Has the forum hit rock bottom?

[Cugel]

Philosophy used to be a bit difficult for me too, sometimes it still is.

I try and figure it out myself

Here is the tragedy of modern life - even more so of post-modern life: we are deluded enough to think that we can "figure it out for myself".

First, there is no individual self of the kind we imagine lives somewhere in our heads like a small homunculus judge, able to look at itself in some magically objective fashion. We are one big lump of integrated physical stuff from which emerges the chimera of self-consciousness. There is great puzzlement, even today, about what it means to be self-conscious. And what we are conscious of. The form of our consciousness is largely an historical, cultural and social construct formed mostly of language and other symbologies, which talk to us in our heads.

Secondly, there is no "me" as a somehow distinct, separate individual entity but rather an amalgam of physical stuff, much of which is actually a set of co-operating buglets, many of which can exist quite happily when "me" is dead and gorn. Also, "me" is just the latest exudation of the evolutionary process, requiring a great long chain of stuff going back into history. There are no human "mes" arising spontaneously well-formed from nowt. And "I" have an absolute need of the other humans, since without them "I" would likely wither and die very quickly.

Thirdly, the physical stuff of "me" is just one aspect. A large part of "me" is the stuff swirling about the brainbox, which is what tends to direct the vast majority of human actions, including those working against the directives of genetic evolutionary demands, such as self-preservation or even the fundamental directive to breed! This mental stuff is installed by cultural forces, which exist as an enormous socio-historical monster external to "me", full of all sorts, arising from and encompassing every "individual" as we all interact through history and society. Especially today, humans have become one enormous global lump. More like a slime mould than a collection of true individuals, really.

****
Well, one could go on and on undermining the notion of the individual and it's capacity to either be itself or figure out itself. That is our tragedy: we are deluded about what we are yet trapped in various kinds of such delusions as there is no alternative. It's one reason why humans invent to notion of the afterlife, in which the truly real is revealed and we can understand and be what we really are. If only!

Cugel, just another cell in the human mycelium rotting down the world.

[reohn2]

Well Cugel you have a good command of the English language.
Now in plain terms what are you trying to tell me?
That I can't figure out much without deep reading?
That I'm incapable of deep thinking?
That I'm not as clever and wise as you?
That I don't know who and what I am?
What is it in plain speak?

[bovlomov]

Philosophy used to be a bit difficult for me too, sometimes it still is.

I try and figure it out myself

Here is the tragedy of modern life - even more so of post-modern life: we are deluded enough to think that we can "figure it out for myself". <snip>

Why is that a tragedy? An individual may not be able to figure it out for themselves, but, as far as I can see, s/he is as likely to understand the essence of our existence as doctor of philosophy is. The history of ideas is a wonderful field of learning, but it doesn't help one find one's place in the world any better than a hairdressing qualification does.

This is the one field in which we are all equally expert. We are all philosophers, and we all have the same training: being born human.

[gaz]

That I'm incapable of deep thinking?

Ah, Deep Thought .

... "We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers." "Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel ...

[reohn2]

Philosophy used to be a bit difficult for me too, sometimes it still is.

I try and figure it out myself

Here is the tragedy of modern life - even more so of post-modern life: we are deluded enough to think that we can "figure it out for myself"......

BTW,who did Michael Oakshott read to figure out his philosophy?

[Cugel]

Well Cugel you have a good command of the English language.
Now in plain terms what are you trying to tell me?
That I can't figure out much without deep reading?
That I'm incapable of deep thinking?
That I'm not as clever and wise as you?
That I don't know who and what I am?
What is it in plain speak?

In short....

All of us (including me) are hostage to concepts and beliefs, with associated behaviours, that we want to think we control - somehow - but don't. We are all programed by nature & nurture. None of us are autonomous freely-choosing individuals as we have been taught to think of ourselves. (The point I'm trying to persuade you of is not about just you but about all of us).

The consequences, if this is true, are far-reaching. For example, we may be wasting out time thinking we can somehow solve or control threatening issues, from climate change to Brexit, as well as thousands of smaller everyday problems.

Happily this doesn't mean we should just give up and become comatose stoics awaiting the next spasm of cultural evolution. We can still think and act employing one of the numerous thinky-acty schemas found in various languages, cultures and nations. But it's perhaps best to do so in the sure and certain knowledge that none of these schemas are The Right One; and that none of them guarantee that our intents will be realised or without other unintended consequences.

Some schemas of understanding and forming intents are inherently better than others. There are cross-schema tests for differentiating the more and less effective. None of them are stable and even if they were, they vary in their effectiveness depending on their context. The scientific method, for example, is of no use in those places and times where there is no infrastructure for applying it. Perhaps even a mad religion (mad from our perspective here & now) might be more effective at promoting the interests of the practitioners?

But perhaps in our cultural here & now, our worst faux-pas has been the notion of individualism as it's currently understood by most. It borders on solipsism and ignores any and all kinds of social and historical ties, limits and consequences. It's one of the root causes of macro-behaviours such as neo-liberalsim with all it's delusions of The Free Market, The Invisible Hand and other fictions that suggest there are no consequences for DOING WHAT I WANT without considering the effects on everyone and everything else.

Your post was just a stimulation of these thoughts, not something I'm criticising you personally for.

Cugel

[Cugel]

I try and figure it out myself

Here is the tragedy of modern life - even more so of post-modern life: we are deluded enough to think that we can "figure it out for myself"......

