Why Good Philosophy is Unpopular

[WorldIsMine]

One of the thing that is going to make people angry when you talk to them about philosophy is that it is going to force them to confront their own behavior. Most people are bad parents and hardly more than children themselves. This point, upon which much of the destiny of mankind essentially hinges upon, which all standards, habits and ideas are first introduced and much of a person's personality is formed, this is precisely when everyone screws up so horribly and then blames the kid for failing to live up to their impossible standards. Most of what is wrong is that people do not empathize with their children and they don't empathize with other people.


These Conservatives who defend American action in the Korean war because they were 'fightin' commies' have never been blown up because hey had the mistake of being in the wrong gang's 'territory'. They don't want to face that, because they don't want to deal with the fact that most of our exalted 'leaders' and 'heroes' are violent psychopaths. And so they keep teaching 'patriotism' and all sorts of irrational tribal, collectivist bigotries out of cowardice.


I try not to let it get me down. You can only be responsible for yourself, and you don't have a duty to anyone. You can't save the world, because the human race is its own problem. As long as people continue to be stupid, you can just hope for the best, look out for yourself and enjoy what you have. A lot of people think this is a really 'callous' position, a word they often use interchangebly with 'selfish', but in effect a person that is very sensitive and perceptive has to cut themselves off from these people or go crazy. But until more of these individuals stop preaching the doctrine of violence, slavery and death they will never gain anything worth having. Until they accept responsibility for their own actions and deal with others by reason and not by force they will forever be at odds with reason, with prudence and with happiness. And, for many, it will be their own fault.

Not appealing? No. But the great thing about the world is that the only thing you need to do to get out of it is to face it and deal with reality. And that, I think, is something to be happy about.

 

[acropolis]

there are plenty of good parents. sorry yours weren't, though

only caring about yourself destroys your moral authority, since any sweeping moral argument you make implies caring about others.

beyond that, humans are the most social creature on earth. looking out for eachother is the entire reason for civilization, so there's a pretty good argument for caring for people other than yourself. also, it's emotionally damaging and distressing for otherwise healthy humans to be socially isolated.

 

[Tomk80]

When someone says that "you can't save the world", one only has to look at the state of the world today and compare it to the state of the world 100 or 200 years ago, to note that this is rubbish. Despite the many wars fought continuously throughout human history, our compassion towards others has been growing, death rates by violence have been diminishing. True, on your own you don't accomplish much. But in striving for a better society we have the benefit of not being alone, but sharing this idea with many others in society.

The situation is not good at this point. However, it has been a lot worse, and it is not so bad that we are justified in not doing our part in trying to make it better.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It is funny how everyone has all the answers and the problem with the world is that everyone else is "stupid".

 

[The Nihilist]

It is funny how everyone has all the answers and the problem with the world is that everyone else is "stupid".

let's not act like stupidity doesn't play a big part

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that part of the problem is that philosophy had nearly disappeared as a way of life in the West. Philosophy is normally seen as impractical -- a mere chess game that philosophers play to amuse themselves through the centuries, and for which there can never be any solid answers. It wasn't always this way. In the classical world, philosophers lived their philosophies.

Jesus is now the popular ideal, not Socrates. Faith in a single set of ideas is promoted, not living the Examined Life. Churches are failing millions of people.

Now, I agree with the OP that: "You can only be responsible for yourself, and you don't have a duty to anyone. You can't save the world, because the human race is its own problem. As long as people continue to be stupid, you can just hope for the best, look out for yourself and enjoy what you have."

However, I don't quite agree that this is all that can be done. "Saving the world" isn't one's duty; one has one's own life to live. However, one can form philosophical communities that do what churches are unwilling to do, and that is to promote philosophy as a way of life among its members. This is no sacrifice. It is a joy to socialize with people who are interested in criticially examining their own beliefs, values, and personal psychology for the sake of self-improvement. I know this from experience with the Fellowship of Reason.

It is unlikely that such philosophical communities will entirely displace Christianity, and they shouldn't aim at this as their primary goal, for that is only a distraction from each member making the best of their own lives. However, the world will be better off for each individual who wakes up out of the cultural stupor, and achieves a higher vantagepoint on which to view the world. If you think the world needs improvement, then improve yourself and support the cultural institutions that foster personal improvement, and a side-effect will be that the world will be improved, at least by a little.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[beechy]

One of the thing that is going to make people angry when you talk to them about philosophy is that it is going to force them to confront their own behavior.

