I figured this might be a fun post since we were all talking about such serious things and we might need a break. Why are philosopher's so weird? What do you find so fascinating about the personalities, characters, ways of looking at things and strange quirks of your favorite philsophers that many of you have mentioned in that previous post. What do you find to be great, interesting, strange about them? If this post seems redundant I apologize, but I do think it might be amusing to write about this. You can also talk about why you can relate to them or they relate to you? i.e. say you have a similar personality or you have similar habits or similar weirdness or similar ways of seeing thinks. Also, I wouldn't expect anybody to have to be too serious here but don't be afraid to be if you don't want to. Okay, enough talk from me.
I wouldn't describe myself as a philosopher, and I can't say that I know any philosophers personally. Most people, I think, are merely interested in other perspectives on life. For that, they turn to philosophers. I think I'm more of a wannabe philosopher. Xev mentioned somewhere, though, that original philosophy was somewhat forbidden here, and that we should instead discuss philosophy that has already been created. So that's what I'm doing. In any case, an adjective used to describe me today was "witty." So I guess I can't answer your question, since I'm not a philosopher, and I don't know any.
They are weird because they think too much. Some people just look at things and accept it as the way it is. Some people (like me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) ask always questions about things. Questions lead to more questions and so they see the world very different than an avarage human being. I also think that many people have a philospher inside themselves but are afraid of listening to him.
I guess because they have possibly stumbled upon something that normal everyday people haven't or maybe they are just trying to sound smart. I however prefer the former explanation. Who knows, they might have actually found a secret in the puzzle of life, just one of the many pieces that we fail to see. Or they could be just twisting words to sound smart. They are however important because god knows regular people can't think and ponder life on their own so they need somebody to do it for them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why philosphers are weird Most philosophers could be considered weird because they like like to strap people to cheap plastic chairs with an old guitar strap and whip them with a leather thong medallion while a midget wee-wee's in their hair.....
the philosophers are not weird THE PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT WEIRD. they are not weird but being honest within himself because what they do actually are just based on their inner feelings and sounds as they know the 'self' consciously, including every single action and thus, they act it out honestly. everyone of us can do it instead. but the conformity within the society suppress individuality. we are being socialized and suppressed since we come to the world. what I m saying is COFORMITY is the main factor that made us unconscious with our basic need.. we are trained to be conform to society. if not, we will be labeled as deviance or other kind of punishment. like in many cases in the Chinese culture, some freshman will just choose the career that are most lucrative instead of their interest and the willingness of their inner sounds or they even never touch on it. so, they are 'normal' and live peacefully ever after? i never interpret in this way. ok, let us think of one question. why the philosopher do not act like others people? as we act weird, we will face criticism and labelled as deviance within the society. so what point they still do it this way? what is the main benefit here? yup! they are lucky and smart because their spiritual intelligence--the inner sounds deeply within our mind have been awakened. the special gift and intelligence within everyone. if the intelligence has been awakened and acting it out, the person is unique and been considered as 'weird' on the other's eye. they are able to express themselves bravely and share with others. going back to the cases i mention before. when the freshman ask his inner sounds of what he wants to be and his needs in life, he will not just being normal like in life, it seems like everyone will pass to certain stages and then his life 'meaningless' ly. not everyone could fix to one system. when everyone is using their spiritual intelligence smartly, then everyone of us could be the philosopher. trust yourself!
Simply because most practising philosophers (as opposed to those who studied philosophy but had to look elsewhere for work) are usually in Universities. Such an environment does not actually encourage eccentricity but it does tolerate it more than many working environments. In short, Universities don't knock the 'weirdness' out of you. Cheers, Ron.
