What is Philosophy?

Aeon wrote:

Disrupt the thread when you have something to contribute to the premise, what is philosophy?

Attempt to define philosophy in your own words. Own your words, become accountable for yourself.

Everybody in this thread should have a respective definition of philosophy at the ready.

I don't understand. Is there some kind of briliant response to that? I like precise definitions to words, going into great detail defining any one word will always end you up in the same place. That of personal experience relating to your notion of it, missing the whole point to begin with.

So Here:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".
The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.

There Will Be Blood wrote:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".
The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.

Now compare:

Æon wrote:

Philosophy is the search for truth, primarily using doubt. Whereas science uses hypothesis and religion uses faith, to search for truth. Doubt is the primary tool of philosophers. So what is doubt? Doubt is a form of rejection, skepticism, and distrust. A very doubtful person doesn't believe what trusted people tell him. Conspiracy theorists are good examples of cynics and skeptics. They don't believe in many institutional lies. However, they do believe that "somebody is out to get me". With great distrust, there is often an underlying fear.

In order to answer the question of what philosophy is, doubt must primarily be analyzed. Without doubt, philosophy doesn't make much sense. So it is senseless to analyze philosophy without analyzing doubt as well.

From the start, what do I see.

You say that philosophy is "study" while I say philosophy is "search".

You say "fundamental problems" and I say "truth".

Interestingly, your definition does not include doubt whereas my definition has doubt in the first sentence.


Your turn. Compare and contrast our definitions, where are they the same, where different?

I am very pleased that TWBB is the first participant in this thread, the first philosopher type. None before him really have contributed to this thread, "added" to it. That is what I'm looking for in terms of socializing, inquiring, and philosophizing. We need to have a good faith foundation to philosophy. Otherwise how can philosophy occur?

Define your terms, your foundation, your philosophy. Give it a name, your name, Philosopher.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

What is Philosophy?

Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. As an academic discipline philosophy is much the same. Those who study philosophy are perpetually engaged in asking, answering, and arguing for their answers to life’s most basic questions. To make such a pursuit more systematic academic philosophy is traditionally divided into major areas of study.

Here is another definition of philosophy. I will collect a few definitions and compare them with TWBB and myself. We will see if a consensus or pattern can form from actual philosophers, not imitators. Perhaps a pattern will indicate the path to the Philosopher Himself.

This thread was derailed on page 2 by Lyssa's narcissism and Satyr's encouragement of her lowly, banal behavior. Satyr is an inferior male and guide, not a leader. If he was a strong leader, who females could depend on, then Satyr would guide Lyssa on how to interact with philosophy, as a female specifically.

What was the contention? Lyssa accused me of "not doubting" some aspects of myself. This accusation reflected her guilt. Because what have I, personally, not doubted or never doubted? Does she truly care to know? Does she investigate others, as she would investigate herself? Does she investigate? The answer is no. Satyr is also guilty of lacking investigation, a mediocre, inferior philosopher type.

These two lack investigation and doubt. They should abandon themselves to more doubt, not less. They should doubt most, as much as possible. But they have hangups, interruptions, which I can overcome too easily.

Aren't you a faggot? Aren't you stupid? Aren't you inferior? Who, the fuck, cares?

What is the nature of your question and doubt? What is the nature of your inquiry?

Lyssa began with personal attacks, because she was exposed on the point about politics. To her, philosophy is politics, philosophy = politics, and she cannot think "outside" this premise. Philosophy is lost on her. This became apparent to me, and I learned it, after she refused the points about doubt.

Are there not some aspects of every person, every individual, Man, that you, He, cannot doubt? What can't you doubt about yourself? What can't you doubt about others? Can you doubt that your mommy loves you? Can you doubt that love and human connection exists? Can you doubt humanity, that you are of the hominid specie? Can you doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow?

If you can't....then what, the fuck, are you doing? What is your philosophy? Don't you see now your mental limitations? There are certain premises that you, not I are unwilling to doubt!

I have already doubted all these. Put any stupid, child question you have against me. Am I a homosexual virgin who can't get laid? Sure, why not. Who cares? Is this the direction of your doubt? Why are you focused on sexuality? Why are you focused on virginity? Why is this important to you? You attack what you believe is a weakness, do you not?

And this is the nature of pitiful, petty doubt. A mediocre philosophy, if a philosophy at all.

