that he does not suffer equals, desires to be supreme, and seeks at all costs to destroy the devil. Most probably he lives in peace and concord even with those who least adapt themselves to his tastes and habits. Perhaps he is even delighted that not all are as he, and he readily shares his possessions with the devil, the more readily because by such a division neither loses, since the infinite—I admit that God's possessions are infinite—divided by two and even by the greatest possible finite number still leaves infinity.

Now we can return to the original question, and it seems that we can even give an answer to it—two answers even, one for the sage, another for the profane. To the first, philosophy is art for art's sake. Every philosopher tries to construct a harmonious and various system, curiously and nicely fashioned, using for his material his own intrinsic experience as well as his own personal observations of the life beyond him, and the observations of others. A philosopher is an artist of his kind, to whom his works are dearer than everything in life, sometimes dearer than life itself. We very often see philosophers sacrifice everything for the sake of their work—even truth. Not so the profane. To them philosophy—more exactly, that which they would call philosophy if they possessed a scientific terminology—is the last refuge when material forces have been wasted, when there are no weapons left to fight for their stolen rights. Then they run for help and support to a place which they have always taken care to avoid before. Think of Napoleon at St. Helena. He who had been collecting soldiers and guns all his life, began to philosophise when he was bound hand and foot. Certainly he behaved in this new sphere like a beginner, a very inexperienced and, strange to say, a pusillanimous novice.

He who feared neither pestilence nor bullet, was afraid, we know, of a dark room. Men used to philosophy, like Schopenhauer, walk boldly and with confidence in a dark room, though they run away from gun shots, and even less dangerous things. The great captain, the once Emperor of nearly all Europe, Napoleon, philosophised on St. Helena, and even went so far as to begin to ingratiate himself with morality, evidently supposing that upon morality his ultimate fate depended. He assured her that for her sake, and her sake alone, he had contrived his murderous business—he who, all the while a crown was on his head and a victorious army in his hands, hardly knew even of the existence of morality. But this is so intelligible. If one were to come upon a perfectly new and unknown world at the age of forty-five, then surely everything would seem terrible, and one would take the incorporeal morality for the arbiter of destiny. And one would plan to seduce her, if possible, with sweet words and false promises, as a lady of the world.

But these were the first steps of a tyro. It was as hard for Napoleon to master philosophy as it was for Charlemagne at the end of his days to learn to write. But he knew why he had come to the new place, and neither Plato nor Spinoza nor Kant could dissuade him of this. Perhaps at the beginning, while he was as yet unused to the darkness, he would pretend to agree with the acknowledged authorities, thinking that here too, just as there where he lived before, exalted personages do not tolerate opposition; perhaps he would lie to them as he lied to morality, but his business he would not forget. He came to philosophy with demands, and would not rest till he had received satisfaction. He had already seen how a Corsican lieutenant had become a French Emperor. Why should not the beaten Emperor fight his last fight?... And how shall he be reconciled with self-renunciation? Philosophy will surrender: it is only necessary not to surrender in one's self. So does a Napoleon come to philosophy, and so does he understand her. And until the contrary is proven, nothing can prevent us from thinking that the Napoleons are right, and therefore that academical philosophy is not the last nor even the penultimate word. For, perhaps, the last word is hidden in the hearts of the tongue-tied, but bold, persistent, implacable men.

The light of philosophy is sometimes illuminated to oneself from themselves, or, like Boethius, it is in the form of another, more ethereal angelic presence, comforting him with insights into beauty and its fleetingness. Machiavelli and Leonardo Da Vinci found philosophy at the end of their lives, and certainly for the best; thymotic excess, like fertile soil, can reap immense growth. A life spent in introspection and knowledge equips one with sharpened tools that will exercise superior accuracy once put to use to create truth. Ideals surmount one another, as one pattern determines the next. Understanding that philosophy eventually becomes the light, makes its darkness valuable.

Philosophy deals with the objective - the object being existence.
It expresses a relationship, validated by the existent and by all independently. It requires no followers to be true.

