Note: Philosophers
May. 18th, 2023 07:45 amCan't think of anything exciting to report. Just enjoying the sun and getting out as much as possible. I am currently trying to be sensible and nurse my right knee back to health, this work is proceeding apace, the biggest trouble that I have is remembering that "toughing it out" and using broken bits before they are healed is how I got to this impasse.
Writing is proceeding, I figure that writing is heavily dependent on reading so I am going over the basics. Mostly reading philosophers makes my head hurt. I figure that, on average, reading a philosopher gives one the following breakdown (all stated percentages are my personal estimates:
30% of any particular work consists of useful ways of looking at things that can be cobbled into a syncretic personal worldview. A lot of this shit is repetitive, found in bits and drabs across many philosophers, so most of what you read in one philosopher's ravings consists of a clever rephrasing of something someone else said somewhere.
20% is usually nasty little digs at other philosophers. As a group, philosophers are petty fuckers. Backbiting and mudslinging worthy of a politician is rife in these serious bits of character and intellectual assassination. What I admire about this is how seemingly civil they are about it. They really do make calling the other person a moron seem urbane. I have to pick up this skill. But at the end of the day, it just appears to be nasty and insulting.
30% appears to be just plain wrong. I suppose that "wrong" might not be exactly the word I am looking for, But the things recommended and advocated usually require that us apes have more on the ball than appears to be the case. I have always heard that "giving the benefit of the doubt" is a kind thing to do, but truthfully, it usually ends up badly.
The last 20% is usually just incomprehensible gibberish. I realize that the problem might well be inside my brain pan, but after you read something five or six times and the meaning is still unclear, and then you ask someone who claims to understand that particular philosopher what the passage means and he cannot come up with an explanation that is not tortuous, then you have gibberish. The hard part about the gibberish aspect is that by asking repeatedly to have someone explain something and then still not get it, the interlocutor usually gets abused roundly and judged as stupid.
Most of all, reading a lot of philosophers makes me think of the days of the early Christian Church and their hatred-filled theological debates. The Monophysites and the Chalcedonians arguing about the hypostasis and prosopon might well be an excellent example. Perhaps the Great Schism, or even maybe the Protestant Reformation. Maybe I am looking at things all wrong, but it appears to me that philosophers are priests of a sort.
So, I tend to try and work with what I refer to as "the least common denominator" method of philosophy. If it has to do with explaining how to perceive the world, then I pay attention. If it has anything to do with to act upon those perceptions, I close the book...firmly.
It is my firm belief that the only thing that you can affect is how you gather information from a fleeting and inaccurate set of sensory inputs. The inputs themselves are transmitted to you in a shoddy and slap-dash manner. the inputs must be processed somehow so that they even have a chance of being useful.










