obi -1

Please don't feed the trolls.

Meh, I've given up on that idea, maple will post whether I feed him or not...

The way I look at it, everyone, knowing maple is maple, will either just skip over his ramblings or feed him and, likewise, everyone will jsut skip over MY ramblings in response, or else take an interest and laugh.

So go ahead and ignore his pedantic psotings and my silly responses, when I care to make them--most of the time it's just not even worth it, maple's losing his touch just as surely as the Maple Leafs are losing their status as an elite organization...what an abysmal showing over such a long period, and in a league that allows most of the teams, 16 out of 30, into the playoffs!--and no one will blame you, and nothing will be missed.

;)

(What's your opinion on the actual topic, by the way, abgemacht? I know you said my post was too long--and thanks for Urban Dictionary lesson, haha--but surely some of the saner folks here have saner-length posts that you might have read...?)

youre wrong actually obiwan.

...

Granted I probably am, on something--and possibly a great many somethings--but in this particular case, *what* am I wrong about, Thucy? :)

I also think you're wrong obiwan. Maple will stop trolling him if you stop reacting the way he wants you to. He has, for the most part stopped trolling me (a few isolated incidents aside, usually when I've made a comment somewhat like this), ever since I started reacting to his sophomoric insults and jibes dismissively, rather than engaging with them. Do the same, and he'll leave you alone (mostly).

Everyone possesses a philosophy on life, whether they realized it or not. So, to answer the question, there is no "point" to philosophy; philosophy just *is* within every thinking mind.

If, on the other hand, you are asking what is the point to *studying* philosophy...that is a whole 'nother topic. First, for anyone to suggest that they do not "study" philosophy is simply to be ignorant. You may not pick up a book and read and concentrate on it...but, since everyone in the world changes their viewpoint on life, the universe and everything as they age -and thus their behavior is modified accordingly - you can rightly say that everyone is a student of philosophy. It may be that you get screwed by a coworker so many times that you finally say, "Fuck it" and don't trust anyone...and your philosophy has now changed because you are a student of life (and thus philosophy, which examines life and your role in it).

For those that *actively* study philosophy - pick up book, write silly posts seeking input, etc. - then you are simply trying to accelerate the slow process of learning by experience. The desired outcome is the same: to live my life to the best. some people wait to be screwed to change their thoughts...or alternatively wait to experience the pleasure of altruism...others study philosophy and decide that altruism is the best course of their life and do it by pre-thinking/pre-experiencing the experience (via imagination), and thus acting accordingly.

Errr. That should say Maple will stop trolling you...I don't know how I managed to make that mistake.

@obi

I was actually one of the first people to post. As usual, you skipped over my initial post : (

I think "philosophy" needs to be better defined to have this conversation. If you mean philosophy as in a set of rules that allow you to consider a system, then I think it's very important. The scientific method is one such philosophy.

If you mean philosophy as a subject in its own right, I think it's nonsense. To me, it seems like a munch of people preaching philosophy just for the sake of preaching philosophy. What I've heard from philosophy classes is particularly disturbing.

A given philosophy should be used to accomplish something. Studying philosophy for the sake of studying it (armchair philosophy) without any connection to the real world seems like the most pointless things someone can waste their time on.

abgemacht - how utterly wrong you are. the study of philosophy (college clases teaching you all sorts of odd things, mostly meaningless) teaches you to conceptualize people's thoughts, understand them, and respond appropriately. Unfortunately...you included at ties ...to many people on these forums are completely incapable of seeing another's post and responding appropriately, because, in part, they have never learned how to think. Not just think for themselves...but to think in another's mind, if you gather my meaning. I have often been accused of trolling...and yet so often the responses to my "trolling" have *nothing* to do with what i have posted. People fail to even try to conceptualize other's ideas....perhaps because they have never been trained to see outside their own narrow, dim world.

I do NOT mean this as an insult to you...it is more of an insult on humanity in general, and education in particular.

@krellin

If this were the case, I would agree with you. However, from talking with many "philosophers" and friends who have taken "philosophy" courses, this seems not to be the reality of things. It seems to me that most philosophy is so abstract and meaningless that it is not applicable to the real world. Now, perhaps I have only been exposed to tainted examples of Philosophy (and quite frankly, obi doesn't help with that, no offense). I put my stock in psychology to understand people and math to understand the universe. While I admit (and have already said) that those are themselves philosophies, I don't see what is to be gained from the pure study of Philosophy.

Is that clearer? Also, out of curiosity, in what have I acted in the way you described?

