Are you really interested in philosophy?

What I am really, truly, deeply not interested in is a “Monolithic Practical Life-Sustaining Water Filter.” Check your link.

@gailcalled Haha, thanks. That’ll teach me to surf two things at once.

@incendiary_dan: Speaking again of multi-tasking, you talkin’ ta me (or yourself)?

@gailcalled Yea, caught that misclick right after I fixed the question. Not my best night for computer savvy.

Not really. I’m kinda interested in Nihilism/existentialism, though.
I am really really really interested in BDSM. Hit me up if you know a good dungeon in NYC

I have a love-hate relationship with philosophy.

I’ve read Descartes and Spinoza, and Leibniz, and Nietzsche, and Feuerbach, and Kierkegaard, and all those other cool cats, and I’m sure I have more familiarity with or knowledge of them and their thoughts than most people who “lol liek philosophy lolol.”

I read most of these works for classes under pressure. I’ve engaged in all sorts of philosophical debates and discussions (this happens when most of your suitemates and male friends are philosophy majors) and I’ve written papers on top of papers about these guys. I love this sort of thing because I sometimes gain a new perspective on life, or inspiration for writing, or something of that nature. I’ve also spent many sleepless nights pondering just how arbitrary a lot of philosophy is. That doesn’t mean it’s not interesting to me.

That said, I don’t consider myself a philosopher. I’m more of an historian. But I do consider myself a more educated consumer of philosophy than most folks.

Lots of critters learn stuff. Philosophy is unique to humanity. Every human being lives according to philosophy. The point is whether or not they can know or even explain their philosophy. Most people do not even bother to understand their own philosophy. They just borrow bits and pieces from somebody else. It is a rare human being who studies and adopts a philosophical system in order to direct their lives.

That’s what this Wikipedia article is for. Things are not defined by academia before they are defined by general culture, I think. I mean, it doesn’t override it anyway.

@incendiary_dan I wonder what Freud would have thought of your missing link?

@bkcunningham Obviously that I am disproportionately preoccupied with having drinkable amounts of clean water, and rather than chalk that up to being a living animal that needs water to live, he might say that I have unresolved sexual issues.

And as Frued (sic) might have said, sometimes a good water filter is just a water filter.

@gailcalled umm hmmm, bk said, acting cool after I corrected my spelling.

I’m very interested in it, but I’ve never called myself a philosopher, nor have I ever claimed to have much knowledge about it. That doesn’t mean I can’t be interested by it though lol.

Maybe some people add it because until you add a couple topics, the white bar at the top will keep nagging you to do it.

I don’t for a moment think that being interested in philosophy leads me consider myself a “philosopher.” It’s rather erroneous to assume that if someone is interested in philosphy it leads them to pontification.

I am more interested in philosophy than the average person who claims that they are, but not to the point where I will quit my day job to pursue philosophy. If nothing else, I find it frustrating (sometimes to the point of violence) when arguing with someone who merely thinks they are being logical. I can understand and respect opposing viewpoints, but not stupidity.

armchair r me. it’s fun stuff.

I was 4 classes away from a BA in philosophy before I changed my major. So, yeah, I am interested in philosophy. I admit I am not up on current trends, but I still enjoy reading classic and modern philosophy. Existentialism was my focus, so I am still versed in it.

I would never call myself a philosopher. The practice of philosophy is very rigid and has it’s basis in academic rigor. There are very few, true philosophers.

It’s in my profile because I actually am minoring in philosophy (also classics—I need to update that). I have an interest in it (I wouldn’t be minoring in it if I didn’t) although I am absolutely not a philosopher and have never claimed to be. Philosophy and people who claim to be interested in it can be pretty pretentious, I’ve found; gives it a bad name…

Also seems to me something a person might want to include about them in attempt to sound smart. Not accusing anyone of doing that, but if there’s one topic a person could pretend to be ”really interested in” to sound intelligent, it would be philosophy.

After I posted this, it occurred to me that very few people were likely to come out and say “Why now that you mention it, I don’t really have an interest in philosophy. I just wanted to look smart/I didn’t know what it is/etc.”

Glad to hear from people who are interested in philosophy. :)

Yes, I studied Classical and Popular psychology for several years. Your characterization of some people is very narrow minded. Read the entire article you have linked, along with the “main article“s contained in it and you will see that the very things you deride fits the proper definition of philosophy. You are simply making a value judgement regarding your opinion of the utterances of other people. That doesn’t make your opinion fact.

@incendiary_dan I’ll come out and say that though I’m interested in philosophy I’ve only managed to read a handful of philosophers at this point…and I’m not interested in reading the old stuff that no rational person could believe today.

Though Epictetus is good for shits n giggles.

To have an interest in something doesn’t have to mean that you know a lot about it. It means you are interested in learning about the subject. One way of learning about it is to listen to discussions that are philosophical in nature. I never thought of philosophy as being some sort of egghead only pursuit. Certainly I never put the topic in my profile so people would think that I’m smart. I put it there so that more questions would be directed at me that involved philosophical topics. I did take some philosphy in college, eastern philosophy, aesthetics and existentialism. I would like to learn more.

@fundevogel Yea, there isn’t much beside some by Plato and a few others I want to spend my time reading. Aristotle drives me nuts sometimes.

