What is Philosophy?

Philosophy's object of study is the world.

Two general types of pseudo-philosophers:

1- The anti-philosophy idealists.
He may call himself a "philoospher" but his interest is not the world but a solution to it.
A correction.
A solution to the world.
He may even be a nihilist who promotes the antithesis to the world, as his objective.
He's not interested in the world, but in pleasure, or comfort, or some other objective, associated to the world indirectly as a solution to the world's indifferent challenges.

2- The academician.
His focus is not the world - all around us - but another's perspective of the world around us.
He calls himself a "philosopher" but he's a fan-boy, a fanatic, a follower - fancying himself as a mediator between his chosen mentor - idol - and others.
His interest in the world is through his idol's perspective on the world.
The priestly kind - followers who wish to be followed.

Both are concerned with their social status, above wisdom, viz., how they appear; how they are perceived and appreciated - as such they are the first to refer to themselves as "philosophers," and experience an internal joy when they are identified using this label by others, usually those who have no clue what philosophy is.
For them, philosophy is not a lifelong struggle - as with know thyself - but a way of distinguishing themselves from among the rabble - usually with extended knowledge, and an ability to refer and defer to famous icons, or that offer some kind of easy or hard method of coping: easy if they seek quantity of followers/converts; hard if they seek quality followers/converts.
The solutions are always esoteric, so as to not permit detachment from a mentoring authority; just as the solutions to the "problem" of existing always must go through a collective.

Satyr…on this forum, when you ask philosophy questions, would you and could you appreciate answers?

WendyDarling wrote:

Satyr…on this forum, when you ask philosophy questions, would you and could you appreciate answers?

I don't understand.
Would I be able to "appreciate" answers?
Philosophy is all about asking the right questions.

Like asking if ghosts exist is not a question that merits an answer.
There are questions that are not worth wasting time on.

All answers fall into a probability scale, based on what is known and what is experienced and collectively known.

Satyr wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Satyr…on this forum, when you ask philosophy questions, would you and could you appreciate answers?

I don't understand.
Would I be able to "appreciate" answers?
Philosophy is all about asking the right questions.

Like asking if ghosts exist is not a question that merits an answer.
There are questions that are not worth wasting time on.

All answers fall into a probability scale, based on what is known and what is experienced and collectively known.

The right questions seem pointless if they are never discussed. And is a rhetorical discussion with yourself really the best answer?

I offer my analysis on probabilities...not certainties.

Anything I evaluate as below 20% I don't waste my time on.

Satyr wrote:

I offer my analysis on probabilities...not certainties.

Anything I evaluate as below 20% I don't waste my time on.

So you ask the right questions and give the right answers, no discussion necessary?

No right/wrong...only more or less probable.
Discussion is about determining the range of probability using common references...like experienced existence.

Satyr wrote:

No right/wrong...only more or less probable.
Discussion is about determining the range of probability using common references...like experienced existence.

So how do you figure out your 20% probability?

Long process, using experience, knowledge, understanding, precedent - empiricism.
The probability range fluctuates over time, as new data is known and understood.
What begins by contradicting experience, automatically falls to nil, and may pick up percentages using reason, necessity.

How much probability do you subtract if you haven’t personally had the general experience, but millions of other people have?

Minimal, because humanity has believed all sorts of absurdities that were later proven to be wrong, and replaced with new and improved delusions - superstitions.
The majority doesn't care about the truth....they care about pleasure, power, whatever gets them through the day, a lifetime - manimal stuff.

Quantity is not as important as quality...but it has its own quality, as Stalin said, I think.
Reality is not democratically determined nor is it a popularity contest.
Popel today hold as indisputable truths ideas that contradict nature and evolution.

Most are morons.
The shared opinion of millions of morons do not sway my opinion...they may only cause a slight disturbance in the form of doubt....insecurity.

Satyr wrote:

Philosophy's object of study is the world.

Two general types of pseudo-philosophers:

1- The anti-philosophy idealists.
He may call himself a "philoospher" but his interest is not the world but a solution to it.
A correction.
A solution to the world.
He may even be a nihilist who promotes the antithesis to the world, as his objective.
He's not interested in the world, but in pleasure, or comfort, or some other objective, associated to the world indirectly as a solution to the world's indifferent challenges.

