[dvnj22]

Decided not to post this in the critical thing/philosophy forum because I don't think I'd find like minded individuals.

Anyway by what I mean by feel good philosophy - ok so lately I've been studying philosophy and while interesting I can see how useless it is to much of our lives and how much philosophy is impractical and doesn't help us be better people. Until I discovered "walden" what an amazing discovery into transcendentalism then came "Mediations" what a wonderful book. So this lead me to things like thich nhat hanh who becuase not having enough money listen to him on YouTube.

I was taking to my sister about philosophy and talking to her how so much of it is like my experience with schopenhauer. I was really excited read the whole book in one night and then was so empty. I felt like nothing was answered. I was having a discussion with a man trying to publish his own philosophy book and how at the end of most - they never come to a conclusion its just running around in circles, and the risk of sounding crude mental masturbation in the guise of intellect. Its like a nice vase with no flowers. I think yann Martel has spoken a bit about this.

At least schopenhauer understood/respected the knowledge and wisdom of eastern sages.


Do any INFJ have this problem when studying not just philosophy but other subjects? I think INFJ and INFP have a strong need for meaning and most people are not concerned with that or at least repress it.

Am I alone? Am I just being illogical and childish?

ps. I'm not saying philosophy in itself is unless but how its being used.

 

[Aquarian]

I'm generally not interested in (as in, bored and annoyed by) any abstract theories that aren't grounded in and relevant to actual lived experience.

I suspect that some such theories are strongly Te and Te irritates me a lot. That is, if I'm correct in associating Te with deductive, de-contextualized thinking.

I also suspect that some of this stuff is simply bullshit, and bullshit of any sort irritates me more than just about anything.

 

[dvnj22]

I'm generally not interested in (as in, bored and annoyed by) any abstract theories that aren't grounded in and relevant to actual lived experience.

I suspect that some such theories are strongly Te and Te irritates me a lot. That is, if I'm correct in associating Te with deductive, de-contextualized thinking.

I also suspect that some of this stuff is simply bullshit, and bullshit of any sort irritates me more than just about anything.

This is what I've noticed about most of it other then what I mentioned. I think bullshit is a good way of describing a lot of it. Glad I'm not the only one



Of lately Ive been noticing my fathers wisdom in "they don't know what they are taking about".

 

[Aquarian]

Glad I'm not the only one

Nope, you're not. And also:

 

I find it both amusing and disconcerting that apparently the official term for my PhD is "Doctor of Philosophy" even though philosophy itself wasn't my actual field. In any case, I can also testify that there's a whole lot of ungrounded, circular, masturbatory bullshit in academia.

 

[dvnj22]

Nope, you're not. And also:

 

I find it both amusing and disconcerting that apparently the official term for my PhD is "Doctor of Philosophy" even though philosophy itself wasn't my actual field. In any case, I can also testify that there's a whole lot of ungrounded, circular, masturbatory bullshit in academia.

I hate academics a lot. In way you may need but its making a deal with the devil.

 

[Aquarian]

I hate academics a lot. In way you may need but its making a deal with the devil.

Yes. That deal is really really terrible from what I've seen. I had quite a few discussions with academics who said that they were in academia because it allowed them freedom they couldn't get in other kinds of work. They downplayed or flat-out ignored the reality that the whole degree and tenure-seeking process is designed to break people. By the time people finally get that externally allowed "freedom" they have been seeking, they're powerfully shackled from within due to the breaking process. It's truly terrible. "Deal with the devil" is a good way to describe it.

 

[dvnj22]

Yes. That deal is really really terrible from what I've seen. I had quite a few discussions with academics who said that they were in academia because it allowed them freedom they couldn't get in other kinds of work. They downplayed or flat-out ignored the reality that the whole degree and tenure-seeking process is designed to break people. By the time people finally get that externally allowed "freedom" they have been seeking, they're powerfully shackled from within due to the breaking process. It's truly terrible. "Deal with the devil" is a good way to describe it.

I'm concerned with the amount of weight put into degrees and why listin to these people. A mild example is Stephen Hawking's some things he says but because of his reputation people take it as law.

An extreme example would Be a lot of Peter singer's bullshit.

my sister dealt with a lot of this stuff in her college. Smart people saying a lot of dumb things.

 

[Moss Icon]

Personally I have come to feel that a lot of philosophy amounts to asking questions like "what does red smell like?" As you say, abstract ideas that are posed for the sake of posing them with little relevance or use. This kinda philosophy can be a good exercise in training your brain to be more limber, but it sometimes goes way, way too far. A lot of the folks who posit such questions seem to do so for their own indulgence; "look how smart I am with my outside-the-box thinking", "look how I shake you out of your comfort zone and blow your mind with my unique perspectives", etc. Bored. You ask a question that can't be answered (even by you). Great. Now what? Is that the mark of a "great intellect"..?

