Home › Society › Philosophy › Just a few formalities...

Just a few formalities...

William Gonzalez3 · 2006-10-09T16:34:04+00:00

Druid said: Regarding the topic itself—I don't really feel like writing much about it because, for me, philosophizing isn't just some casual sort of philosophy…

Started by William Gonzalez3 · Oct 9, 2006 · 👁 6 views · 25 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#21 · Oct 14, 2006

William Gonzalez3, I really have to hand it to you—you’re absolutely right. I completely blew it, and honestly, I just don't have it in me to go that far. I was wrong about everything from the very start, and I feel pretty terrible about it. I'm really hoping you'll still be willing to chat with me, because I honestly don't know what else I'd turn to... 😢 😢 😢

mistyfox812 Regular

295 messages
joined Mar 2004

#22 · Oct 14, 2006

Bradley Fisher20 said:...That's usually what people call pseudo-philosophy, not actual philosophy...

Usually? 🙂

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#23 · Oct 14, 2006

Bradley Fisher20 said:When something starts self-referencing, I feel like it’s a sign that context has essentially ceased to exist—it just sort of collapses in on itself.

Have you ever actually traveled just for the sake of traveling? I mean—not for work, not to visit family, but purely for the experience itself? I guess I’ve wondered about that lately.

Let me try looking at it this way—I guess if someone is traveling with a specific destination in mind, they naturally end up tailoring their entire journey to fit that goal.
I suppose the best way to go about this is by taking the quickest, easiest, and most straightforward route possible—just keeping things simple and efficient.
I suppose philosophy is a bit like a journey—one where the actual traveling is the whole point.
It’s more like a journey without a specific destination—a path where the movement itself is the whole point.
When you don't have a specific goal in mind, you don't really have a fixed path either—which, I suppose, isn't necessarily a bad thing. You’re liberated from that single objective, and in a way, every direction you decide to take becomes equally valid and meaningful. Since there's no preordained destination, every choice you make is truly yours—it's a path you actually selected for yourself.
When you're traveling like that, you aren't just moving from point A to point B—you’re actually taking everything in. You start looking around, really observing the details, and I guess you end up learning quite a bit along the way.
When you have a truly specific learning objective in mind—something concrete and clearly defined—it feels like your mind starts to shift gears. I guess you could say you’re essentially subordinating your focus and recalibrating your entire cognitive process to serve that one goal. It’s almost as if everything else just falls away to make room for what you're actually trying to master.
Even at this very moment, I suspect your mind isn't truly free—which makes it almost impossible to observe anything with any real clarity.

Bradley Fisher20 said:For what purpose? And honestly, what guarantee do I have that you aren't acting out of some underlying intention or bias—one that you simply haven't bothered to address until now?

I suppose true philosophy only really begins once you start questioning your own biases. It’s that moment when those preconceived notions get wiped away—leaving you feeling a bit exposed, out of your comfort zone, and doubting everything you thought you knew. I mean, look at how Microsoft approached it—they even questioned the very existence of the self. When you're in that kind of deep, radical doubt, it feels like there isn't any room left for old prejudices to take root.
If someone approaches philosophy armed with nothing but prejudices—especially if they possess that unshakable, unwavering certainty in themselves and everything around them—then I guess they have no business being in this field at all. Philosophy isn't really about hunting down certainties; after all, it doesn't promise to deliver knowledge, nor does it actually provide it.
Philosophy is really about teaching us how to think—truly engage with ideas. I suppose there’s an argument to be made that once someone actually *knows* something, they don't need to spend time thinking through it anymore—because the understanding is already there. Or maybe that's just a simplification, but it's an interesting thought.

Bradley Fisher20 said:I've been wondering lately—is motivation actually that important? I mean, does it really drive everything, or is it just one of those things we talk about too much? I guess there isn't a simple answer, but I'd love to hear what you all think.

I'm not really sure, to be honest.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about what actually drives a philosopher—and I mean the real, deep-seated motivation behind the work. Personally, I think it really boils down to two things: uncertainty and wonder. It’s that honest admission that you don't have all the answers—that sense of being genuinely puzzled by the world—combined with this persistent, almost restless desire to actually find them out. To me, that is where true motivation lives. As for how one should actually relate to wisdom itself? I’d say it should be a sense of *filia*—a kind of friendly, affectionate love. Not some distant, cold pursuit, but something much more intimate and warm.
And we all know exactly what kind of "friendship" we're dealing with.
At least those who have actual, true friends—you know, the kind that stick by you—will understand what I mean.
Sometimes, I think there's a certain value in just spending time with someone simply because of who they are—purely for their own sake. It’s not about having some hidden agenda or intense passion, and certainly not about trying to influence them or get something out of the relationship. It's more about that quiet, intentional connection where you aren't looking for any kind of leverage or benefit. Just... being there.
That’s really how I think the relationship between a philosopher and wisdom should work—more like a genuine friendship. It shouldn't be about some desperate urge to possess it—though, I guess, every friendship and every human connection inherently struggles against that desire to own or control one another.

