Philosophy Discussion
After quitting Pokemon roughly two years ago, I devoted much of my free time to philosophy. Reading different philosophies (primarily western), I wanted to share my thoughts on some of the more interesting philosophical schools of thought I have encountered. I encourage everyone to share their favorite or least favorite philosophies as I am always interested in new perspectives.
A few things that I find interesting is that metaphysics dominates philosophy which makes it confusing at times to understand the substance of the argument (Immanuel Kant is the best example of this issue), so it can be a daunting task to understand any philosophy as the main question is what is the point. The answer I have come to is philosophy is a great exercise of critical thinking, logic, and reason, and these skills are beneficial to have in society so that the average citizen can be civically engaged.
Often the most appealing philosophies were those that were pragmatic and could easily apply to me. Below I wanted to discuss some of my favorite and least favorite philosophers briefly to kick off the thread.
Marcus Aurelius
Stoicism is a philosophy that has inspired me the most. The main idea of Stoicism is that people should live in accordance with nature. In practice, this means that if something terrible happens, you, as a person, should look to see what you can do to improve the situation. For example, if I did poorly on a test, I should not blame a lousy instructor even if the instructor is at fault. I should instead see how I could improve. Maybe I did not leave adequate time to study for the test, perhaps I didn't take adequate notes, or perhaps I was not in the right mentality. All of these factors are things that I can control to make these improvements, and if I still did not do well, I did everything I could. Marcus Aurelius was the person who introduced me to this line of thinking as I had been doing research into Rome, so I decided to read Marcus Aurelius. Reading Marcus Aurelius made me realize the privilege of life and how the little things that bother me do not matter. However, I found Stoicism to be a wrong lens to view societal problems as it encourages people to accept what it is and not acknowledge instead see what an individual can do for society rather than how we can make society better the induvial. The idea that a Stotocism might not be good for society but is good for the individual
Diogenes Cynics
The interesting thing about the cynics is that they chose not to write anything about their philosophy, so what we know about them is written by others who were critical of Cynicism. One main question is, can we genuinely understand philosophy from secondary accounts, or will our understanding of that philosophy be warped? In Cynicism, the answer is that the philosophy is heavily warped, especially by the Stoics who tried to argue that Cynicism was a quicker path to virtue in order to argue that their school of philosophical thought was rooted in Socratic thought. The main pillar of Cynicism is not caring about material desires, as Diogenes lived as a nomad with a cloak and slept in random temples. The modern definition of Cynicism is one where someone questions something just for the sake of questioning it, not because they want to obtain a better understanding, as employing the Socratic method without the intention of coming to some conclusion is counterintuitive at best and dangerous at worst. Realistically the cynic way of life is something a majority of people would not take up as people today are fueled by desire, and getting rid of all desires in our consumerist society will not happen. However, the questioning aspect of Cynicism can be beneficial if used correctly.
Aristotle
Unlike Plato and Socrates, Aristotle is unique compared to many other Greek philosophers as he contributed to the hard sciences. However, many of his contributions to the sciences are not true, such as the heavier an object is, the faster it falls, which may be true when factoring in air resistance but not true in reality. The observation he made was correct, but Aristotle failed to question his conclusion to find what is the "correct answer" today. The same line of thinking also applies to his geocentric model. However, what interested me about Aristotle is the idea that the mean is a good thing. The idea of the mean being good is all too present in our current society as people think both the right and left are bad and agree that the "mean" is good. However, Aristotle applies the idea of the mean; for example, it is bad to lack confidence, but it is also bad to be overconfident, so the mean would be to be confident. However, one major question is where the "mean" lie. Sometimes there is a thin line between overconfidence and confidence, so being confident could be seen as being overconfident, so the mean is not in the true middle of the two ideas. So, how helpful is the idea of the mean if the mean itself is subject to scrutiny? Also, another issue is that some ideas are extreme but are good, so how do you argue the mean is always good if an extreme is deemed best? For example, a far-left winger or far-right winger would deem their position as their mean but would be the extreme position. So the idea of the mean is subjective and is in motion as one day, someone can deem something to be the mean, but another day in different circumstances, the mean is different. Another idea is the ideal form of government. Aristotle uses the mean to determine that Tyranny and Democracy are both bad as they are too extreme, deeming oligarchy or aristocracy to be ideal forms of government as the people have less control and a sole person does not have control.