@abgemacht:

I didn't neglect your post! I read it...I was asking what you thought on the subject NOW, hence my reference to my and other folks' responses since, as you say, the question of what philosohpy is needs to be defined first, so I was asking, in the wake of some of these definitions, what your opinion on the topic was in relation to those postings and definitions.

@obi

I know. As usually, I'm just busting your chops.

Did my response to Krellin make things clearer?

@ Ab -- I won't get into pointing out specifics of this incident or that...but you have come after me in the past and attacked me personally without addressing a topic...without ever *trying* to understand or address my point of view...and my point of view (be it a rabbit trail or direct post to a topic) is just as valid as anyone elses....but...aside from that.

I am an engineer by degree, who 4.0 his philosophy courses. Most of the philosphy I learned was nonsense, nature-of-the-universe stuff and on and on. While I don't agree with the majority of what I learned, what I **DID** learn and greatly benefit from was, 1. the ability to dissect an argument, 2. examine other's and construct my own logical flow and 3. respond to an argument.

While this is not a "philosophy" per se, the study of hpilosophy exposes you to so many arguments and *types* of arguments, that you then benefit from the process, and not necessarily the "knowledge" gained in philosophy, per se. Again, I look at so many arguments on the forums...and the lack of logical follow-through is sometimes amazing...and I attribute that to a lack of thinking skills...and I believe philosophy can help improve "thinking" skills.

And then, when "life" occurs to all of us...those thinking skills help you evaluate what YOU are to do in YOUR life based upon what is happening/has happened to you....

"However, from talking with many "philosophers" and friends who have taken "philosophy" courses, this seems not to be the reality of things."

Anyone who claims they're a philosopher is NOT the genuine article.

Hence the reason I NEVER make that mistake and declare myself a "philosohper," at the very least (and I know that leaves me open to joke to be made by a certain Canadian, but I will just leave it there, and should he choose to make that joke and attempt to troll...well, we'll see how well leaving him alone goes...) ;)

I said in one post before that I'd consider it the highest honor to be called an author or philosopher someday, but that's not a title and position you just get to appoint yourself to.

A certain someone--if I said who there'd be an uproar about my using him all-too-often--once said "Some men are born posthumously."

A similar principle is ar work with deciding who's an author/philosohper/artist...

Let history and time adn the outside world decide.

In his own time, Socrates and Jesus are just two guys who talked up a storm.
In our own time, these men become two of the wisest men--philosophers--of all-time.

@Krellin

I would agree with studying philosophy could help in the way you described; however 1) I think there is a serious danger in being lost in all the nonsense and 2) I don't think the benefits that are to be gained are unique to that subject.

@ everyone

I cannot effectively continue this discussion without a firm definition of "philosophy". What definition are we going to use from now on?

@krellin:

"Most of the philosphy I learned was nonsense, nature-of-the-universe stuff and on and on."

I wouldn't consider that useless philosophy at all.

I'll say that in a practical, every-day sense, yes, we really don't need Plato's Theory of Forms or Russell's Logical Positivism.

But as a guide to life, I think they're rather important, hence the reason people choose--I'd say "are indoctrinated into" in some cases, but I digress--a religion to guide them and to find and construct a vision of higehr meaning...I'd argue that this must be a choice one makes actively and personally, so just being told The Bible or Plato or Nietzsche--yes, Nietzsche too!--is "the answer" or "the way" and showing up once a week to read form said canon of books and compare clothing is superficial and absurd and NOT the point of philosophy or faith, to be fair...reading of MANY texts is required, and then the formulation of one's OWN opinion based on those readings and personal experiences and ideas, to produce a personal philosophy.

That philosophy might TEND to agree with The Bible or, to put myself in the Exhibit A position, with Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, and sections of the "Three E's of Obi"--Existentialism, Englism Empiricism, and Elitism--but it can and must deviate as well.

I think Nietzsche was FAR WRONG in a great deal of his political philosophy; calling the State "a poison" is an interesting take, but beyond that, Friedrich rambles largely.

I think Plato was HORRIBLY WRONG with the end idea of his Republic; his educational ystem, as I've said time and again, should be, in my view, the template for our system, but turning the State into an Orwellian nightmare based upon eugenics and what even Plato himself referred to as "The Noble Lie" is morally reprehensible (even to amoral assholes such as myself.) ;)

And while I'm no science major...I think we can all agree Aristotle's heliocentrism is wrong? ;)



THAT is the value of Abstract Philosophy--to generate a picture for one's personal guidance and fulfillment.

Concrete Philosophy--namely, Ethical and Political Philosophy, and Epistemological Philosophy as well if we want to throw educational ideas in there--is, as has been said, useful and needed for day to day functioning.

