4 ms·

I feel like philosophers were better before social media and the internet. Nowadays people like this philosopher would have gotten sucked into the time vortex

I feel like philosophers were better before social media and the internet. Nowadays people like this philosopher would have gotten sucked into the time vortex of Twitter, Mastadon, Reddit, etc and wasted their lives away. But back then they spent all their time in libraries actually reading important stuff. Much better for the brain and intellectual development. Not just the brain development of children but adults too

theF00l 2y ago
I completely understand your point but would like to point out that quite a few philosophers were peculiar characters that did spent a lot of time outside the library too. Sometimes debating (eg Athenians), sometimes political activities (eg Sartre), some spending time on theology too (Kierkegaard, Aquinas). I think for many philosophy was a way to understand life and the world around them.
mistermann 2y ago
Engaging in philosophy only alone (or only with like minded, agreeable people who will circle the wagons if someone dares to take things actually seriously) is a tragic waste of immense power. No wonder it gets so little respect, or attention. Philosophy can be applied, but it takes brass balls.
- Locutus_ 2y ago
  As Karl Marx said about philosophy: "The point, however, is to change it [The world]"
  - mistermann 2y ago
    I wonder if Karl's fairly extremist (at least in reputation, which is all that matters) ideology harmed the popularity of this discrete proposal.
  - prewett 2y ago
    Change is not always for the better. Vladimar Putin is changing the world, but expect that few here see it as a good thing. Putin, himself, is known to see Soviet Russia as good; the USSR also changed the world, but it is hard for many to see that as good, particularly the millions killed by the rulers. The USSR was a product of Marxist thought, and thus far no implementation of Marxism has been anything but highly destructive. (Regarding China, it's success came when they embraced aspects of capitalism and technocratic governance. Xi is turning back towards Marxism and China appears to be going backwards.) Other philosophy would consider Marx as incorrect. For Plato, the point of philosophy is to find the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. For Buddhists (if I understand correctly), the point is to escape suffering. For Christians, the point is the mystical union with Christ. For these, effects on the world are a side-effect, not the point. Personally, I think that the preoccupation with "changing the world" in the contemporary US is a search for personal meaning (via activism, or even merely "change"), since the ideas of modernity has erase all meaning from our existence.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Do you think it may be possible to use philosophy to change the world in a positive for most way (say, 80%+ of the global population), to a "substantial" degree (based on a global survey)? As an analogy: consider perspectives (on whether flight may be possible) 100 years before and after flight was ~mastered (based on a global survey).
      - ngcc_hk 2y ago
        The problem is that we are talking about philosophy here and what is positive is being studied and discussed. And because we have not agreed yet, those changes would be more a power play then a right-idea (say positive) play. Marx is bad has been proved beyond doubt in practice. Still because it is all about power and change, it is a bad idea.
        mistermann 2y ago
        >And because we have not agreed yet, those changes would be more a power play then a right-idea (say positive) play. So I'm not missed out understanding you, are you saying that right/good ideas require consensus before they can be that? > Marx is bad has been proved beyond doubt in practice. a) How? b) Proven, technically? c) Beyond whose doubt? > Still because it is all about power and change, it is a bad idea. What is this?
cess11 2y ago
Could you share how you're making that comparison? Stengers against Whitehead? Nick Land against Heidegger? Mark Fisher against Marcuse?
alexashka 2y ago
Philosophers have been giving philosophy a bad name for centuries prior to social media so there's nothing to worry about.

theF00l 2y ago

I completely understand your point but would like to point out that quite a few philosophers were peculiar characters that did spent a lot of time outside the library too. Sometimes debating (eg Athenians), sometimes political activities (eg Sartre), some spending time on theology too (Kierkegaard, Aquinas). I think for many philosophy was a way to understand life and the world around them.

mistermann 2y ago

Engaging in philosophy only alone (or only with like minded, agreeable people who will circle the wagons if someone dares to take things actually seriously) is a tragic waste of immense power. No wonder it gets so little respect, or attention. Philosophy can be applied, but it takes brass balls.

Locutus_ 2y ago
As Karl Marx said about philosophy: "The point, however, is to change it [The world]"
- mistermann 2y ago
  I wonder if Karl's fairly extremist (at least in reputation, which is all that matters) ideology harmed the popularity of this discrete proposal.
- prewett 2y ago
  Change is not always for the better. Vladimar Putin is changing the world, but expect that few here see it as a good thing. Putin, himself, is known to see Soviet Russia as good; the USSR also changed the world, but it is hard for many to see that as good, particularly the millions killed by the rulers. The USSR was a product of Marxist thought, and thus far no implementation of Marxism has been anything but highly destructive. (Regarding China, it's success came when they embraced aspects of capitalism and technocratic governance. Xi is turning back towards Marxism and China appears to be going backwards.) Other philosophy would consider Marx as incorrect. For Plato, the point of philosophy is to find the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. For Buddhists (if I understand correctly), the point is to escape suffering. For Christians, the point is the mystical union with Christ. For these, effects on the world are a side-effect, not the point. Personally, I think that the preoccupation with "changing the world" in the contemporary US is a search for personal meaning (via activism, or even merely "change"), since the ideas of modernity has erase all meaning from our existence.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Do you think it may be possible to use philosophy to change the world in a positive for most way (say, 80%+ of the global population), to a "substantial" degree (based on a global survey)? As an analogy: consider perspectives (on whether flight may be possible) 100 years before and after flight was ~mastered (based on a global survey).
    - ngcc_hk 2y ago
      The problem is that we are talking about philosophy here and what is positive is being studied and discussed. And because we have not agreed yet, those changes would be more a power play then a right-idea (say positive) play. Marx is bad has been proved beyond doubt in practice. Still because it is all about power and change, it is a bad idea.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        >And because we have not agreed yet, those changes would be more a power play then a right-idea (say positive) play. So I'm not missed out understanding you, are you saying that right/good ideas require consensus before they can be that? > Marx is bad has been proved beyond doubt in practice. a) How? b) Proven, technically? c) Beyond whose doubt? > Still because it is all about power and change, it is a bad idea. What is this?

cess11 2y ago

Could you share how you're making that comparison? Stengers against Whitehead? Nick Land against Heidegger? Mark Fisher against Marcuse?

alexashka 2y ago

Philosophers have been giving philosophy a bad name for centuries prior to social media so there's nothing to worry about.