So you find that people get mad when you try to talk to them about philosophy, eh?

Most people are bad parents and hardly more than children themselves. This point, upon which much of the destiny of mankind essentially hinges upon, which all standards, habits and ideas are first introduced and much of a person's personality is formed, this is precisely when everyone screws up so horribly and then blames the kid for failing to live up to their impossible standards. Most of what is wrong is that people do not empathize with their children and they don't empathize with other people.

What makes you think most parents are bad parents? And what makes you think that "most of what is wrong" with bad parents is that they lack empathy?

These Conservatives who defend American action in the Korean war because they were 'fightin' commies' have never been blown up because hey had the mistake of being in the wrong gang's 'territory'.

So if Harry Truman had stumbled into the south side of Chicago and been "blown up" by the Vice Lords you think we might have avoided the Korean War? Truman was a Democrat, though -- did you have a particular "Conservative" in mind whose views on foreign policy would have been improved by a gang initiation?

They don't want to face that, because they don't want to deal with the fact that most of our exalted 'leaders' and 'heroes' are violent psychopaths. And so they keep teaching 'patriotism' and all sorts of irrational tribal, collectivist bigotries out of cowardice.

People don't want to deal with how it would have been better if Truman had been beaten up by the Vice Lords because they don't want to deal with the fact that leaders and heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Abraham Lincoln, Amelia Earhart, John F. Kennedy, Rosa Parks, and Jimmy Carter are violent psycopaths?

I try not to let it get me down. You can only be responsible for yourself, and you don't have a duty to anyone. You can't save the world, because the human race is its own problem.

Who's the enemy? Unsympathetic parents? Violent psycopaths like Martin Luther King? Conservatives who supported the Korean war because Al Capone didn't blow them up in time to change their minds?

As long as people continue to be stupid, you can just hope for the best, look out for yourself and enjoy what you have.

I guess I second that -- stay away from stupid people!

A lot of people think this is a really 'callous' position, a word they often use interchangebly with 'selfish', but in effect a person that is very sensitive and perceptive has to cut themselves off from these people or go crazy. But until more of these individuals stop preaching the doctrine of violence, slavery and death they will never gain anything worth having. Until they accept responsibility for their own actions and deal with others by reason and not by force they will forever be at odds with reason, with prudence and with happiness. And, for many, it will be their own fault.

Who are you talking about now? Bad parents, violent psycopaths, conservatives, or stupid people? (Or do you think they're all one in the same -- some sort of nightmarish idiot conservative psycho mom?)

Not appealing? No. But the great thing about the world is that the only thing you need to do to get out of it is to face it and deal with reality. And that, I think, is something to be happy about.

I'm not angry with your philosophy as you suggested I might be in your first sentence, but I am thoroughly confused by it. I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say ...

 

[WorldIsMine]

there are plenty of good parents. sorry yours weren't, though

I believe that a lot of people were told their parents were good, by people who were the most powerful figures for the entirety of their youth. Propaganda expounded by someone in this position does not constitutes 'proof', any more than Pravda proves that people in the soviet union really were ecstatic. I will judge from objective reality, where the fact is that most people have horrible philosophical notions which they impose on their children physically and mentally. This 'argument' you have made is, in any case, an assertion. Given that a person's actions are determined by his ideas and he learns most of his social relations and standards in child-hood, the fact that most people have severe emotional and intellectual issues with reality would directly implicate the parenting they received.

And just so no one constructs a straw man, I did not say that all parents are awful nor that there were no distinctions to be made. But, for the reasons outlined above, I hold that most parents commit significant systematic errors. The better ones simply have fewer.

only caring about yourself destroys your moral authority, since any sweeping moral argument you make implies caring about others.

Yeah, well I'm an amoralist. Furthermore, morality does not imply caring about others, moral dogmas are as varied as they are silly. Furthermore the notion that self-interest precludes consideration for other people is inherently contradictory. You posted because you wanted to. Yet this post implies you care to some extent about social communication. No one that I know of has ever promoted social atomism, and continuing to act as though that is what is meant by individualist or egoism simply demonstrates that most people have no idea what the latter ideas mean.

I think that part of the problem is that philosophy had nearly disappeared as a way of life in the West. Philosophy is normally seen as impractical -- a mere chess game that philosophers play to amuse themselves through the centuries, and for which there can never be any solid answers. It wasn't always this way. In the classical world, philosophers lived their philosophies.

