Getting into philosophy early.

[NormannTheDoorman]

I started reading philosophies involving the mind and existence 2 years ago which means I was 14.

Not sure what it did for you but it put me through an existential crisis for a good amount of time. I kind of would like to hear your story.

 

[Coolydudey]

I always use to think about philosophy-type questions. At 15-16, completely insulated to existentialism and nihilism (didn't even know the terms existed), I came up with their main concepts, and became a nihilist of several sorts. Learning about these has since changed nothing about my views. For me, philosophy is something personal, that I think about myself, without reading anything about it.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

I had the questions but never got the answers. Perhaps I should formulate my own.

 

[Hadoblado]

I was into philosophy early, but didn't read any until I was 17. I don't think it helped me any (may have even done damage). Probably contributed to logic skills though.

 

[Architect]

Good reading suggestions for beginners? Something not too remedial nor too abstruse?

 

[GodOfOrder]

Always start with the greeks, and work your way up from there.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Always start with the greeks, and work your way up from there.

Ha, yes - read Plato's Republic and realise mankind is still making all the same idiotic mistakes we were making 2400 years ago.
Then kill yourself.

Same thing with most philosophy really.

 

[Duxwing]

I've been philosophizing ever since I could think. Ethics was my first field, followed by theology, then logic (which soundly thrashed theology) then metaphysics, then ontology, and then finally epistemology. I rarely read much of anything, fell into existential crisis at age sixteen, and once made Kierkegaard's argument against I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am: have you proven to exist the 'I' that is doing the doubting?

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

I've been philosophizing ever since I could think. Ethics was my first field, followed by theology, then logic (which soundly thrashed theology) then metaphysics, then ontology, and then finally epistemology. I rarely read much of anything, fell into existential crisis at age sixteen, and once made Kierkegaard's argument against I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am: have you proven to exist the 'I' that is doing the doubting?

-Duxwing

Does theology count? It seems to be nothing more than literary analysis, coupled with an obsession over a single book. One could preform theological procedure on harry potter, it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Puffy]

I didn't start reading philosophy until I was about 20, I think. I'd enjoyed writing fiction and had read a few things like Jung beforehand but I wouldn't have pegged myself as particularly cerebral; if thoughtful, only in quite a narrow view of things. I started reading a lot then, so I've kind of exploded in a lot of directions since.

Even then, I think I started out with Derrida, which is probably why I'm ****ed. Never read any of the Greeks, only will if it becomes particularly significant to any project I'm working on that I do.

 

[Hadoblado]

Good reading suggestions for beginners? Something not too remedial nor too abstruse?

I really enjoyed reading the adventures of Socrates. The incessant questioning tempered by humility seems a great start for a burgeoning INTP.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Theology = religious?

 

[Duxwing]

Theology = religious?

I was once a Catholic.

-Duxwing

 

[kora]

Socrates is a typical ENTP (stating the obvious I know). I got into it young, at 14-15 after reading Sophie's world (really good book to get you into it, I recommend it for anyone who wants to start, even if it's directed at a younger audience, it gives you a basic picture of all the important movements and philosophers, and it's got a really good twist). Started reading Jean Paul Sartre at 16, I only started to really suffer the existential nihilism consequences last year, although I could pretty much always have categorised myself as such.
Now I study it at uni . Of all the scientific/rational subjects it's the closest to spirituality.

It infuriated me that in our school philosophy exams it was acceptable to use arguments from the bible and christianity as a legitimate contradiction for ethical theories...

Not that I think believing in God is necessarily proof of an unrational mind, there are arguments for the existence of God, but taking the bible as a good philosophical source is just completely ridiculous and whoever does should be shot on site (ethically of course).

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

Ha, yes - read Plato's Republic and realise mankind is still making all the same idiotic mistakes we were making 2400 years ago.
Then kill yourself.

Same thing with most philosophy really.

I did just that. Then existential crisis and I decided to lay off philosophy for a while. Got into psychology and started diagnosing cartoon characters. I ended up watching My Little Pony:Friendship is Magic, and I kind of regret that. Because I got into psychiatry to get away from philosophy for a while what happens? The society in MLP:FiM resembles the society of Kallipolis from the Republic.

