what is the point of reading philosophy if you wont use it to better the world and only yourself?
>>7810726
to better myself
A better self= better world
To achieve peace through understanding.
I'd rather commit suicide than live in constant mental/emotional/spiritual turmoil.
Most philosophy (and all religion) is just navel-gazing. In my view, the monastics and the reclusive academics are worse than serial killers. They commit the ultimate sin of non-participation.
>>7810726
Why do you assume altruism is so important?
>>7810726
>to better the world
How can you help the world if you can't help yourself?
Bettering yourself is by definition bettering the world, since you are not disconnected or isolated from the rest of the world: you are a PART of the world.
>>7810763
>non-participation
That's a myth.
>>7810781
Allow me to clarify. Monastics are like a group of players on stage who sit huddled in a corner, murmuring, "We're actors! Isn't it so strange and wonderful that we're actors?" while the rest of the show proceeds without them.
Is complete non-participation possible? Probably not; everyone leaves their mark on the world in some small way. I guess my issue with monastics is that they promote non-participation as a virtue.
>>7810726
>what is the point of reading philosophy if you wont use it to better the world and only yourself?
According to the stoics at least, it's not necessarily possible for an individual to influence the external world. The only person they can be responsible for is themselves, so the individual should make an effort to lead a noble lifestyle that's in accordance with natural laws while not allowing oneself to be influenced negatively by other people or their destructive choices.
Going by a more specific example, I'm a vegetarian. Maybe I arrived at that lifestyle due to several factors - how I was raised, the type of environment I was raised in, and maybe even some genetic predisposition that lead me here. Should I go around trying to force this lifestyle on other people because I care that much about animal welfare? I think being forceful would actually have the opposite effect. I also know nothing about how other people were raised, or what sort of conditions they lived in. The idea of giving up meat may seem completely absurd to them unless they've been predisposed to certain values all their lives.
But maybe if people see me passively practicing my lifestyle, they'll become curious about it and maybe even adopt it on their own terms at some point. If not, then it doesn't matter. I can't be responsible for their choices - only mine. The most I can do is be an example to them, assuming any part of them could possibly share my values.
>>7810726
You won't affect the world in any meaningful way in your life, give it up m8
>>7810847
that's what I mean. Yes, betterin the self is important for the SELF, but not for the better world.
My questions is specifically for /lit/ because (I am guessing) a large percentage of you wont actively go out and try to instill that betterment on everyone else. but maybe im wrong and you're all really sociable and influential (Kek)
underrated post
>by bettering myself the world will be better!
Laziest shit I've ever heard. OP is right, it's pointless, but it doesnt mean it shouldnt be done.
What does "better" mean?
What is the "world"?
What does "yourself" mean?
What is "using" it?
>>7810726
>>7810763
>>7811089
The problem, OP, is that there is nothing one can do to improve other people without they wanting it. And even before that, you have to understand yourself better in order to help others understand themselves.
I am really sociable, but I hate to preach to other people. Not because I don't care, but because I don't think it's useful.
>>7810746
well really the world is meaningless, all you have is your interpretation of the world. So improving yourself literally improves your world
>>7810726
what is the point of bettering the world and not only myself?
>>7810766
>altruism
well spooked my property
>>7811916
no, youre my property bitgch
>>7810800
Why is participation in the world so important?
All I can prove is that I exist. Why would I try to improve a world which may or may not exist?
The awakening of any individual is a cosmic event.
Temporal salvation and transformation of an individual partakes on the atemporal salvation and transformation of the reality.
>>7811947
This is the nihilist answer.
>>7811964
It was a question, not an answer.
Improving yourself inherently makes life's interactions better for those around you. This is pretty simple.
Simply reading philosophies does not make you smarter or a better person.
>>7810800
>Monastics are like a group of players on stage who sit huddled in a corner, murmuring, "We're actors! Isn't it so strange and wonderful that we're actors?" while the rest of the show proceeds without them.
Isn't that analogy in a way in favor of the recluses? When the whole world is the stage and there is no true all-seeing spectator (anymore), only subjective impression of and instinctive reaction to the randomness of a moment in time, that acting without self-consciousness (or reflection or however you want to call it) becomes a display of naive egoism and narcissism, validation of which is always contingent on extremely constrained dimensions of time and space and such shortcircuited types of "meaning" we see today (since there is no such spectator or audience, playbook etc. anymore so we can only judge by immediate approval/disapproval by the part of the "rest of the show" directly in front of us i.e. of which we are conscious at that moment) so that the original drive to act out of fulfilling a role on stage however glamorous (starring role vs extra) becomes replaced by constant validation seeking, cheap thrills, instant gratification, demonstrating power and superiority over others etc. The band aid solution of reflecting on the ethics of your work in your spare time, picking sides in politics, being a good friend doesn't cut it as is evident in today's world. Or at least I don't see it. Where is the genuine respect men show for their own lot in life and for the ones of others? I'm not prescribing anything here, but I wonder how people manage to convince themselves of being authentic so well when they constantly betray their thoughts through their actions. Still the need is ever present. And if what we really seek in life and on which all other drive hinges is the need for authentic emotion and the rest of the "inner workings" and congruency in expression to the outside world then we can't be afraid of standing in the corner to question why we act, otherwise we become dull and artifical not to mention plain boring, disposable and exchangable. There are enough actors who blindly follow dogma already. "Beware the barrenness of a busy life" etc. Also scientism etc. What we need is either said all seeing spectator and all knowing playwright etc. or we can, cliche incoming, create our own meaning that exposes foreign dogma and ideologies for what they are and finally start fighting our own battle and by own battle I mean that what you want minus sex, food, sleep and approval except if you are a woman in which case tits or gtfo lmao
>>7810726
I was a philosophy major for a while (but I switched to something useful KEK). So the point it, while philosophers always tend to think about the social implications of pretty much anything, you have to realize that philosophy is, in the narrow academic sense, just another field of study. The majority of actual university trained philosophers is not the public intellectuals dabbling in social politics and playing a part in enriching human existence, and the word philosopher has a different meaning than it had for the most part of history. Philosophers aren't wise men and sages anymore, since all field of enquiry in nature and society branched off and developed in fields studied by specialists (consider for example, how what physicists study now, used to be the topic philosophers think about, but we don't call physicists philosopher). Philosophers today read books and books about books, analyse and synthesize the arguments, and they do this to study what cannot be studied by other fields of enquiry.
Questions like
-what is a thing
-how does science operate
-is the brain neccesary to produce consciousness, or does a set of algorithms that perform all the formal task a brain does also qualify as a conscious thing
-what is a number, is it a real entity or a language construct we use to process information
-should we be nice to robots
and so on...
Ethics is just one sub-field of practical philosophy and even ethics isn't the main driver in important changes of the world. Of course philosophy can inspire change, but it's true cause is to make theory. If you take a look at the actual world you will see that even ethics commitees are not made up primary by trained philosophers. Philosophy is in this regard no different than math. Mathematics are usefull for all kinds of stuff, but mathematicians study it mainly because it's damn interesting for them. This also applies to philosophers, they thoroughly enjoy searching for true sentences, and the rest is secondary.
Look at this:
>>7811680
This post is much more representative of philosophy than any guru who tells us how to live the good live.
>>7812044
>Philosophers aren't wise men and sages anymore, since all field of enquiry in nature and society branched off and developed in fields studied by specialists
Pure ideology, my God..
>>7812044
Out of curiosity what major did you switch to?
>>7812117
Autism keknology fungeneering and laffs
>>7812117
biology
>>7812112
What do you mean, Zizek?
> Whats the point of playing soccer if youll never better the FIFA league and only yourself
Its intriguing, its thought provoking, and I rub my own ego thinking how enlightened I am. Discussing it with friends is really entertaining aswell.
>>7812152
Frankly, both factors played a part.
>>7812044
>The majority of actual university trained philosophers is not the public intellectuals dabbling in social politics and playing a part in enriching human existence, and the word philosopher has a different meaning than it had for the most part of history.
Those are philosophical workers, not actual philosophers.
>>7810726
Because there are actual interesting problems in the field of philosophy that have nothing to do with ethics.
>>7812547
Well let me extend my post a bit: I think that we tend to cling to the archaic idea of a philosopher who is kind of an allround sage to be consulted on all kinds of stuff, but the extreme specialization of all fields of inquiry coupled with the evolution of academic philosophy made that meaning of the word philosopher pretty useless. The world became too complicated to have a place for man and women who are philosophers in the archaic sense.
>What's the point of eating if it won't solve world hunger?
>read animal liberation
>become vegan
>read better better never to have been
>decide not to reproduce
ok
>>7811709
This is correct.
Because everyone else is a spook
>>7811089
If you better yourself you will act in a better way. You are part of the world and your acts have an effect on it. Even the smallest good is better than the smallest bad.
>>7811089
Btw I do some work in local politics and u don't even have to be sociable for that KEK, just contain ur autism a bit
>>7810726
>caring about the world
>>7811709
>without them ever wanting it
Which is why rhetoric is of the cornerstones of political and ethical life. The ability to convince and persuade is vital to using your philosophy for action.
I wish "Read Plato" or "Read Aristotle" were more common replies to just about everything om this board.
>>7814196
I haven't read that much Plato, but didn't Socrates compare rhetoric to flattery and deemed the rhetorician Gorgias to be a hack sophist rather than a legitimate lover of wisdom?
>>7810726
Jesus...