St Augustine
St Augustine interested me as he is the creator of the idea that original sin from Adam and Eve is passed down from generation to generation through sex. The main question, then, is that reproducing is something that humans need to do to continue living. Still, if we are passing down reproduction, then by not reproducing, humans would end original sin with the end of the human race. Thinking about St. Augustine's framework logically, if society accepted the same line of thinking today, Christianity would be a fringe cult-like group with few members, as many of them would refuse to have children and continue to pass the original sin of Adam and Eve. St. Augustine taught me the version of Christianity we see today had many deviations that we people who consider themselves Christians do not know or care to learn about.
Machalvienism
I wanted to end with a philosophy I didn't particularly appreciate as it was not fundamentally sound. However, I wanted to talk about it because Maclhivelian is a favorite of Joseph Stalin and other authoritarians in history. The fundamental pillars of Machiavellism are that a strong authoritarian leader or a prince is necessary to lead. They often needed to eliminate one's enemies, which would explain the paranoia of someone like Stalin. Overall I do not have much to say as Prince is a relatively short book with little substance worth discussing outside of explaining the thought process of a select few authoritarians in history.
Philosophy books I have enjoyed with Amazon links. I would also love to hear about everyone's philosophy book suggestions as I always look for new books or translations to add to my collection.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
Last Days of Socrates by Plato
The Politics by Aristotle
The City of God by Saint Augustine
Discourses Epictetus
The Art of Happiness Epicrucus
I don't watch many Youtube videos on philosophy, but I would appreciate any suggestions. However, I do enjoy a channel called oliSUNvia and am open to watching or listening to more people who have unique perspectives on philosophical topics.
I would love to hear what everyone thinks about philosophy, whether they find it useful or not, as I always love hearing new perspectives. I am interested in Eastern philosophy but don't know where to start as I am unfamiliar with which philosophers and translations are best to get introduced to Eastern philosophy.
I also would love to discuss western philosophy with anyone, whether you are well versed in it or not, as I find in every conversation I have, I always learn something new about the world or myself.
After quitting Pokemon roughly two years ago, I devoted much of my free time to philosophy. Reading different philosophies (primarily western), I wanted to share my thoughts on some of the more interesting philosophical schools of thought I have encountered. I encourage everyone to share their favorite or least favorite philosophies as I am always interested in new perspectives.
A few things that I find interesting is that metaphysics dominates philosophy which makes it confusing at times to understand the substance of the argument (Immanuel Kant is the best example of this issue), so it can be a daunting task to understand any philosophy as the main question is what is the point. The answer I have come to is philosophy is a great exercise of critical thinking, logic, and reason, and these skills are beneficial to have in society so that the average citizen can be civically engaged.
Often the most appealing philosophies were those that were pragmatic and could easily apply to me. Below I wanted to discuss some of my favorite and least favorite philosophers briefly to kick off the thread.
Marcus Aurelius
Stoicism is a philosophy that has inspired me the most. The main idea of Stoicism is that people should live in accordance with nature. In practice, this means that if something terrible happens, you, as a person, should look to see what you can do to improve the situation. For example, if I did poorly on a test, I should not blame a lousy instructor even if the instructor is at fault. I should instead see how I could improve. Maybe I did not leave adequate time to study for the test, perhaps I didn't take adequate notes, or perhaps I was not in the right mentality. All of these factors are things that I can control to make these improvements, and if I still did not do well, I did everything I could. Marcus Aurelius was the person who introduced me to this line of thinking as I had been doing research into Rome, so I decided to read Marcus Aurelius. Reading Marcus Aurelius made me realize the privilege of life and how the little things that bother me do not matter. However, I found Stoicism to be a wrong lens to view societal problems as it encourages people to accept what it is and not acknowledge instead see what an individual can do for society rather than how we can make society better the induvial. The idea that a Stotocism might not be good for society but is good for the individual
Diogenes Cynics
The interesting thing about the cynics is that they chose not to write anything about their philosophy, so what we know about them is written by others who were critical of Cynicism. One main question is, can we genuinely understand philosophy from secondary accounts, or will our understanding of that philosophy be warped? In Cynicism, the answer is that the philosophy is heavily warped, especially by the Stoics who tried to argue that Cynicism was a quicker path to virtue in order to argue that their school of philosophical thought was rooted in Socratic thought. The main pillar of Cynicism is not caring about material desires, as Diogenes lived as a nomad with a cloak and slept in random temples. The modern definition of Cynicism is one where someone questions something just for the sake of questioning it, not because they want to obtain a better understanding, as employing the Socratic method without the intention of coming to some conclusion is counterintuitive at best and dangerous at worst. Realistically the cynic way of life is something a majority of people would not take up as people today are fueled by desire, and getting rid of all desires in our consumerist society will not happen. However, the questioning aspect of Cynicism can be beneficial if used correctly.
