CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Tell me a little about yourself...

Tell me a little about yourself...

Started by Jonathan Brown6 · · 👁 4 views · 61 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Jonathan Brown6Nancy Fowler61briskjackal5mistyfox812Nicole Miller37William Gonzalez3Brandon Martin7Douglas Hernandez3Jack Harris3rapidskipper9Linda Clark14crimsonskipper22
Jonathan Brown6 Jonathan Brown6 MemberOP
46 messages
joined Mar 2005
#1 ·
What’s it actually like when you know a ton about philosophy and how things work? I mean, I’m curious how you all feel as people, since you’ve been deep in the philosophy game for years now. Have you actually found what you were looking for? What kind of headspace does it put you in—how does a person even function once they know so much? How do you deal with everyday life in "normal," average society among people who don't think this way? Do you just see everything through a different lens? 😁

Since I haven't quite reached that level yet, I guess I wonder if diving deeper into philosophical thought is going to change me significantly down the road. I’m just really curious about what happens when you know so much, especially when you can take these ideas that seem incredibly complex to everyone else (kind of like my own thoughts) and you suddenly have the explanation right there in front of you.
Nancy Fowler61 Nancy Fowler61 Member
20 messages
joined Aug 2005
#2 ·
relativness said:What is it actually like when you know a vast amount about philosophy and the fundamental nature of existence? I am genuinely curious how you all feel as individuals, especially those of you who have been immersed in philosophical study for years now. Have you actually found what you were searching for? What is your mindset like, and how does a person truly feel once they possess such deep knowledge? How do you process things? And how do you even function in "normal," everyday society among people who don't think in these terms? Do you end up seeing the world through a completely different lens? 😁

Since I haven't mastered much yet, I can't help but wonder if my future philosophical pursuits will end up weighing heavily on me. I am just really interested to know what it feels like to know so much—to understand every complex thought that seems so convoluted to others (like my own) because you already have the explanation ready.

:

I feel fine this way. Even though I worry that I might stay stuck at the same level I was at when I was 16 😱 I honestly don't regret where things stand right now.
Having certain knowledge allows you to filter out some of the more foolish or meaningless nonsense. And honestly, that helps. 👍
briskjackal5 briskjackal5 Active Member
249 messages
joined Feb 2018
#3 ·
I guess veteran philosophers end up feeling pretty much the same way as people who don't even touch philosophy at all.

The very first thing anyone realizes when they start diving into philosophy is just how totally useless it actually is.
It doesn't really have a practical purpose, and honestly, I think the most brilliant philosophical work comes from people who aren't trying to achieve anything specific with it.
You can only really get into philosophy if you enter it without any baggage or ulterior motives, because the whole field deals with these super abstract concepts that just aren't applicable or useful in the real world—so, yeah, a philosopher can't really derive any tangible benefit from it. And if you walk into it with some kind of preconceived agenda, then your work is going to be weighed down by those intentions and won't be any good, because you'll just subconsciously bend your reasoning to fit what you want to accomplish.
It’s kind of like when you approach a girl. Your conversation is going to be way more meaningful if you just go up to her without having some big goal in mind, other than just getting to know her.
If you approach her specifically to pick her up, you’re basically tailoring the entire chat just to seduce her. You’ll set these little boundaries for the conversation, and sure, you might get what you want, but the actual point of the conversation is something else entirely. A real conversation is so much broader than just flirting.

Another thing is, you kind of have to be "smart" to even start with philosophy. Because philosophy—just like pretty much anything else—can't take someone who is, well, let's say "uninformed," and turn them into a smart person.

That's just not how it works.

And, I mean, your philosophical musings will only truly affect you if you actually let them.

I know plenty of philosophers who honestly struggle to function in the real world among regular folks. They end up having to hang out with people just like themselves because they're the only ones who actually get it. It's not even because they're saying incredibly brilliant things, but mostly because over time they start adopting this whole philosophical way of speaking. You know, using complicated jargon, dragging out sentences forever, and assuming everyone just knows what they're talking about.

Oh, and yeah, a true philosopher probably needs to drink quite a bit. I've noticed that's one common thread between the undergrads and the professors (with a few exceptions, of course).
briskjackal5 briskjackal5 Active Member
249 messages
joined Feb 2018
#4 ·
I mean, I didn't even say anything was bad about it.