2- The academician.
His focus is not the world - all around us - but another's perspective of the world around us.
He calls himself a "philosopher" but he's a fan-boy, a fanatic, a follower - fancying himself as a mediator between his chosen mentor - idol - and others.
His interest in the world is through his idol's perspective on the world.
The priestly kind - followers who wish to be followed.

Both are concerned with their social status, above wisdom, viz., how they appear; how they are perceived and appreciated - as such they are the first to refer to themselves as "philosophers," and experience an internal joy when they are identified using this label by others, usually those who have no clue what philosophy is.
For them, philosophy is not a lifelong struggle - as with know thyself - but a way of distinguishing themselves from among the rabble - usually with extended knowledge, and an ability to refer and defer to famous icons, or that offer some kind of easy or hard method of coping: easy if they seek quantity of followers/converts; hard if they seek quality followers/converts.
The solutions are always esoteric, so as to not permit detachment from a mentoring authority; just as the solutions to the "problem" of existing always must go through a collective.

#1 will make all dismissive excuses if what is presented to him - as a challenge to his defensive method - does not offer a complete, final, solution to his personal issues, and since this is impossible, he will use this as a justification to remain indifferent, calling it 'rational skepticism,' remaining true to the method he adopted to cope with a world that confuses and frightens him.

#2 will never express any opinion if he cannot refer it to a celebrity idol, usually the one he has adopted as his mentor and ideal - a mask he wears to conceal himself, and mute himself, speaking only in the voice of another.
Never exposing himself to challengers, or critique, his mentor becomes the "chosen" proxy through which he engages the world.
When challenged he feels safe because it is his proxy who is being challenged, while his ego remains safe - unseen, unheard, unnoticed.
He finds pride in remaining misunderstood and mistaken for the mask he wears.
Preferring prose and allegories, his convictions are sometimes presented through esoteric jargon, allowing only his proxy to speak clearly, and speaking with his own voice only in relation to what his idol has said.

In philosophy - if it is honest - if you do not define the words you are using - by anchoring them in a shared, independent reality all can acknowledge and verify - then there is no hope for a conclusion.
The debate will continue forever....and ever...and for most this is the intent.
They don't seek clarity, they seek comfort, and when they realize truth offers none they postpone indefinitely acknowledging it, as if they could ever escape it using such methods.
Charlatans intentionally use obscure terminology - fraught with romanticism and mysticism; full of hope and promises of love power, freedom, etc. - because their intent is not to clarify but to exploit confusion, and to manipulate weakness.

Most minds say they want to see, but they don't really; making all kinds of excuses, using words to come up with all kinds of justifications to not see.....and these blind are the ones exploited by contrasts - priestly class - and hope peddlers - liars, pretending to be the opposite of what they are.
Mater/Slave - exploiter and exploited both belong to the same group.

But who remains outside this binary dynamic?
Incomprehensible monsters.

Ha!!

In an era of intersubjectivity, philosophy has become a means of working out personal existential and socio-psychological issues; self-help manuals, where idols, iconic names, and their work, are used as medical diagnosticians and treatments.
All objectivity is set-aside as irrelevant and what is of interest is navel gazing, and a constant stream of linguistics, outsourcing private fears, personal anxieties, sometimes in the form of self-aggrandizing poetics that dare not speak clearly but only present in a theatre of shadows as a performance they cannot bring into the light, where all is revealed and masks become transparent.
Man as the measure of all things? Well then, all things have been made psychotic.
Man sees himself in all things; his distress disguised by mysticism, he approaches himself as a director of his own doppelganger, with divine eyes, appreciating his own brilliance.

Aurelius Marcus wrote:

For this is the cause of all evil in men, that they are unable to apply universal concepts to particular cases.

The greatest evil is enacted by minds that do not have the will or that lack the quality of mind to understand and apply philosophical insights to their mundane personal existence.
Their simplicity and/or bad faith finds in each other an ally and together they seek retribution towards the incomprehensible and uncertain, so as to absolve themselves of all responsibility.
For the simpleton some dumbing-down may produce a profound effect, but for the hypocrite that refuses to acknowledge how philosophical generalities apply to his/her daily life – because he/she has gained nothing from reading the guiding wisdom of other men – these philosophical insights will be dismissed as too vague or inapplicable to his/her circumstances; a fool and a hypocrite find in each other an ally defending themselves from their own failures.