Whenever the mediocre attempt to practice philosophy they are really discussing politics - inter-subjective hierarchies - or discussing spirituality - metaphysics or morality that most often negate the experienced existent.
It's always about them, not the world - subjective.
They believe it is so for everyone - or it ought to be so.
For these feminine emoters every perspective expresses a desire, an "ought to be", not a "what is", so when a perspective hurts them, or insults them, they consider it a personal attack by the speaker. The speaker becomes the representative of the existent.

If you've noticed philosophy has become exclusively about morality. the "ought" - not as a response or reaction to "what is" but as a predetermined decisive factor - enforcing a social self-ceonsorship as a mater of "propriety".
To not hurt anyone is the primary motive, not the truth.
This is feminized philosophy - philosophy for women and men-children, practiced by the priestly charlatans of the world.

With no empirical foundation philosophy becomes nihilistic spiritualism - Abrahamism - or nihilistic ideology - Marxism.
From physis we proceed towards metaphysis and upward toward ideal.
From the apparent, as it is experienced sensually - as past made present, interpreted as appearance e by a conscious organism and applied in the real world.
The application determines the accuracy of the interpretation, requiring constant adjustments, because existence is dynamic, i.e., in flux, a.k.a., Interactive.
The experienced world is the starting point for all upward - ideological - projections, and downward - metaphysical explorations; it is the limit that challenges the mind.
Without this foundational limit the mind can go insane - fabricating all kinds of absurd beliefs validated by how they make it feel: hedonistically; without this external restriction the mind indulge in all kinds of escapist delusion: solipsistically immersing itself internally (esoterically), finding the like-minded to validate their shared delusion - itner-subjectively - with no external referents and therefore no worldly restriction - entirely fantastical.

This is not philosophy. This is politics, or spirituality - each with its own motives.
With philosophy the only motive is to see the real world as clearly as possible, and to find in this clarity what matters and what does not matter; what is feasible and what is not feasible; what is attainable and what is not attainable; what can be changed and what must be endured because it cannot be changed, i.e., wisdom.
Wisdom is a objective understanding of the world - a fine-tuning of reasoning, striving to become effective through efficiency, i.e., the precise and accurate focus of an individuals aggregate energies, via the will.
This necessitates not only an objective assessment of the world - its fluctuating circumstances - but also of oneself in relation to these fluctuating circumstances.

So, if we remain true to the apparent then the concept of male/female cannot be detached form its presence, experienced through appearances - nor can morality or value or will, or freedom etc.
To then move beyond appearances is to seek the source and the meaning of the existent, without abandoning the apparent, as an anchoring to the real world, i.e., experienced reality.

If this is not adhered to you have modernism/postmodernism, gradually and intentionally detaching concepts via their semiological representations so as to then offer delusional escapes - salvation - the wanton masses who could care less about integrity or truth, but are only interested in coping sand self-pleasuring.
When semiotics - words/symbols - are used to detach the abstract (noumenon) from the existent (phenomenon) it becomes nihilistic, seducing and attracting those who are dissatisfied with the existent and are desperately seeking alternatives, or easy escapes, or self-numbing methods to help them tolerate what is, for them, inalterable - such as their own culpability in their own circumstances.

I've often used the metaphor of an ocean to represent existence.
A tumultuous ocean, with abysmal depths - underwater currents - and wind swept surfaces.
An individual is a boat on this ocean, using ideology - air currents - and metaphysics - ocean currents - to guide itself towards a destination.
The deeper the hull sits in the water - metaphysically - the more stable it is; able to withstand atmospheric disturbances, storms etc. - and the more talented the captain is the more he can gauge weather shifts and use the boat's sails to move intentionally.

The three part of man - past/present/future - body/nervous system/mind - reason/will/pathos.

Mind detached from the physical - from body - is like a sail without a mast attaching it to a boat - it is a victim of any gust of wind, sailing upward - into ideological spaces, inevitably falling upon the water, like Ikarus.

Philosophy is a window or door into the European spirit (Ethnogenesis).

