GENIUS FORUMS

The first four paragraphs of this essay, when I pasted it to a long-time "friend" in a chat, caused her to immediately block me. Therefore, I know it's good. :)

-------------

I have been told more times than I feel it pleasant to describe that what I need to do, as though this would resolve some crisis, is "find someone who is as passionate about philosophy as [me]." There is no more damning indictment of the human species than this, and no clearer evidence that nobody I have ever met is as passionate about philosophy as me.

But what does this mean? Why is it so damning when someone does not care about philosophy?

Perhaps simplicity will resolve the true crisis:

Philosophy is nothing more than the study of reality. Every single claim that a philosopher makes should be true, and should describe the real state of affairs. If this sounds boring, it is time for a simple reversal: anyone who is not doing philosophy is not dealing with reality whatsoever. Their beliefs are non-real, and about non-real entities: that is to say, their non-philosophic thoughts are all wrong. They are immersed in delusion.

My eternal frustration -- and this lament is mirrored by the handful of people in history who have cared a whit about truth -- is that nobody ever shows the slightest interest in reality. I would love to find someone who is as passionate about reality as me. The big problem is, if this single honest man existed, I doubt he would care so little about reality as to be found in any place I'd be so lucky to look. And he would likely feel the same way about me.

So, I'm trapped, speaking boring gibberish to people who refuse to understand that this boring gibberish is the only truth they have ever heard. They would much rather have their delusions, so much so that the question has even once emerged: "why would you sacrifice so much for truth?"

I can not answer that question, mostly because I think it's the most idiotic question in the world. Why would I sacrifice false beliefs for true beliefs? Tell me: why would i?

The logic of this is so stunningly simple as to be inescapable, even for a really dopey person. People can't handle being put in that position if they're not ready for it. Sad , but true.

A short story.

At one time, I did not know what was real. I admitted such to myself, and demanded but one thing: "I wish to know what is real."

When others heard of this, they said, "we know what it real, even though you claim that you do not. Why waste your time?"

Believing them my equals in ignorance, I did not pay attention to their words until I knew some truth. Now, after years of study, when truths bites hard, they say: "how arrogant of you to suppose that you know what's real, and that we do not!"

I call this irony.

Another parable (I now know why philosophers write these).

A man owned a very luxurious house. He asked me to comment on it, and I said, "I do not envy the man who built it. Therefore, I could not live there."

To which the man took great offense, for that was not the answer he wanted. He wished praise, but rather received deep guilt.

Seeing that I had nothing to match his house, this man stole my wallet and exclaimed: "you who do not prize possessions, do you now finally envy me?"

To which I replied, "For the excuses you now have to build, I do not envy the rest of your life."

I would love to find someone who is as passionate about reality as me.

That would be Kelly Jones. Really.

Carl G,

That would be Kelly Jones. Really.

I've never met Kelly Jones. Maybe I should test this theory of mine; perhaps I'd abhor a reflection.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote,

The first four paragraphs of this essay, when I pasted it to a long-time "friend" in a chat, caused her to immediately block me.

I don't understand. Why would this cause her to block you?

Oceaxer wrote:Trevor Salyzyn wrote,

The first four paragraphs of this essay, when I pasted it to a long-time "friend" in a chat, caused her to immediately block me.

I don't understand. Why would this cause her to block you?

Fear of the unknown is my guess...

Truth is something she does not know, hence the Fear. Somehow she has come to believe that truth is scary... and now she is afraid?

Trevor wrote:I've never met Kelly Jones. Maybe I should test this theory of mine; perhaps I'd abhor a reflection.

If you've met God, you've already met me. I hope that's the only Kelly Jones you ever meet.

But I know what you mean, Trevor, about wanting to meet examples of wisdom. It seems easier to find a path to God by observing others. Yet, it is ultimately easier to find one's own path in solitude. Only you really know your own weaknesses, best. If one needs to know, one is likely to find out.

Best of luck.

.

Oce,

I don't understand. Why would this cause her to block you?

Simple: the day before, she had told me to find someone who was as interested in philosophy as me. After 5 years of scattered conversations, she hadn't realized that my philosophy was sometimes about her!

Kelly,

If you've met God, you've already met me. I hope that's the only Kelly Jones you ever meet.

Good answer. I would have doubted your wisdom if you gave me any other: I guess I can take being compared to you as a compliment.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:she hadn't realized that my philosophy was sometimes about her!

I don't get it. Like she didn't get that she was the one that was ignoring reality?

Trevor,

There is no more damning indictment of the human species than this, and no clearer evidence that nobody I have ever met is as passionate about philosophy as me.

Stop flattering yourself.

