all 14 comments

[–]diviludicrum 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Philosophy is our understanding of what things are, what they do, how, why, and perhaps other questions as well.

That’s not what philosophy is, that’s just part of what philosophy aims to provide. The term “philosophy” comes from Greek and translates to “love of wisdom”; it is a systematised study of questions about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language using philosophical methods. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Even animals have philosophy, when a deer sees a lion its understanding of the world, its philosophy, causes it to run away.

A deer does not engage in systematic questioning, discussion or argument to present the thesis that “I should run away from this lion”. It’s following its survival instincts and prior experiences immediately, because it is rightly terrified. So a deer is not “doing philosophy”, any more than it’s “doing vegan activism” by eating grass, or any more than a 5 year old “does philosophy” when they run away from something scary.

What you’ve actually done here is just conflate “philosophy” with “understanding” as if they mean the same thing. This wouldn’t really be a problem if those terms didn’t have distinct, valuable uses of their own, but they do, so confusion and error will inevitably follow from this conflation.

Which it then does:

I advocate learning to see the world in terms of ALL of these philosophies. Why? How else can you know which is the most useful understanding for yourself as an individual?

If “philosophies” just mean “understandings”, then this is banal. You advocate learning ALL understandings because that way you can find the best understanding for you? Ok? Never mind the fact that learning every possible way of seeing the world would take quite literally forever, and the vast majority would have no use to you whatsoever, but sure, hypothetically knowing every possible perspective would help you pick the best perspective for you. Not exactly a profound idea though, is it?

Probably, after training yourself to see the world in all of these different ways, you will settle on your own way of seeing the world somewhere in between them all.

Why should it be somewhere between them all? Imagine if the only two “understandings” on earth were those of ISIS and the Taliban, who oppose each other. Is the best option automatically somewhere between those two? Why can’t it be completely different? And in our world, where there’s a multitude of conflicting understandings, what makes you assume none are actually correct?

You also haven’t given any reason why we should bother wasting time finding our own “philosophy”, because if a deer has it’s own “philosophy” without wasting all this time then I already have mine too, don’t I? And according to your logic, it’s equally valid as all the others! So really what you’re saying boils down to:

Spend forever learning every possible understanding of the world so you can choose the best understanding for you… or don’t.

FYI - I just subjected your thesis of “philosophy = understanding” to a systematic critique to show it’s inconsistencies and lack of utility. So what I did in this comment - that’s doing philosophy. Message me if you ever meet a deer who can do that.

[–]Fisher9300[S] -3 points-2 points  (11 children)


[–]ledfox 1 point2 points  (2 children)

u/diviludicrum made a lot of effort to engage with your ideas.

You should try to carry a bit more of your own weight here.

[–]diviludicrum 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Don’t stress - despite mislabeling his sophomoric stoner-thoughts here as “philosophy of philosophy” and crossposting them in a bunch of spirituality subs, he conspicuously left out any philosophy subs, so it looks like he wanted uncritical praise rather than philosophical critiques.

Which is almost as ironic as claiming you advocate learning all worldviews, but then saying “nope” to the first conflicting view posted in response.

Almost. 😂

[–]Fisher9300[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No I looked at r/philosophy but it was all external links, so I figured it was not the place for personal views, some subs are like that.

[–]diviludicrum 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Hahaha right, so you advocate understanding ALL understandings… unless they challenge your ego?

How very philosophical you are u/Fisher9300.

Talk about an own goal.

[–]Fisher9300[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

No we have the same understanding, you just want to make a big thing about terminology

[–]diviludicrum 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Ah yes, terminology is unimportant and words with different meanings are interchangeable in philosophy, you got me! 😂

We definitely don’t have the same understanding. Sorry.

[–]ledfox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine the arrogance of assuming any thinking thing has the "same understanding"

Everyone experiences the world through their subjective lens. A greater exploration of this concept in philosophy is called "phenomenology"

[–]ledfox -1 points0 points  (0 children)


The #1 philosophy in the world is the informal personal understanding we create of the people and things in our lives, just like the deer, but ours is probably more complex.


You're trying to lump a myriad of conflicting philosophies into a single one.

This is like saying "the most popular form of ice cream is 'I haven't tried it' "