Aristotle
Unlike Plato and Socrates, Aristotle is unique compared to many other Greek philosophers as he contributed to the hard sciences. However, many of his contributions to the sciences are not true, such as the heavier an object is, the faster it falls, which may be true when factoring in air resistance but not true in reality. The observation he made was correct, but Aristotle failed to question his conclusion to find what is the "correct answer" today. The same line of thinking also applies to his geocentric model. However, what interested me about Aristotle is the idea that the mean is a good thing. The idea of the mean being good is all too present in our current society as people think both the right and left are bad and agree that the "mean" is good. However, Aristotle applies the idea of the mean; for example, it is bad to lack confidence, but it is also bad to be overconfident, so the mean would be to be confident. However, one major question is where the "mean" lie. Sometimes there is a thin line between overconfidence and confidence, so being confident could be seen as being overconfident, so the mean is not in the true middle of the two ideas. So, how helpful is the idea of the mean if the mean itself is subject to scrutiny? Also, another issue is that some ideas are extreme but are good, so how do you argue the mean is always good if an extreme is deemed best? For example, a far-left winger or far-right winger would deem their position as their mean but would be the extreme position. So the idea of the mean is subjective and is in motion as one day, someone can deem something to be the mean, but another day in different circumstances, the mean is different. Another idea is the ideal form of government. Aristotle uses the mean to determine that Tyranny and Democracy are both bad as they are too extreme, deeming oligarchy or aristocracy to be ideal forms of government as the people have less control and a sole person does not have control.
St Augustine
St Augustine interested me as he is the creator of the idea that original sin from Adam and Eve is passed down from generation to generation through sex. The main question, then, is that reproducing is something that humans need to do to continue living. Still, if we are passing down reproduction, then by not reproducing, humans would end original sin with the end of the human race. Thinking about St. Augustine's framework logically, if society accepted the same line of thinking today, Christianity would be a fringe cult-like group with few members, as many of them would refuse to have children and continue to pass the original sin of Adam and Eve. St. Augustine taught me the version of Christianity we see today had many deviations that we people who consider themselves Christians do not know or care to learn about.
Machalvienism
I wanted to end with a philosophy I didn't particularly appreciate as it was not fundamentally sound. However, I wanted to talk about it because Maclhivelian is a favorite of Joseph Stalin and other authoritarians in history. The fundamental pillars of Machiavellism are that a strong authoritarian leader or a prince is necessary to lead. They often needed to eliminate one's enemies, which would explain the paranoia of someone like Stalin. Overall I do not have much to say as Prince is a relatively short book with little substance worth discussing outside of explaining the thought process of a select few authoritarians in history.
Philosophy books I have enjoyed with Amazon links. I would also love to hear about everyone's philosophy book suggestions as I always look for new books or translations to add to my collection.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
Last Days of Socrates by Plato
The Politics by Aristotle
The City of God by Saint Augustine
Discourses Epictetus
The Art of Happiness Epicrucus
I don't watch many Youtube videos on philosophy, but I would appreciate any suggestions. However, I do enjoy a channel called oliSUNvia and am open to watching or listening to more people who have unique perspectives on philosophical topics.
I would love to hear what everyone thinks about philosophy, whether they find it useful or not, as I always love hearing new perspectives. I am interested in Eastern philosophy but don't know where to start as I am unfamiliar with which philosophers and translations are best to get introduced to Eastern philosophy.
I also would love to discuss western philosophy with anyone, whether you are well versed in it or not, as I find in every conversation I have, I always learn something new about the world or myself.