It's odd for an N, but I'm getting more and more irritated by pure abstractions and the the Begging The Question style of argument that a lot of philosophy seems rooted in.

In any case, I can also testify that there's a whole lot of ungrounded, circular, masturbatory bullshit in academia.[/SPOILER]

Beautifully said. If I may share an extract from a satirical poem I wrote on this very subject:

".. In fawning over hidden threads
In circle-jerks for the "well-read"
They gather round and pride, like wine
Flows arrogantly, minds entwined,
Intoxicated to believe
The hubris of their self-conceived
Supremacy." ​

 

[dvnj22]

Personally I have come to feel that a lot of philosophy amounts to asking questions like "what does red smell like?" As you say, abstract ideas that are posed for the sake of posing them with little relevance or use. This kinda philosophy can be a good exercise in training your brain to be more limber, but it sometimes goes way, way too far. A lot of the folks who posit such questions seem to do so for their own indulgence; "look how smart I am with my outside-the-box thinking", "look how I shake you out of your comfort zone and blow your mind with my unique perspectives", etc. Bored. You ask a question that can't be answered (even by you). Great. Now what? Is that the mark of a "great intellect"..?

It's odd for an N, but I'm getting more and more irritated by pure abstractions and the the Begging The Question style of argument that a lot of philosophy seems rooted in.



Beautifully said. If I may share an extract from a satirical poem I wrote on this very subject:

".. In fawning over hidden threads
In circle-jerks for the "well-read"
They gather round and pride, like wine
Flows arrogantly, minds entwined,
Intoxicated to believe
The hubris of their self-conceived
Supremacy." ​

Like I said really like some philosophy, things that deal with how to live and look at things and people. "Walden" is great book and so is the stoics way of looking at things. Like the stoics have a lot of cbt in it. However when philosophy is posed towards the bigger questions it fails. Which is funny because most people would think the other way around.

 

[Moss Icon]

Like I said really like some philosophy, things that deal with how to live and look at things and people. "Walden" is great book and so is the stoics way of looking at things. Like the stoics have a lot of cbt in it. However when philosophy is posed towards the bigger questions it fails. Which is funny because most people would think the other way around.

When I was a teenager, I was heavily into existential philosophy. Partly no doubt because it made me feel clever. When "The Matrix" came out, I was like "wow, this is what I've been thinking!" I came to tire of that stuff, though. The Matrix itself actually helped with that because I came to loath the movie. Well, not "loath". It's still cool action-wise, and interesting philosophically. But the disgust I began to feel with the philosophy within turned me around completely.

These days I prefer moral philosophy because it directly relates to real life and how people and societies get along. By whatever measn we are here, we are here. Better to start there with what concerns us as we are rather than worry about what might concern us if X might ​be true: all stuff we have no way of verifying.

 

[dvnj22]

When I was a teenager, I was heavily into existential philosophy. Partly no doubt because it made me feel clever. When "The Matrix" came out, I was like "wow, this is what I've been thinking!" I came to tire of that stuff, though. The Matrix itself actually helped with that because I came to loath the movie. Well, not "loath". It's still cool action-wise, and interesting philosophically. But the disgust I began to feel with the philosophy within turned me around completely.

These days I prefer moral philosophy because it directly relates to real life and how people and societies get along. By whatever measn we are here, we are here. Better to start there with what concerns us as we are rather than worry about what might concern us if X might ​be true: all stuff we have no way of verifying.

Yeah I was a bit of nihilists myself as a teen. It's a good philosophy to have as a teen but as you get a little older it wears off and you start hunger for something more. And ill admit I like reading the dali lama and some other feel good writers. I like it because contrary to what some say trying to be positive is not ignoring the negative but accepting and moving on happy. I'm starting to see how much more important happiness/well being and contentment are. And in the west happiness = pleasure which so far from what it actually is. I'm not sure if what I'm trying to say is coming out right but yeah it late over here. Lol

I just hope no one tries to debate me on this, I'm a horrible debater.

 

[la_revolucion]

I have never really been a big fan of philosophy. It always felt way too abstract, convoluted and personal. If you get down to the bare bones of it all it's really just someone else's long winded opinion on endlessly broad things like human nature, meaning of life and etc. I trust my own experiences and the resulting personal philosophies more than some unknowns. (They may be famous but I don't know them personally!) Especially on things that have no "right or wrong" answer.

I think being able to read works of philosophy has an important place in academia and can be enlightening; however, I never found much joy in it.

 

[Goldfinch]

I'm a fan of certain aspects of existential philosophy, for example, always taking responsibility for my actions, and trying to be authentic and avoid bad faith. I also hope no one tries to debate with me either, I'm a horrible debater too.

