So Much

I went to Barnes and Noble the other day and took alook at the philosophy section. I first tried to find a book on Descartes only to find that their are a vast amount. Many differnt views on descartes readings and interpretations but not only on descartes but their is an incredible amount of different theories, views and ideas on philosophy. I would really like to read more into philosophy but I do not want to shorthand myself by reading an overview of many different philosophers ideas, I feel it does not do them justice. but at the same time, how could I possibly read so many different ideas and thoughts without complete confusion? It will take a lifetime or more.

a common thread...

you know, one thing that i'm finding, both in people's presentations and my own doodlings, is that we really cannot answer just one of the five questions without answering and questioning another. for example, what is god like? that leads into questioning reality, which in turn leads into what exactly it is that we can know. I found it entirely interesting that, when people were presenting, more often than not (so far anyways) the presenter would end up answering  or involving the idea of one of the other questions in their response. philosophy, i have discovered (occasionally with much frustration) is a very circular subject, meaning one without an end. you can banter all you like, but there's always going to be something you've missed, something you haven't answered. how can we expect to find any one truth if we'll never be done questioning it?! perhaps that is the truth, that there is none. anyways, just found that interesting. sort of went off there a bit. but i'm sure you get the gist. i can only hope.

The Standard of Empathy

One thing I sort of forgot to go in depth about in my presentation today was my idea of the importance of empathy. As human beings we share experiences because we have the same set of emotions and react to certain situations in the same way. Although there are a variety of ways different people might react to the same situation, we can all put ourselves in the shoes of another person and understand on some level why they might react the way they do. At the very least we understand when we see a specific emotion in another person. For example if we see someone who is sad we have an emotional reaction in empathy for their sadness.

This is the reason we feel guilt when we fail to help another person. We know or can at least imagine the situation they're in, and we, at least subconsciously want to help them, just as we would want to help ourselves in the same situation. It's also the reason we have strong emotional reactions to plays and books and other forms of story-telling.

In this way, harming others really harms ourselves. This is an idea I borrowed from Marcus Aurelius, but he would say that the reason harming others harms ourselves is because we are going against the force of cosmic order, not because we feel guilt at inflicting harm on other people that we can feel through empathy on ourselves.

Doubt

I find it hard to believe that NO ONE ever questioned reality before descartes. I would guess that doubting started when philosophy started. Why would it be necessary to write down what somthing is until it was questioned on what it might be? Why have I never questioned how computers work? I know my computer can turn on and off although it breaks at times, but why is it that I can somehow plug the machine into a wall and it has life? do I trust this because it happens over and over again? Hume would say you shouldn't trust everything based on repetition, this is what he called "induction fallacy". We also base our lives on trust - I trust the fact that the world is round, but do I know for sure? No I trust the books that say this and every other person on the planet. But I have never doubted these things before now, but I still trust them as being true. Does this mean that we doubt more often now because of descartes and other philosophers views? Or did we always have this capacity to doubt? I believe that its a chain reaction, once one person doubts then more people doubt... and who knows - if everyone doubts reality will the world end up in complete chaos?

Solid literature or show me the money

Schopenhauer said, “Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of their contents”.

Schopenhauer believed books were focused on making money. He felt the content of books did not allow people a resource to learn from or develop individually on a personal level. It almost seems like people are developing content to become a recognized expert on a subject matter, or noted as “that fantastic author” for the glamour of it all. I understand that some people write because they enjoy it, that’s what they like to do. I also agree people that have the knowledge and ability to convey their expertise on to paper in book form is a special gift. But, what is the author’s real objective.

Is the author’s goal to make use of global distribution and run thousands of books all over the world, concerned about profit margins? Or is that author sincerely focused on objectively sharing their perspectives and expertise to us with the objective of educating us and helping individuals become more well rounded about that topic. Schopenhauer has a great concept, that if we purchase a book, then we should also invest in the time to read it. Our books shops are filled with a cross section of literary masterpieces along with commercialized books targeting the bottom line dollar. Even way back in the 1800’s, Schopenhauer understood that authors misused their power to develop shallow literature for monetary gain as their primary objectives. Let’s not waste limited time we have on superficial literature. Let’s also give our authors the benefit of the doubt and try to learn from their powerful piece. I sure hope my next purchase on the “red hot sale table” at Border’s Books delivers the goods for me!

My own recipe

Arthur Schopenhauer felt that our world is basically what we recognize in ourselves as our “will”. It is up to the individual to successfully take on the responsibilities that life presents to each of us. Schopenhauer’s beliefs on reading books points out how much one can fall into dreams and allow authors to influence our thoughts and almost take over us. By reading, we do invite the author to deliver their point of view of a subject, but one must be strong and really take the content for granted. An authors point of view can be very strong, so keep it in perspective and enjoy the literary ride.

If I want to learn how to make an incredible pot of chili, I’ll rely on a book about foods with detailed recipes. It’s fine if we read to enlighten our knowledge base and really learn about history, or gain insight about the many subjects our complex world provides. However, I refuse to come away from a book I just read with a new, magic answer about that topic. I won’t allow that author to take over my mind and completely influence my opinions. I enjoy reading with an open mind and get into that piece, and learn from that author’s knowledge base. In the end, I’m going to digest and learn from the details of that topic, but I’m still going to use my own ingredients and cook up my own bowl of chili.