 

[~~~]

Good reading suggestions for beginners? Something not too remedial nor too abstruse?

If you are looking for something for your son then their are philosophy books written with certain age groups in mind.

 

[~~~]

It infuriated me that in our school philosophy exams it was acceptable to use arguments from the bible and christianity as a legitimate contradiction for ethical theories...

Not that I think believing in God is necessarily proof of an unrational mind, there are arguments for the existence of God, but taking the bible as a good philosophical source is just completely ridiculous and whoever does should be shot on site (ethically of course).

Yeah. If you want religion then study religion.

 

[Hadoblado]

It infuriated me that in our school philosophy exams it was acceptable to use arguments from the bible and christianity as a legitimate contradiction for ethical theories...

Not that I think believing in God is necessarily proof of an unrational mind, there are arguments for the existence of God, but taking the bible as a good philosophical source is just completely ridiculous and whoever does should be shot on site (ethically of course).

I think so long as they go into the reasoning behind the bible story (propogation as a value etc.) then it's legitimate, but "Locke is wrong because the bible disagrees" is a complete evasion of the question and should not be passed.

 

[Beat Mango]

Certainly by 15 I had Epictetus's Discourses on my bookshelf that I got from my grandpa. Was also a general overview book called Greek Philosophers. Then I borrowed Sophies World from the library which hit me like a brick.

I had my own colour theory though when I was about 10 or 11.

 

[Etheri]

I'm not in any sort of crisis anymore...

but do you ever truly 'stop' thinking about philosophy and the goal of it all? I never reach any conclusions, and I'll stop for a few months, but the questions never really dissapear?

Sometimes I still wonder as to the point of this all.

 

[Beat Mango]

I have reached that point, and decided to throw myself into the "world" full throttle in respinse. It didn't wotlrk ultimately. I'm a philosopher. I live in the shadows.

 

[Jason43]

I recommend this site:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/

It changed my life. He has critiques of other philosophers but was his approach to ethics and non-violence as well as politics, atheism and economics that presented me with a coherent moral philosophy. I was already an atheist and a libertarian when I found the site, but he takes all of those various ideas I had reached on my own and synthesized them.

I also really like Girl Writes What on youtube for an atypical view of gender issues.

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos

Particularly the one where she discusses male disposability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

 

[Hadoblado]

Good reading suggestions for beginners? Something not too remedial nor too abstruse?

Actually I'd like to add another: Peter Singer

It's not necessarily that he's appropriate for children, but that his arguments are so extreme but difficult to deal with. At least for me, it is those sort of arguments that instill the most interest and thus motive to learn.

 

[Foxman49]

There was also a BBC series that got some contemporary philosophers together to explain the history of philosophy to a lay audience. I think you can find some of the episodes on YouTube.

The Socratic dialogues are always a good place to start. I'm not really a fan of Plato's later works (like the republic) though.

 

[jachian]

Getting into philosophy too early can drive one mad..... Leave philosophy until your at least old enough to drink.

 

[Wolf18]

Getting into philosophy too early can drive one mad..... Leave philosophy until your at least old enough to drink.

What's wrong with madness? In all seriousness, do you truly think that philosophy can be dangerous if the interested party is too young?

I started philosophizing with my intellectual friend at around 14 – discussing Time, the definition of Life, and other such things. I defined life and came up with my own theory of time when I was 15.

I'm 16 now, and am working on teaching myself "proper reasoning" (with a little help from my best mate, René Descartes). This one is a bit more difficult – I have been interested in deduction since I was 10, but have never really thought of it as a philosophy (I still don't). However, it does play into my obsession with proper reasoning.

Descartes is my favourite philosopher. I am currently reading "A Discourse on Reason" and some shorter works. I am intend to get through Plato's "Republic" and "The Art of Thinking" (I'm not sure who wrote this one – I found it in my grandmother's cellar and she doesn't know where it's from) before Christmas holiday.

Is getting into philosophy early a good idea? I think it depends on your priorities. If the child is interested, don't stop him/her. If the child is not interested, don't push it on him/her.