But what does this mean? Why is it so damning when someone does not care about philosophy?
...
Philosophy is nothing more than the study of reality. Every single claim that a philosopher makes should be true, and should describe the real state of affairs. If this sounds boring, it is time for a simple reversal: anyone who is not doing philosophy is not dealing with reality whatsoever. Their beliefs are non-real, and about non-real entities: that is to say, their non-philosophic thoughts are all wrong. They are immersed in delusion.

There is a difference between "the study of reality" and "dealing with reality". Philosophers all-too-often want to study "reality" as though it is some detached object. They end up dealing less with reality than the average person.

My eternal frustration -- and this lament is mirrored by the handful of people in history who have cared a whit about truth -- is that nobody ever shows the slightest interest in reality. I would love to find someone who is as passionate about reality as me. The big problem is, if this single honest man existed, I doubt he would care so little about reality as to be found in any place I'd be so lucky to look. And he would likely feel the same way about me.

He would probably feel an aversion to your being so interested in talking in extravagant vocabulary about how interested you are in philosophy.

So, I'm trapped, speaking boring gibberish to people who refuse to understand that this boring gibberish is the only truth they have ever heard.

You are bored?

They would much rather have their delusions, so much so that the question has even once emerged: "why would you sacrifice so much for truth?"

Well... why? It is honestly a good question. Assuming that you are getting some "absolute truth" out of the deal, why sacrifice so much for it? You will die and decay with the rest of them. The answer: seeking truth is as much your passion as "delusions" x, y, and z are theirs. You could do no other and are, in the end, equally deluded.

I can not answer that question, mostly because I think it's the most idiotic question in the world.

Consider it answered. ;)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Kelly,

If you've met God, you've already met me. I hope that's the only Kelly Jones you ever meet.

Good answer. I would have doubted your wisdom if you gave me any other: I guess I can take being compared to you as a compliment.

Trevor -- Moving up the genius ranks at a good clip. ;)

Kelly -- Wonderfully metaphoric. Don't get lost in your romanticism though.

PS Trevor & Dan -- I did this for you. Now you have a prime opportunity to defend your master and your own for some genius points. ;)

Neil, your comments read like a desperate attempt to find fault, and not as an honest assessment of my writing. As such, I don't find them interesting enough to merit a longer reply than this.

Faust,

I don't get it. Like she didn't get that she was the one that was ignoring reality?

Not at all. She called me arrogant for believing that I'm the only one who lives in reality (which is not exactly what I said). I asked her, quite politely, if she was now admitting that she actually was interested in philosophy. When she refused to give an answer, I told her that the evidence for her understanding of reality was lacking -- I mean, in 5 years, I should have been able to see some smidgen of proof that she cared about things other than her delusions. She said, "I don't have to give evidence!" and blocked me. Keep in mind that this is a well-educated, 23-year old dentistry student, and not a 14-year old Gothic teenager. I mean I expect a little more maturity from people who have survived puberty.

It should be noted, as far as the vanity goes, that I once heard her brag about how she showed an ugly old lady a thing or two. Basically, the story goes that by being young and pretty, she caused an ugly old lady to feel bad.

I don't know if there is any way to give a moral to that story. Like, I can't even say "in the future, I should realize that human beings can actually be that shallow, and they aren't just joking" without feeling like I have killed a part of myself.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Keep in mind that this is a well-educated, 23-year old dentistry student, and not a 14-year old Gothic teenager. I mean I expect a little more maturity from people who have survived puberty.

I don't really expect much from people who are under 30.

I don't know if there is any way to give a moral to that story. Like, I can't even say "in the future, I should realize that human beings can actually be that shallow, and they aren't just joking" without feeling like I have killed a part of myself.

Welcome to the monkey house.

The piece has some quality, and it makes some points worth discussing. Incidentally, I agree that scoring an immediate chat block is a pretty good indicator that something worthwhile was being said. Congrats on that, lol.

I have been told more times than I feel it pleasant to describe that what I need to do, as though this would resolve some crisis, is "find someone who is as passionate about philosophy as [me]."

Yeah, good luck with that. Only people who have no idea what philosophy actually is would make such a suggestion. Why don't you find a needle in a haystack while you're at it, or dig up Jimmy Hoffa?

Perhaps simplicity will resolve the true crisis:

Philosophy is nothing more than the study of reality. Every single claim that a philosopher makes should be true, and should describe the real state of affairs. If this sounds boring, it is time for a simple reversal: anyone who is not doing philosophy is not dealing with reality whatsoever. Their beliefs are non-real, and about non-real entities: that is to say, their non-philosophic thoughts are all wrong. They are immersed in delusion.

