Thread: Philosophising on philosophy

We often speak here on the merits and demerits of particular philosophies, but what of philosophy itself?

It seems to me that there is a danger in ascribing to any particular viewpoint. There is, IMO, an inherent laziness at play here: hey, let someone else do the heavy lifting and I’ll just follow along like a good sheep.

I’ve said many times on this forum that I detest “isms”. Here’s a list I found, see how many you agree with:

https://phrontistery.info/isms.html

Following the thoughts of others like some sort of mantra means you don’t have to think things through and work out for yourself if they really apply to your situation.

The greatest of philosophers can only draw upon their own experiences. Their experiences cannot be your experiences. We can but extrapolate upon the merits of their observations and try to determine how they may benefit us but never forgetting that they may also be of detriment to us.

Looking to others for insight is fine as far as it goes, but this must be balanced with your own insights.


This is all a long winded lead up to asking one simple question:

If one follows any particular philosophy can they truly claim to be going their own way?

Originally Posted by Jackoff

[...] This is all a long winded lead up to asking one simple question:

If one follows any particular philosophy can they truly claim to be going their own way?

I solve philosophical debates by creating dichotomies (pairs of opposites) and then finding a point of balance in the middle.

For example, take the age-old dichotomy of change/novelty versus order/structure. Either side of the debate turns dangerous if taken to the extreme:
--When taken to the extreme, change/novelty turns into chaos
--When taken to the extreme, order/structure turns into tyranny.

So to me, the goal is to try to avoid extremes. In other words, I try to structure my life in such a way as to have equal amounts of change/novelty and also order/structure.

That's just one quick example. Philosophy teaches that pretty much any idea can be turned into a dichotomy, and a middle point can be found. But basically my philosophy is "Moderation in all things" or "Balance in all things." That way I get to sample all the good things of life, but I avoid taking them to dangerous extremes.

That's even true for dichotomies like male versus female. Naturally I come down heavily on the "male" side of the dichotomy. But by way of balance, I accord females all the same rights that I covet for myself. I want freedom, so I grant females the right to freedom as well. I want equality, so I grant females the right to equality.

Of course, women would never grant those same rights to me by choice, so I avoid their company. Women engage in a lot of "politicking and posturing"* in their politics, so I simply tune them out. But other than that, I consider women to be equals and worthy of the same rights as me. And I've said so in many posts in the past. I simply choose to avoid their company so long as they refuse to grant me the same consideration.
________________
* See my post here on the subject of "politicking and posturing": https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgto...57/#post198157

Originally Posted by Jackoff

I’ve said many times on this forum that I detest “isms”.

And yet you argue for empiricism in your post.

If you believe you follow no philosophy, you haven't examined both your own thoughts and the incredible breadth of philosophy.

Do people latch onto various philosophies repeating the various tenets, usually incorrectly, without any conception of what it all means? Yes, of course they do. Do people lack even a shallow understanding of the "isms" they claim to believe? Yes, and because they're avoiding the heavy lifting you mention. All that raises the question you should be asking rather making a blanket condemnation of philosophy as a whole:

If out of ignorance and sloth people misunderstand and misuse a tool, does that mean the tool is bad?

Let's address your final question; If one follows any particular philosophy can they truly claim to be going their own way? If I'm able to learn from others, especially from the mistakes others make, am I still not going my own way? If I avoid the obstacles and pitfalls revealed in the experiences of others, am I just following along like a good sheep? Or am I still going my own way?

Obviously, the misuse of philosophy is a matter of degree and not kind. Philosophy is not bad, but the unthinking extremes which some people excuse away through their ignorance of philosophy is bad. The balance MGTOWLife wrote about is at work here. You even acknowledged that - and your own belief in empiricism - when you wrote "Looking to others for insight is fine as far as it goes, but this must be balanced with your own insights." It may be time for a little insight on your part.

Also, that list you linked to is... well... simplistic... is the kindest description I can come up with.

We often speak here on the merits and demerits of particular philosophies, but what of philosophy itself?

It seems to me that there is a danger in ascribing to any particular viewpoint. There is, IMO, an inherent laziness at play here: hey, let someone else do the heavy lifting and I’ll just follow along like a good sheep.




I 100% agree each thing needs to hold value to the individual man. People often want a cure-all answer to all of life's problems. The thing is humans Tend to admire and deify human beings that by there very nature are each vastly different .Though i think that this is because of surface level evaluation. The logic is that the best master is a student for life . We can only learn from ghost of the past so it's easy to bend there message into what we want

I’ve said many times on this forum that I detest “isms”. Here’s a list I found, see how many you agree with:

https://phrontistery.info/isms.html

Why have a problem with only isms? Truth is we are all influenced by other people regardless if we like it or not. imo detest sluggish thinking not the people who made a life philosophy , its not like they asked you to follow them.

Following the thoughts of others like some sort of mantra means you don’t have to think things through and work out for yourself if they really apply to your situation.


Ya I agree people need to learn to cherry pick. I know that is despised but we are each our own people.

The greatest of philosophers can only draw upon their own experiences. Their experiences cannot be your experiences. We can but extrapolate upon the merits of their observations and try to determine how they may benefit us but never forgetting that they may also be of detriment to us.

Looking to others for insight is fine as far as it goes, but this must be balanced with your own insights.


Great post.

Originally Posted by MGTOWLife

I solve philosophical debates by creating dichotomies (pairs of opposites) and then finding a point of balance in the middle.

...

I think this is a great way to approach things. Basically everything in moderation (not quite, but basically) if I understand right.

Yet occasionally it is beneficial to act out of character and take an extreme stance, for example when dealing with a bully that just won’t pack it in until confronted head-on, yet even here moderation is necessary or you end up locked up.

I believe that those that adopt extreme stances as a norm are the route of many of societies problems.

Originally Posted by Prokopton2

And yet you argue for empiricism in your post.

I didn’t even know this was a thing. This statement alone should indicate I’m no student of philosophy, but I do like to muse philosophical occasionally.

I had to look it up and I guess you’re right, but only up to a point.

Originally Posted by From The Web

Simply put, empiricism is the idea that all learning comes from only experience and observations. The term empiricism comes from the Greek word for experience: empeiria. The theory of empiricism attempts to explain how human beings acquire knowledge and improve their conceptual understanding of the world.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say all learning comes only from experience, but experience should IMO be used as a guide stick to determine the validity of learning via other sources.

Originally Posted by Prokopton2

If out of ignorance and sloth people misunderstand and misuse a tool, does that mean the tool is bad?

Absolutely not, it’s the misuse of such tools that is the impetus of my post.

Originally Posted by Prokopton2

If I'm able to learn from others, especially from the mistakes others make, am I still not going my own way? If I avoid the obstacles and pitfalls revealed in the experiences of others, am I just following along like a good sheep? Or am I still going my own way?

This is not what I’m getting at, in fact I said as much in the O.P. as you acknowledge later, it is the following of a philosophy in its entirety, warts and all, that irks me.

Originally Posted by Prokopton2

Also, that list you linked to is... well... simplistic... is the kindest description I can come up with.

Absolutely, it was just something I came across, yet many follow many of them like some kind of mantra.

Originally Posted by Epictetus

People often want a cure-all answer to all of life's problems.

This I think says it better than my own spiel. It is (IMO) through this desire that people cease to think for themselves, hence my comments about laziness and sheep.

Originally Posted by Epictetus

Why have a problem with only isms? Truth is we are all influenced by other people regardless if we like it or not.

True, but these days everything seems to be an “ism” of some sort. The problem (IMO) with isms is that they formalise things to such an extent that any deviation is considered somehow wrong which in turn can lead one astray.