erraticwisdom

Comments

1. I’m afraid I have to disagree with various of your points.
   
   I don’t believe that seeking truth (knowledge), this being a definition of philosophy, is part of human nature. It is not vital; human beings are content in their ignorance, ergo the saying, ignorance is bliss. A desire to know, for knowledge only comes to a certain few, e.g., the deceived lover. Other than these, we are content with living life. With the majority of the masses falling into a state of herd-like existence, they are content in obeying and following; thinking is for a select few who have developed this human potency – how or why I can’t say.
   
   Sadly, with more than half of the world living on less than two dollars a day, I have a feeling that meeting basic needs is foremost on their mind, human curiosity becoming … something forgotten.
   
   Philosophy requires leisure, thinking is an activity for the leisurely class; it is not something for the proletariat. Look at our philosophers … and to what group they belong.
   
   I don’t believe that philosophy is not accessible; at least in the US we have libraries – anyone can go and check out philosophical works gratis. We can also use the Internet. I think it’s an issue of desires; like I said, I don’t think most people have the time or desire to worry about meta-physical things; they have more earthly, immediate worries, e.g. what to wear.
   
   Concerning translations, some can make a work easier to understand or not; it all depends on the translation. You bring the example of surface vs. superficies. Surface comes from the French, while superficies comes from Latin. Granted, French comes from Latin, but it creates an extra level of idioms. Perhaps your translator translated the work from Latin and therefore by using superficies, he is trying to remain faithful to a Latin translation (hopefully he used a manuscript in Greek). Who knows; translating is a very difficult and interesting process. Though surface and superficies are synonyms, they are not one in the same. I could say happiness or felicity, which for all intents and purposes are the same thing, but they probably meant different things in their respective languages of origin, i.e., german and latin. Then again, the author could just be a pompous fool.

   Juan

   Aug 19, 11:03 PM #
2. “I don’t believe that seeking truth (knowledge), this being a definition of philosophy, is part of human nature.”
   
   I’m afraid I believe in the innate curiosity of the human mind. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to accurately prove either stance, and I am most likely generalizing based upon my own experiences.
   
   “Sadly, with more than half of the world living on less than two dollars a day, I have a feeling that meeting basic needs is foremost on their mind, human curiosity becoming ... something forgotten.”
   
   Perhaps it is in these cases that the mind most actively seeks truth.
   
   “Philosophy requires leisure, thinking is an activity for the leisurely class; it is not something for the proletariat. Look at our philosophers ... and to what group they belong.”
   
   That is a result of the long-standing elitism within the field that must change. Clouding the most important concepts of philosophical writings in thick, dark language such that only those with the leisure to beat through to the essence is the problem.
   
   “I don’t believe that philosophy is not accessible; at least in the US we have libraries”
   
   Have you seen the “Philosophy” section of your local Barnes and Nobel? They are usually only a few shelves and seem to be only a stockpile of old books that fit in no other category.

   Thame

   Aug 20, 02:45 AM #
3. I recently travelled to Bangladesh, a poor country indeed. No-where did anyone speak to me of philosophy. They had more pressing needs. Philosophy to me is something for those with the time to dedicate to it. Do you philosophize when you are busy and working or when you have time to think?
   
   I don’t think philosophers write for the masses, they write for a particular audience; for those that care about philosophical questions.
   
   If we were to lose the majority of philosophical works in a fire, I don’t think most people would care.
   
   It all depends where you shop for books, the fact that bookstores do not cater to particular groups, does not mean that they are suppressing, in this case, philosophy. It simply means that that is not where the market for books lies. If I were to go to Borders, I would be hard-pressed to find books written in Greek (which appeals to me), so I must go to places where I know that I can find these things.
   
   Maybe I’m jaded but I don’t think truth, as defined by Greek philosophers can be attained. I don’t think they believed it themselves, at least Plato seems to corroborate this by the fact that he says you can’t know truth until you’ve separated body and soul, which can only be accomplished by death.
   
   I don’t think philosophy is elitist, especially because of the language it uses. Language was a problem for Plato and all those ancient philosophers. Because their language was not developed to discuss the things they desired, they had to resort to allegories. Modern philosophers have been able to develop new sets of vocabulary that allow them to express their ideas more clearly. The jargon of modern philosophers is difficult for me to understand but I understand their difficulties.
   
   Languages differ; some are better at expressing certains ideas than others. Knowing several Romance languages, if an author uses words in English derived from Latin, I have an easier time understanding because they are more familiar to me than words that have a Teutonic origin. Language (Word) is a powerful thing. No doubt.

   Juan

   Aug 20, 03:15 AM #
4. “Do you philosophize when you are busy and working or when you have time to think?”
   
   It is often experiences while busy and working that spark so-called “philosophical” questions.
   
   I feel that we are using the term philosophy too strictly here. Sometimes, even the simplest thoughts can lead to more profound questions. Would the impetus not also be “philosophy”?
   
   “You can’t know truth until you’ve separated body and soul, which can only be accomplished by death.”
   
   Or meditation?