A waste of thought, discussion, inquiry, investigation. You could have spent your time on something important. Instead you spent this time exposing yourself to minds much higher than yours. If you're going to embarrass yourself, if you want to become a politician more than a philosopher, then at least come to these realizations in the face of your exposé.

Your blind reaching out with your arms, feeling around with your hands in the dark, is your attempt to doubt. That is something worthwhile. But it does expose the deepest, farthest reaches of your mind, that you keep hidden even from yourself.

Have I applied doubts to anybody in this thread? No, because I lead a good faith thread. I demonstrate, lead you, so that someday when you attempt to do philosophy, engage it, probably quite pathetically, then at least you will have learned from a philosophy becomer. I become Philosopher. And you? What do you become? Do you even give a shit about philosophy?

Do you love philosophy? No, not compared to some.

Here are my doubts thus far:

I doubt that any female can "do" philosophy as there is something inherent within the identity and concept of philosophy, opposed to females, that cannot merge or mesh together. Females lack courage, and do not need philosophy, while men "do" philosophy for females, on their behalf, as is true with all other "hard science" or great artistry.

I doubt Lyssa is interested in philosophy, but instead, is interested in politics and merely uses philosophy as a means to assert herself in political arenas. This is represented by her obsession and fixation on political discourse, early in the thread, near the beginning.

It's sooo tough being a man, you poor little man, you.

Let's stay on topic folks, I know it's difficult but do try your damnedest. Give philosophy your best oomph, give it some elbow grease, or best yet, give it your all.

Attempt to gauge others as philosophers, females excluded obviously.

Æon wrote:

Let's stay on topic folks, I know it's difficult but do try your damnedest.  Give philosophy your best oomph, give it some elbow grease, or best yet, give it your all.

Attempt to gauge others as philosophers, females excluded obviously.

No doubt.

Satyr wrote:

No doubt.

No, let's doubt instead.

I'm wrong, I fucked up. Women are philosophers. They search and study the unknown, courageously. They lead discussions. They inquire into nature. They are natural explorers of the unknown. Most of the settlers and colonialists throughout the world, and history, were females. For example, Christopher Columbus was not male, but actually a hidden name to the truth, Christina Columbus. And most of her crew was women, or all of them.

In fact women, almost always lead philosophical endeavors, as philosophers. It's just that evil men, steal the works and thoughts of women, and publish women's thoughts using their own names. Males are thieves. All we take, is owed to women, originally.

Doubt the premise. I am a female, with a vagina. If I have any philosophical ability, then it is owed to my feminine nature, not my masculine nature.


Your turn, can you doubt your own premises? If you cannot, then you have too much to learn about philosophy. How can philosophy occur without doubt, search, study? Without examining what should have been obvious? An obvious fact, females usually and commonly do philosophy. It's men who are lagging behind.

I doubt the sexual designations of male/female are absolutes, and that there is not a woman out there more masculine than you...

I doubt you have a mind at par with the upper 10% of biological females, of which a couple have graced us with their presence here...

I doubt I care enough to pursue this futile attempt to gain attention with you...

I doubt your interests...

I doubt I have the energies, anymore, to play on this level...

I doubt that there is any hope for 90% of the human race...

I doubt being part of the 10%...

I doubt the emphasis placed on male/female here, compared to child/adult.

I doubt your ability to maintain objectivity and balance of perspective.

I doubt your willingness to understand how biology, genetics, connects with underlying metaphysical beliefs about gender.

I doubt more, than all.

I doubt every doubt, including my own.


The important question is, what can't you doubt? What do you doubt least of all?

Æon wrote:

I doubt the emphasis placed on male/female here, compared to child/adult.

I doubt your ability to maintain objectivity and balance of perspective.

I doubt your willingness to understand how biology, genetics, connects with underlying metaphysical beliefs about gender.

I doubt more, than all.

I doubt every doubt, including my own.


The important question is, what can't you doubt?  What do you doubt least of all?

I don't doubt that you are most certainly correct.

Ta, Ta,

Satyr is unwilling to participate, for whatever reason, so be it.

But the question stands to all readers and participants. The question is posed against Philosopher.

What do you doubt most? What do you doubt least?

God is an easy one to doubt, unicorns, fairies, magical beings not replicated and without evidence. It is easy to doubt fantastical ideas. On the other hand, can you doubt that you are human, reading english, and existing in space and time? How often do you doubt your own humanity? Do you doubt that you are a boy or girl, man or woman? Do you doubt your identity that you've spent your life thus far, building concept upon concept?