Why'd you jump straight to thinking it’s a bad thing that philosophy actually impacts us?
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#5 ·
briskjackal5 said:And yeah, a real philosopher has to drink a lot. I've noticed that's one thing both students and professors have in common (with a few exceptions, obviously).

🙂 Well, if we're all playing philosopher here, let's get down to what actually matters—existence. Like, how should we actually *be* if we want to call ourselves philosophers? Does heavy drinking really fit into the essence of being a thinker? I mean, for a philosopher, clarity, taking responsibility for your actions, freedom... all that stuff doesn't exactly mesh well with "drinking a ton." So, by definition, a philosopher isn't really someone who just drinks constantly.😉
As they say, "let's stick to the facts." 😁
briskjackal5 briskjackal5 Active Member
249 messages
joined Feb 2018
#6 ·
The moderator actually set aside a little thread to chat about what being a mod even means: The Essence (and maybe a bit of a fight)

And, uh, regarding the whole drinking thing... I was just throwing that out there because, honestly, it feels like most philosophers—whether they’re tenured professors or just college students—tend to drink quite a bit.

Philosophers just seem drawn to those extreme states of mind, I guess.
Alcohol kind of makes it easier to get there. Plus, it sort of preserves and reflects that mystical side of philosophy that tends to get pushed aside whenever rationalism starts putting on the pressure.
Nicole Miller37 Nicole Miller37 Member
10 messages
joined Oct 2006
#7 ·
relativnost said:What’s the vibe when you actually know a ton about philosophy and the nature of reality?

Who exactly is going to tell you that you know anything at all? How do you even convince yourself of the illusion that knowledge is a thing you can possess? Socrates pretty much laid it all out for us.

Or are we talking about being "informed"? Facts and stuff? That's just utility—how you function in society. Those are trivialities...

I'm genuinely curious how you feel as individuals, those of you who have been immersed in philosophy for years now.

Ermm, why would people with different interests be at a disadvantage? Why should those who label themselves philosophers have more interesting lives than the rest of us mortals?

Have any of you actually found what you were looking for? What are your thoughts on this? How does a person feel once they've accumulated so much "knowledge"?

Have you ever heard of someone actually finding what they sought? Have you read about it? Did someone *have* to find something? Or was it merely a craving for the pursuit itself? A cycle where the goal is redefined every single time you reach it?

How do you think?

Do I think, or am I being thought?

How do you function in "normal," average American society among people who don't process things this way?

If you need to, you adapt. If you don't, you head out to the mountains, sit under a tree, and leave everything else behind.

Do you perceive things differently?

Again, the same old question: why do you care so much about others and how they think? Surely you aren't looking for the most ungrateful solution possible—getting everything handed to you on a silver platter. How do you expect to appreciate the banality of everyone else's "truths"?
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#8 ·
"Regular" folks often have this idea—perhaps a bit misguided—that a philosopher's experiences are inherently deeper than their own, rather than just being potentially more interesting, simply because philosophers have access to a wider array of perspectives.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#9 ·
Philosophers tend to look at the bigger picture rather than just the details.

For instance—while most people might just be chatting about what’s happening in their own neighborhood, a philosopher views those same local events as tiny reflections of much larger, global patterns.

That said, I have to point out that you rarely see a philosopher actually engaging with their own surroundings—and they almost never bother traveling to Tibet to find perspective.

Modern philosophers aren't exactly a new phenomenon; there have always been thinkers, so I suppose the rest of society knows all too well how to deal with these intellectuals.
Nicole Miller37 Nicole Miller37 Member
10 messages
joined Oct 2006
#10 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:philosophers, at their core, are looking at the big picture.

So, while your "average Joe" might be obsessing over what’s happening on his local street corner, a philosopher sees those exact same small-scale events as mere symptoms of something much larger and more global.

That said, I have to point out how rarely a philosopher actually adapts to their own surroundings—and even more rarely do they bother traveling to Tibet.

Modern philosophers aren't exactly reinventing the wheel; we've had them throughout history, so the rest of society knows exactly how to deal with these thinkers.

And you’re just grouping all philosophers into one giant pile? Many would take offense at that generalization, let alone the specific ones we're discussing...

When I talk about adapting to one's environment, I don't mean adopting their rules. I mean existing right on the edge alongside them, despite the established norms.