Hostility to rationality is what breeds this. And I believe what I talked about here is the reason why this hostility toward rationality exist. The imaginary-rules-for-imaginary-worlds that makes up 'social reality' or culture are such blatant mythology that refuting them is like refuting Dungeons and Dragons. What's the point? Yet people are very emotionally attached to this because of social - especially parental - pressure. Humans are, as is so often pointed out, social animals. This means that people will develop feelings of hostility or uneasiness toward any rationality that contradicts their favourite fairy tale. I think this explains popular hostility toward philosophers and philosophy we have observed through most of history and deal with today. And people can't admit their parents were often arrogant, unreasonable and bullying because people don't want to face the fact that they and most of their friends are - if confronted with anything that annoys them, like a fact that contradicts their mythology - become arrogant, unreasonable and bullying. Most of the human race, whatever their potential, lack intellectual courage not only because they are afraid of the disapproval of others but because they can not face the truth about themselves.

 

[beechy]

I believe that a lot of people were told their parents were good, by people who were the most powerful figures for the entirety of their youth.

Why do you believe this?

Propaganda expounded by someone in this position does not constitutes 'proof', any more than Pravda proves that people in the soviet union really were ecstatic.

What is your "proof"?

I will judge from objective reality, where the fact is that most people have horrible philosophical notions which they impose on their children physically and mentally.

How have you come to know this about "most people"?

This 'argument' you have made is, in any case, an assertion.

Are your "arguments" something other than assertions?

Given that a person's actions are determined by his ideas and he learns most of his social relations and standards in child-hood, the fact that most people have severe emotional and intellectual issues with reality would directly implicate the parenting they received.

What makes you think "most people" have "severe emotional and intellectual issues with reality"?

And just so no one constructs a straw man, I did not say that all parents are awful nor that there were no distinctions to be made.

No, your OP didn't say all parents are bad, it said "most parents" are bad.

But, for the reasons outlined above, I hold that most parents commit significant systematic errors. The better ones simply have fewer.

First let's talk about how you've reached the conclusion that "most people" have "severe emotional and intellectual issues with reality" before evaluating the "systematic parental error" explanation for those "issues".

Yeah, well I'm an amoralist. Furthermore, morality does not imply caring about others, moral dogmas are as varied as they are silly. Furthermore the notion that self-interest precludes consideration for other people is inherently contradictory. You posted because you wanted to. Yet this post implies you care to some extent about social communication.

Why doesn't it just imply that he's bored and he finds this forum entertaining?

No one that I know of has ever promoted social atomism, and continuing to act as though that is what is meant by individualist or egoism simply demonstrates that most people have no idea what the latter ideas mean.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Hostility to rationality is what breeds this. And I believe what I talked about here is the reason why this hostility toward rationality exist.

Interesting belief ... I didn't get that message at all from your posts here -- the only message I've got is that you think parents are the root of all evil in society. (Are you fighting with yours?)

The imaginary-rules-for-imaginary-worlds that makes up 'social reality' or culture are such blatant mythology that refuting them is like refuting Dungeons and Dragons. What's the point? Yet people are very emotionally attached to this because of social - especially parental - pressure.

Attached to what?? The idea that their parents haven't caused them to have severe intellectual and emotional issues with reality that make them stupid and support the Korean war?

Humans are, as is so often pointed out, social animals. This means that people will develop feelings of hostility or uneasiness toward any rationality that contradicts their favourite fairy tale.

Humans are social animals and that is why they cling to fairy tales about their parents not being bad?

I think this explains popular hostility toward philosophers and philosophy we have observed through most of history and deal with today.

Where do you get this idea that philosophers are despised? And what does that have to do with your parents setting those impossibly high standards that you referenced in the OP?

And people can't admit their parents were often arrogant, unreasonable and bullying because people don't want to face the fact that they and most of their friends are - if confronted with anything that annoys them, like a fact that contradicts their mythology - become arrogant, unreasonable and bullying.

I don't understand how these two things connect ... or what your point is.

Most of the human race, whatever their potential, lack intellectual courage not only because they are afraid of the disapproval of others but because they can not face the truth about themselves.

What reality do you believe most people are avoiding? That they had bad parents? That they themselves are bad parents? That the Korean war was wrong? That being "blown up" by a gang would improve their worldview? That Jimmy Carter was a violent psycopath? Help me understand what your point is .... Maybe if you distill it into a sentence or two it will be easier to discuss, since these long posts have lots of loosely related points that are hard to follow ...