Probably not. There is a prioritization of your doubting, representing what you doubt least of all, and beginning your faith.

There are some ideas that you simply refuse to doubt, and most definitely, will lash out and attack with violence those who question such aspects of yourself.

Real metaphysics, deep philosophy, the very identity of your existence. The core of being and becoming.

How far can you doubt? Not far enough?

Someone's just sent me an email with this beautiful list.

Do you know at what level one becomes a Philosopher? I mean, a real Philosopher, not just someone who reads books.

Levels of Consciousness:

[33] -The level of Nazi concentration camps.
[120] - The level of nihilism.
[160-190] - The level of scepticism. Scepticism is a form of a (rather grandiose) negative approach and calibrates at 160, as does The Sceptic's Dictionary. It is also associated with thinly disguised animosity towards things such as a deity, religions, and Spirituality. Its main defect is that it is unable to comprehend nonlinear reality, which is the consequence of context as well as essence. Perception is a projection of bias, as noted by Descartes (res interna vs. res externa) as well as Socrates. All the sceptic's arguments (disproved by Plato, Socrates, et al. centuries ago), as well as criticism and correspondence, calibrate from 160 to 190. Alas, sceptics are unable to perform consciousness calibrations because it requires that both of the participants as well as the intention of the question calibrate over 200. (None have done so thus far.)
[245] - Consciousness of a family cat (5 more points than an average cat).
[305] -The current level of China as well as the consciousness of a chimpanzee. This is also the calibration of being ethical and fair.
[385] - The calibration of wisdom.
[465] -The level of Rousseau, Sophocles, and Shakespeare. 
[470] - The level of Descartes. 
[485] - The level of Plato, Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Hippocrates.
[499] - The level of modern Judaism. It is also the level of intellectual geniuses. Sigmund Freud was at this level, as opposed to Carl Jung who was above the second critical shift which occurs at 500, as will be evident later. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were at this level as well. 
[505] - The level of valor. Also the level of Dante.
[535] -The energy level of Christmas, which is probably due to the common practice of giving gifts to others and having festive celebrations with good tidings.
[560] -Carl Jung was at this level. Sigmund Freud was below the level of 500 because of his denial of man’s spirituality, whereas Jung affirmed the spiritual nature of human beings. 
[575] - The level consciousness of ecstasy. 
[610] -The level of Lao Tzu and his teachings.
[640] - The king James version of the New Testament. 
[700] -The level of the phrase Om Mane Padme Hum
[705] -The level of the Rig Veda 
[700+] - There are 22 sages on this planet who calibrate at this level or higher, according to Dr. Hawkins. Of those, 20 of them are at 800 or more, of whom there are 10 at or over 900, and one sage at 990. 
[780] -The Heart Sutra and the Lotus Sutra.
[795] -Bodhidharma as well as the Zen teachings.
[840] -The Self is seen as Beyond Existence or Nonexistence.
[965] -Transcending the Levels of Consciousness, by David R. Hawkins
[1000] - This is the maximum energy level that can be tolerated by the human body and nervous system. It is the extremely rare level of avatars from ages past. No human has ever existed with a consciousness calibration higher than 1000. The archetypes Christ, Buddha, and Krishna are at this level. This state is also the existence of Buddhahood, Christ Consciousness, At-Oneness with the Source Manifest and Unmanifest. 
[1000+] -Buddhahood, Brahman, Christ, Krishna, The ‘I’ of Ultimate Reality.
[1250] - ‘I’ of Essence of Divine Creation. 
[50,000] - The level of what in times past have been called archangels but more recently have come to be known as the Elders, or the Ancient Ones via between life regressions.
Infinity - The Source of reality manifest as divinity. The supreme creation Source of consciousness eternal. The Source of all that is.

Thirsty wrote:

this beautiful list.

How exactly have any of these philosophical thinkers, outside of classical western thinkers, created any doubts, questions, or ideologies of worth?

I'd like a summation of some basic ideas produced and pushed forward from these supposed philosophers.


For example Descartes is famous for "I think therefore I am", and essentially taking human doubt, therefore human reasoning, as far as any other thinkers had done in centuries.

This should be a simple assignment.

Will somebody pick this boy up, lay him across their lap, and give him a thorough smacking?

Stay on topic phony.