Philosophers from the Ancients represent the wise men of strictly European genetics over time. Although wise men arose in other cultures, countries, places, and tribes, the very Etymology of Philosophy originates in the Ancient Greeks and then the Græco-Romans. From those roots, the 'European' people spread-out, conquered the North and West of the European continent, along with Ancient Persia via Alexander the Great. Thus to be deemed a Philosopher is to represent the European tradition of thought from the Ancients to the Modern-Post-Modern (Era).

Within the Philosophers of the recent Centuries, or even today, the Thoughts, Beliefs, Ideas, Arguments and Inquires of Philosophers speak for themselves. What is the Quality of the thinker? Does it not appear immediately through both the method and intent of the Questions asked, and Answers given? Is that thinker Honest or Dishonest? Does he seek to Explore the universe and Existence, which is the Noblest pursuit, pure and innocent by his spirit, or not? And in this question, the Motive appears. Those without the genuine Intellect, Innocence (honesty), and Curiosity, cannot claim Philosophy or to ever become Philosophers. Rather these types are perverse and corrupt, with ulterior motives, that they-themselves do not realize. However these (ulterior)-motives are quickly overturned and brought to light, through simple inquiry and argumentation.

This is the reason-why, the Cause, that such types (Anti-Philosophers) shy far, far away from Inquiry and Argumentation. Because after a quick back-and-forth, of honestly posed questions, with honestly posed answers, they cannot give-up their premises, refuse to, or do so unwillingly, because those Premises expose their Nature, their Quality, and their Motivations -- rarely which is out of Curiosity and Exploration of the universe and existence. These such types are almost certainly politically-motivated. Thus they dwell on the concept of 'Humanity', which is the Secularization and outcrop of the generalized Judæo-Christian ideology and religion. They are pawns and thralls of an insidious ideology, which they neither understand, nor could ever escape.

They do not have it within them.

Thus, are they truly part of that European Ethnogenesis that is capable of Philosophy in the first place?


And in this final question, I doubt severely.

Philosophy is the European tradition of the European Spirit.

If you do not have it within you, then you will fail at Philosophy, and it shows immediately from those that try.

What a poor state philosophy has fallen to when pseud- intellectual infantile men-children, pretending to be mature male men, continue to discuss adolescent investigative questions concerning the "brain in the vat" and "life is but a dream", if they've not completely declared it to be complete and done with.
Good night little boys and girls...sweeet dreams.
Mommy and daddy will protect you while you sleep away your life.

It was obvious the way ILP forum degenerated over the last 20 years, as it is a reflection of the Macrocosm.

ILP used to be an interesting place, years ago. That is has fallen so far down, and banished any 'Provocation' of philosophical concepts, demonstrates the underlying trend. Real philosophy must now commence in the shadows and silence of the Empire, as with previous Dark Ages.

In the next session, spanning the coming decade, in between Messiahs, self-proclaimed gods, and Nietzsche reincarnations, we'll be retuning to the topics we covered in our elementary classes - philosophy 101 for children stunted or still maturing:

1st semester: Are we brains in a vat? - the Matrix theme.
2nd semester: Is life a dream? Is existence god's dream?
3rd semester: Can an omnipotent god lift an infinitely massive stone it created? - is the creator bound by the laws he created?
4th semester: The truth is that there is no truth? Variant: There are absolutely no absolutes.

Whoever manages to get through the year may advance to the next level. Whomever cannot must repeat the year eternally - eternal return of the same.

This is why philosophy was practiced in the agora, where the rabble gathered, and then continued in the symposium where the rabble were excluded - by invitation only.
A feeble mind thinks it is involved in deep philosophical issues when it is running around in circles, smelling its own farts, biting at its own tail, as if it were landing devastating cuts upon some fleeing adversary.

