Folk Philosophy

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I think it goes to say, I agree to disagree! Though there might be some points we do agree on.
I just am doing this an exercise in contrasting and defining each others opinion.

In your discourse, you repeatedly refer to two sorts of individuals-
the religious mystic, and the philosopher.
My understanding is that your complaint is those who mix the two together- those who are writing philosophies which are "infected" wih some elements of mysticism?
Did I misunderstand?


Also, in your commentary on the mystic avoiding rationality and logic, because it might prove him wrong, and in order to create a sense of self-importance??

Creating a sense of self importance is equally common amongst philosophers, I percieve.
Their sense of self importance is simply derived from their habile usage of different skills than the mystic. They have different values.

The philosopher, as I pojnted out in the example of my stepfather, is prone to ignoring emotions and physical senses, because they might prove him wrong, (and in order to create this sense).

Though the sense of smell will tell him the turd does not smell like a rose, he will ignore that and pat himself on the back for his witty theory which determines that it does.

....Besides my slightly humorous and exaggerrated example, there are real problematic implications in this- especially when it comes to psychology, and particularly, personal relationships.

The professor that makes his living this way (and was born into a family that is wealthy) can afford that and consider it the price of his "uncommon brilliance",

but the layman that has to work in jobs which require better emotional and social skills (as well as being down to earth) needs to incorporate elements which canalize and recognize emotions as well- which tend to be irrational and paradoxial.

Very well-considered opening post! And also the responses too. Thank you.

A few thoughts...

Every point of view, whether it be philosophical, religious, or scientific, is inherently limited. How can philosophy, or religion, or science transcend the limit that point-of-view confers? Science as a discipline has no reason to generally, and religion as a set of beliefs generally will not transcend their points of view as any given religion is often based on such beliefs (especially once the founder has passed away). But what about philosophy? Philosophy is potentially the one discipline where such a free consideration can be had.

So can philosophy truly transcend all points of view, go beyond any limits of knowledge, belief, and rationality, and discover the Truth?

Isn't this the necessary basis for such a discovery? I would think so. So why is it then that Philosophy typically assumes that there is a separate self and others and that everything arising is a given in terms of reality? Isn't our point of view about all arising and ourselves inherently limited and unproven? Any point of view can be refuted by another point of view such as in this simple example I have made use of on this Forum a few times.

For instance, you are in a room and see it from a certain point of view. But what does the room ACTUALLY look like in reality? Even if you could visualize it from many different perspectives, you still would not know exactly what it looks like in reality. And even your view of the room is already in the past because it takes a certain amount of time to experience the seeing of the room. So the seeing is already a memory. We are looking at history, in fact.

So one's point of view relative to what the simplest object even looks like, can be refuted by someone else's point of view from a different perspective. Of course, we can make agreements generally speaking about what the room or object looks like, but does that tell us what the room ACTUALLY looks like or is?

So once again, can our philosophy truly transcend all points of view, go beyond the limits of knowledge, belief, and rationality, and discover what is actually true? Stated another way, can all of our presumptions about what reality is be put aside and philosophy engaged to the point of real enlightenment?

Several years ago, Adi Da Samraj wrote a book called "Perfect Philosophy: The 'Radical' Way of No-Ideas". Here he bridges the gap between Philosophy and Enlightenment - if anyone is interested in a much more profound treatment of this matter.

To the OP

The very basic beginnings of Philosophy began when man started to question his place in relation to our world, how he can live within it successfully and find happiness based upon behavioural observances of humans. Such was its appeal in comprehension that philosophy was gradually accepted by masses seeking for similar answers.

It later went into several directions, and the elitist course was often paved with exclusivity - either you get it or you are only a neanderthal. Nietzche was the greatest elistist of philosopher of all times with his thoughts expounded, accepted and even worshipped by the greatest diabolical conquerors of mankind - the insane Nazis.

He ended up wrapped in a straight jacket, sent to a mental institute, by no less than his most loyal and ardent supporter - Hitler.

My advice - take care that you do not follow his way.

Cheers.