I'd put it slightly more concisely: Philosophy is the process of exposing and subsequently dropping one's false ideas. Once this is done, it is not necessary to "think philosophically" any longer, because philosophy is a means to an end. This runs counter to the fashionable modern view that philosophy is done "for its own sake" as some sort of never-ending and totally irrelevant tail-chasing game. Real philosophy is a serious goal-oriented business. For most of us throwbacks, the process of exposing and dropping our deepest false beliefs requires years of effort. But Hui-neng did it spontaneously it in five minutes. All the better for him. In either case, to the degree that the purpose of philosophy has been accomplished, the process of philosophy is rendered unnecessary.

But most people, including modern so-called "philosophers" who subscribe to the "philosophy as tail-chasing for its own sake" never even start.

Oops, that wasn't any more concise than yours, but oh well. :p

My eternal frustration -- and this lament is mirrored by the handful of people in history who have cared a whit about truth -- is that nobody ever shows the slightest interest in reality.

Yeah, that really is a pisser. It's unusual for me to use the much-abused term "freeloaders" in a derogatory sense in any context, but this is one area in which I think it is appropriate. How unfair that there is no requirement to be interested in reality in order to participate in it. I sometimes wonder what a (metaphorical) God thinks of it - here he is going to the trouble to disguise (and reveal) himself in the world of form and individuality, and nobody gives a shit. It's like playing hide and seek. You even hide in plain sight, but still nobody looks. They decide to play Nintendo instead. This (metaphorical) God must have a sense of humor, because the joke is on him.

I would love to find someone who is as passionate about reality as me. The big problem is, if this single honest man existed, I doubt he would care so little about reality as to be found in any place I'd be so lucky to look. And he would likely feel the same way about me.

There are a few of us here and there, but it's simply a numbers game. People who think about substantial matters are unusual enough that one is unlikely to meet any "in person," except on a few rare (and probably pre-arranged) occasions. This is where the Internet is so useful. if it weren't for the internet, it's a good bet that some philosophical thinkers would never interact with anyone of similar interests in their lifetime.

So, I'm trapped, speaking boring gibberish to people who refuse to understand that this boring gibberish is the only truth they have ever heard.

Hoo-boy. That is the king of all losing games. I'm trying hard to get over my urge to do that. People who understand reality to a greater degree than most are naturally compassionate in the sense that they have a deep-seated desire to share which can be almost compulsive at times. At bottom, we want to help. But hard experience drills home the inescapable fact that our help is not wanted and is in fact received by the intended beneficiaries as if we were spraying sulfuric acid all over them with a fire hose. Someone once told me that "to tell the truth to a person who is incapable of understanding or accepting it is the same as telling them a lie." That stuck with me, and I'm trying to live in accordance with it, although it's hard because that naturally-occurring compassion and desire to help never goes away.

Time, age, and life experience are all great helps, though. After you see firsthand that your well-intentioned efforts have the effect of driving people close to a nervous breakdown a few times, it will get a bit easier (although still not a simple matter) to sit down and STFU at least some of the time.

Your frustration is the same frustration that caused Jesus to weep. That is what the cross is all about - it symbolizes the troubled fate of those who have genuine insight in a world that runs frantically after anything but reality. Putting it that way might be dramatic and grandiose (in the eyes of popular fashion which doesn't actually have to go through the actual petty shittiness of it), but it's true nonetheless.

They would much rather have their delusions, so much so that the question has even once emerged: "why would you sacrifice so much for truth?" I can not answer that question, mostly because I think it's the most idiotic question in the world. Why would I sacrifice false beliefs for true beliefs? Tell me: why would i?

From the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 20:

Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Do I need to fear what others fear? What nonsense!

Other people are happy, enjoying the feasts and rituals of the world.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn baby before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more food than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Yes, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

There is no "why." Some do, some don't, and that's the way it is.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I have been told more times than I feel it pleasant to describe that what I need to do, as though this would resolve some crisis, is "find someone who is as passionate about philosophy as [me]." There is no more damning indictment of the human species than this, and no clearer evidence that nobody I have ever met is as passionate about philosophy as me.

Try meeting new people. Get a listing of philosophy professors of nearest University/College and e-mail them. Ask them how to get involved. Perhaps even invite them to a BBQ or lunch - if they have time.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: But what does this mean? Why is it so damning when someone does not care about philosophy?

Don't take it personally. By now, you should have realized that philosophy isn't for everyone. Likewise, mathematics isn't for everyone. Not everyone has the same abilities and interests.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Perhaps simplicity will resolve the true crisis:

Philosophy is nothing more than the study of reality. Every single claim that a philosopher makes should be true, and should describe the real state of affairs. If this sounds boring, it is time for a simple reversal: anyone who is not doing philosophy is not dealing with reality whatsoever. Their beliefs are non-real, and about non-real entities: that is to say, their non-philosophic thoughts are all wrong. They are immersed in delusion.