Bradley Fisher20 mistyfox812 said:So, what exactly is he even doing then? I mean, does he just lack the backbone to even stop and ask himself what his actual motivation is here? Honestly—it might be better if he just went out and worked a manual labor job or something. At least that would actually make sense.

At first, I think—if I’m being honest—it might just be about regaining a sense of security.
And so he carries on—mostly because he’s finally realized that the sense of security he used to feel, back before he started questioning everything, is gone for good. He knows he’ll never get that feeling back, I suppose. But in the process of losing it, he ended up finding a certain kind of wisdom instead.

Bradley Fisher20 said:It’s easy precisely because it doesn’t lead anywhere.

But based on what? How is a path that leads nowhere inherently easier than one that actually goes somewhere?

I should probably point out—though I didn't explicitly say it before—that I wasn't claiming the path leads nowhere.
It’s more that we haven't actually defined a destination yet.
Still, I'm fairly certain it's headed somewhere and moving toward some sort of goal.
If I recall correctly, I think the esteemed Pacific Coast user mentioned what that goal might be in their signature.

Bradley Fisher20 Active Member

142 messages
joined May 2005

#24 · Oct 17, 2006

William Gonzalez3 said:
have you ever just traveled for the sake of traveling?

let me try it this way—so basically, when someone travels with a specific goal in mind, they tailor the whole trip to fit that objective.

Exactly. Otherwise, you’re just a drifter.

taking the fastest, easiest, most comfortable, and shortest route possible.
philosophy would be more like traveling just for the hell of it.
a path without any set destination. a path that is its own purpose.

Let's look at it like this. You have some kind of motivation pushing you along whatever path you take. Maybe you haven't clearly defined your goal, but it exists as this unarticulated thing. Now, the question is: what's your actual drive? Is the motive just escaping reality? Because if that's the case, then philosophy—just like any other indoctrination stronghold—can serve that purpose perfectly. Same goes for religion. But when you actually have a route, following it means you're making progress. You aren't just spinning in circles. You're going somewhere. And you have to put in the work to keep moving. If philosophy is just an escape from reality, then you can use "philosophy for philosophy's sake" as an alibi... an excuse to run away from your real motives and any way to measure progress. People fake interest in anything just to justify themselves—whether it's money, power, politics, or women—they end up sliding into decadence because of a self-reflective loop of lies.

A path that is its own goal? What even is that? When I go on vacation, I go to relax. Is that my "goal"? When I travel, I'm trying to get away from the daily grind. You could say the journey itself is the goal, or we could dig deeper into the motivation. Where's the catch?

Quote:
when there's no goal, there isn't even a defined path. you're free from that objective, so every path you try is equally valid since it's yours and you chose it.
If you don't have a direction, you're just drifting. Given how opportunistic people can be, you eventually just sink into decadence and stagnation.

and during that trip, you look around and observe. you learn.
if you have a strictly defined goal, you subordinate and adapt your mind to that goal.
and because of that, your mind isn't truly free, nor can it observe anything properly.

There is no such thing as a free person. We are all conditioned. Some people just deal with more conditioning than others, or are more aware of it. If you don't understand your own motivations, you aren't any freer either. Plus, having a goal, having a mission, is often exhausting. But that's exactly what gives you the strength to keep going. Because you see results. And results matter in life. They give you strength and satisfaction.

precisely because philosophizing only starts once you begin doubting your own prejudices. those biases get wiped away, a person is pushed out of their comfort zone and doubts everything (Microsoft, for instance, doubted even his own existence; you couldn't say a person in such deep doubt is harboring any biases).
If you start diving into philosophy with a bunch of biases and total, blind certainty in yourself and everything else... then honestly, you’ve got no business being in the game.

When you're actually on the path, you start testing the external validity of what you think you know. That's when you hit the wall—you have to face your own dogmas because if you want to actually get anywhere, you can't run from them. Without some kind of standard to measure things by, how are you even supposed to tell the difference between a bias, a dogma, and an actual fact? Anyway, if the thoughts get too heavy and give you a headache, you'll just bail, because there's no substance there. But me? I'm sticking to this path, wherever it leads. BTW, if Frodo was a coward, do you really think he would've made it that far?

because philosophy isn't about hunting for knowledge—it doesn't promise it, and it certainly doesn't hand it out.

I see philosophy as searching for the kind of knowledge that's the bedrock of wisdom. Someone who philosophizes is basically running a mental process to sort through info and build up knowledge. You could argue science doesn't "promise" knowledge either, since a complete idiot won't learn anything useful there. But saying that feels a bit pointless, doesn't it?

philosophy teaches us how to think. once you know, you don't need to think anymore because you already have it.

?

I don't know.
A philosopher's drive should come from uncertainty and wonder. Admitting you don't know something and wanting to find out. That's the spark. And the relationship a philosopher should have with wisdom is *philia*—like a friendship.

