Bad side of philosophy

[heynameless]

Being a kid in school, I don't know if I'm wrong to want to get into philosophy so early, but it's my impression that people writing about their own thoughts on our existance tend to use words that are there, but do not represent anything concrete.

For example :
Everything is relative, relativity is relative, so there is absoluteness.

These are words, and yes they seem intelligent, but if I ask you to explain it, can you?
I have the feeling that philosophy tends to be too "eloquent", complex words are used to make the matter (which is pretty hard to grasp entirely from the beginning) even more complex, so little kids like me have no comprehension at all of the meaning.

Do we really need to read books and use scientific terms to philosophize?

[Individual]

Absolutely not. You don't need to use shmancy-fancy words to philosophize.

I try not to believe that philosophy can be defined, period.

The statement Everything is relative, relativity is relative, so there is absoluteness would certainly seem rather dull. I'll tell you that it does carry meaning, though it'd take me a damn while to figure it out. Words that you will find often when reading up on philosophy are assigned value, or meaning, or some shit. It just takes a knowledge on the subject to fully understand what these words and statements mean.

You don't have to read to practice philosophy, but if an area interests you it would certainly help if you read up on it. Reading and discussing things will help you better understand as well as further your knowledge.

The bad side of philosophy to me is the existence of my mind, or life. Sometimes one can become so engrained in trying to philosophize and figure shit out, that thoughts can become so over whelming that you have no idea where to turn.

The questions are out there, the toughest part is settling on the answer, as more times than one it will come back to haunt you. Sometimes thinking about all of this shit, focusing in on different lights while trying to maintain an old interpretation is hard. Inevitably there is nothing, death and lack of existence will come. There are no answers, only assumptions and interpretations. Something may well physically exist, as does every objective object interpretated within your mind, but why?

I try to limit myself in thinking for too long, it usually leads me to trouble. Dwelling over every aspect of your existence will seemingly give too much or take away from your existence, it is hard to find a balance between curiousity and flat out fucking shit.

Really, the biggest problem is having to interpret, will death come lightly?

[Trissy]

Basically everybody is a philosopher in the sense that we all have our own thoughts on life. What seperates the good philosophers from the bad ones though is not the fact that some can use long words and others cannot. What truly seperates the good philosophers from the bad philosophers is rather consistency and a readiness to think the unthinkable (in the sense of thinking things you'd rather not [e.g. moral relativism means that child abuse is not necessarily wrong, merely that I believe it to be wrong]).


For example :
Everything is relative, relativity is relative, so there is absoluteness.

Well this may not be an attractive thing to think about but it is not strictly philosophy. Philosophy has many branches (Existwentialism, ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, etc.) and this is merely an example of one of them (i.e. logic). Some people find it interesting, and others do not. If you don't then find another branch that does interest you like philosophy of mind, or philosophy of religion, etc. I personally preffer the more practical side of philosophy found in politcal philosophy and in Existentialism.

Oh and personally I think the example you gave is both easy to understand and to explain. I stumbled accross it myself by accident when I was just thinking about absolute and relative morality. I'll gladly explain it as simply as I can if anyone wants me to but I get the feeling that nobody really does...

[LSD]

I have the feeling that philosophy tends to be too "eloquent", complex words are used to make the matter (which is pretty hard to grasp entirely from the beginning) even more complex, so little kids like me have no comprehension at all of the meaning.

I promise you, no one's trying to prevent "little kids like [you]" from understanding philosophy! :D

It's just that specialized fields require specialized language. Sure there's an element of academic elitism, but there is a very pragmatic side to it as well.

Repeating the same thoughts and ideas again and again using "ordinary language" becomes quite tired after a while. In order to avoid this pedantic excersise, philosophers "make up" words and phrases to communicate those ideas.

It's no different from what linguists or anthropologists or sociologists or engineeers or mathematicians do.

I can see that learning all these "scientific terms" might seem to be rather daunting, but it really is nescessary to ensure that everyone is at the "same level" so the discussion can actually evolve.

It isn't malicous it's just efficient.

