Really? If someone says they have a pet unicorn that talks to them, do you reserve judgement about this too? Would there be any claim for which you wouldn’t say, “Of course it’s possible”?
I’m not sure what philosophy is, really. In the world of academic philosophy, I sometimes think I see a reliance on language disconnected from apparent reality. I’m trying to say that word puzzles don’t interest me much. My life has been spent with language, but I think it’s a tool, not our master.
If I reason that jumping off the bridge is the true move, I still won’t do it.
Philosophy seems to be an umbrella term for many different activities. It’s not an area I’ve ever been particularly interested in, largely because of its abstract nature and its apparent lack of relevance to my daily life. However, I do have a curiosity about it, to see what I might have missed.
Oh, no. I don’t reserve judgment. I judge all the time. I live in the meat world. There’s no choice.
It’s just that my judgments are not absolute. There could indeed be a talking pet unicorn out there. How would I know? I’m just a being in a black and silent cave, trying to figure things as best I can.
And, no… at the moment, I can’t think of any claim for which I would not say, “Of course it’s possible.” But you are welcome to try me. Maybe I haven’t thought of it.
I wouldn’t spend any time thinking about the pet unicorn, but I would be open to any evidence, and I’d be curious about the mind which has created a belief like that. I’d want to investigate the mind moreso than the unicorn. How did this observer come to this belief?
1 Like
I have sometimes had an uncomfortable relationship with academic philosophers. Some of them seem a bit territorial.
But I enjoy engaging them in debate when they’re willing. That’s where I do my best learning. One time I debated the historical Jesus for months. I learned a lot more than if I’d read books by the experts, I think.
Can you explain what you mean here?
Goodness… I can’t imagine there being more than 30 minutes in that one. 
I mean they can sometimes behave more like gatekeepers than truthseekers. It’s natural. Most professions are that way. I was just a little surprised to realize it can be the same in academic philosophy. I thought they went into the field with a burning passion to figure things out, but that doesn’t always seem the case.
I’m not hostile toward academic philosophy. I’ve just had some unhappy experiences with a few academic philosophers. One of them told me that I would have to go home and read Plato before we could talk. Another became angry, long-term, because I called myself a philosopher but lacked the certificate.
Stuff like that. I could go on.
I found it interesting. Like most Americans, I had assumed there was some historical figure in 30 CE Jerusalem upon whom the gospel stories were based. I was surprised to find that the evidence is best explained without such a figure.
I also got to examine the minds of the people involved, studying their biases and their ways of defending them. I was there mostly for the minds. I am interested in minds.
Interesting. Not that this thread is the place, but I wouldn’t agree with that. I’m not a mythicist. I think many academics would argue that there likely was a radical historical figure, perhaps even a couple, who inspired the mythology. We just know that there we have no eyewitness accounts and no contemporary historical references.
It’s often easier to consider a religious figure from another culture, such as Muhammad, who was likely a historical person too. But does that mean he split the moon in half, performed miracles, and had a holy book dictated to him by the angel Gabriel? Nope. It’s not uncommon for historical figures to become mythologized over time, with all sorts of extraordinary claims becoming attached to them.
Got ya. Philosophy departments are like any other academic department. They protect biases, intellectual fashions, and launch careers over and above any search for truth.
I wouldn’t necessarily consider an academic philosophy department to be teaching people how to do philosophy. It’s often more like the way English departments teach Shakespeare or other great writers: through close reading, interpretation and ongoing discussion about what various thinkers intended to say. That’s fine, but none of it necessarily leads to original thinking or to “the truth”, however one chooses to understand that.
1 Like
I am not claiming that we should not reflect on life or that philosophy is not worthwhile. I am saying that the challenges that life throw at us are sufficient to provide most people with a sense of purpose. We dont need something deeper, more mysterious or given to us by the divine.
Thats not an appeal that everyone should accept the mundane or that our lives should just concern themselves with textbook biological purpose. It is the assertion that meaning will come if you live the life you have as best as you are able.
Got ya. Yes, I agree with most of what you say.
1 Like
I’m not saying there was no figure–just no figure in 30 CE Jerusalem who would be recognizable if we had a time machine. My best guess is 100 BCE to 50 BCE… and not necessarily radical or even very notable.
We can talk about it elsewhere if you’re interested.
Yeah, I recognize that now. It just took me awhile to internalize it.
I agree with that, and I think we can find as much meaning by studying our own nature as by studying the world. It’s been humbling in my case, but it makes this place more sensible to me.
1 Like