SW

 

[Etheri]

Getting into philosophy too early can drive one mad..... Leave philosophy until your at least old enough to drink.

So 12 to 14 is about right.

 

[Beat Mango]

Getting into philosophy too early can drive one mad..... Leave philosophy until your at least old enough to drink.

Sure, because it can pull the rug from beneath you. But the rug for me was never there to stay.

 

[jachian]

What's wrong with madness? In all seriousness, do you truly think that philosophy can be dangerous if the interested party is too young?

I started philosophizing with my intellectual friend at around 14 – discussing Time, the definition of Life, and other such things. I defined life and came up with my own theory of time when I was 15.

I'm 16 now, and am working on teaching myself "proper reasoning" (with a little help from my best mate, René Descartes). This one is a bit more difficult – I have been interested in deduction since I was 10, but have never really thought of it as a philosophy (I still don't). However, it does play into my obsession with proper reasoning.

Descartes is my favourite philosopher. I am currently reading "A Discourse on Reason" and some shorter works. I am intend to get through Plato's "Republic" and "The Art of Thinking" (I'm not sure who wrote this one – I found it in my grandmother's cellar and she doesn't know where it's from) before Christmas holiday.

Is getting into philosophy early a good idea? I think it depends on your priorities. If the child is interested, don't stop him/her. If the child is not interested, don't push it on him/her.

SW

Ok..... just remember that I warned you.

 

[jachian]

So 12 to 14 is about right.

I meant legally drink.

 

[jachian]

Sure, because it can pull the rug from beneath you. But the rug for me was never there to stay.

I see below your profile you have the quote, "For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow..."

That's what the alcohol is for.

If you do philosophy right you will reach this stage. If your too young when you reach it, you may not be able to handle it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

alcohol?

acid.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

What's wrong with madness? In all seriousness, do you truly think that philosophy can be dangerous if the interested party is too young?

I started philosophizing with my intellectual friend at around 14 – discussing Time, the definition of Life, and other such things. I defined life and came up with my own theory of time when I was 15.

I'm 16 now, and am working on teaching myself "proper reasoning" (with a little help from my best mate, René Descartes). This one is a bit more difficult – I have been interested in deduction since I was 10, but have never really thought of it as a philosophy (I still don't). However, it does play into my obsession with proper reasoning.

Descartes is my favourite philosopher. I am currently reading "A Discourse on Reason" and some shorter works. I am intend to get through Plato's "Republic" and "The Art of Thinking" (I'm not sure who wrote this one – I found it in my grandmother's cellar and she doesn't know where it's from) before Christmas holiday.

Is getting into philosophy early a good idea? I think it depends on your priorities. If the child is interested, don't stop him/her. If the child is not interested, don't push it on him/her.

SW

It affected me in such a way that I dropped all other things like school. My teacher did kind of warn me before I started reading "Republic". I did develop some extremist views and have some questionable fantasies.

Philosophy of the mind on the other hand is interesting. It is one of the many things you have to understand whilst studying Artificial Intelligence. Of course, most of the time you would try to understand human intelligence before getting to models. I believe, that the sooner we can understand human intelligence the closer we can get to making a machine with human level intelligence.

 

[BigApplePi]

I started reading philosophies ... I kind of would like to hear your story.

At 17 or 19 (I don't recall when only that it was an odd number) I acquired the College Outline paperbacks, Readings in Philosophy and Philosophy. Of those two books I never cracked the former and studied the latter to pieces. The problem with the former is, as a social retard, those readings weren't objective for me. If I had a different view, I was stuck with an author I couldn't refute.* So I refused to read that. The other book, on the other hand, was abstract and wonderful. I read it one line at a time I think.

... at 14-15 after reading Sophie's world (really good book to get you into it, I recommend it for anyone who wants to start, ...

I read that book fifteen years ago for fun. Liked it. That may have been one of the few times I took note of what philosopher did what.

BTW as a math person I would never study logic. Math and probability covers it all ... or does it?

*That's the same reason why when someone posts a long link as a reference I'm disinclined to read much of it.