Wisdom isn't some object you grab; it's a state of mind. Motivation and cause aren't the same thing. Motivation moves you, while the cause gives you that motivation. So, you could take that feeling of wonder and uncertainty and use it as motivation to run straight back to the safety of your own stupidity, hiding behind mountains of formalities like religious or spiritual figures. And then what? You gonna be smarter? Better? Wiser?

and we all know what friendly love looks like.
At least those with real friends do.
Just hanging out with someone simply because of who they are. No ulterior motives, no crazy passion, no trying to manipulate them or use them for something.

It's interesting that you can love a state of mind like a friend. Can you love a flower vase the same way?

that should be the philosopher's relationship with wisdom too. friendship. not a desire for possession (which, let's be honest, every friendship and connection naturally fights against).

It’s not about looking, or loving, or owning... it’s about being.

just to get that sense of security back at the start.

Can someone actually reclaim their sense of certainty by just drowning themselves in books until they end up stupider than those Bible-quoting fanatics or those "spiritual" types who claim to be "vibing," even though their vibes are basically non-existent, made-up nonsense where everything is leveled out to nothingness and communication loses all damn meaning?

The problem is... yeah, the answer is yes. On the flip side, when you actually have a path—when you have a vision—you don't have to fear anything. And that’s huge. When that path is grounded in reality, part of an open system that's constantly shifting, then you're guaranteed not to sink into the depths of your own stupidity. That's a vital thing to have.

...and he keeps going because he realizes that the security he had before—back when he didn't question every single little thing—is gone for good, and he's never getting it back. But in the meantime, he fell in love with wisdom.

As a friend? Or did he just get hooked on the sound of big words being barked through a stuffed nose? What does "falling in love with wisdom" even mean here? Does it mean things finally started making sense, so now he wants to see them even clearer, and that's what pushes him forward, or what?...

Based on what? How is a path that leads nowhere any easier than one that actually goes somewhere?

Human opportunism.

And I never said the path doesn't lead anywhere.
We just haven't set a target.
But it definitely leads somewhere, and it's heading toward a goal.
I think Atlantic Coast indicated that goal in his signature.

If you aren't aware of the goal, then motivation is the only thing driving you. If you aren't even aware of your own motivation, then you're gonna wander straight into a massive mess of pseudo-philosophical bullshit. Beware!

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#25 · Oct 31, 2006

Are you struggling to find your motivation?

I can't really give you a specific reason—at least, not one that fits perfectly.

Essentially, it’s about those moments when a person is suddenly confronted with death (violently, in my case) or something just as jarring. It knocks you right out of your comfort zone and forces you to face the reality of how the world actually works.

Everything following that is just an attempt to make sense of this existence.
And to truly succeed at that, you can't just pick a single, narrow goal. I mean, you aren't trying to promote one tiny fragment of reality; you’re trying to grasp the whole thing—the entirety of it.
The goal is to explain that totality.
So, you start asking yourself: what even is this world?
How does it even exist in the first place?
Is there any actual meaning to it all?
Do you have a purpose?
Why were you born?
What are you made of?
What is the world composed of? (I suppose sciences like biology, geography, and physics grew out of questions just like these).
This isn't just aimless wandering.
It’s more of an investigative journey.
Wandering is just drifting—what a spiritual leader might call unconscious roaming. Philosophy, though... it's more like "poking around" with the specific intent of observing everything you encounter.
It’s similar to an expedition into the unknown—like heading into a jungle—for the sole purpose of understanding that jungle.
In this case, knowledge is its own reward.
Imagine a biologist and a philosopher both observing that same jungle, driven by different impulses.
The philosopher observes the jungle simply to know it—which, theoretically, means a kind of detached, disinterested observation.
The biologist observes it to understand it and then practically apply that knowledge.
He wants to eventually put what he learns to use.
So, the biologist travels with a concrete objective in mind—perhaps finding a cure for a disease, or identifying resources and figuring out how to exploit them.
That specific goal dictates his entire path.
But the philosopher doesn't want to be tied down. He knows that having a fixed goal would only clutter his observations, tethering his perspective to one specific thing. And if he let himself be limited like that, it would move him further away from understanding the whole picture, rather than bringing him closer.

Alexander Hernandez32 Member

28 messages
joined Nov 2006

#26 · Nov 9, 2006

Druid said:I’d honestly suggest you just stick to the basics and leave the philosophy out of it. Seriously. Either find a job in some government bureaucracy where you can follow rules all day long—where at least you'll know what the criteria are—but they don't exactly love drinkers over there since it messes with the system's efficiency. It's better for people like that to just hide behind a philosophical facade.

And who exactly are you to be making suggestions like that? Just because someone holds a moderator position doesn't mean they have the right to patronize others while everyone else stays silent—right?

Look, I'm reading this and trying to be objective here, and honestly, I didn't see the Executioner cross any lines or act rude at any point. Sure, he's cynical. He's ambiguous. But there's nothing wrong with that.

Publicly calling someone out, deciding if they are "capable" of philosophy, or telling them whether they should be posting here or working in some specific administrative office... it's pretty pathetic, if you ask me. Besides, it's bordering on an insult.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with letting people say whatever they want, however they want to say it—whether we call it philosophy or something else.

Same goes for me. 😛

You must log in or register to reply here.