But then again, couldn't you say the same thing about poets, writers, or scientists? Basically any category that doesn't sit squarely in the middle of the so-called "average person." The problem is, everything we've discussed here consists of abstract categories—ghosts of people we never actually see. I have yet to encounter this "average man" that pretentious types love to compare themselves to.

We are fighting against ghosts...

If we actually win, will we finally become those free spirits we're supposedly striving to be? 😁
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#11 ·
What I wrote earlier was just representing the voice of the "average" person—it isn't necessarily my own personal stance.
I was merely trying to clarify how most people tend to perceive philosophers.

Even if philosophers try their hardest to observe others without any preconceived notions—viewing everyone as unique individuals—they’re still going to be seen as "the philosophers" by the rest of society.

Poets, writers, artists, and philosophers have existed—often at the expense of others—for centuries now, and people generally know exactly what kind of breed they are dealing with.

Whether it's alcoholics, the unemployed, those who just drift through life, people looking for a free ride, parasites, or just the overly sensitive types, etc.

Again, I want to emphasize that this isn't my opinion; I'm just presenting the viewpoint of the common man, since you seemed interested in why Relativity poses such fundamental questions in the first place.
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#12 ·
Nicole Miller37 said:When it comes to adapting to an environment, I don't think it's about adopting their rules—it's more about finding a way to exist right on the edge alongside them, despite the established norms.

Could you elaborate on that?

To me, adaptation means either changing who you are to fit into your surroundings better, or perhaps—if you're lucky—changing the environment itself so you can fit in without having to lose yourself. At least, that’s how I tend to view it.

What exactly did you have in mind when you used the word adaptation?
Brandon Martin7 Brandon Martin7 Member
30 messages
joined Aug 2005
#13 ·
wants bread without the hard labor


this one is actually pretty good! 😁
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#14 ·
Nicole Miller37 said:If you really feel the need, just go with the flow. If not, just head out to Tibet, sit under a fig tree, and everything will be just fine in Canada.

Man, that actually cracked me up. Tibet, fig trees, Canada. 🙂 👍

As far as locals go, I think Veljačić didn't even make it to Tibet—he went to Sri Lanka instead and ended up living like a Buddhist monk. But honestly? You can totally live life on your own terms right here in the middle of the city... maybe even easier.
Nicole Miller37 Nicole Miller37 Member
10 messages
joined Oct 2006
#15 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:elaborate...

Adaptation is either changing who you are to fit your surroundings, or reshaping those surroundings so you can exist within them without losing your essence. At least, that’s how I see it.

What exactly did you have in mind when you used the word "adaptation"?

By adaptation, I mean all those subtle concessions we make—those little things we swallow just to avoid causing unnecessary friction in the social circles we inhabit.

For instance, you wouldn't point out to a patriot buddy that our shared history with certain neighbors is more intertwined than they'd care to admit. You wouldn't lecture someone for watching some mindless reality show on network TV just to assert that your taste is somehow more sophisticated. You might try to charm a date with a witty remark about Hegel’s dialectic instead of being blunt, or simply act more approachable and authentic with the rest of the group. To put it briefly... it's about not forcing your truths onto everyone else, not letting your ego sink you, and learning to float in your own ideal world while still navigating the so-called "real" world.

To live in the world, but not be consumed by it.

And again, I should mention that this isn't just for people who enjoy philosophizing. Every living creature behaves similarly in a social setting; everyone looks for their niche, weighing their strengths against their flaws. After all, why must a philosopher be strictly a philosopher and nothing else? Humans aren't that one-dimensional, are they? Actually, we're often much worse...

Why couldn't there be such a thing as an idiot philosopher?
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#16 ·
An idiot philosopher?

I’m certainly not suggesting that philosophers are all identical—they vary quite a bit from one another, I suppose.

I was just trying to explain that, to the average person, a philosopher feels about as "normal" as Chinese people feel to white Americans.

So, even if a philosopher claims they are perfectly ordinary—or even tries to act the part—it's unlikely anyone will actually buy it.

People tend to assume there’s always something more going on beneath the surface. It's as if philosophers have spotted something fundamental, yet they choose to keep it to themselves for reasons only they truly understand.
Generally speaking, most people feel like they are being studied by philosophers. And, in a way, they are—philosophers do spend their time observing. They just don't usually share their findings. That’s why there’s such a lack of trust; people realize they know very little about the philosopher, while the philosopher seems to know everything about them. It creates this sense of... well, a power imbalance, I guess.