Looking at the description some people are offering in this thread I guess I would consider myself a 'philosopher'. Although I never really thought of myself as such before coming here. I don't go to university though, I don't work either. I think philosophers are basically people with alot of thinking time on their hands, in other words bumsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And its a vicious cycle, after you've thought about life enough getting a normal job(or in other words, choosing to become a slave) doesn't seem like the best way to lead your life. Being a philosopher becomes a full time unpaid job in itself. When I think about it a philosopher is ALL I am and all I ever could make myself be. Unfortunately philosophers don't mesh well with modern society, society can't benefit from some guy thinking about stuff, So he is tossed out, and fair enough I guess. I suddenly feel an affinity with the homeless... and I suppose its for the best that I doPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because they are under stress. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think the word "philosopher" shares some of the ambiguity with "linguist". I mean, people call somebody a "linguist" even though he or she has never studied scientific linguistics of any kind, only happens to speak more than one language (a "polyglot", in other words). On the other hand, there are people who are "linguists" because they have studied the formal structure of human languages, but they don't necessarily speak a lot of languages themselves. This is similar with philosophy too. Somebody can be clever and good at argumentation and enjoy thinking without being a philosopher, just like you can be good at solving math problems without being rightly called a "mathematician". If you want to become a philosopher, you must acquire a thorough knowledge of the intellectual map of philosophy. What this means is that you have to know a lot of history of philosophy, having a really deep knowledge on at least one or two philosophers (otherwise you risk parrotting what several people have said before you), that you have a firm grip on the basic methods of logic as well as knowledge of the so called "metatheory" of logic (you need to study propositional logic, predicate logic, modal logic, proof theory and model theory), and most philosophers read and write in at least two or three languages beside their own. When you have reached this state, you still have to choose a specific field you want to work in: epistemology, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, philosophy of logic, decision theory, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and so on, and then you need to choose a problem or a family of related problems in your field, and you have to study what your contemporaries have to say about that particular topic (for example, if you're interested in "possible worlds", you have to know what Saul Kripke, David Lewis, Alvin Plantiga, Charles Chihara and other figures have added to this topic in the second half of the 20th century). At this stage you still don't stand the chance of coming up with anything original. It is one of the most painful experiences in this learning process to realize that there are so many clever and brilliant people working even in the tiny field you'd like to call your own that your greatest insights have most probably been written by somebody else somewhere in the world. There are forums where you can discuss your ideas with others with the same interest: talk to colleagues, go to conferences, send your paper to philosophy journals, etc. Beside doing this you have to write a PhD dissertation, of course. And after trying hard, you're finally given the opportunity to give a talk (25 minutes + 5 minutes for discussion) at a conference, maybe your paper is selected by the anonymous reviewers for inclusion in the proceedings of the conference, and then you can sit back, give a sigh and say, "Well, so far so good!". And the next day you start it over again. This looks like a squirrel wheel, and it really is. But human race have piled up such a huge amount of knowledge by now that it is really hard to add something to the pile which is genuinely new. And this is true not only of philosophy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dr.Lou... Dr. Lou said: "Unfortunately philosophers don't mesh well with modern society, society can't benefit from some guy thinking about stuff, So he is tossed out, and fair enough I guess." I don't think that society necessarily can't benefit from philosophy, sometimes it is all in how it is applied. People may be stubborn to new ideas, but I think you might find people are more reasonable then we "thinkers" might give them credit for. Sometimes it is how you approach people that is the important thing. Also, you really can't force people to listen to you or even to think about your ideas, but you can express them and that is the important thing in my opinion.
original thoughts... proteus42...don't let the world drop its bag of dead weight on you and then tell you that it is your responsibility to carry the burden. Sometimes I come up with ideas I have never heard before but if they have been, at least I expressed it in my own words, and every time you express your thoughts (and I am not talking about taking somebodies idea out of a textbook and re-wording it, I am talking about doing your own "original thinking") in your own way, you afford the world of a whole new perspective, a whole new world in a sense. Don't let the world browbeat you into thinking that to endeavor to think things through on your own is a waste of time. Anyway, there is a possibility to do original thinking, don't get hopeless about that either. Modern philosophy is all but a joke anyway how it gets lost in a world of abstract concepts, logics and jargonism. How don't you have a chance to speak meaningful and original ideas when most "intellectuals" are only regurgitating the "phantoms" of their own "ghost" world.
Since weird is the topic, let's consider the original Cynic, our angry little friend Diogenes. An ancient Greek with tarantula armpits, you could say he was our very first hippy. Give him any convention and he shit on it: religion, marriage, property, law, government and diplomacy. To prove his point, he'd eat maggoty meat, raw hare and testicles (oxen), deliberatly shocked bystanders by not bathing and living in a burial urn - literally. I've not heard of any personal accounts of what this man smelled like in person, but I'm sure it must have been something like garlicky pond water. He was purposely obnoxious and did not belive the Earth should be lined to make countries- the whole world should be ours and I've a good mind to agree with him. We can thank him for coining the phrase "I'm a citizen of the world". There's also a famous account of Alexander the Great meeting up with him one day in Diogenes' badly kept burial urn and asking him what could he, Alexander powerful and mighty could do for him to which Diogenes bitingly replied "Yeah...you can get out of my light" ::SNORT:: There's also Empedocles, a pre-Socratic philosopher who killed himself by jumping head first into Mount Etna.
Re: original thoughts... Thanks for the consolation, fredx! But I haven't said or implied that discovering things for yourself is not a fascinating thing! After all, this is basically just what everybody does such things for, no? So I never implied people shouldn't do thinking because it's not their "profession". Also professional philosophers do enjoy thinking (sorry if my wording seemed to imply the contrary). But if you take something very seriously, then, like it or not, you have to make enormous efforts if you want to do it well. It's just like sport. You might like jogging in the evenings, but if you want to run at the Olympic Games, you'll have to do somewhat more. And it's a bit strange that people often consider themselves "philosophers" without the slightest training in philosophy, but few of them would think in their right minds that they are mathematicians or chemists if they hadn't gone through the training required. Why is this? Are philosophical problems so easy? As to modern philosophy being, in your words, "all but a joke anyway"; well, I don't quite agree with you here. Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?