Dig deeper into thyself, what are you, who are you, when and where is your ultimate, absolute origin? How far into the past does your blood draw from? Is your spirit or soul 20 years old? 200? 2000? 200000000000000000000000? Some erroneously call me an absolutist. This is false. It is more that I transcend and destroy all limits, especially my contemporaries. When I venture outside of their limits, these ones accuse me of absolutism, as if I have ever forgotten degree. False, patently wrong. I never forget degree. I look inward as well as outward. I travel in both directions. I sprint backward and forward, also side to side. I sprint upward into the sky and downward through the ground. Their limits do not apply to me. I walk through every idea.

Seriously, how far can you go before you turn back? How far into the void? Into nihilism? Into disbelief? Into doubt?

Do you descend farther than I already have? Have you seen the impossible depths, within yourself?


I have failed....to push you. I need to provoke you. I need to light a fire within you. I need to compel you to look deeper. Because you do not have the need within yourself. You have the curiosity, yes. But you do not have the courage. You are filled with fear and cowardice. I will push you over the edge, and stomp you deeper into the void. I will accelerate your fall and descent into madness. I will place you into the darkest catacombs, lightless places, mazes, and abandon you there. You should lose yourself.

You should begin, just once, to do philosophy.

I have failed in my lifetime. There are no philosophers during my life. Nietzsche was the last, most recent philosopher to live. But none live now. So I must speak to the future, beyond myself. I must speak to the next philosopher born. I hope you are born soon. I hope you are born now. But I probably will miss you.

Instead, my life will become consumed by poking, prodding, and provoking people through philosophy I deem mediocre and childish.

Nobody is at my level, my height.

Satyr is close to me, under me, but I have no inclination to lift him higher anymore. I need a stronger spirit to associate with. I need one with even more potential, than all.

I need Philosopher, to find you, lift you up, and then finally lift You higher than myself. Where I have failed in life, you will succeed.


Dig Deepest.

Æon wrote:

Dig Deepest.

What is Philosophy for?

What is Knowledge for?

Not what, but who. Philosophy is for people, a rare type of person.

Knowledge is genetic, DNA strands, and also represents the brain and central nervous system, memories.

Memories are abstractions of genes.

Æon wrote:

Not what, but who.  Philosophy is for people, a rare type of person.

Fine. But what is that philosophy for, for those rare people?

Quote :

Knowledge is genetic, DNA strands, and also represents the brain and central nervous system, memories.

Memories are abstractions of genes.

What is all this knowledge for?

Lyssa wrote:

Fine. But what is that philosophy for, for those rare people?

An identification of a concept:
Philosophy represents the most powerful curiosity and therefore, the most powerful explorer.
A rare mind representing a genius, Genus, compelled to penetrate all unknowns.
The philosopher is the man whom fucks the unknown and invades a new area, a new territory.
A mental territory, it doesn't need to be physical, although it can be physical as well.

Christopher Columbus must have had philosopher blood in him.
Neil Armstrong must have had philosopher blood in him.
Because these men had the drive, the nobility, to enter into absolutely new areas, to humanity.

Philosophy tends to be more mental, ideological, and conceptual. Ideological unknowns, instead of physical unknowns. Areas beyond human knowledge. To trespass into what humanity does not know, you must first identify what humanity does know. And what does humanity know? Do Christians know God? Do you know the Earth revolves around the Sun? Do you know that you'll wake up tomorrow? What if you die, tonight? Where is your certainty, do you truly know one step to the next?

Can you say for certain, that you will live one week from now??? If not, then you are uncertain, and you do not have knowledge, but instead, a belief, a religious faith. You religious believe that you will live and wake up tomorrow. This is your faith. You were convinced of this religious belief, early on in life.

You have yet to doubt, as I already do. If you wish to know the mind of a philosopher, then know the difference between to know, and to know not. You do not know. You know nothing. You do not know what will happen tomorrow. You do not know what will happen today. You do not know that if you fall off a cliff, that you will fall "down" instead of up. You. Know. Nothing!

This is the beginning of proper philosophy. All doubt. Doubt all. There is no premise that Philosopher cannot doubt! All premises are undone. All is false. We begin from nothing, and work toward something. We build a truth. We imagine a premise, a hypothesis. And we prove it, one statement and belief at a time.

We build. We construct. We start as far away from Truth as possible. Philosophers are farthest away from Truth. Religious people are closest to Truth. Religious people are inside, looking out. Philosophers are outside, looking in.