Its like any other topic.
I am not a whore but I do know about sex.
I do not not have an MD after my name but I do know quite a bit about some illnesses and some easy home treatment.
I am not a child therapist but I do understand what is essencial to raise a happy child.
I am not a computer tech and yet I have aquired information about computers from my daughter who is a computer tech.
I am not a philosopher but I am interested in learning more and sharing my thoughts about philosohpy.
I do not believe people put it in their bio so they look smart. As a matter of fact, I doubt most people even read someones bio unless they have said something that was of interest to them.
I know I really don’t care if someone on here thinks I’m smart or stupid. Its not like we are ever really going to meet. I have an alias for a reason. I like to be able to say what I have to say without worry that someone will know who I am.
I am not any one thing. I can be a little of everything that holds some interest to me. I don’t think anyone puts down philosphy to gain some pseudo points with a bunch of strangers.

I am very interested in philosophy. I have been, since I was a child.

But I have learned not to list it as one of my “likes”, and instead list “learning” as my like. This is because it draws airheads who believe quoting someone or using big words in a complicated fashion is equivalent to appreciating or utilizing philosophy.

Too often, I wax philosophic in any conversation; be it about law, society, love – anything, and the person I speak with all of a sudden feels the need to match me, and starts talking nonsense with big words (which they use incorrectly). Rare are the times that I find someone who can debate with me – and I honestly feel well fed when we decide to stop.

But enough of that. It’s funny that you ask that, because I just had one of those FAIL conversations today.

@bkcunningham, Freud? I thought the “missing link” problem was part of the Darwinism debates.
I’m not a professional philosopher, but I have spend many sleepless nights in profound consideration of such fundamental questions as, for example, whether it is immoral to kiss on a first date or whether the dog is truly man’s best friend.

Yes, definitely interested in it. I’m even interested in the ancient Greek philosophers, because the point of reading old philosophy is not necessarily to find something to believe or to lift arguments wholesale. It can be informative on different levels.

Yes, i took a break from Western Philosophy, after concluding that as a canon, it is deeply flawed and endlessly scrabbling for the right to proclaim it’s rational supremacy. Obsessively critical of modes of thinking but not of thinking per se, it’s the elephant in the room that Western philosophy doesn’t dare touch, because if it did the whole premise of Western Philosophy would implode. Eastern philosophy of which Western Philosophy has but a very superficial grasp, or any genuine appreciation, doesn’t have this gremlin lurking in the closet. But i read regularly now, particularly the Frankfurt school and Marx, because they cannot be ignored whether you agree or disagree with the fundamentals.

But you know, is it pretentious to claim to be a philosopher..as an appreciator of wisdom? that seems reasonable, not to be confused with the Philosopher type.

Yes, I am definitely interested, and I read a lot on the subject.

@mammal There’s a canon of Western philosophy? Those who emphasized skepticism, the suspension of judgment, and ataraxia weren’t critical of thinking per se? Do the efforts of Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche with regard to Eastern philosophy count for nothing merely because they had to work with flawed information? Or do you simply not like the fact that they did not accept the alternative views wholesale?

@SavoirFaire i appreciate the sceptical moment that the best of Western Philosophy embraces, however it never seems to transcend the scepticism, this is a what dooms it to a merry go round of argument and counter argument, Schopenhauer understood the Eastern philosophical mind more than most, certainly by focusing on suffering with relation to the will and Nietzsche displayed an instinctive and curious awareness, but he was ultimately a materialist and a cynic, albeit a brilliant and colourful one, Hegel had spiritual aspirations, so to some extent there were parallels, but none of them, in my opinion, reach the rarefied heights of self awareness that the best of the Eastern traditions offer.

I wonder if I would be interested in P-hilosophy if I wasn’t introduced to it by a grumpy retired PHD of Philosophy who had very little actual “philosophy of life”, but didn’t see the difference between the two and saw fit to use his memorization of long-dead men’s words as a way to judge everyone.

@mammal But now you’re just saying you disagree with them. We all think our intellectual opponents are flawed in some way. If we thought they were correct about everything, after all, they wouldn’t be our intellectual opponents. I guess I thought your complaint had more substance than that.

And for what it’s worth, the whole point of Pyrrhonian skepticism is to transcend dialectical thinking in favor of ataraxia—i.e., mental tranquility. The parallels between Pyrrhonism or Epicureanism on the one hand and Buddhism or Taoism on the other hand are really quite striking.

@SavoirFaire sadly Pyrrhonism doesn’t set the tone of the whole Western Philosophical tradition, for if it did, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation, so somewhere along the road, Pyrrhonism itself was either ignored or fell foul of further scepticism toward it, in a kind of cannibalism and the old Cartesian doubt crept in, i suspect this was because the theory of Pyrrhonism, which to be fair is an excellent point made by you wasn’t complimented or supported by the praxis. The kind of praxis one would experience in Buddhist or Hindu philosophy for example. But if i were honest, i have only a dim and distant acquaintance with Pyrrhonism and Epicurean-ism. but thanks for the notification, sincerely, very interesting.

if not Cartesian doubt, then Cartesian ego.

I don’t really see how one can not be interested in philosophy, especially if we’re dealing with the expansive definition on Wikipedia. I am wary of anyone who claims to be a philosopher, as more often than not they are, ironically, more likely to be similar to the sophists of “back in the day.” ;-)

@mammal – I’m interested in your criticism of Western materialism, general lack of self-awareness, etc. I feel like eastern philosophical traditions are tightly tied to religious traditions in a way that western traditions were not, which may be why praxis may be more noticeable in eastern traditions – as in western ones it’s simply more diffuse. And so much of the critical view of thinking seems naturally tied to a spirituality/faith because of that (well, partially). For me, there seems to be almost a disdain associated with being human in eastern philosophies.

Nah.

What if you are one of those too? ;)