RE: Philosophy vs philosophy - on writing (hardcore) philosophy and Steemit
welcome to the club of highly specialized content. :-)
I hear you. Everything you said resonated with me and I can say "yes". On the other hand, it is a very personal perspective what one calls "philosophical" when the goal is to get insight and to understand a concept which then one wants to apply to ones daily life. For me no concept is worth a lot if this connection cannot be made. For me philosophy should provide this connection - Reading philosophical ideas for the sake being able to talk about them and share knowledge but drop it on the next occasion when something else appears around the corner doesn't make much sense.
I want to DO something with it. But then ... what actually is DOING? When my mind gets influenced by philosophical matter in a for me relevant way I may already act differently compared to the state of mind I had before.
I connect philosophy to ethics. .... Probably I connect everything with ethics :-) Philosophers and their ideas and concepts accompany our civilizations now for thousands of years.
Some people come up with thoughts and concepts they authored for the first time. Because they might never have heard that their thoughts already were thought by others. Does that make them lesser? Who has the "Authority"? The definition of an author could be: it is a person who formulated a concept out of his own assumption which he proved to be right through his experiences and then published it and people got to gain consensus about it.
In contradiction to what I've said philosophy serves also just having an entertaining time. Like solving riddles. Scratching the surface during having dinner and then talking about the next topic. The very fact that I cannot always be deep down into something is what makes the diving into so worthwhile.
So the two groups you mentioned: those who did not rise to their full potential and those who do are always in place. You and I do concentrate on both of them. One day it stings, the other day it delights. Or take not a day but an hour or a minute.
The difficulty with specialized content is to find a common language. Nowadays (wonder how long this already lasts) we talk about "Fachidioten" (nerds, geeks, one train-specialists) who cannot overcome the disciplines and share their good potentials.
I myself would like to have commentators who like to follow what I say and who engage with the delivered content. But: If there are too many, the interactions would suffer, the same with not enough, than also I suffer. Question for me is: what is enough?
For you as a philosopher it seems to be quite difficult to find a topic to talk about when you have two upcoming books you'd like to refer to and be them the matter of exchange and debate ... ?
What do you want your reader to think and maybe do when he has finished your book? Is there any change you hope for?
I know that are mean questions :-)
Thank you! Those are not mean questions at all. I do hope for some change, some form of (re)new(ed) thinking on their own lives.
I agree with what you say, how philosophy needs to be always connected to one's life. That's also very much how I look at it, because I don't see any other way (which is also why I wrote that book... if you take thinking & living seriously, it affects who you are, what you do, what you want, so in that sense it is a dangerous thing, thinking. Dangerous regarding your own mental health, that is.)
So both the 'hardcore' and the 'general' book I mention, are personal, and talking about philosophy-as-a-living-experience. Yet they are also completely different, mostly as to level of discourse.
I don't understand what you mean with this... can you clarify?
And yes, the Fachidioten are very familiar. I wouldn't like being one, but teaching in non-philosophy surroundings keeps me from falling into that trap. I love that what seems so normal, what I can talk about with fellow philosophers and we all agree, all of a sudden turns out to be bizar when a seemingly simple question of a student rips it apart (often without them noticing!).
Steemit could also be such a place. And it would be very nice to find a small group of people who is willing & interested in providing such kind of feedback to each other's thinking. Asking good questions, instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing. To do that, does take skill. Especially when it comes to written environments.
totally so! I agree ever so much about your last paragraph! LOL - yes, it takes skills. I often thought about that and do it most of the times when I published an article. I am more interested in the questions arising then in the agreement, though it feels nice but is quickly eaten up and needs a constant refill (which the Buddhists name "greed"). I guess I and most people are not very well trained in rising good questions, rather we were educated in teaching and giving information and opinions. My profession gives me chances to question my clients and sometimes I see that questioning makes people mad.
clarification:
When I wrote that sentence I was thinking about an author being asked about his book. The only answer one can give is: Read the book. Then we can talk. Same with musicians. Being asked about what their music should give one should listen to it and reveal what kinds of feelings and thoughts it provokes.
What I see in you and in me is that we'd like to take influence on how humans perceive the world. To give back to an audience or to the people we are in physical touch with what we've learned through others (idols, role models etc.). I feel graceful to the ones who provided me with knowledge and support of what I think was and is needed.
Can you explain more what you meant by the danger you mentioned? An example of that popped up in my mind from the book "Zen and the art of maintaining a motorcycle" - could this be meant what you say about mental health? I hope you know the book :-)
Yes, it's very much about how to perceive the world. And I don't like to say 'this is right and that is not', more like Socrates, simply pointing out the structure of thought, one's assumptions that are often never questioned, and leaving it open for someone to change or not.
The danger is, in short, that by pushing the limits of how you connect to the world around you, for instance by completely questioning the essence of definitions, or the ontological status of a question, you can lose touch with reality. That is different from becoming a Fachidiot. It is more like being completely lost, and feeling alienated even from your own conception of self. That can be pretty dangerous if it continues for a longer time....
I do know of the book, but is still on my TBR pile...
And yes, it's hard talking about something you've written and researched extensively to people who are new to the idea. At least, I can do the elevator pitch. But beyond that, it's often more like... "read the book".
It's also why I tend to not talk about the book I'm writing at the moment. It can ruin a good idea, to have people spout unthoughtful opinions, when you're still exploring it.
not wanting to hurt the baby ;-) I understand.
Thanks for explaining. I again must agree. Insanity can arise, yes, and losing connection to how to live and act in the world is really scary, I guess. We wouldn't know if we were not having glimpses of this state of mind or having witnessed others in becoming insane in one way or the other.
... though the insane ones are the most interesting, no?
Yes, Insanity and Genius are also in a way difficult to distinguish. Russell wrote this about Wittgenstein: also from Wikipedia:
Russell soon came to believe that Wittgenstein was a genius, especially after he had examined Wittgenstein's written work. He wrote in November 1911 that he had at first thought Wittgenstein might be a crank, but soon decided he was a genius: "Some of his early views made the decision difficult. He maintained, for example, at one time that all existential propositions are meaningless. This was in a lecture room, and I invited him to consider the proposition: 'There is no hippopotamus in this room at present.' When he refused to believe this, I looked under all the desks without finding one; but he remained unconvinced."[96] Three months after Wittgenstein's arrival Russell told Morrell: "I love him & feel he will solve the problems I am too old to solve ... He is the young man one hopes for."