The same questions we asked in high school still confuse and preoccupy them, unable to advance, because they could not let go of mistakes they could not acknowledge nor recognize.
Trapped in their own definitions and infantile understanding....or those they've discovered in some manual and became enraptured with, because it felt like they were involved in mature discussions about the nature of the world.
Are we brains in a vat?
Could existence be a dream?
How ridiculous to claim that "the truth is there is no truth" or to even say that "there is absolutely no absolute"... laughing at the absurdity of such words.
How superior the feeble-minded feel when they cannot unravel the basis of such Gordian entanglements.
They want to be taken seriously.
They want to avenge themselves upon anyone who reminds them of their feeblemindedness.
They want respect!!

Sir Walter Scott wrote:

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive

First one lie, then another to conceal the first, then four, to cover the two...and on....and on...
First one mistake, then an error to compensate for the consequences of the first, then four more to deal with what they've produced...and on...and on...

Where fools gather, like children in a park, those that prey on foolishness and innocence are not far behind.

These infantile psychologies are drawn to these absolutist or literal ways of thinking precisely because the seeking out of truth requires a threshold for pain and struggle, suffering. Thus, using philosophy as an idle dalliance, or trifling past time, or romanticism, removes this innate burden. No different then anything else moderns use for this same purpose. The world must be as non-threatening as possible, as accommodating, comforting, or altogether, trivial, as possible. Avoidance of suffering, means the forgetfulness of mortality; and the total oblivion of the self, means a mastery of the inferiority which inspires this condition.

Absurdism is the modern mind's internalization of nihilism; where it can still feign a sense of self, reassuring itself that it is still valuable.

Discussing anything with hypocrites is futile.
They don't even want to begin with defining the words they are using....
They like things to remain as vague and obscure as possible...so that their own motives and their idiocy, does not become clear.

So, don't waste your time.
Use them to study decadence, empire decline, human psychosis, sexual depravity, you know stuff like that.
Don't ever take anything they say or do seriously.

When an old man is still discussing the brain in the vat or life may be a dream, as serious philosophy, or when a simpleton cannot figure out why "truth is there are no truths"  is based on nihilistic presumptions and linguistics, then there's no point.
Zoot first used it, in that cynical gotcha way of his....I explained how this sentence is the product of a absolutism presumption, and he stopped using it. Now there's a new batch of simpletons to deal with...and I have no interest on going through it again...especially since it is futile.
Might as well return to the late 90's when I used to spend hours, days, weeks, debating Christian superstitions.

Futility.

The idea that philosophy is for everyone because anyone can have a philosophical bias, idea, or thought, ignores the importance of self-consciousness and self-awareness in tandem with this.  Why is self-awareness important for philosophy? Because any animal can have sensations of its own existence, this is common among all entities with a sensory apparatus. However, if there is no conscious introspective reflection that accompanies these sensations, a capacity to order them into acumen, a way of viewing them for what they are, then they are not converted to anything that would characterize them as meaningful or as relating to oneself. Having a sense of being powerful, does not make one powerful; having a sense of something philosophical, does not make one a philosopher. The philosopher must have a selfness/selfhood, in order for philosophy to be possible in him, otherwise, he is merely an animal acting on impulses.

Sounds like a my kind of guy this Cato

How the artist approaches the medium of his art is similar to how a philosopher approaches his own expressive medium, language.
Some to depict accurately and come closer to an evasive objective, others to slightly modify, so as to make the real better, more appealing, under the guise that the hidden is being exposed and a secret is being revealed, when it is the artist's own hidden secrets being projected for acknowledgment and appreciation.
Audience acts as supporting buffer – the outer perimeter within which the artist fabricates, weaves his private meanings in alternate realities.

Humanity is the all-encompassing motherly womb; the pan-psychic, all-encompassing rational mind.
Will the audience i.e., “the world,” applaud or will it disapprovingly heckle and boo; validating or rejecting the performance?
Will the performance artist find validation by shocking the audience, or will he find it by seducing it?
Words are how the artist – now calling himself philosopher – engages the audience, calling it “world” – in and of itself.
The pseudo-philosopher and second-rate artist, no longer cares about objective reality. He only cares about the subjective feedback of the audience, who are now his entire world.

