Does Philosophy tend to ruin one's quality of life?

General Philosophy
1

I know this is likely asked a lot, but for me and my experience it seems to be true in my experience.

Every time my mind ends up stretched by some new idea it makes it harder to go on with my life and still find meaning and enjoyment.

From whether the outside world exists as it appears to be, to whether humans are just a cluster of cells or neurons and nothing more (that one makes life really hard since I’m not really sure how to treat people after thinking about that), to whether when I fall asleep do I wake up the same person, or even that everything I value is essentially a social construct (still can’t wrap my head around that one). Stuff like anti-natalism makes me feel guilty for living, idealism makes the world not seem real, and solipsism…well that’s a paper in itself (apparently I read something where someone proved it’s true, but that could just be me being gullible).

It’s honestly caused me more headaches than anything, I’ve lost sleep over it, mostly because none of this stuff has easy answers to it. I kinda wish I never read any of it but here I am.

Is there a way around it? How does everyone else deal with this? Does anything you’ve read sap the meaning from life?

1 Like
2

My experience is that yes, philosophy does tend to deconstruct life and I kind of feel like I’m looking in to a life that’s broken. The more I internalise in my thinking and the more I over-analyse, the more I feel that living in the world is like being some kind of avatar whereas the real essential world is in my head.And my thinking world is more comforting to me than the physical world. When I become aware of this, I try to engage more with daily life for a bit. Does this make sense?

1 Like
3

Hi and welcome Darkneos :waving_hand:
I seem to remember you from the old TPF.
I doubt whether anything I write will make any difference to any ‘life meaning’ or lead to ‘enjoyment’ (other than your need to talk to others).
However, I was reading this morning of Oliver Sacks. Then, an article in the Marginalian and felt like sharing.

But first:

What do you mean by your mind being stretched? Is that why you come to philosophy forums or read philosophers or theories of mind?

How far does your mind stretch and in what direction? What paths are you wary of choosing — to go down, or up? Why look for ‘new’ ideas?
Are you bored with everything that has come before and seems eternally discussed. Like your own state of mind?

There are obvious things to read that can sap energy and lower mood, if you let them.

Unfortunately, we all have a need to know about what is happening in the world. All the better to be prepared and counter/act whenever possible.

Making meaning of it (humans and life interaction)…is that what matters? Or just accepting that change occurs and it is up to ourselves to adapt and cope? Along with others?

I read fairly often and write enough with a limited amount of energy. So, here’s a little of what I got.

After all this time, you should know that philosophy is not about giving people answers or an easy way out of misery :wink:
That is not to say anyone’s time is wasted in reading and reflection. It depends.

And yes, it’s not so much about the quantity but the author, the attitude; the quality of content, style and intent.

How do you choose what matters to you? Same old, same old? The so-called ‘new’?

What could change you, if you want? It’s not easy to walk sideways in your head…to turn things around.

Back to Sacks and the article:
The Art of Allowing Change: Neurobiologist Susan R. Barry’s Moving Correspondence with Oliver Sacks about the Blessed Overwhelm of Transformation – The Marginalian

It starts off with the thought experiment ‘Mary’s Room’…
Neurobiologist Susan R. Barry was in her fifties when she realized she had been living in Mary’s Room…

Three years into relearning to see, she met Oliver Sacks at her astronaut husband’s space shuttle launch. With his passionate curiosity about the interplay of physiology and psychological reality, the famed neurologist asked her a question that came to haunt her: Could she imagine what the world would look like viewed with two eyes?

[ fascinating correspondence ensued - next, is the part which might be of interest. Our frames of reference, change and fear ]

These physiological transformations are a haunting analogue for our psychological pitfalls — accepting change, even toward something that deepens and broadens our experience of aliveness, is never easy, in part because we are so poor at picturing an alternate rendering of reality. “The things we want are transformative,” Rebecca Solnit wrote in her superb Field Guide to Getting Lost, “and we don’t know or only think we know what is on the other side of that transformation.” We live so often lost in our frames of reference, lulled by the familiar, too terrified to live a larger life on the other side of a transformation that upends our comfortable ways of seeing and of being. (And what is the self if not just a style of being?) It takes both great courage and great vulnerability to welcome such a change — a transformation often mired in uncertainty, discomfiture, and confusion as we adapt to the overwhelm of life more magnified; a transformation that asks us to begin again, and a beginning always places a singular strain on the psyche.

Perhaps, we are like needles stuck in the record groove because we like what’s playing… :thinking:

Can you re-achieve a sense of meaning, or be inspired by listening to other kinds of music?
What’s on your playlist?

4

Not really, especially since the real essential world in my head isn’t any different than the avatar one you’re describing.