READ MY POST DAMN IT!!! The intention , it seems, of this thread was to bring to the table eccentricities among philosophers, their quirks and shortcomings. Diogenes is what this thread called for. Not self reflection. There's plenty a boring thread for that. I actually thought this was going to be a good thread, but there's always some quasi fucking it up with halfass introspection. Bring something else like.....Nietzche off his rocker with syphillis and dying in obscurity. Or that Darwin was flatulent and paranoid. Things like that.
Gendanken... I originally had that in mind but the conversation kind of morphed off onto other paths. I was thinking about how weird people like Nietzsche, Kant and Keirkegaard were or how they were considered weird. I should of however made it more clear that that was what I meant. My apologies. Proteus42, I hear what you are saying it does take alot of effort to be able to say that you know about what is normally considered the discipline of philosophy. But on a certain level, can't we all be philosophers (which is a point another poster made on a another post/ I forget their name)? Most people think about life at least once in a while? Just because their head is not filled up with all of the crap that has been said in the past, doesn't mean that they can't question or philosophize. I don't think we should live in fear of saying what is said before. Everything you think is neccessary. I think that the way you think is the way philosophy professors and other professional educators want you to think so you continue to pay to take their classes, continue to grant them power and authority, and continue to perceive them like they know more than you. On a certain level, all of the thoughts that people have thought in the history of mankind are also thoughts that you have in your mind but you haven't thought them out yet. I think it was Heidegger or one of the other philosopher's who said that taking other people's perspectives and ideas into consideration is important so you can "think what is unthought in your thought". In this way maybe we are all "potential" philosophers but only some of us choose to actualize it. As for modern philosophy, I don't pretend to be an expert on it and know little about it. From my little experience with it, it seems to me that it is more concerned with analyzing language and logic and it is all rather dry and boring. It makes us see things in a particular way which I don't agree is particularly the right way. By modern philosophy I am talking about people like Foucault and Derrida, I think possibly the two biggest names. I think it really deals with things on a very abstract, conceptual level which may be interesting to you, but I like to be able to see that the things I think about are really represented in the actions of the world and the movements of nature. I also have Wittigenstein in my mind and I think his way of thinking heavily influenced modern philosophy and esp. the two people I have mentioned. I however really have to do my reading and thinking about this and maybe one day I will give you a better answer and one with examples, until then I hope my answers have been satisfactory to you. regards, fredx
Proteus42... Well I arrived home and I took a little while to look at my stuff on modern philosophy and to tell you the truth its not really useful to me. Still I am not the only person in the world, so to each his/her own.
Re: Gendanken... Everybody has deep thoughts about life sometimes. I do not deny this at all. I'm just saying I'd like to reserve the word "philosopher" to describe somebody who is trained in this particular profession, like I wouldn't like to call somebody a "physicist" without him/her having graduated in physics. That's all. I don't think we should live in fear of saying what is said before. Let me make it clear again that I'm not talking about what people should or shouldn't do. Everybody is really free to say whatever he/she feels appropriate to say about philosophy, even though it has been said before. But I expect people with a deeper knowledge about a particular field to come up with more interesting insights. If I wanted to know more about DNA, for example, I'd ask a biologist friend of mine and not, say, a poet, but if I'd like to know more about Rilke, I'd go to the poet not the biology expert. Why would this be different with philosophy? I think that the way you think is the way philosophy professors and other professional educators want you to think so you continue to pay to take their classes, continue to grant them power and authority, and continue to perceive them like they know more than you. If you seriously believe that academic life is all about power and about trying to lure "regular folks and taxpayers" into believing that scholars know more than they in order to get more money, then I really have nothing to tell you. I've heard this conspiracy theory before and I learnt it was impossible to get the people who proposed it to try to change their point of view. It seemed vital for them to stick to this picture. So I would not like to comment on this point. As for modern philosophy, I don't pretend to be an expert on it and know little about it. From my little experience with it, it seems to me that it is more concerned with analyzing language and logic and it is all rather dry and boring. It makes us see things in a particular way which I don't agree is particularly the right way. You're right in saying that logical analysis of language is a central point. But that's not a new thing in philosophy, not even a peculiarity of modern philosophy. Think of Aristotle and his Categories or Hermeneutics. They're one long logical analysis. And if we go back even further to Plato, Socrates was undoubtedly a master of logical analysis. As were Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz....... Philosophy has always been like this. And basically it's Aristotle's insight: language and thinking and reality mirror each other's structure. I think it really deals with things on a very abstract, conceptual level which may be interesting to you, but I like to be able to see that the things I think about are really represented in the actions of the world and the movements of nature. I agree with you in that we all have a need to apply our abstract concepts to the world we live. But I'd like to bring in physics again. Although it's the science of the physical world, if you take a look at a modern physics book what you see is very abstract notions and lots and lots of higher math. If you're a philosopher who wants to analyse, say, our concept of Time or determinism (traditional topics in metaphysics), you just can't afford to dismiss what modern physics has to say about them. Little wonder then that the concepts used in metaphysics are really abstract and complicated because nobody cando serious thinking on Time anymore without at least broadly understanding the physics of time.
