I don't think I was ever really into philosophy as you put it then. My version of philosophy has always included engaging with different ideas in unison with introspection and intuition as a path towards wisdom and meaning.
I have tried to get into some of those abstract theories but honestly they kinda put me off. I try to find what's useful and how it connects to other things rather than just building and breaking down arguments.
Been reading some Simone Weil recently and I love how her philosophy is a lived one. I definitely think there is danger in the allure of too much abstraction, as you and she mentioned.
Very interesting piece, I appreciate the different perspective :)
I really enjoyed this essay. I have been dipping in and out of philosophy for several years, but recently have gotten much more into it. It's interesting because I think I did feel the sentiments in this essay at various points, but now do feel like philosophy is purely adding to my life.
Reflecting on it, I think a couple things make the difference for me at least. One is I've pivoted to steer entirely clear of understanding philosophy in an academic, abstract way and pursue it with practicality and embodied wisdom as sort of the underlying goal. I've also started to hold a super broad view of philosophy, with the edges blurry so it readily transitions into subjects like psychology. For me, something like deceiving myself with philosophical argumentation can actually become a part of my philosophy/psychology.
I've also tried to steer totally clear of topics that feel they might bog me down with abstract arguments that would leave me going in circles. Epistemology as an entity I've almost entirely steered clear of haha, and I'm overall happy with that decision so far. It's tough because, from what I understand, it does seem like the state of contemporary philosophy almost encourages these highly abstract, specific, circular arguments, and has encouraged them for a while now. I wonder if an overall return to a more practical philosophy centered around the good life could offset some of these effects. Really enjoyed the essay!
thanks Mandip! that seems like a good approach to me, I think there's lots of value in asking these questions while also remaining "grounded" in a sense with your everyday experience
Nice essay! I'm reminded of this description of philosophy from Paul Graham (who studied philosophy in college): "the other fields took up so much of the space of ideas that there wasn't much left for these supposed ultimate truths. All that seemed left for philosophy were edge cases that people in other fields felt could safely be ignored."
Usually, when something ceases to be a "waste of time," we cease to call it philosophy. But philosophy isn't useless, since it can and does lead to new useful fields of knowledge, from time to time. These fields are birthed from philosophy and then take on a life of their own. This happened with physics, with linguistics, etc. I suspect it might happen relatively soon with what we still call philosophy of the mind, which is becoming less and less distinguishable from cognitive science.
Btw I'm curious on your reasons for moving away from Deutsch and Popper! I've never been that into them but I did read Deutsch and am reading Popper at the moment.
Also, for that ladder example with the color "red": it seems like another axis would be "red" -> "color" -> "sensation in a brain corresponding to certain types of light" -> "physical nature of light" etc. which seems superior in some sense to both axes you presented yet isn't clearly more or less abstract than them. I'm not sure what to make of this.
haha I'm hoping I can finish up contra-deutsch essay soon...there's a lot of different small issues that somehow all add up to a refutation of the popperian worldview. like two starting points are: why is it that Deutschians claim to be anti-dogma, but are viewed by so many outsiders as dogmatists? also, Deutschians are supposedly against viewing philosophy as debates about the meanings of words, and yet in conversations they seem particularly fixated on the usage of specific words (explanation, empiricism, etc)? these are both superficial but I think they point to a deeper problem in how Deutsch/Popper view the world. but yea I think I'll need a whole essay to explain it in a way that makes sense
The ideas in this post are something that I’ve been thinking about but was never really able to articulate, so reading this really hit me. Philosophy is more a game you play for fun, as much as it tries to make itself serious I really think it’s best done as a hobby. By taking it less seriously, we can enjoy philosophy more. And really, it’s just a complex game played by people who love toying with abstract ideas and words.
Interesting to hear about your progression. I was about to come in hot with a comment about Existentialism until I saw your first Appendix bullet. But I’ve spent a fair amount of time with existentialist ideas and have found them 1) conceptually fascinating and 2) very helpful as I’ve faced big forks in the road. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent less time with Deutsch / Popper / Analytical thinkers, but I’m currently a quite satisfied philosophy customer
yep, I haven't dug too deep into existentialism but it strikes me as more concerned with practical questions about how to live a good life and less with the abstract metaphysics (which I still think is fun, but I'm wary to spend all my time ruminating on). also I think a lot of buddhist/daoist philosophy, and the various western flavors of it, are also focused on tangible problems people actually face in their lives.
I had been into reading philosophy for many years more than 20 years for sure. Today I know that erudition is the longest path to wisdom.
This is so because in your way to find wisdom through erudition you risk a mistake. When you are able to question anything’s validity or essence you start believing in yourself, in the superior quality of your own judgement. It’s ridiculous and it holds you back.
I saw you mentioned daoism as a more tangible approach. I can tell you I studied the dao te ching and other texts for more than 20 years and it is not. The more human and practical tradition is Christianity.
