Home Grown Philosophies

[Ginkgo]

Have you ever developed a personal philosophy that you later found out to be something that someone else cultivated in the past? Did you later realize that your philosophy wasn't has home-grown as you thought it was because of the impact it had on your society, and the subconscious impact it may have had on you as a result? If so, what was it?

 

[Mole]

Have you ever developed a personal philosophy that you later found out to be something that someone else cultivated in the past? Did you later realize that your philosophy wasn't has home-grown as you thought it was because of the impact it had on your society, and the subconscious impact it may have had on you as a result? If so, what was it?

The purpose of Western philosophy is not to teach you how to live - that is the job of your parents, teachers and peers.

No, the purpose of Western philosophy is to question what you have been taught - to question how you have been taught to live.

This is a dangerous occupation as Socrates found when they gave him the hemlock.

And it is dangerous to question how we live.

It is seen as disrespectful to our parents. It is seen as bucking peer pressure. It is seen as anti-God. It is seen as unpatriotic. And in a society hooked on self esteem, it is seen as self destructive.

Western philosophy requires intellectual integrity, moral courage and spontaneity.

 

[matmos]

This is a dangerous occupation as Socrates found when they gave him the hemlock.

Plato's desciption of Socrates's death in Phaedo is not consistent with the known symptoms of hemlock poisoning. His death was most certainly not by hemlock.

 

[Factotum]

The purpose of Western philosophy is not to teach you how to live - that is the job of your parents, teachers and peers.

No, the purpose of Western philosophy is to question what you have been taught - to question how you have been taught to live.

However, if you come to the conclusion that what you've been taught is wrong and thus change the way you live, philosophy has in effect taught you to live.

Regarding the question, when I first heard of Utilitarism I was surprised anyone could disagree with it. Its definition of a good deed has always seemed obvious to me (and by and large, I still agree with it.)

 

[Mole]

Plato's desciption of Socrates's death in Phaedo is not consistent with the known symptoms of hemlock poisoning. His death was most certainly not by hemlock.

G'day Banana, good to see you.

And Socrates death is apocryphal, and as you point out so well, it is not literally true.

It is meant to mark an epoch - indeed our epoch which starts apocryphally with Socrates.

And of course it is meant to tell a story with a meaning. And it is a story that resonates in Western culture. It rings like a bell.

And although it is not literally true, it does tell a deeper truth.

 

[Mole]

However, if you come to the conclusion that what you've been taught is wrong and thus change the way you live, philosophy has in effect taught you to live.

I don't think the purpose of Western philosophy is to teach the right way to live or what is wrong in the way we live.

I think it is up to our parents, teachers and peers to teach us right from wrong.

No, Western philosophy is about inquiring into what is right and wrong. It is not to determine what is right and wrong - that has already been done by our parents, teachers and peers.

I do think, though, that if we are still seeking the right way to live, then Western philosophy is not for us.

We need to wait until we have determined what is right and wrong for us before we can enquire into it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Reflect on the possibility that every thought has already been thought, Tater. That every feeling has been felt before. We are unique yet are not; everything that has been is now and shall be again.

It's repackaging of the same stuff, over and over and over again. The past and future have no shape. A bigger question is, why?

Look at the birds outside ... none of these are the birds from 10 years ago. All those birds from the past are dead, long gone. Yet the birds we see today seem the same and fly and live ... we see them as the same. Do we not?

So my answer to your question is yes.

 

[Factotum]

I think it is up to our parents, teachers and peers to teach us right from wrong.

Then thinking about it would be rather pointless. Also, other people don't have a better way to determine what's good than philosophy and thinking in general either.

No, Western philosophy is about inquiring into what is right and wrong. It is not to determine what is right and wrong - that has already been done by our parents, teachers and peers.

Where did you get that definiton from?

 

[Mole]

Reflect on the possibility that every thought has already been thought, Tater. That every feeling has been felt before. We are unique yet are not; everything that has been is now and shall be again.

It's repackaging of the same stuff, over and over and over again. The past and future have no shape. A bigger question is, why?

Look at the birds outside ... none of these are the birds from 10 years ago. All those birds from the past are dead, long gone. Yet the birds we see today seem the same and fly and live ... we see them as the same. Do we not?

If this were true, there would be no point in doing mathematics or exploring the atom, the universe or ourselves.

But the fact is we are discovering new thoughts every day. Whole universities are devoted to discovering new thoughts. Whole libraries of books are written about new thoughts.

If there were no new thoughts, we would be limited to repeating the threadbare thoughts of astrology or MBTI.

So no wonder you think there are no new thoughts, because that is what we do here. We repeat the same old thoughts of astrology and MBTI over and over again.

And we do this for a purpose - to put our mind into a trance so we won't think any new thoughts.

 

[PeaceBaby]

But the fact is we are discovering new thoughts every day. Whole universities are devoted to discovering new thoughts. Whole libraries of books are written about new thoughts.

Are you sure they are new thoughts? Certainly we understand more and more about the intricate tapestry of our world all the time.

But the fabric of thought is different than the product of that mental activity. The desire to understand, enlighten, to find truth, to solve problems.

Those underlying motivations travel unchanged over hundreds and hundreds of years.

 

[Factotum]

Are you sure they are new thoughts? Certainly we understand more and more about the intricate tapestry of our world all the time.

But the fabric of thought is different than the product of that mental activity. The desire to understand, enlighten, to find truth, to solve problems.

Those underlying motivations travel unchanged over hundreds and hundreds of years.

That's like saying no new tools and things have ever been created because matter has existed for billions of years. The underlying motivations being the same does not mean the resulting thoughts are not new.