 

[kora]

Jachian is right, it can drive you insane. But if you're really interested in it, it probably means you are a bit "insane" anyway and will probably have the crisis at some point in your life. Studying it would just accelerate the process? I once said that some of the books ought to PG rated 18, some of the ideas are much more disturbing and potentially destructive than a sex or violence scene in a movie. Censorship is stupid anyway, but it would make sense.

 

[BigApplePi]

Jachian is right, it can drive you insane. But if you're really interested in it, it probably means you are a bit "insane" anyway and will probably have the crisis at some point in your life. Studying it would just accelerate the process? I once said that some of the books ought to PG rated 18, some of the ideas are much more disturbing and potentially destructive than a sex or violence scene in a movie. Censorship is stupid anyway, but it would make sense.

Philosophy requires data. One has to be old enough to have some. Is that the reason? Philosophy calms me down. It's the most sane thing in the world ... at least for me. Give me an example of this "insanity."

It's the difference between a whore and a lover.

 

[RaBind]

I don't think I've read any philosophy books yet (well the more specific ones anyway). I don't think philosophy is something you "get into", it is the process of applying logic to solve problems. So really learning to apply sound logic to things is probably a more important. For me, and probably to most people I'd assume, I naturally started to apply logic to things around me, which lead me to question a lot of things. I'd just think about these things while walking to and from school, work an everywhere else I went. So really i don't think children need to "get into" philosophy, it is just this normal thing that occurs after children learn how to think logically and they have things to think about.

I'll also add that learning arguments against religious views and beliefs is a good way to start out with philosophy. There's basically one winner by default, cause the other side never entered the ring, there's only a few ideas you've to learn to keep your knowledge fresh and it's likely to be a never-ending debate. It will help children understand the reality of the world and make them more aware of the bullshit that overflows society.

 

[kora]

Philosophy requires data. One has to be old enough to have some. Is that the reason? Philosophy calms me down. It's the most sane thing in the world ... at least for me. Give me an example of this "insanity."

It's the difference between a whore and a lover.

Examples of "insanity" caused by philosophy... Okay, let me count the ways my dear Applepi:

Well things like this for a start:
"I am. I am, I exist, I think, therefore I am; I am because I think, why do I think? I don't want to think any more, I am because I think that I don't want to be, I think that I . . . because . . . ugh!."

There are many examples and ways of being negatively affected by it, but the most common examples are:

1) The famous "nothing means anything so I'll just stay in bed and/or shoot myself (in extreme cases)".

2) Jean Paul Sartre's existential Nausea (hard to describe, read La Nausée if you want to experience it, the book's character describes it perfectly).

3) Wittgenstein's language games where it's ultimately impossible to understand one another. "What's the point of trying to communicate, everything I say is misunderstood"

4) Finally, philosophy has a tendency to make you feel absolutely helpless and tiny in the face of the absolute uncertainty of existence, most of the questions are ultimately unanswerable (as of yet anyway, not trying to be defeatist or anything). Philosophy is doubting absolutely EVERYTHING and humans tend to find uncertainty very unpleasant.

Stuff like that, I call it insanity because if you focus on these questions and obsess over them all the time, it renders you incapable of dealing with down to earth normal society things (as I have experienced myself on several occasions.) I would vaguely define insanity as "being incapable of functioning within society" (needs more thought) The only way to get rid of an existential crisis is to force yourself back into the every day things and stay occupied, because usually you won't resolve it, just come to terms with it.

Obviously there are loads of wonderful, life-changing moments as well.

What d'you think?

I think I've reached the point where I've learned to stay detached from the theories, now that I've been through all that and the ground is cleared I can start building. (at least I hope so)

 

[kora]

Thought about it, proposed definition of insanity: Any thought process/pattern that alienates you from society." Discuss.

 

[RaBind]

Examples of "insanity" caused by philosophy... Okay, let me count the ways my dear Applepi:

Well things like this for a start:
"I am. I am, I exist, I think, therefore I am; I am because I think, why do I think? I don't want to think any more, I am because I think that I don't want to be, I think that I . . . because . . . ugh!."

