philosophy vs. honesty

[JoeVice]

where do you draw the line, or the double edged sword, when the nature of the subject-at-hand's premise is what you feel needs to be addressed? "taking it personally" is taboo. why? nile577once mentioned the idea of philisophical "ideas" being distasteful, since philosophy is the study of all thought. that statement contradicts what inspired the soul to think it. in other words, it was a philisophical idea. regardless of its intentions, ideas/thoughts arose. every thought is made of an infinite avenue to be explored.

when reading between the lines, why bother holding back what is really on your mind, for the sake of fostering the "integrity" of philosphy?

 

[Nile577]

where do you draw the line, or the double edged sword, when the nature of the subject-at-hand's premise is what you feel needs to be addressed? "taking it personally" is taboo. why? nile577once mentioned the idea of philisophical "ideas" being distasteful, since philosophy is the study of all thought. that statement contradicts what inspired the soul to think it. in other words, it was a philisophical idea. regardless of its intentions, ideas/thoughts arose. every thought is made of an infinite avenue to be explored.

when reading between the lines, why bother holding back what is really on your mind, for the sake of fostering the "integrity" of philosphy?

I think this is an excellent thread.

'Idea' implies a notion to be applied, like a tool, to a pre-existing, pre-defined life that is separate and distinct from the idea itself. Ideas are ideologies and politics. Philosophy should be before these things. It should be the 'how' of man. A study of his way of being, of his thought. Hence: all thought is philosophy. Philosophy is the Being of thought; ‘ideas’ a misapplied ontic disposure of description. My post was intended to express a thought, not an idea. Though I appreciate the distinction may appear rather cavilling, it is of crucial importance to understanding our differences here.

To speculate on what studied philosophy is, and how it is possible is a very deep undertaking better left to minds greater than mine. ‘Philosophy’ as it is written is not an idea but a calling into question of its own possibility; an awareness of the clearing in which Being shows up. An awareness of ‘truth,’ which is culture - a flavour of disclosure – and in this awareness the possibility of turning towards hidden divinity. One might say: poets live in the draft of Being; ‘philosophers’ contemplate and meditate on its significance.

(Side point: Not to derail this thread but 'honesty' implies a notion of 'truth' that can be much debated.)

 

[JoeVice]

"‘Philosophy’ as it is written is not an idea but a calling into question of its own possibility; an awareness of the clearing in which Being shows up. An awareness of ‘truth,’ which is culture - a flavour of disclosure – and in this awareness the possibility of turning towards hidden divinity."

is philosophy the calling into question of an idea? what is a philosopher to do when he hits such a block, as he teeters on whether or not his thought is distasteful? he has opened the pandora's box, and the philosophy written is dialogue of his attempt to close it.

A philisophical idea then, is a tool for the advancement of philosophy. philosophy comes before it, since it is what inspires. philosophy fixes the deviation.

ideas are what give birth to "schools" of thought. i don't think such a notion is misapplied or distasteful. eve wanted the fucking apple, so she ate it.

what i think you're saying is that an idea can be perceived as distasteful when its motive is of self interest, or a way to get ahead of the game. if thats the case, here is another question. is one's motive distasteful if his heart feels that indulging in such an idea is the working revelation of a hidden divinity? i don't think so. dis-ease that further arises only brings into question more possibilities, therefore, more knowledge.

i read an infoterror post where he commented on debates at a coffee shop being exclusive, and that joe-idiot wasn't allowed to share his fucking opinion. in this case, does joe-idiot's opinion fill the mode of idea?

 

[JoeVice]

"'Idea' implies a notion to be applied, like a tool, to a pre-existing, pre-defined life that is separate and distinct from the idea itself"

so an idea is like what we can read of the blueprint, which is thought. but, how can we communicate thought purely? isn't communication of thought, which in philosiphy's case (verbal language), a single evolving idea, composed of several individual ideas, or identities? i guess my main question here is what really is identity, as in "the" collective identity, which is composed of an infinite growing number individual ideas, or identities. do we really communicate in pure thought? or is thought just an intangible (akin to kant's generalization of a "blind intuition") that dictates the conception of its own conceptions, or identities?

i guess when i read this "To speculate on what studied philosophy is, and how it is possible is a very deep undertaking better left to minds greater than mine," i see a philisophical identity...maybe a blind one...but none the less, it is one. there is unique path of thought, or identity of thought that is already paved. that, to me, is an idea. its the innocent, curious, giddy lust that fills in where thought leads it.

*big ole' fat philo-naive disclaimer* but, i'd love if someone would make some more sense out of this with me, as i really think i'm on to a bright idea.

 

[Nile577]

so an idea is like what we can read of the blueprint, which is thought.

An "idea" arises in a subject and pertains to objects (sometimes including the subject's position within those objects). Already, and covertly, a certain metaphysical position has been established: man as a thinking entity, situationally present in the world. Even if one had an idea that the thinking self was not real, this idea would still unfold upon a taken-for-granted background understanding of what a 'subject' is.

We can see, then, that ideas can arise only in the wake of an already present understanding of being. Our understanding of being gives, at a foundational level, the being of the "subject" and the being of "objects". That is, it allows those things to show up as the things they are. Ideas are possible only upon this pretheoretical scaffold. It is the task of philosophy to inquire into this already present understanding of being.

Therefore, while ideas are excellent for theory (scientific, political, theological), philosophy must offer a contemplative thinking, which by necessity is prior to the theoretical idea.

(Sorry for my first post in this thread. It wasn't very helpful, given the circumstances.)