[heynameless]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 11:24 AM
Oh and personally I think the example you gave is both easy to understand and to explain. I stumbled accross it myself by accident when I was just thinking about absolute and relative morality. I'll gladly explain it as simply as I can if anyone wants me to but I get the feeling that nobody really does...
I care, I care, which is why I asked in the first place.
I guess philosophy is such a general term that I need to learn the name of its branches anyways.
On the other hand ... as long as I'm thinking, I'm good.

[Rasta Sapian]

yes you are totally right, philosophy does use sometimes really big or extensive words to explain sometimes longer and more in dept concepts.

Keep up your objective insights and it will only come natural to you. ;)

[Strange]

Yes I have definitly noticed. It seems like many philosiphers enjoy using words that like to sometimes contradict each other. And when and if you have the chance to question this person it is usually a difficult explanation.

[redtrigger]

If you would like to read some concrete philosophy you should read any of the numerous books on rationalism, I would also reccomend the book The Hidden Connections.

[komon]

it is up to you.making chooices is up to you.the rest is philosophy.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

The world is a will to power, and nothing more besides.

[NovelGentry]

Everything is relative, relativity is relative, so there is absoluteness.

If everything is relative, which it is, and relativity itself can be said to be relative, which it can, than there is a single absolute in life, that all things, including relativity itself is relative. The absoluteness is in essence that nothing is absolute.

-- a pretty weak philosophy if you ask me, sounds like whoever said it is just trying destroy whatever arguments are made againt this. There are absolutes, what is not absolute is that everyone's perception of them will be the same.

[Trissy]

If everything is relative, which it is, and relativity itself can be said to be relative, which it can, than there is a single absolute in life, that all things, including relativity itself is relative. The absoluteness is in essence that nothing is absolute.

A very good account although I'd probably have written the last bit a tad differently and gone with 'absoluteness is in essence only that only relativity is absolute'. Sorry I didn't reply but I got sidetracked by essays to write.


a pretty weak philosophy if you ask me, sounds like whoever said it is just trying destroy whatever arguments are made againt this. There are absolutes, what is not absolute is that everyone's perception of them will be the same.

This theory is known as Protagorean Relativisim and is attributed to Protagoras by Socrates in Plato's work 'the Theatetus'. It's only weak in the sense that it is self-refuting (or seemingly so). The self-refutation is avoided though by simply watering it down and stating 'everything is relative except relativity'. The problem then being that how can one establish relativity as the exception to the rule...

[CommieBastard]

Not everything is relative. There are abolute truths. And they are not ones that relate to a source reality.

People who beleive in an absoluteness of a source reality are mistaken. Then came relativists who showed that people's perceptions of this seeming source reality are not the same, and so there can be no absolute truth.

Then there came me, and I will show what the REAL truths are, and how they gave the IMPRESSION of relativism

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

A teacher once told me philosophy is alot like masturbation of the mind, it may feel good but it ultimately results in no significant achievement.

[Trissy]

A teacher once told me philosophy is alot like masturbation of the mind, it may feel good but it ultimately results in no significant achievement.
Not meaning to sound bold or arrogant but it sounds like your teacher clearly had very little knowledge of philosophy or history.

Marxism and Existentialism have both played key roles in the 20th century if you consider the birth of Capitalism, the horrors of the two World wars, the threats of Cold War and Terrorism and also the stresses we face in modern society. Marxism and Existentialism are systems of philosophy that stemmed from the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel wrote in responce to the society of his time and was greatly influenced by the French revolution and the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant was woken from his 'dogmatic slumber' by the work of David Hume who wrote in responce to the writing of John Locke who in turn was writing in responce to the aftermath of the English Civil War and the birth of the New Science....

I could go on and on but I fail to see how anybody with half a brain can claim that philosophy produces no significant achievements when you consider that modern science, psychology, sociology, politics and many other fields stemmed from what we now call Philosophy. If it were not for the work started by the ancient Greeks then I dread to think what kind of world we would be living in now. One that is far more religious and superstitious I fear.

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

I think he was refering to socratic method mostly.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Philosophy is worth studying if only to show you that your potential for understanding can be significantly increased with long, hard, developing over time thinking.

Don't worry what others say about it, just pick up some books by somebody you think will have something to say to you and most likely you will be hooked.

Remember that all subjects stem from a philosophical basis in one way or another.