There are many examples and ways of being negatively affected by it, but the most common examples are:

1) The famous "nothing means anything so I'll just stay in bed and/or shoot myself (in extreme cases)".

2) Jean Paul Sartre's existential Nausea (hard to describe, read La Nausée if you want to experience it, the book's character describes it perfectly).

3) Wittgenstein's language games where it's ultimately impossible to understand one another. "What's the point of trying to communicate, everything I say is misunderstood"

4) Finally, philosophy has a tendency to make you feel absolutely helpless and tiny in the face of the absolute uncertainty of existence, most of the questions are ultimately unanswerable (as of yet anyway, not trying to be defeatist or anything). Philosophy is doubting absolutely EVERYTHING and humans tend to find uncertainty very unpleasant.

Stuff like that, I call it insanity because if you focus on these questions and obsess over them all the time it renders you incapable of dealing with down to earth normal society things (as I have experienced myself on several occasions.) and I would vaguely define insanity as "being incapable of functioning within society" The only way to get rid of an existential crisis is to force yourself back into the every day things and stay occupied, because usually you won't resolve it, just come to terms with it.

Obviously there are loads of wonderful, life-changing moments as well.

What d'you think?

I think I've reached the point where I've learned to stay detached from the theories, now that I've been through all that and the ground is cleared I can start building. (at least I hope so)

I wouldn't say it's philosophy that makes people come to such extreme conclusions, but rather the whole nature of reality and existence.

I'm also pretty sure that you only think these conclusions are extreme, because you are scared of death or becoming like the insane if not insane. This fear is of coarse a creation of the views and ideas of mainstream society, as well as the stigma attached to the insane. Who actually knows that insane people are all that the media makes them out to be? There is a truth about reality that you can learn from insanity, it is that reality is partly and mainly subjective, so we are all mostly alone in our own heads and in our own worlds.

 

[kora]

I wouldn't say it's philosophy that makes people come to such extreme conclusions, but rather the whole nature of reality and existence.

I'm also pretty sure that you only think these conclusions are extreme, because you are scared of death or becoming like the insane if not insane. This fear is of coarse a creation of the views and ideas of mainstream society, as well as the stigma attached to the insane. Who actually knows that insane people are all that the media makes them out to be? There is a truth about reality that you can learn from insanity, it is that reality is partly and mainly subjective, so we are all mostly alone in our own heads and in our own worlds.

Philosophy is not just pure logic, pure logic would be Mathematics. Applying logic to questions like existence and it's nature is philosophy.

And yes, I agree, what people consider insanity to be is subjective and is dependant on the current social norm, which is why my definition is (I think) a good one. You can be proud of your insanity and think you're right, and maybe you are, but that won't stop the rest of society labelling you as such. Many great men (and women) were seen as insane and potentially destructive to their society.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Good reading suggestions for beginners? Something not too remedial nor too abstruse?

I'd say start out broad then you can go in deep, depends on the starting level though of course.

Bertrand Russel's History Of Western Philosophy is good, because he dares criticize the philosophers while describing them. In that way it becomes a personal take on things by a mind quite solid in its own right, which is far more interesting, in my opinion, than mere recounting of history.

Unfortunately the book also has quite a lot of pure Si'ishly written history; mere recounting that goes on for too long and brings up too many unnecessary details. While it does provide a background he could've been a lot more efficient in his writing which doesn't directly concern philosophy or philosophers.

All in all a good read though. Elsewise go for the Greeks I guess, Plato's a good starting point because there's a straight line going from him to Jung so you've gotta lotta similarities there. But it's all connected anyway, like one big organism, I don't think you can properly understand philosophy until you have it's anatomical morphology worked out, so that you can see the creature extended in time.

 

[RaBind]

Philosophy is not just pure logic, pure logic would be Mathematics. Applying logic to questions like existence and it's nature is philosophy.

Yea, you're right about that. I was probably trying to say that logic/philosophy (I'm using the terms interchangeably here, because they're are basically both tools to reach general truths of reality) as tools aren't the things that are flawed, in the sense that they border insanity, but rather the way reality/existence itself is.

And yes, I agree, what people consider insanity to be is subjective and is dependant on the current social norm, which is why my definition is (I think) a good one. You can be proud of your insanity and think you're right, and maybe you are, but that won't stop the rest of society labelling you as such. Many great men (and women) were seen as insane and potentially destructive to their society.

Than really whether or not you're cautious about philosophy/philosophical ideas, depend on whether you priorities finding truths or whether you want to be seen as sane by society (keep harmony). I think that's a difference in individual preferences, although society has done a lot to stigmatize abandoning the latter in search of the former.

 

[kora]

Than really whether or not you're cautious about philosophy/philosophical ideas, depend on whether you priorities finding truths or whether you want to be seen as sane by society (keep harmony). I think that's a difference in individual preferences, although society has done a lot to stigmatize abandoning the latter in search of the former.

And that, good people, is why I like all my friends to be insane

 

[BigApplePi]

Examples of "insanity" caused by philosophy... Okay, let me count the ways my dear Applepi:

Well things like this for a start:
"I am. I am, I exist, I think, therefore I am; I am because I think, why do I think? I don't want to think any more, I am because I think that I don't want to be, I think that I . . . because . . . ugh!."

I am. I feel. I am because I feel. I don't have to ask why I feel because I feel. Stop that thinking. Stop it. Just stop it. Feel this.

There are many examples and ways of being negatively affected by it, but the most common examples are:

1) The famous "nothing means anything so I'll just stay in bed and/or shoot myself (in extreme cases)".

Get the hell outta bed and move right into the world.

2) Jean Paul Sartre's existential Nausea (hard to describe, read La Nausée if you want to experience it, the book's character describes it perfectly).

Don't read that book. Go into your back yard and grow something.

3) Wittgenstein's language games where it's ultimately impossible to understand one another. "What's the point of trying to communicate, everything I say is misunderstood"

Wittgenstein needed to learn what he was talking about. Do not enter the maze if you don't know how to get out.

4) Finally, philosophy has a tendency to make you feel absolutely helpless and tiny in the face of the absolute uncertainty of existence, most of the questions are ultimately unanswerable (as of yet anyway, not trying to be defeatist or anything). Philosophy is doubting absolutely EVERYTHING and humans tend to find uncertainty very unpleasant.

Philosophy is about possibilities and all of them are possible. That's mighty BIG.

Stuff like that, I call it insanity because if you focus on these questions and obsess over them all the time, it renders you incapable of dealing with down to earth normal society things (as I have experienced myself on several occasions.) I would vaguely define insanity as "being incapable of functioning within society" (needs more thought) The only way to get rid of an existential crisis is to force yourself back into the every day things and stay occupied, because usually you won't resolve it, just come to terms with it.

There are answers for everything and if an INTP doesn't have them, go outside. INTPs tend to get stuck inside and need to get outside.

Obviously there are loads of wonderful, life-changing moments as well.

What d'you think?

Lead me on ...

I think I've reached the point where I've learned to stay detached from the theories, now that I've been through all that and the ground is cleared I can start building. (at least I hope so)

I love the theories. The more theories the better to consider. Each and every theory needs real concrete examples. Look for them. They are real and ground you. Then if you don't know where you are, go back to the theory. It will tell you what is valuable.

Keeps me busy.

 

[kora]

I am. I feel. I am because I feel. I don't have to ask why I feel because I feel. Stop that thinking. Stop it. Just stop it. Feel this.
Get the hell outta bed and move right into the world.

Sorry, I never listen to any of the songs in that thread











(actually I did because you posted it right after my comment, nice song)

 

[BigApplePi]

@higs

Sorry, I never listen to any of the songs in that thread

I was going to ask you why the restriction. Some principle you have? Then I scrolled down and saw that not only did you listen but you said, "nice song." Read below.

(actually I did because you posted it right after my comment, nice song)

Normally you don't see me display much or any emotion on anything. Emotion is a bias. But since you expressed or alluded to a kind of existential anguish, I will tell you something.

I've played that song several times today and even emailed it to my wife. When I play it I have to confess something. I don't want to live anymore unless I can return to Blue Bayou. One of the times I played it I let myself break down and cry. After that I said, "hold on." Yet I've never been there and hardly know what Blue Bayou is. What is the philosophical or existential meaning of this?