 

[Poki]

Are you sure they are new thoughts? Certainly we understand more and more about the intricate tapestry of our world all the time.

But the fabric of thought is different than the product of that mental activity. The desire to understand, enlighten, to find truth, to solve problems.

Those underlying motivations travel unchanged over hundreds and hundreds of years.

Its interesting how the same thought can be visited over and over each one creating a new idea based on the "total understanding" + a single thought.

Total Understanding + Same Thought = New Idea
New Idea + Previous Understanding = Total Understanding
Rinse and repeat

 

[Mole]

Are you sure they are new thoughts? Certainly we understand more and more about the intricate tapestry of our world all the time.

But the fabric of thought is different than the product of that mental activity. The desire to understand, enlighten, to find truth, to solve problems.

Those underlying motivations travel unchanged over hundreds and hundreds of years.

The desire to understand, enlighten, to find truth and solve problems is only very recent and stems from the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Before that we had things like astrology and MBTI.

But after the Enlightenment, rather than repeating the mantra of astrology over and over, we started to discover new thoughts in astronomy.

And rather than repeating the same old, same old MBTI, we started to think new thoughts in psychometrics.

However astrology and MBTI are comforting. It is comforting to repeat the same old thoughts over and over, like wearing an old cardigan.

And there are so many who need comforting.

 

[Poki]

The desire to understand, enlighten, to find truth and solve problems is only very recent and stems from the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Before that we had things like astrology and MBTI.

But after the Enlightenment, rather than repeating the mantra of astrology over and over, we started to discover new thoughts in astronomy.

And rather than repeating the same old, same old MBTI, we started to think new thoughts in psychometrics.

However astrology and MBTI are comforting. It is comforting to repeat the same old thoughts over and over, like wearing an old cardigan.

And there are so many who need comforting.

Repeating the same thought can be painful. Its like a stuck record, no solution is found, no problems are solved. No advancements are made. I have been there done that and eventually you get tired of repeating the same thing over and over until you give up on a solution and find a way to sever that thought. Pretty much the opposite of what you speak of.

 

[PeaceBaby]

That's like saying no new tools and things have ever been created because matter has existed for billions of years. The underlying motivations being the same does not mean the resulting thoughts are not new.

Perhaps I should have chosen the word "thought" with greater care so as not to obfuscate my message in the semantics of the word being picked apart. I am just interested in the core of thought. Not the product.

I don't see anyone arguing that we experience new emotions all the time. We don't really think new thoughts either; just recycled ones, but they have the benefit of building on the concrete of physical discovery. Thus they look "new".

So yes, the product of the process of thought is indeed new, to us at least.

Perhaps the core of thought is emotion anyway ... the desire to create, to solve, to understand. So emotion > thought.

Thus if we were truly advancing in the worlds of emotion, we would not see the same themes playing out over time as we do. Perhaps we just don't have the benefit of enough time to reflect over; perhaps true change here can only happen over millenia, rather than centuries.

 

[Poki]

Perhaps I should have chosen the word "thought" with greater care so as not to obfuscate my message in the semantics of the word being picked apart. I am just interested in the core of thought. Not the product.

I don't see anyone arguing that we experience new emotions all the time. We don't really think new thoughts either; just recycled ones, but they have the benefit of building on the concrete of physical discovery. Thus they look "new".

So yes, the product of the process of thought is indeed new, to us at least.

Perhaps the core of thought is emotion anyway ... the desire to create, to solve, to understand. So emotion > thought.

Thus if we were truly advancing in the worlds of emotion, we would not see the same themes playing out over time as we do. Perhaps we just don't have the benefit of enough time to reflect over; perhaps true change here can only happen over millenia, rather than centuries.

You'd like that wouldnt you

I think they both have a place as you can feel without thought and think without feeling. Its where the 2 overlap that we get confused whether the chicken or the egg came first.

To me if something is driven from a detached nature thought>emotion. If it is driven from an attached nature emotion>thought. Just my 2 cents.

edit: But a thought that is not driven by emotion I can withstand for very long periods of time without a solution and continue to recycle it over and over, thoughts that are tied to emotions are the ones that creates more problems.

 

[ragashree]

Repeating the same thought can be painful. Its like a stuck record, no solution is found, no problems are solved. No advancements are made. I have been there done that and eventually you get tired of repeating the same thing over and over until you give up on a solution and find a way to sever that thought. Pretty much the opposite of what you speak of.

I wonder if his inability to achieve any meaningful degree of personal resolution by doing this is why Victor keeps on with it?

 

[kyuuei]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of religion the way I do.. With that being said, no one who thought this way influenced my thinkings. I derived the conclusion, my personal philosophy on it, on my own through my experiences and observances. It's my bit of pride, and I hold dear to it, even if there are others out there that spent about 15 minutes of reading someone else's thoughts to come to the same conclusion it took me 3 years to meditate on.

 

[Poki]

I wonder if his inability to achieve any meaningful degree of personal resolution by doing this is why Victor keeps on with it?

From understanding MBTI and digging deeper into functions if victor is an IJ they sit in Si or Ni and a path works itself out based on that. That is the only path they can see and have problems detouring from that path without switching Si or Ni. The way to change is to bring in more Si or a different Ni. But Ni and Si dom cant do that because all they see is their path based on what they know(the downfall of a dominant introvert). They need to sit in Te or Fe which is external functions. They need to learn new external concepts, find new external details to add in. Expand our dominant function through our auxilary function. If they sit in Ni or Si long enough they will always find a path based on what they know, it will build itself internally. It may have hiccups to get past, but its a path that will 90% of the time lead to the correct outcome. Not everyone can withstand the hiccups though when this path involves others. Its dependent on the other persons strengths and weaknesses.

/thought for now