Lyssa wrote:

What is all this knowledge for?

For me. For Philosopher. Maybe for you. For those philosophers who acquire wisdom, not knowledge, but wisdom. Wisdom is the rarest thing.

Wisdom should help any philosopher achieve his goals. Wisdom may achieve anything imaginable. Any goal ought to look miniscule, childish, and ridiculous after seen from the state of highest wisdom.

Who, cares, if you....create a new iphone and make a billion dollars? Who gives a fuck? What is one human goal worth having? Inventing airplanes and flying, is this some great feat of humanity? Who cares? What is meaningful, most important of all? You have a family and a few children, so the fuck, what?

Try to think of one thing, just one ideal, worth having, and worth fulfilling. Imagine outside the limits of humanity. Wisdom can achieve it. Nothing is impossible to the wise.

Æon wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Fine. But what is that philosophy for, for those rare people?

And what does humanity know?  Do Christians know God?  Do you know the Earth revolves around the Sun?  Do you know that you'll wake up tomorrow?  What if you die, tonight?  Where is your certainty, do you truly know one step to the next?

Can you say for certain, that you will live one week from now???  If not, then you are uncertain, and you do not have knowledge, but instead, a belief, a religious faith.

This is why I already said at the very start; reason is of two kinds.

One kind is awareness, and the other kind which you speak about - which needs "certainty" is the one asking for Faith.

But nevermind that for the moment,, let me leave that aside for the moment and ask you,

What is this certainty for?

What does Knowledge do for you?

You should already know the answer by now.

If you actually doubt, for the first time, that you will still be alive tomorrow. If you believe that your life is coming to an end, tomorrow. Then this changes your whole perspective, world, reality. It changes everything, if you actually believe the proposition.

If you actually doubt what you already presume with relative certainty. So what do average people, humanity, truly "know". Know is a higher degree of belief. Certainty. People are "certain" of gravity. Certain of immutable, natural laws.

But does gravity exist in space, when you are floating without its pull? Are you certain, then?


Doubt destroys all belief, all premise. All hypotheses are destroyed, deconstructed, investigated. Every single belief, every single thought you've ever had.

Where is your certainty? Your compass? Your core? Your identity? What aspect of yourself is truly unique and individual? What part of you cannot become repeated?

Your certainty, your belief, your faith, exposes you for what you truly are. There are some ideas inside your brain, that you refuse to let go of.

And philosophers learn to see, recognize, and identify these types of ideas.

Æon wrote:

Doubt destroys all belief, all premise.  All hypotheses are destroyed, deconstructed, investigated.  Every single belief, every single thought you've ever had.

And the results of those investigations after doubting and keeping on doubting, what do they give you?
What does knowledge give you?

Do they perhaps give you power?

Do they perhaps give you an advantage to better manage the world, and your life?

Lyssa wrote:

And the results of those investigations after doubting and keeping on doubting, what do they give you?
What does knowledge give you?

What is knowledge except your most certain, most closely guarded life secrets?

Lyssa wrote:

Do they perhaps give you power?

Do they perhaps give you an advantage to better manage the world, and your life?

Absolutely

Æon wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

And the results of those investigations after doubting and keeping on doubting, what do they give you?
What does knowledge give you?

What is knowledge except your most certain, most closely guarded life secrets?

Lyssa wrote:

Do they perhaps give you power?

Do they perhaps give you an advantage to better manage the world, and your life?

Absolutely

So you have admitted that knowledge has to do with life-enhancing power and self-advantage.

This is exactly what a cell is, the most basic building block of life. Efficient organization geared for self-assertion is the realm of politics.
A human is an extension of such a cellular organization. Philosophy is an extension of such life-politics.

By your own admission, I hope you can see the relation now.

No, because you want politics to precede philosophy, does not make it so.

Philosophy is also inherent within biology as an organism is separated between self and other. What is other, is unknown. And the otherness is explored. Organisms do this early in cognitive development, and without realizing otherness, cannot understand self as well.

Like how some animals recognize themselves in mirrors, and others do not.

Your political bias is far too obvious. It tickles me humorously to watch you desperately and vainly attempt to validate your own subjective bias and prejudice, under the guise of objectivity and philosophy.

Typical female.

Philosophy is the self-correction by consciousness of its own initial excess of subjectivity.