Also your description feels more like you know you’re living a lie, which doesn’t make me feel better about my conclusions.

5

Well no, I read philosophy because I thought it was what smart people did and since middle school people kept calling me smart to the point that it felt like an obligation to read. There was also a misunderstanding about what I thought it was because as a kid I liked those quotes by famous people that seemed to say something profound and thought philosophy was just that, turns out I was wrong. But it’s more the smart thing.

Everywhere, and I can’t stop because I feel like I’m obligated to do so. I also don’t want to do confirmation bias, though now that’s led me to be contrarian than a thinker.

I wasn’t bored with anything else, no. Again this feels like something I HAVE to do rather than want to. I was also afraid of being called stupid because I didn’t do it or didn’t have well thought out positions or even examined the world.

The attitudes from the philosophers I read would beg to differ.

I can’t anymore because any enjoyment I used to get out of life was broken by philosophy. Questioning why you like the things you like tends to lead you to not liking them as much (and research backs this).

Also that Sacks article is…well naive, because it assumes that transformation is ultimately a good thing, that the more you learn the wider life opens up. But that’s not true at all, the more you learn, the more you analyze, the more you start to see life actually shrinks down. The colors fade, sounds don’t punch like they used to, even people stop being people.

That’s kinda my point with philosophy, I used to enjoy life, but when I read more (against my will) it was harder to justify the good and the meaning I used to believe. Even now music doesn’t hit like it used to, the things I enjoy fade when you break them down.

People like to call it depression because that’s the easy answer but it’s more like seeing everything you love turning out to be some illusion tends to affect you.

Like…their article is just so naive, and doesn’t really translate to reality. Like I said, I wish I never read any of this stuff because I know I’d have been happier.

But also you didn’t really answer any of my questions in the OP.

6

That’s OK. You seem to blame reading philosophy for your unhappy life quality. So, stop - why torture yourself?

7

Welcome! This got me thinking about something that was on my mind the other day. I was thinking what if you could know for certain that our existence is a simulation. Would it be terrible to know that you are nothing more than 1s and 0s? Do the building blocks determine what is real, though? Is flesh and blood any more real than numbers?

And here is the part that might help you: I had to ask myself if my lived experience would actually change? Is food less delicious? Is a joke less funny? Is life really less enjoyable even if I knew it had no purpose? My answer is No. So even if my life is nothing important at all, my experience is to me.

Let’s talk a little about each item you mentioned. I can offer you another perspective, not facts, just a way of considering these things.

  1. Values are a social construct:
    Societies formed on cooperation and mutual benefit. This is why our values are shaped alongside the culture we are in. Whether they have meaning or more validity than the natural world, they still have purpose. They allow us to live and work together to build the cities and countries we live in. I can’t think of anything more meaningful than the power of human connection. Think of the things we have accomplished when we work together.

  2. Antinatalism:
    As I understood this when I looked it up just now, it’s essentially saying bringing new life into the world is bad because life equates to suffering.

Here’s the flip side: Most people once they are alive want to be here. In fact, we cling desperately to life, even through pain and suffering - maybe just for the times that we have joy. If you asked most people if they want to be unborn, I think they would say no. So this points to the fact that even with suffering, we want to be here. Even without consent, we want to be here.

Also, human life may be a strain on this planet as it grows and we should figure out things to deal with that. But does it have to be no new life? Or can we use technology and science to find solutions - to clean polluted water, to reduce plastics in the environment, or develop farming methods that produce more food using less space. There’s always more than one option.

  1. Solipsism:
    Had to look this up, too. This relates to my initial story. Even if you can’t know if anything is real - the environment or other people - does it change your experience? Do you still enjoy a beautiful day, fall in love, have dreams? If you still have that experience, then what does it matter if nothing else is real. All that matter is it feels real.
8

All learning involves discomfort.

9

At least part of the answer is that philosophy tends to attract unhappy people.

2 Likes
10

Like I said, it feels like an obligation to do, not a choice or want.

Plus I can’t just forget everything I read.

11

That’s not really true, and believing that has ironically led me down a lot of painful nonsense that wasn’t true but because it hurt I thought it was.

I heard someone phrase is “masochistic epistemology” or what hurts is true.

12

I’ve thought about that and the answer was yes to all three. If this was a simulation…well I’ll just leave it there.

Well yeah, again. Food is less delicious, a joke is less funny, life is less enjoyable. That’s what I said before. Everything I did and valued comes undone under questioning. Seeing a cute dog and wanting to take care of them? Well that doesn’t make you good, nor is there a reward for it. And how do you know you’re helping and not just making things worse, what would be the point of doing it anyway. Every “Good” act comes undone under questioning.