Furthermore, the idea of an "idiot philosopher" is a pretty murky concept.

There is a massive difference between actual philosophers and those idiots who just wander into the field because they think it makes them sound important or sophisticated. It reminds me a bit of PR managers or those other vague, nebulous professions.
Nicole Miller37 Nicole Miller37 Member
10 messages
joined Oct 2006
#17 ·
William Gonzalez3 said:An idiot philosopher?

That doesn't contradict the idea that philosophers differ from one another.

I was simply clarifying that to "average" people, philosophers are perceived much like how Chinese people are perceived by white Americans.

So, a philosopher might claim to be perfectly normal—just like everyone else—and they might even act the part, but nobody is going to buy it.

Everyone assumes there's something more beneath the surface. Something the philosophers spotted immediately, but chose to withhold for reasons known only to themselves.
People generally feel like they're being studied by philosophers. And, frankly, they usually are. It's just that the philosophers won't share their findings. That's why there's a lack of trust. People know plenty about them, while they know nothing about the philosophers. It creates an inherent power imbalance.

Furthermore, the term "idiot philosopher" is a murky concept.

Real philosophers are distinctly different from the idiots who wander into philosophy or dabble in it just because it makes them sound important to others. Think of it like PR managers or other similarly nebulous professions.

You’re generalizing and stereotyping again. We could go on forever discussing what this specific philosopher of yours (whom you haven't even defined) means to these "average" people you're pitting him against, or how they ought to behave—supposedly tipping their hats every time he walks down the street and listening intently to his nonsense. We could debate this indefinitely without ever saying anything worthwhile. You might try re-reading my previous post to actually grasp my point. But I suppose these are just banal truths to you...
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#18 ·
Even if you haven't quite nailed down your definition of an idiot philosopher, so what?

My point was more about how the average person perceives a philosopher—you know, that split second of thought when someone mentions they actually study philosophy.

The reason I even brought this up was because you asked about relativity.
I was trying to address why there’s this lingering assumption that philosophers have more profound experiences or deeper thoughts than everyone else.

So, just to be clear, I'm not talking about MY specific take on philosophy, nor am I suggesting it should actually be that way.
I'm talking about the stereotype itself—because that stereotype is essentially how people visualize what a philosopher is meant to be.

And honestly, it’s that very stereotype that sparked the question and led to this whole discussion in the first place.

p.s. Where exactly did I claim to be a philosopher?
Nicole Miller37 Nicole Miller37 Member
10 messages
joined Oct 2006
#19 ·
Everyone is hungry for something. Some people hunger for knowledge—those are the philosophers. It means a huge portion of the population is essentially some kind of philosopher, though some dive so deep into their own heads that they actually start calling themselves that. There are all sorts of us out there. I’m not judging, of course...

So, we are discussing stereotypes, then. I was under the impression that the trend was moving toward more direct confrontation 😁.

How does the average person actually view a philosopher? Which philosopher even gives a damn about public opinion? They are too busy fighting themselves, despite themselves. To the average person, such individuals are inherently a nuisance. But then again, who exactly qualifies as an "average person"?

Stereotypes are just stereotypes. They are nothing more than tedious observations regarding the shallowest facets of human interest. Does anyone actually care?
William Gonzalez3 William Gonzalez3 Regular
276 messages
joined May 2009
#20 ·
Philosophy isn't really about craving any kind of knowledge.

It’s more of a hunger for the most useless information imaginable.

The kind of knowledge that lacks even the slightest bit of practical application.

I suppose being a philosopher requires more than just having a curious mind or seeking out facts.

People who chase knowledge specifically because they can apply it—well, they aren't philosophers.

They want to know things so they can actually *do* something with that information. If someone like that wanders into philosophy, I think they'll end up feeling pretty disappointed.

If someone approaches philosophy just to seem smarter, to feel superior to others, to find some grand purpose in life, or to prove something—to themselves or anyone else (like the existence of God, for instance)—then they're essentially missing the entire point from the very start.

There probably aren't as many true philosophers as it seems.

A lot of people calling themselves philosophers are really just pragmatists who have somehow lost their way.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads