Is writing philosophy worth it?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Is writing philosophy worth it? » Is writing philosophy worth it?

Page: 1 2

Is writing philosophy worth it?

Sean McHugh
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2008

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 17

Posted 08/12/08 - 07:47 PM:	#11
http://forums.philosophyforums.com...findpost=498520#post498520

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 08/13/08 - 12:11 PM:	#12
Well, the absolute and relative problem is an immense problem possibly underlying the whole of Western metaphysical thought. If you talk to westerners, you can't do away with that in a paragraph. But ok, I get that you would elaborate further in earlier chapters. I would advise to because philosophy is nothing else than giving account of the use of one's terms. The question is not wat is really real, but what are the categrories by which we grasp what is real. Philosophy is critical, you can also not accept that fifth or third stage of sonsciousness as a given, it is constant self disturbance. Problem with the way you write is that it is not philosophical, but the realm of the prophet or guru. Nothing wrong with those professions, but t is not philosophy. As a guru you can drown people, but as a philosopher you give branches to escape the water. In the western tradition there is also great metaphysics, Look into Spinoza and Kand and Hegel. They were all great metaphysicians, but also thinkers who very rigorously examined their own terms. I'd recommend it because Western thought can't be that confused, it is written by people very wise and clever, so take nte of their ideas and combine them wth what you know of the hindu tradition. Nothing wrong in making that tradition your spear point but if you want to write so that people in the field can read you and will gain something from it, you'd have to make explicit where you come from and what questions Vedic thought can elucidate better than aformentioned thinkers can. Be careful of wipng a whole way of thinking from the map. Because those bold claims of confusion will have to be matched by pure clarity from you. So take small steps instead of rushing. regards Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Sean McHugh
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2008

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 17

Posted 08/13/08 - 08:09 PM:	#13
Tobi, if you're lost in categories you'll never find a way out- you've already limited the extent of your understanding before you begin to think. And thinking is your real problem: thought lies above truth and can at most parallel it- we have to be the truth, not try to write it down or foreground it intellectually. The idea of perspicuity in truth is the disaster of Western thought generally and as I say has already been discredited by philosphy's own epistemological collapse: this is such a major event you seem like many people to have just ignored it so you can persist with other lines of enquiry but with the same problems in the background of grounding the knowledge. Meaningful criticality issues from the level of truth, not from itself in endless circling nonesense and castles in the sky. You seem to think philosophy and its standard dialectical progression leads to answers- yet philosophy has answered almost nothing- your faith is completely misplaced and wrongheaded, and systematically excludes the possibility of understanding. I've studied the figures you mention, and each of them of course grounds knowledge in the transcendent, and which goes beyond the intellectual terms of their work on paper- that's why they're good thinkers. Yours Sean

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 08/15/08 - 10:52 AM:	#14
I think I can understand wat you are getting at, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree for answers. At least philosophically. I don't think you can circumvent the epistemological trap by just assuring vedic philosophy is right. You seem to argue for intuitionsim, but that is like asking for a deus ex machina. How do you know your intuition is right? Of course you can link such transcendence to the body or to concrete existence or indeed to music. There are Western philosopohers notably within phenomenology that do so. But I think you can't escape account giving. Well you can escape it by just refusing to play the game, which seems what you are arguing for. But than still of your own terms you fail because what is the worth of vedic philosophy then? You chose it because of a reason and so I think we should be privy to that reason. But if you give it you fall into the epistemological trap. If you ahven't done so yet, check for instance Henry who likes to develop a phenomenology of the body. But I think you are after something else. A different philosophy not located in cerebreal meaning giving, but in the boyd and its ground tone. Well that is possible and I think a great enterprise, but then your acceptence of vedic philosophy, without accounting for it will only hold you down, at least I think it does. Because you would have to accept it uncritically. I see you are banned. I regret that, because I would have liked to continue talking. It will not be for this discussion in any case. Take care, Tobias
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Buckley
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 28, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 08/30/08 - 01:29 AM:	#15
I find it easy to write when I'm in some place where I absolutely cannot be distracted by something. Like while riding a bus for example. Sure I can look outside and see what's going on there, but that's inspirational over distracting. I take my little notebook, and my tiny little philosophy book, summarising the greatest philosophers in history, and take an idea from it and start playing around with it, writing comes on it's own like that because you are urged to put every thought you have on to your paper without hasitation. This makes for a really honest and direct philosophy. That's the way I do it anyway. But then again, I am only an amateur with no degree or what so ever.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.