 

[Received]

I think it has more to do with confronting one's ideas, and really nothing to do with behavior. If you consider your ideas, you run the risk of transcending your own herd. The cost of moving is considered more problematic than living without truth. This seems close to behavior, but it transcends it: it isn't anything solely external, but a matter of self assertion. Pushing against the grain, standing up for what you believe in (at least until you find another herd to support you). Only a minority have ever done this, and it's probably true that you have to be compelled into it or else you'll never get around to it.

So you can't really blame the poor bastard majority. They have no value for truth simply because they're never tasted it. Until they do, it's all for show.

 

[beechy]

I think it has more to do with confronting one's ideas, and really nothing to do with behavior.

What has more to do with confronting one's ideas?

 

[acropolis]

Yeah, well I'm an amoralist.

and yet you speak as if there is a correct way to behave, rejecting irrational dogmas, etc. so you are still a moralist, your morals are just more bound up in what you see as perfect rationality.

Furthermore, morality does not imply caring about others, moral dogmas are as varied as they are silly.

the key word is sweeping moral judgements. to make moral judgements about the behavior of other people implies you care about them, on some level, or else you would only make moral judgements about yourself.

Furthermore the notion that self-interest precludes consideration for other people is inherently contradictory. You posted because you wanted to.

it is only contradictory is your definition of 'self-interest' is the tautological version. if, by definition, all actions are done because a person wants to do them, and this is what is meant by 'self-interest', then self-interest is a meaningless term. in this case, anything a person does is in self-interest, so there is no action or moral scheme that contradicts it.

there is no contradiction, however, if 'self-interest' means taking action only to the benefit of one's self. it's possible to perform actions you want to do (say, forum posting) but which have no benefit for yourself. i'm assuming the self-interest you believe in is the meaningful variety that people can choose not to do, rather than the tautological kind that everyone does.

if you are devoted to your own self-interest, why do you want everyone else to feel the same? surely it would benefit you more to have everyone else acting in your best interest. and yet, you believe others should reject the irrationality of social relations despite the adverse affects this would have for your self. it's almost as if you don't really believe in pure self-interest after all. OR more likely you're just taking the term 'self-interest' and redifining it to include whatever behaviors and beliefs you feel like, then switching between your own special 'self-interest' and the impossible-to-deny tautological 'self-interest' whenever it is rhetorically useful.

Yet this post implies you care to some extent about social communication. No one that I know of has ever promoted social atomism, and continuing to act as though that is what is meant by individualist or egoism simply demonstrates that most people have no idea what the latter ideas mean.

i'm probably for social communication, by the sound of it, unless it's jargon for something very specific.

there are a number of meanings of egoism, but i'm assuming you are referring to rational egoism: to act in one's own interest is rational. or maybe you include ethical egoism, which would add that self-interest is also good. either way, the stance isn't very meaningful; there are very few behaviors that are excluded by egoism, and these are considered mental illnesses. example: a person believes they will gain the most by always attending to the needs of others before their own. it fits under egoism, but is indistinguishable from altruism.

i get the impression that you are following the Objectivist mistake of falsely extrapolating very specific behaviors and policies from what is logically a very broad philosophical foundation.

 

[WorldIsMine]

Why do you believe this?

Because of the conversations I've had with people and the way I have observed they talk, deal with each other and deal with their kids. Hypocrisy, pettiness and ignorance are basically wielded as weapons to control opinion. What people teach their kids and the ideas they live by direct how they deal with their children. Quite frequently their ideas are destructive and self-destructive. This is precisely what one would expect, given most people have very serious and systematic mistakes in their worldviews.

Although you may not agree with my assessment, it is a patent fact that most popular philosophies, most things people say to justify themselves and others, are mistaken, ignorant and practically indefensible doctrines. Religion and subjection of self to external ideas generally, to start with.

Thus part of the problem you have in seeing my post is that you don't see most philosophical ideas are erroneous and destructive and that most of the problems, personal and 'social', are caused by these destructive ideologies. That these ideas are damaging to their children when practiced and taught only follows. It also follows that these ideas perpetuate because people impress them upon their children by word and action.

 

[Received]

What has more to do with confronting one's ideas?

It was an expletive. I'm speaking of the whole matter.