BTW,who did Michael Oakshott read to figure out his philosophy?

Oakeshott had numerous sources for his own synthesis of explanation. They include Idealist philosophers of the various German schools; an early immersion in some quite serious Christian stuff with the writings of St Augustin at it's centre; but perhaps mostly, a lot of philosophical writings of his own time which he mercilessly dissected and criticised, particularly those of The Positivist ilk. What he rejected and dissected became a basis for the alternatives he proposed.

His attraction , for me, is that he can't be classified as within any philosophical school, as so many others can be. His views were as near to individualistic as you might ever come across! If you read any biography, you discover a man whose personal life was radical and far from the seeming conservative tone of much of his writing. In some way, he seems to have employed these often scandalous personal behaviours as a means to refine (perhaps idealise) a synthesis of "what is" with a benchmark (which he recognises as unattianable) of "what ought to be" in human conduct.

Here are perhaps his most famous quotes:

"To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”

“In political activity . . . men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel.”

You can find many more here:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... _Oakeshott

Cugel

[Graham]

I sense that there may some nuggets of golden, thought-provocation whilst undertaking the bottom-scraping.

[Cugel]

I sense that there may some nuggets of golden, thought-provocation whilst undertaking the bottom-scraping.

That's rude innuendo, that is!

Cugel, co-incidentally doing the threpoo test scrapings for bottom rot.

[reohn2]

Well Cugel you have a good command of the English language.
Now in plain terms what are you trying to tell me?
That I can't figure out much without deep reading?
That I'm incapable of deep thinking?
That I'm not as clever and wise as you?
That I don't know who and what I am?
What is it in plain speak?

In short....

All of us (including me) are hostage to concepts and beliefs, with associated behaviours, that we want to think we control - somehow - but don't. We are all programed by nature & nurture. None of us are autonomous freely-choosing individuals as we have been taught to think of ourselves. (The point I'm trying to persuade you of is not about just you but about all of us).

The consequences, if this is true, are far-reaching. For example, we may be wasting out time thinking we can somehow solve or control threatening issues, from climate change to Brexit, as well as thousands of smaller everyday problems.

Happily this doesn't mean we should just give up and become comatose stoics awaiting the next spasm of cultural evolution. We can still think and act employing one of the numerous thinky-acty schemas found in various languages, cultures and nations. But it's perhaps best to do so in the sure and certain knowledge that none of these schemas are The Right One; and that none of them guarantee that our intents will be realised or without other unintended consequences.

Some schemas of understanding and forming intents are inherently better than others. There are cross-schema tests for differentiating the more and less effective. None of them are stable and even if they were, they vary in their effectiveness depending on their context. The scientific method, for example, is of no use in those places and times where there is no infrastructure for applying it. Perhaps even a mad religion (mad from our perspective here & now) might be more effective at promoting the interests of the practitioners?

But perhaps in our cultural here & now, our worst faux-pas has been the notion of individualism as it's currently understood by most. It borders on solipsism and ignores any and all kinds of social and historical ties, limits and consequences. It's one of the root causes of macro-behaviours such as neo-liberalsim with all it's delusions of The Free Market, The Invisible Hand and other fictions that suggest there are no consequences for DOING WHAT I WANT without considering the effects on everyone and everything else.

So tell me something I dont know.

Your post was just a stimulation of these thoughts, not something I'm criticising you personally for.

Cugel

My post was an attempt at humour,feeble maybe but also in the light of the above.

[reohn2]

Here is the tragedy of modern life - even more so of post-modern life: we are deluded enough to think that we can "figure it out for myself"......

BTW,who did Michael Oakshott read to figure out his philosophy?

Oakeshott had numerous sources for his own synthesis of explanation. They include Idealist philosophers of the various German schools; an early immersion in some quite serious Christian stuff with the writings of St Augustin at it's centre; but perhaps mostly, a lot of philosophical writings of his own time which he mercilessly dissected and criticised, particularly those of The Positivist ilk. What he rejected and dissected became a basis for the alternatives he proposed.

His attraction , for me, is that he can't be classified as within any philosophical school, as so many others can be. His views were as near to individualistic as you might ever come across! If you read any biography, you discover a man whose personal life was radical and far from the seeming conservative tone of much of his writing. In some way, he seems to have employed these often scandalous personal behaviours as a means to refine (perhaps idealise) a synthesis of "what is" with a benchmark (which he recognises as unattianable) of "what ought to be" in human conduct.

Here are perhaps his most famous quotes:

"To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”

“In political activity . . . men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel.”

You can find many more here:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... _Oakeshott

Cugel

And are we any nearer to what is as a result?
Can we escape anything we see as confining except within the mind,and sometimes without the mind?
We are a construct of our experience,sometimes we can break free from it if only briefly,sometimes never.
I could go on endlessly but choose not to for boredom's sake and because it's time for bed,perhaps tomorrow I may have a different perspective,who knows.
Philosophy is simple and yet complicated simultaneously,today on our 41st wedding aniversary I sat and spoke happily with my children,played silly games with two of my eight remaining my grandchildren and bounced one of my great grandchildren on my knee and Mrs R2 and I were happy

[Lance Dopestrong]

Is the forum running itself into a cult de sac of drivle?

Yep. And I love it!

[reohn2]

Is the forum running itself into a cult de sac of drivle?

Yep. And I love it!

You da man Lance