Metaphysics, like physics, should be applicable to the non-living as much as to the living.
If not then it restricted to politics and psychology entirely impotent outside these disciplines.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What speaks only of what he can perceive and falsify.

When concepts are defined out of existence the words are defined in supernatural, surreal, was, demanding that all begin with that definition - this is a belief in power through the control of language.

But when words are returned to their original utility their definition comes form the world and not from the idea.
Idea simply represents a simplification/generalization of what can be named by any name.
Nihilism is word-specific....it must impose tis language on minds.

Realism cares not what you call what is perceived. Renaming it will not alter its essence, nor your relationship with it.

Philosophy is the suspension of belief -
more than doubt, it is radical skepticism that does not tolerate a single concept unless that concept can tolerate all other concepts.

Æon wrote:

Philosophy is a window or door into the European spirit (Ethnogenesis).

Philosophers from the Ancients represent the wise men of strictly European genetics over time.  Although wise men arose in other cultures, countries, places, and tribes, the very Etymology of Philosophy originates in the Ancient Greeks and then the Græco-Romans.  From those roots, the 'European' people spread-out, conquered the North and West of the European continent, along with Ancient Persia via Alexander the Great.  Thus to be deemed a Philosopher is to represent the European tradition of thought from the Ancients to the Modern-Post-Modern (Era).

Within the Philosophers of the recent Centuries, or even today, the Thoughts, Beliefs, Ideas, Arguments and Inquires of Philosophers speak for themselves.  What is the Quality of the thinker?  Does it not appear immediately through both the method and intent of the Questions asked, and Answers given?  Is that thinker Honest or Dishonest?  Does he seek to Explore the universe and Existence, which is the Noblest pursuit, pure and innocent by his spirit, or not?  And in this question, the Motive appears.  Those without the genuine Intellect, Innocence (honesty), and Curiosity, cannot claim Philosophy or to ever become Philosophers.  Rather these types are perverse and corrupt, with ulterior motives, that they-themselves do not realize.  However these (ulterior)-motives are quickly overturned and brought to light, through simple inquiry and argumentation.

This is the reason-why, the Cause, that such types (Anti-Philosophers) shy far, far away from Inquiry and Argumentation.  Because after a quick back-and-forth, of honestly posed questions, with honestly posed answers, they cannot give-up their premises, refuse to, or do so unwillingly, because those Premises expose their Nature, their Quality, and their Motivations -- rarely which is out of Curiosity and Exploration of the universe and existence.  These such types are almost certainly politically-motivated.  Thus they dwell on the concept of 'Humanity', which is the Secularization and outcrop of the generalized Judæo-Christian ideology and religion.  They are pawns and thralls of an insidious ideology, which they neither understand, nor could ever escape.

They do not have it within them.

Thus, are they truly part of that European Ethnogenesis that is capable of Philosophy in the first place?


And in this final question, I doubt severely.

The romance here is too much for me... philosophy does not orient on this romance it is a view from the outside... yes it is Europe but it is not about Europe, though it is Europe's rulership, it concerns itself not with its ethnicity - though indeed in current times it has become a valid issue.

How does one proceed -
how to attract the European spirit to its noble ancient pursuit, in the most vital sense where it can rebel, stage a master-revolt?

Religion, of course.


Rites, solemn ones and ecstatic ones, many, very different festivals to all the diverse deities - as they are what first formed the attitude that became philosophy -- the black ships of Odysseus, the hollow ships, the nameless one, the one for whom Nietzsche writes - Poseidon, Apollon, gods protecting the values of girls, treasure, honour, and causing the torments by which men learn their character...

we need gods brethren and we have gods.

Your Afro-Asaitic god is not my god.

Philosophy is the refinement of belief.
Wisdom is the perception of what is probable and applicable, disregarding the impotent theories of barbarians.

What is philosophy?
A striving towards objectivity.

If understanding is finding the underlying pattern of all knowledge, all patterns, then philosophy seeks understanding.
It deals in generalities because it isn't concerned with the particular, the individual, the subjective but its concern is for the rules/laws that apply to all, or as many as possible.