How Relevant is Philosophy To Actions?

[Mole]

I suppose I was thinking of the idea that everyone is, at some level, a philsopher.

Most of us are anti-philosophers.

 

[Mole]

Other than a declaration by you that being rejected and marginalized is a requirement for being a philosopher, what basis do we have for such dichotomies?

We perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see. So the distinction philosopher/ideologue is like a torch beam on a dark night.

 

[Mole]

That was a masterful removal of context.

Almost always we take context for granted. Philosophy looks at context, and speaks the language of context. And as we change the contexts, we change the meaning of the text.

Naturally this is disorientating and confusing. However confusion is a sign learning is taking place.

 

[five sounds]

one of my main goals in life is to be firm in what i believe and to make my actions consistent with it. so my personal answer to this question is: as often as possible.

 

[kyuuei]

Philosophy is potentially everything.

There are limits. For example, lack of self-awareness, denial, inability to change, and other natural factors can impede things.

But take, for example, random made up Sociopath Joe. Joe's his last name. Sociopath Joe does not actively think on the world. He does not have an opinion on what should be right or wrong. He doesn't care about other people, or their feelings, or how his actions influence those around him. If he wants to stab that lady for wearing a pink hat because he decides to hate pink that day, then that's just what will happen and he won't lose a wink of sleep over it. He doesn't have a philosophy in his heart or mind, and chaos leads the way, so he's eating bagel bites out of his bathtub while watching porn on his phone that he stole from some 16 year old boy that lives next door using the boy's mom's credit card.

But most of us are NOT Sociopath Joe. Most of us have principles that guide us. Things we grew up with, that we decided ourselves, that we experienced. We have a philosophy--whether we put it into clear words and terms or not. Most of us have taken a situation in our lives--like when we see someone called a bad name in school--and studied it, and tried to work a way into a solution. That solution is different for everyone: calling the name caller out, giving support to the person being called a bad name, resolving not to do it ourselves, resolving that the guy getting his name called deserves it, helping the name caller out, etc. But we all saw a potential problem or experienced it, studied it, and usually we come up with some sort of philosophy as a result.

Most philosophies are flimsy and don't get much credit and honor. Like, "I think eating right is healthy and best. But I don't always do it." Even when we really like an idea and solution, and study it often, we're less likely to make it a strict disciplined principle.

But for some, philosophies are a way of life, and we strive hard to find principles that define us--or that we want to define us--and find ways to beat those into every action we take. Like Honor, and leadership, confidence, kindness, and selfless service. These are hard to define, and require constantly meditating on them, analyzing actions in the past, rehashing events and working the problems in our head like math equations, trying to re-engineer the situation until we have answers that will satisfy for the next time the issue comes up.

I'm at that stage in my life where I'm putting my philosophies into words, reconciling with the past when I was in denial and lacked the self awareness I currently possess, and translating those words into actions. It's an interesting experience, and I don't have all the words yet. But I will soon I believe.

 

[Mole]

one of my main goals in life is to be firm in what i believe and to make my actions consistent with it.

In order to learn we need to examine what we believe. And concommitently we need to disengage our actions from our beliefs.

Consider: the first mistake of amateur propagandists is to believe our own propaganda. Amateur poets want our love poetry to come true. Ideologues want our ideology to come true, and you want to make your actions consistent with your beliefs.

How can I protect you from yourself?

When I come home at night, I find I am alone with the most dangerous person in the world: myself.

 

[BlackDog]

Quite so.

And the followers of King Arthur are following in the footsteps of the good people of Athens who put our first philosopher, Socrates, to death.

And this is our tragedy, as the best of Western culture stems from Socrates.

This must surely be a misconception. Socrates tried to bring about the end of civilization by advocating for a dictatorship of philosophers along the lines of Brave New World. Fortunately he and his disciple Plato were prevented from gaining power.

 

[Mole]

This must surely be a misconception. Socrates tried to bring about the end of civilization by advocating for a dictatorship of philosophers along the lines of Brave New World. Fortunately he and his disciple Plato were prevented from gaining power.

God forbid that I should contradict the Lion King, but I believe it was Plato's Republic that talked about philosopher kings; on the other hand Socrates did not seek power, rather he taught us how to think.

 

[BlackDog]

God forbid that I should contradict the Lion King, but I believe it was Plato's Republic that talked about philosopher kings; on the other hand Socrates did not seek power, rather he taught us how to think.