   Thame

   Aug 23, 12:54 AM #
5. I know I am stepping way out of my league here (no pun intended,) but this whole site has such a powerful connection to my current state of mentality I must try.
   I do nothing right now and yes, I would be at leisure I suppose. But my idea of leisure is not to philosophize persay… I enjoy catchy anecdotes and silliness but I dare say silliness is frowned upon by my peers and most adults alike. However I am now commanded by ideas, theories if you will, that are delivered through entirely different systems (for lack of better vocabulary.) I am coming to conclusions of a most serious nature involving the conviction of ALL those in my life. My role models (and room mates who are married,) my lover, my father, hell I have only a handful left who haven’t succumbed to the ‘dark side’ as of late no matter how much I try to deny this chaos all around me. It’s even been admitted by more people than i can count on all my philanges.
   
   fingers through toes logical versus philosophical grows.
   winning arguments but heart now in places low.
   every moment further points to what i’ve tried never to know.
   stuck in this channel do i go with or against the flow.
   
   I have had people I’ve never met before come up to me and say the most cryptic things and oh so relevant, very Donny Darko/Grandma Death.
   
   I know nothing and can’t be bothered catching up could you offer any intermediate knowledge by chance.
   
   Case study perhaps?

   stricken

   Aug 23, 03:32 AM #
6. I find that I can only philosophize, to philosophize being a search for truth (knowledge), when 1. I am alone and have time to think or 2. I am engaged in a conversation with someone else (Socratic method). My definition of philosophy comes from the Greek concept, which may be strict but Greek thought (modified Near Oriental thought) defines it as this and it is my foundation on philosophy.
   
   I don’t know how meditation fits into Western thought; I would say it hasn’t had a place. I can’t say what Socrates or any ancient philosopher would have thought of meditation. I don’t know what I think of meditation, you’ve brought up a good point. Though I fear I don’t understand meditation, it seems to be a provisional creation of a state of … something. I’m not sure.
   
   As for stricken, I’m not sure I understood most of the things you have said.

   Juan

   Aug 23, 04:00 PM #
7. while i believe that everyone has the potency for philisophical thought, i also would have to admit to the prescence of those few who absorb themselves in such thoughts. those thoughts being, in the most simplest of questions, Who am I, where do i come from and where am i going. these questions were the title for a piece of art by paul gaugain.
   
   as the saying goes and also happens to appear on shirts and bumper stickers “never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” and also as Jonathan Swift “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
   im sure you would agree that johnathan swift knew his shit and im sure he would have agreed with juan when he said “It is not vital; human beings are content in their ignorance, ergo the saying, ignorance is bliss. A desire to know, for knowledge only comes to a certain few, e.g., the deceived lover. Other than these, we are content with living life. With the majority of the masses falling into a state of herd-like existence, they are content in obeying and following; thinking is for a select few who have developed this human potency – how or why I can’t say.”
   
   and for those who get easily swayed by a few words that are unknown to them, tell them that they might find the oed useful and that if i, an average student in all my early academic career, can understand it then you can too.

   jess

   Aug 24, 02:56 AM #
8. To jess
   
   “Human beings are content in their ignorance”
   
   I, most definately, am not, but does this make me any less (or more) of a human?
   I believe that while most people do not routinely explore intense philosophical questions, we are all curious and naturally seek knowledge. If this knowledge is not terribly profound (as Juan described: “e.g. what to wear.”), it is still knowledge. And while a fasion guru may not also merit the title of a philosopher, it is a love for knowledge that will grow into a love of wisdom (Although this relationship requires its own article).
   
   To stricken
   
   I am not really sure of what you are asking from me…but I must point out something that is related to this article.
   
   “I know I am stepping way out of my league”
   
   Do you feel that a league has been created here? My main objective with this site was to bring philosophy to people who may not have considered it as a vital activity. It is within all boundaries to ask questions and nobody should feel that they are overstepping anything when asking a question.
   
   I would greatly appreciate it if you could reword your previous comment so that I may be better able to help you.

   Thame

   Aug 24, 03:35 AM #
9. All this was said some days ago, but I feel impelled to respond regardless. Juan said
   
   "I don’t believe that seeking truth (knowledge), this being a definition of philosophy, is part of human nature. It is not vital; human beings are content in their ignorance, ergo the saying, ignorance is bliss."
   
   This seems to me to be wrong in a number of ways. Firstly, people are truth-seeking insofar as this activity benefits them. It is beneficial to know, if one is attempting to survive in a hostile environment, which plants are safe to eat. We can generalise this to say that, most of the time, it is more beneficial to know the truth than otherwise. There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes it is helpful to know fewer propositions than more, but usually we are limited by our information-gathering and -retention capacities, not by being overwhelmed by the sheer number of facts available (this is a testament to our mental filtering systems).
   
   Truth-seeking is a quality which human beings possess to varying degrees; however, its possession is universal. As beings with advanced reasoning capacities, large memories, and active imaginations, this truth-seeking tendency is now exhibited in ways not necessarily directly assisting our survival to reproduce—in other words, we are capable of pursuing intellectual goals for a greater diversity of reasons.
   
   “Ignorance is bliss” may well be a common saying, but in fact it is a paraphrase of a quotation which reads “When ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.” Note that it is contextual: it claims that in situations where it is not conducive to happiness to be in possession of the facts (or to be capable of processing them), one should settle for ignorance. Ignorance is not always bliss, and we should not pretend it to be so.

   Benedict Eastaugh

   Sep 15, 08:52 PM #
10. Truth is a human construct. We wrap ourselves in the ‘truth’ because we cannot even begin to perceive reality. Yes, we’re all existentialists: we create our own reality.
    Philosophy is for the masses. And humans do evolve their own philosophy. It may not be intellectual, but it makes sense of the world for people. How many people would be able to defend their personal philosophy in a Socratic dialogue? Not many. But that is philosophy on another level.
    Remember the cave in The Republic: all we see are the shadows on the wall.

    anon

    Sep 17, 04:15 AM #