I can really relate to this, I've been writing about a very similar feeling towards philosophy in my last couple of posts
oh wow! I just looked through your blog, this is awesome! excited to read more
I don't think I was ever really into philosophy as you put it then. My version of philosophy has always included engaging with different ideas in unison with introspection and intuition as a path towards wisdom and meaning.
I have tried to get into some of those abstract theories but honestly they kinda put me off. I try to find what's useful and how it connects to other things rather than just building and breaking down arguments.
Been reading some Simone Weil recently and I love how her philosophy is a lived one. I definitely think there is danger in the allure of too much abstraction, as you and she mentioned.
Very interesting piece, I appreciate the different perspective :)
I really enjoyed this essay. I have been dipping in and out of philosophy for several years, but recently have gotten much more into it. It's interesting because I think I did feel the sentiments in this essay at various points, but now do feel like philosophy is purely adding to my life.
Reflecting on it, I think a couple things make the difference for me at least. One is I've pivoted to steer entirely clear of understanding philosophy in an academic, abstract way and pursue it with practicality and embodied wisdom as sort of the underlying goal. I've also started to hold a super broad view of philosophy, with the edges blurry so it readily transitions into subjects like psychology. For me, something like deceiving myself with philosophical argumentation can actually become a part of my philosophy/psychology.
I've also tried to steer totally clear of topics that feel they might bog me down with abstract arguments that would leave me going in circles. Epistemology as an entity I've almost entirely steered clear of haha, and I'm overall happy with that decision so far. It's tough because, from what I understand, it does seem like the state of contemporary philosophy almost encourages these highly abstract, specific, circular arguments, and has encouraged them for a while now. I wonder if an overall return to a more practical philosophy centered around the good life could offset some of these effects. Really enjoyed the essay!
thanks Mandip! that seems like a good approach to me, I think there's lots of value in asking these questions while also remaining "grounded" in a sense with your everyday experience
Nice essay! I'm reminded of this description of philosophy from Paul Graham (who studied philosophy in college): "the other fields took up so much of the space of ideas that there wasn't much left for these supposed ultimate truths. All that seemed left for philosophy were edge cases that people in other fields felt could safely be ignored."
Usually, when something ceases to be a "waste of time," we cease to call it philosophy. But philosophy isn't useless, since it can and does lead to new useful fields of knowledge, from time to time. These fields are birthed from philosophy and then take on a life of their own. This happened with physics, with linguistics, etc. I suspect it might happen relatively soon with what we still call philosophy of the mind, which is becoming less and less distinguishable from cognitive science.
Btw I'm curious on your reasons for moving away from Deutsch and Popper! I've never been that into them but I did read Deutsch and am reading Popper at the moment.
Also, for that ladder example with the color "red": it seems like another axis would be "red" -> "color" -> "sensation in a brain corresponding to certain types of light" -> "physical nature of light" etc. which seems superior in some sense to both axes you presented yet isn't clearly more or less abstract than them. I'm not sure what to make of this.
haha I'm hoping I can finish up contra-deutsch essay soon...there's a lot of different small issues that somehow all add up to a refutation of the popperian worldview. like two starting points are: why is it that Deutschians claim to be anti-dogma, but are viewed by so many outsiders as dogmatists? also, Deutschians are supposedly against viewing philosophy as debates about the meanings of words, and yet in conversations they seem particularly fixated on the usage of specific words (explanation, empiricism, etc)? these are both superficial but I think they point to a deeper problem in how Deutsch/Popper view the world. but yea I think I'll need a whole essay to explain it in a way that makes sense
The ideas in this post are something that I’ve been thinking about but was never really able to articulate, so reading this really hit me. Philosophy is more a game you play for fun, as much as it tries to make itself serious I really think it’s best done as a hobby. By taking it less seriously, we can enjoy philosophy more. And really, it’s just a complex game played by people who love toying with abstract ideas and words.
Interesting to hear about your progression. I was about to come in hot with a comment about Existentialism until I saw your first Appendix bullet. But I’ve spent a fair amount of time with existentialist ideas and have found them 1) conceptually fascinating and 2) very helpful as I’ve faced big forks in the road. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent less time with Deutsch / Popper / Analytical thinkers, but I’m currently a quite satisfied philosophy customer
yep, I haven't dug too deep into existentialism but it strikes me as more concerned with practical questions about how to live a good life and less with the abstract metaphysics (which I still think is fun, but I'm wary to spend all my time ruminating on). also I think a lot of buddhist/daoist philosophy, and the various western flavors of it, are also focused on tangible problems people actually face in their lives.
Kasra, this is one of my favorite of your essays. I really really enjoyed it.
wow! thank you
hell yeah thinking sucks
I had been into reading philosophy for many years more than 20 years for sure. Today I know that erudition is the longest path to wisdom.
This is so because in your way to find wisdom through erudition you risk a mistake. When you are able to question anything’s validity or essence you start believing in yourself, in the superior quality of your own judgement. It’s ridiculous and it holds you back.
I saw you mentioned daoism as a more tangible approach. I can tell you I studied the dao te ching and other texts for more than 20 years and it is not. The more human and practical tradition is Christianity.
Good luck in your search.