But using the slippery slope argument I can demonstrate that the corruption of Socrates' methods of thinking led to the ultimate corruption of Plato.

Using a valid argument, I can demonstrate that Plato and Socrates' philosophies cannot be distinguished because Plato doctored all of the publications. Because Socrates never wrote anything down.

Using an ad hominem argument, I can demonstrate that Socrates married an underage girl when he was an old man just to have kids.

These three prove my point irrefutably.

 

[Mole]

But using the slippery slope argument I can demonstrate that the corruption of Socrates' methods of thinking led to the ultimate corruption of Plato.

Using a valid argument, I can demonstrate that Plato and Socrates' philosophies cannot be distinguished because Plato doctored all of the publications. Because Socrates never wrote anything down.

Using an ad hominem argument, I can demonstrate that Socrates married an underage girl when he was an old man just to have kids.

These three prove my point irrefutably.

I admit you are very difficult to refute.

 

[BlackDog]

I admit you are very difficult to refute.

YES! Logic does that for a person.

 

[Lark]

Is philosophy relevant to actions?

I love a nice long philosophical thread as much as the next guy.

However, I've often wondered about the interaction between philosophical ideas and real world actions.

For a while I took the position that there is no interaction. Needless to say, I got refuted. Clearly there can be interaction, and sometimes very important real world consequences occur as a result of philosophy.

However, how common is this in the judgment of this forum's readers? I tend to think it is minimal, but I'm basing that off of my personal experience. It would be useful to know what others think.

I answer on the basis of my own personal experience too, philosophy as I understand it is vital to my own decision making and my own life.

Religion and philosophy are the mainstays of my beliefs, I treat a lot of the other important theories which furnish me with knowledge and skills as emanations or reflections in one way or another of religion and philosophy in some shape or guise.

 

[Lark]

I think this might be circular logic, but I was thinking that a philosophy, no matter how grand or mundane, informs the actions and if it didn't, then it wasn't a philosophy to that person in the first place.

This is a little like Erich Fromm's suggestion that everyone possessed a religion, some were conscious of it and others not, religion as Fromm understood it was a frame of reference or orientation towards all life and an object of devotion, not necessarily a deity, and that in order to know anyone or assist anyone in therapy all that was necessary was to discover their "private religion".

 

[Lark]

YES! Logic does that for a person.

Its not logic, its not difficult to refute.

Its just Schaupenour's skilful argumentation, it is a parlour game, it does not serve truth, it only serves those engaging in debate as a contest or sport.

It is the same as the Sophists and Sophistry of Socrates and Plato's day which they challenged.

 

[Mole]

I answer on the basis of my own personal experience too, philosophy as I understand it is vital to my own decision making and my own life.

Religion and philosophy are the mainstays of my beliefs, I treat a lot of the other important theories which furnish me with knowledge and skills as emanations or reflections in one way or another of religion and philosophy in some shape or guise.

I experience philosophy as an escape from anything that has gone before. I experience philosophy as a liberation. Philosophy enables me to breathe.

I have found that mysticism in religion, as found in the medieval book, The Cloud of Unknowing, by Anonymous, to be similar to the liberation found in philosophy.

But the first problem we encounter in liberation philosophy is the fear of freedom. And at this point we scuttle back to the known. But if we are courageous enough to persist, we develop a taste for freedom. So freedom is an acquired taste.

For instance, I often wonder why do I keep coming back to Typology Central? And the answer is to find out what I will write. I start out not knowing what to write, and I think I have nothing to say, and I feel mildly panicky, but as I start to write each word, I discover something new.

Sometimes I try to plan what I will write, but it just comes out dead.

So liberation philosophy, or the philosophy of becoming, gives me something new to look forward to every day.

 

[BlackDog]

Its not logic, its not difficult to refute.

Its just Schaupenour's skilful argumentation, it is a parlour game, it does not serve truth, it only serves those engaging in debate as a contest or sport.

It is the same as the Sophists and Sophistry of Socrates and Plato's day which they challenged.

Not serious. The wink was meant to get that across.

 

[Mademoiselle]

What?!!!
Philosophy is a type of thoughts.
Thoughts are abstract unless you act them. they become actions.
How can you ask such question?!
That is incorrect.
Any thought or feeling can be expressed by actions.
So it’s not like this idea can’t be acted out because it’s philosophy.