If you have found philosophy, as one might find gold, use it to live a good life. Serve philosophy, and let philosophy serve you. Show others how philosophy might benefit them, by becoming an example for others. Monkey see, money do.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: My eternal frustration -- and this lament is mirrored by the handful of people in history who have cared a whit about truth -- is that nobody ever shows the slightest interest in reality. I would love to find someone who is as passionate about reality as me. The big problem is, if this single honest man existed, I doubt he would care so little about reality as to be found in any place I'd be so lucky to look. And he would likely feel the same way about me.

Publish your ideas. Those who are interested will come around. Frustration should prompt you to action - hopefully noble.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: So, I'm trapped, speaking boring gibberish to people who refuse to understand that this boring gibberish is the only truth they have ever heard. They would much rather have their delusions, so much so that the question has even once emerged: "why would you sacrifice so much for truth?"

Never teach a man who does not want to learn. If people "refuse to understand" perhaps you should find a way to get them interested. Show them the benefits by practical examples. But before you do that, ask yourself this: Why bother?
If you know certain truths, use them to benefit yourself and those around you. Eventually evolution will take care of the ignorant ones and one day philosophers will rule the world :)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I can not answer that question, mostly because I think it's the most idiotic question in the world. Why would I sacrifice false beliefs for true beliefs? Tell me: why would i?

I am sure those people don't see it that way. They don't see their beliefs as false, even if they are. Operating on false beliefs will eventually lead to bad decisions. Suffering usually follows. After that, some will be more open minded, others will parish. It is what it is, let it be. Don't go out of your way.

Interesting thread.

First of all... philosophy should not be about understanding reality. What 'reality' even means is a philosophical question itself. Philosophy is about understanding yourself, first and foremost. I happen to agree with Unidian, who in turn agrees with the positivistic programme, that philosophy's primary job is of helping us track down and divest ourselves of nonsense and fallacious beliefs.

Now, the advice to find someone who's as interested in philosophy... the question of the value of heterogeneity apart (differences, and friction between differences, is the source of creativity and innovation), marveling at one's own deep interest in philosophy is silly. it's posturing. philosophy is a means to an end -- to the end of becoming a better person, living a good life, understanding one's self better -- but it's just a tool. Grading people based on how much they are interested in philosophy, which is what the title post seems to be implying, is as silly as grading people based on how much they are interested in martial arts, or making money, or modern literature, or whatever. it's mistaking one facet, albeit a rather important one, for the whole.

vicdan wrote:First of all... philosophy should not be about understanding reality. What 'reality' even means is a philosophical question itself. Philosophy is about understanding yourself, first and foremost. I happen to agree with Unidian, who in turn agrees with the positivistic programme, that philosophy's primary job is of helping us track down and divest ourselves of nonsense and fallacious beliefs.

You contradicted yourself here. You say philosophy shouldn't be about understanding reality, but that it should be about understanding the self. As if the self is not a part of reality. Then you state that philosophy's job is to uncover truth. Is this truth you are attempting to uncover some how outside of reality?

Perhaps. But if people don't value divesting themselves of nonsense and false beliefs, aren't they at a vastly increased risk of becoming the sort of thoughtless tools who love Bush and think that American Idol promotes ideal values (for example)? And, in turn, isn't it rather difficult for people who do value thinking to stomach such people?

I can't see anything wrong with wanting to be around like-minded people, or even any way that such a natural inclination could be avoided. I'd agree that assessing people's character in some absolute sense based on conformity to one's own values would be a mistake. But that doesn't mean we want to spend our time attending NASCAR events.

Nick Treklis wrote:You contradicted yourself here. You say philosophy shouldn't be about understanding reality, but that it should be about understanding the self.

Right. And biology is not about understandings things but living things, even though living things are a subset of all things.

The point is that it's not at all clear what constitutes 'reality', and whether talking about 'reality' is even meaningful in many senses. The very question, as framed, already presupposes certain answers.

Seeking to understand 'reality' will lead you in the direction roughly similar to where QRS have gone -- they seek to understand the ontology of the world, because in the very framing of their programme, they presupposed that this is a meaningful quest.

As if the self is not a part of reality. Then you state that philosophy's job is to uncover truth. Is this truth you are attempting to uncover some how outside of reality?

I didn't say philosophy's job is to uncover truth, but rather to help us recognize nonsensical and fallacious beliefs. is the distinction too subtle for you?

Yeah, you can't "understand" the ontology of reality in any conceptual sense. Thought can't grasp it. That's Zen 101, but David and certain others keep trying to teach Zen 007 or some version thereof which allows them to play "wise guru." They should just cut to the chase and admit that the only purpose of thinking in Zen is to reveal the limits of thinking. That's the whole point, and why the koan is given in actual (non-QRS) Zen schools. But I guess the whole "rational enlightenment" game is just too psychologically rewarding, particularly for those with schizoid tendencies.

Dan has no schizoid tendencies.