 

[~~~]

Censorship is stupid anyway, but it would make sense.

Surely you jest.

Thought about it, proposed definition of insanity: Any thought process/pattern that alienates you from society." Discuss.

I’d stick with the OED definition. I think the issue is with how the psychologists deal with it. My nascent understanding is that they treat anything that is different from the norm as a disorder. I submit that it would better to consider the issue from the perspective of what is different from what is logical. The two approaches are not necessarily the same. Exhibit A: society.

Philosophy is not just pure logic, pure logic would be Mathematics. Applying logic to questions like existence and it's nature is philosophy.

Wait until you get to Russell; if you get to him in la République.

 

[Duxwing]

Existential crisis and existential despair are not philosophical conclusions but irrational, emotional reactions to unsolvable philosophical problems that arise because of insufficient intrapersonal skills. Existential problems generally begin with a pathological misapplication of reductionism wherein the inexperienced philosopher explains phenomena or entities as 'just' arrangements of their component parts in order to calm themselves during emotional turmoil--implicitly and unwittingly assuming that any thing that isn't a gestalt should elicit no emotion--for while so doing elicits a slight ache, it gives a sense of control, detachment, and understanding; the further assumption that every thing is made of smaller parts emotionally starves him or her, who, being used to the ache of same, interprets it and any other unpleasant conclusion as good and likely true.

Yet they, being human, yearn for emotion and security, which 'objective meaning' and 'truth' respectively provide without requiring an end to detachment. But as we all know, 'objective meaning' and 'truth' cannot be demonstrated to exist. The aforementioned philosopher subsequently falls into total emotional starvation and uncertainty and despairs their existence--sometimes ending it. But the universe is not absurd: the universe is the universe, while the concept of objective meaning is absurd because the word "meaning" refers to a subjective phenomenon wherein one qualia evokes others. And if knowledge is unachievable in this universe, then what can we achieve, and how much less than ideal is it? And why did we need ideal knowledge? Unfortunately, for a philosopher who is wholly caught up in the mindset of 'logic, and nothing but,' such ideas are out of the question.

Practicing philosophy with a good knowledge of psychology and self can therefore help ensure that the philosopher's emotions remain cared for and their logic thereby uncorrupted. I see no problem with someone of any age reading about philosophy provided either those aforementioned conditions or a very understanding mentor.

-Duxwing

 

[kora]

Existential crisis and existential despair are not philosophical conclusions but irrational, emotional reactions to unsolvable philosophical problems that arise because of insufficient intrapersonal skills. Existential problems generally begin with a pathological misapplication of reductionism wherein the inexperienced philosopher explains phenomena or entities as 'just' arrangements of their component parts in order to calm themselves during emotional turmoil--implicitly and unwittingly assuming that any thing that isn't a gestalt should elicit no emotion--for while so doing elicits a slight ache, it gives a sense of control, detachment, and understanding; the further assumption that every thing is made of smaller parts emotionally starves him or her, who, being used to the ache of same, interprets it and any other unpleasant conclusion as good and likely true.

Yet they, being human, yearn for emotion and security, which 'objective meaning' and 'truth' respectively provide without requiring an end to detachment. But as we all know, 'objective meaning' and 'truth' cannot be demonstrated to exist. The aforementioned philosopher subsequently falls into total emotional starvation and uncertainty and despairs their existence--sometimes ending it. But the universe is not absurd: the universe is the universe, while the concept of objective meaning is absurd because the word "meaning" refers to a subjective phenomenon wherein one qualia evokes others. And if knowledge is unachievable in this universe, then what can we achieve, and how much less than ideal is it? And why did we need ideal knowledge? Unfortunately, for a philosopher who is wholly caught up in the mindset of 'logic, and nothing but,' such ideas are out of the question.

Practicing philosophy with a good knowledge of psychology and self can therefore help ensure that the philosopher's emotions remain cared for and their logic thereby uncorrupted. I see no problem with someone of any age reading about philosophy provided either those aforementioned conditions or a very understanding mentor.

-Duxwing

I like you.