The Philosopher’s Problem: When and Why Thinking Can Be Harmful

[benjayk]

I've just read an interesting article that relates a lot to how I feel about metaphysics: https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-philosophers-problem-when-and-why-thinking-can-be-harmful-6ce260c51e78
Sometimes I see myself a lot in what the author describes, thinking deeply about philosophical issues without truly having clarity what your intent behind that is and why you want or "need" to know a certain thing.

It's definitely worth considering over and over again whether he way we are doing philosophy (and more specificially metaphysics) - or really even choosing to engage in abstract philosophy at all in a given moment in time -  is really serving our ultimate values in the best possible way.

After all, looking at the world we clearly do not seem to have good collective grasp on what the most important values are and how to live them. Otherwise the world wouldn't be what it is.

So we'd be all advised to be humble and instead of taking for granted we are on the right path, reconsider what is really important to us and the world.

[Lou Gold]

benjayk,

So we'd be all advised to be humble and instead of taking for granted we are on the right path, reconsider what is really important to us and the world.

INDEED!

[Scott Roberts]

Some quotes from the essay:

"I like to separate reality into two different worlds that interact with my mind at any given time. The real, tangible world and the invisible world."

 

"We are programmed to think deeply even when there is no benefit to thinking deeply. In fact, quite often, rather than providing a clearer foundation for our thoughts, the added depth simply detaches us from reality."

 

"At the end of the day, your overarching purpose is to make it through life in a way that has been meaningful, pleasant, and engaging. If you can’t think clearly, then making the right decisions becomes that much harder."

The essay only makes sense if one believes that this physical life is the entirety of one's existence. Suppose instead that one continues to exist after death of the body, and the "invisible world" turns out to continue with one's existence, while the "real, tangible world" goes away. I would think then that one's overarching purpose is to learn to think clearly and deeply, in order to become detached from the tangible world. In which case it is this essay which is harmful.

[Lou Gold]

Scott,

The essay only makes sense if one believes that this physical life is the entirety of one's existence.

Not conditionally harmful. Just stay in the now and "be calm -- be clear -- see the faults -- see the suffering -- give your love"

My godfather told me this from the other side quite beyond bodily attachment.

This is real. The proof is not in death of the body but in practicing it while in the body.

[Lou Gold]

This requires an at least temporary experimental process of moving from Truth-Seeking into Way-Finding, while maintaining awareness that all discoveries contain the danger of becoming dogma. It's a perennial process of balancing paradox and progress.

[Justin]

Suppose instead that one continues to exist after death of the body, and the "invisible world" turns out to continue with one's existence, while the "real, tangible world" goes away. I would think then that one's overarching purpose is to learn to think clearly and deeply, in order to become detached from the tangible world.

I don't think that this conclusion here necessarily follows from the premise.

Perhaps the "invisible world" can only be known more clearly and deeply through engagement with the tangible world.

[Scott Roberts]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 4:30:41 PM UTC-10, Justin wrote:

Suppose instead that one continues to exist after death of the body, and the "invisible world" turns out to continue with one's existence, while the "real, tangible world" goes away. I would think then that one's overarching purpose is to learn to think clearly and deeply, in order to become detached from the tangible world.

I don't think that this conclusion here necessarily follows from the premise.

Perhaps not necessarily, but in practice, the detachment has, for the most part occurred. Two and a half millennia ago people started thinking, and in particular, thinking about the tangible world. This is how detachment from the tangible world came about, a process that was mostly completed about 500 years ago, making such events as the Scientific Revolution possible.

The next step is to think about one's likes and dislikes (especially insofar as they center on what the tangible world has to offer), and so become detached from them.

 

Perhaps the "invisible world" can only be known more clearly and deeply through engagement with the tangible world.

 That's how it starts, but I think it must eventually meet up with the invisible world from which the tangible world derives.

[benjayk]

I see where you are coming from, but I don't think I agree. The author doesn't make reference to physical or non-physical. He might be a physicalist, or he might not be, but in any case I think the point he makes is still valid.

You are right that the tangible real world is only temporary, but at the same time I feel the split is not fundamental.

In my experience often engaging with the real tangible world through perception, etc makes aspects of the inivisible world more clear in a way that abstract philosophy doesn't (which doesn't mean that can never yield clarity, of course).

Perception itself knows no split of the clarity of what is perceived and the endless space of perception itself. I don't think you can really have one without the other.

I don't really agree detachment from the tanigble world itself is the goal. If we take non-duality seriously, the tangible is just another aspect of being; why would we deny its importance by detaching from it.

I guess it's good to have the option of detachment and dissocation, and certainly transcendence, going beyond just the world is a worthwhile quest, but all of that doesn't really imply detachment as a goal in itself.

Like almost all spiritual traditions say, the deepest clarity and truth is found beyond just thinking. That's why I think it's so useful to go back to stillness, simpler thoughts, or less rationalist thinking again and again and root ourselves in something beyond the intellect.
It makes the intellect transparent to something beyond itself, so that we can get closer to wholeness.

[Santeri Satama]

keskiviikko 16. lokakuuta 2019 16.48.31 UTC+3 benjayk kirjoitti:

You are right that the tangible real world is only temporary, but at the same time I feel the split is not fundamental.

I'm curious how others relate bodily awareness or body sense (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bodily-awareness/) to tangible and invisible. In simplest terms, bodily awareness is tangible, in the sense easily sensed, as it is classified as sense of collection of senses, and bodily awareness is invisible in the mundane sense that it continues also eyes closed, and in the more fascinating sense that it is not limited to and identical to skin level, what appears as body to visual sense.    

[Scott Roberts]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:48:31 AM UTC-10, benjayk wrote:

I don't really agree detachment from the tanigble world itself is the goal. If we take non-duality seriously, the tangible is just another aspect of being; why would we deny its importance by detaching from it.

 I agree that detachment is not the ultimate goal, but I think it is the all-important interim goal. For a full discussion see my Idealism vs Common Sense essay.