Maybe ask them if there would be no pain in the process, you’ll find they change their mind. I wouldn’t say we want to be here, it’s just the ways out all hurt and aren’t guarantees.

We are well past that point I’m afraid, it’s too late to do anything about it.

Yes it does, and it did for me. I don’t enjoy a beautiful day because there isn’t one, I don’t fall in love because no one is real, nor dream for anything. It doesn’t matter if it “feels” real because that’s the same as lying to yourself, because deep down you know it’s not.

Like someone above said, philosophy breaks everything apart.

13

Yes, I understand the compulsion of strong ideas, especially with regard to ethics and specific feelings attached to what is right or wrong. Or ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
You are not alone. It seems that reading philosophy can impact life negatively as well as positively, or even not at all. This relates to how you already view the world.

Some want clear and absolute answers. Or theories to support their ways of thinking.

Do you think that is why you are disappointed with philosophy? Or left dissatisfied with forum discussions?
Philosophy - and its branches - attracts people with different and sometimes static views and similar arguments.

Engage at your peril.
Decide how much of yourself to dedicate to it. Will you keep pursuing certain ideas from a sense of obligation? Why?

Is this kind of repeat discussion less about dialogue and curiosity than a need to dismiss other ideas. Is it just a prop to express own frustrated feelings?

It seems you know it all but you don’t really care.

You’ve been here before with others, for whatever reason, trying to give a helpful response.

Your mind seems like a prison with you a powerless victim, chained by philosophical analysis. Locked in with only a slit through which to peer narrowly.

You know the mind is powerful. Use it wisely to help not to harm.

For what it’s worth, I see philosophy as a flexible tool — a way to think and live — not a fixed burden. Ideas can be weighty but needn’t kill ya’.

1 Like
14

I wasn’t thinking about a “masochistic epistemology” but the process of learning new skills and the feelings of failure that accompany the mistakes that learning requires.

From that point of view, the frustration I experienced becoming a competent tradesman is similar to the difficulty of learning to read and discuss demanding literature.

In the act of living with others, becoming aware of the unpleased feelings of others in reaction to my actions and words has often been an uncomfortable but necessary part of being less of an asshole than ignorance could have ever done.

15

I certainly can’t tell you how to feel, but I’d like to ask you this: can anyone say 100% that life doesn’t want to be born? Can anyone speak for all other life to know that’s actually true?

Can anyone prove that I’m not real if they can’t prove that I am real? Can anyone predict the future of Earth or humanity with certainty?

And can anyone prove that life is meaningless even if they can’t personally find meaning? None of those things can be proven, so that means they may not be true. Why believe that life is meaningless simply because it could be meaningless, when it could just as easily be meaningful?

You say you can’t enjoy a beautiful day because it isn’t real, but how can you be certain it isn’t real? You say deep down you “know” it’s not, but you could be wrong. Denying yourself the beautiful day because it might not exist when it also might exist is also a form of “lying to yourself.”

16

More like I don’t know what to think anymore, and everything I loved feels broken now.

Because it’s what “smart” people do and if you want to be seen as smart you have to do this.

It’s not, it’s more like it’s easy to point out the flaws in positive thinking. The mind is powerful but that doesn’t mean we control it. If I could stop this I would, but I can’t.

I haven’t really seen a way for it to be a tool, more like just destruction.

17

Learning wasn’t really painful for me though, if I failed in stuff I cared about I just tried to figure out what went wrong. That was part of the fun, it’s not really fun to just breeze through things.

Philosophy is different though because it tears things down but doesn’t really help you build them. Like I said above, if you question anything enough it all falls apart.

18

This doesn’t really mean much because as far as we can tell life is just something that happens. Though that depends on how you define life and if there is such a thing as life at all.

Well no, the reason you can “make” meaning is because life is meaningless. You don’t find meaning because it’s not out there in the world.

To believe life is meaningful is to be wrong, hence why people use “make” meaning rather than find it. But that quickly falls apart when you realize it’s not solid enough to matter. If you can just make something up then it sorta feels like lying to yourself.

I explained this already, mostly because I thought I read someone saying solipsism is true based on something in science (but I doubt it). The argument was more like how our brains already “hallucinate reality” so solipsism isn’t a stretch.

I can’t be certain it’s real, which is what prevents me from enjoying anything at all.

19

If I could add my two cents. Seems like you read every philosophical idea or paper and internalize it. Almost like reading a religious text and accepting it for face values. Rather than reading these ideas and papers as if they’re 100% true, you can use some reflecting to whether you want to follow that. And if so that is if you do want to follow. It may be you should Master what you’re doing first and then move on to the next thing.

20

That has not been my experience at all? Naive, perhaps, but not unhappy.