I recently made a friend who is into zen buddhism and he tries me crazy constantly trying to shove the stuff down my throat. How we need to avoid being ego-centered, and how our problem is we cause ourselves to separate from others, when actually everything in the universe is all one thing, and how one can only experience life through the five senses, and there is no past or future, blah blah. It's fine to have a personal philosophy, but I think it's important to be open to other peoples points of view.

I particularly can't stand Eckhart Tolle.

 

[Aquarian]

I recently made a friend who is into zen buddhism and he tries me crazy constantly trying to shove the stuff down my throat. How we need to avoid being ego-centered, and how our problem is we cause ourselves to separate from others, when actually everything in the universe is all one thing, and how one can only experience life through the five senses, and there is no past or future, blah blah. It's fine to have a personal philosophy, but I think it's important to be open to other peoples points of view.

Grr on someone trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. I didn't know that zen buddhists evangelize.

Is this friend of yours perhaps Christian-ancestry/raised Christian before converting to buddhism?

I particularly can't stand Eckhart Tolle.

OMFG New Age bullshit is at least as bad as academic bullshit - worse in some ways.

 

[Goldfinch]

Grr on someone trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. I didn't know that zen buddhists evangelize.

Is this friend of yours perhaps Christian-ancestry/raised Christian before converting to buddhism?



OMFG New Age bullshit is at least as bad as academic bullshit - worse in some ways.

No, he is and was an atheist. I didn't really know him before the zen thing. But I have to say he is one of most judgmental people I know, although he would never admit it, and actually will accuse others of being judgmental. I can't even have a conversation with him, because he starts spouting zen rhetoric rather than actually deal with whatever issue it is that we are talking about.

As for Tolle, I think he may have some good ideas, but he is so damn patronizing I can't even read his writing.

Sorry to anyone who likes him.

 

[Aquarian]

No, he is and was an atheist. I didn't really know him before the zen thing. But I have to say he is one of most judgmental people I know, although he would never admit it, and actually will accuse others of being judgmental. I can't even have a conversation with him, because he starts spouting zen rhetoric rather than actually deal with whatever issue it is that we are talking about.

Do you know his MBTI type? (I can't help it, I'm curious about an evangelizing zen buddhist! Seems odder to me than the evangelizing Presbyterian my beloved encountered last week)

 

[Goldfinch]

Do you know his MBTI type? (I can't help it, I'm curious about an evangelizing zen buddhist! Seems odder to me than the evangelizing Presbyterian my beloved encountered last week)

I'm not great about typing people, but I had thought he is INTP. But with all of his talk about experiencing life through his five senses, maybe ISTP. The whole zen buddhist persona doesn't mesh with his personality at all. Maybe he is trying to change, going for some personal growth or something. It's not working for me.

 

[OldManRivers]

The posts in this thread are quite interesting and well thought out and written. In two major careers, the Army, several short-term jobs, there was always a subset of Masters and acolytes. In Academia, The master decides whether someone gets admitted, gets a decent advisor, grant money -and the acolyte has to suck up. I have known philosphy type masters in several fields. And psychology is one of the worse. Most of psychology is unprovable bullshit generated by "Masters" and preached by "acolytes." To be an effective therapist, one has to leave the bullshit back on the farm and learn methods to encourage, enable and empower people to make changes in themself. And when the therapist sees that happening, what a rush that is!

At age 50 I took the GRE and talked to the Psychology department at a major state university. I was told not to bother to apply because, in plain terms, I was too old to buy their snow job - So I went through a two year master's program in social work, said pleasing things and got my degree, then licensure as an LCSW - did some good work, enjoyed it, got elcellent reviews and praise by people I respected. - This MBTI stuff is OK for a general apprasial if it is used correctly but of no use in therapy. I worked with real hurting people needing help and not jargonese.

 

[dvnj22]

Yeah I like really like learning about different philosophies, like what was mentioned zen but putting it into practice is a whole other thing and gets you nowhere lots of times. I also hate people that shove stuff down your throat, I am regions and have had to deal with it from both sides - regions people saying I need to do this and non religious people saying to do this annoying....

@Goldfinch I'm originally started going to the debate board on pc to improve writing, spelling and communication skills and also thinking on your feet. But you can see first hand how much people are enslaved to a lot of philosophical concepts that have no place in dealing with others and morality. One the reasons I posted this thread was because of these experiences. Wanted to make sure it wasn't a "just me" kind of thing.

 

[Killbain]

The study of Philosophy can be compared to being in a dark cellar at midnight searching for a black cat, that isn't there.

Theology is exactly the same, except you find the cat.