@Abg - 1) If there is a danger of being lost in the subject, you will be lost in stupid thoughts regardless of whether you study philosophy or not. You will become an internet conspiracy freak...or you will believe all the nonsense you watch on CNN and/or Fox News ( to pick on both sides equally). If you are a nut...you are a nut. lol. 2) You *may* be correct in that the benefits gained *may* be gained elsewhere....though my fellow engineers in college were....eh hemmmm...a bunch of narrow-minded geeks, if you will pardon me. A musician is artistic, but they can not do art in all it's lovely forms. Likewise, just because you learn to think in one aspect of life (say mathematics, or science) does NOT mean you can apply your thought processes universally. In fact, I would suggest that the study of the brain woudl indicate precisely against the notion that a good mathematician is a good all-around-thinker per se, as the brain is a complex, divided entity, and thoughts of one sort are *here*, and thoughts on another matter are *there* and....you gather my meaning, I trust.

@Obi - You *completely* misunderstand me. I NEVER said that the nonsensical, nature of the universe stuff was USELESS. I said I didn't agree with it...but IN FACT I said it was VERY USEFUL! Perhaps you should READ and COMPREHEND my post before trying to bash me. Moron...

@ Abg - See Obi's response to me? He *completely* failed to grasp what I was saying....sigh....and that is what I *despise* about these forums. Idiots bashing people when they can't even comprehend plain fucking English....

@Gunfighter and everyone else who asked "What do you mean by philosophy?"

From the TITLE...

"But really, what's the point of philosophy? (Taken to mean "thinking about life" and whatever connotation it may carry for you.) And of life?"

So, it's meant here to mean, in the broadest sense, "thinking about life," and then in the more particular sense, we've already divided this into Abstract/Armchair Philosophy (ie, our discussions on God and Heaven and Hell) and Concrete/Applicable Philosophy (which I'd label as Ethics, Political Thought, and Epistemology, for starters...a concrete idea of how to act in one's environment is needed, how and why a State works is needed for our existence as members of a State--whichever one you are part of--and then Theory of Knowledge/Learning, since we all, at the very least, need to learn for ourselvese HOW we learn best, and why that suits us, and he uses and extent of that knowlege, and so on.)

to address the original question...
Who says there needs to be a point to life? Things that need a point are things that don't have value on their own (intrinsic value). (example: I go to work, so that I can earn money.) Life is worthwhile without a "why"... because it has intrinsic value. It is enjoyable on its own without any need for it to lead to something else - some "higher" truth or meaning. I mean, it would be nice and all, to have higher meaning... but that doesn't mean I should invent it - or need to invent it - in order to get enjoy life. Indeed, inventing a false meaning may get in the way of my enjoyment (pretense is a distraction and an annoyance).

As to the point of philosophy... well, as with any puzzle... or any game... it is fun. Do we reach a definitive end? Do we have to? I would suggest... maybe. :-) (to say no would also be an end)

oh - and yes, hello and all (back after about a year, I think).

@Krellin

1) Can't argue with you there. But, I've noticed (and perhaps this is my real problem) that Philosophy (along with Psych) have become cease-pools for idiots. That isn't to say there aren't brilliant people in those fields, or that the fields aren't important. It just seems that they've been severely tainted.
2) I won't disagree with you there, either. However, I would argue that I gained a lot of understanding of people from psychology. Moreso than I would from philosophy.

...

I wasn't bashing you, krellin...why are you taking this seriously?

And I took it you said the manner of learning to conceptualize was the value of Armchair Philosophy, rather than the ideas themselves...?

*personally, not why are you taking this "seriously."

:p

"...cesspools for idiots." Talk about irony...

"1) Can't argue with you there. But, I've noticed (and perhaps this is my real problem) that Philosophy (along with Psych) have become cease-pools for idiots. That isn't to say there aren't brilliant people in those fields, or that the fields aren't important. It just seems that they've been severely tainted."

I agree...hence the poor repuation philosophy seems to have nowadays!

psychology is, ideally, a science (of behavior and the thought/emotion potentially behind behavior)... philosophy is less grounded than a science... more like mathematical explorations of invented geometries - it can't divorce itself from its assumptions... you can't simply observe a philosophical event or phenomena (where you can observe psychological phenomena)... unless, that is, you simply define philosophy simply as a derivative of psychology... which, of course, it is. (and therefore is at least one step further removed from reality). I am not trained in the dark arts, though, so perhaps I'm talking out of my ass.

@obi

I suppose I just don't understand how it is warranted that philosophy is a field of study by itself. Doesn't it make more sense to just break off various philosophies into their respective places?