If Socrates Had an iPod

[the_mess]

x-posted to /r/philosophyI was wondering about what’s wrong with philosophers of today, when it struck me what an interesting topic that is. The philosophers of then, now, back at the beginning… We often say that some things are ahead of their time. So rare is it, though. So much is a product of its time. This got me wondering, “What if Socrates

Comments

[turil]

What makes me a philosopher more than anything else is an unquenchable thirst for exploring and reporting back what I find, and encouraging others to explore and report back what they find.

I imagine that those who don't have that unquenchable thirst (but still like a bit of lemonade every once in a while), do other things with their lives, while exploring and reporting back in their spare time.

[pack1ife]

Good question. What would Socrates have on his iPod?

I side with Nietzsche that the genuine philosopher is not seperate from his own time. They just tend to think about it, analyze it more. This doesn't stop them from actively participating in it. Or as Nietzsche said, "play this bad game."

-from Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future

[the_mess]

I think Socrates would definitely have some Violent Femmes on his iPod. Maybe some Autolux. Who knows? No, actually, It'd probably be some corny flute music or whatever they listened to back then. I agree that we are not separate from our own time, so much. It's impossible to be, I think. If we are ahead of our time it's only because an element of our culture was ahead of its time; a kind of communitarian approach...

[take_276]

Are we patrons? Consumers of a grand philosophy we just add to?

I think most of those with an interest in philosophy are simply consumers--I love how you put that, by the way--but I'd go a step further. I don't think most readers of philosophy add anything at all. What I've found is that people generally select a philosopher (or perhaps a school of philosophers) that seems to support their already deeply-held beliefs, then become enthusiastic supporters. They're fans, basically. And like all fans, they become oblivious to the faults of their chosen philosopher or philosophers. Further, and perhaps most disconcerting, these fans dismiss any view that seems to contradict the work of their chosen philosopher, usually without giving those views any serious consideration. It's a disturbing trend, and it's one of the reasons I left the other LiveJournal philosophy communities. Philosophy shouldn't be reduced to the level of a sporting event, at least in my opinion, but that's what has happened.

Or are we just being distracted from what’s

[the_mess]

Hey, thanks. I guess what I mean by contributing to a grand philosophy is not necessarily contributing with actual written, published works, but instead just contributing to a sort of ethereal, cultural, intangible, collective philosophy by our simple interaction with society. Some--namely, those who philosophize--more than others. 95% of what we write is likely not in any work; it's in comments back and forth to one another and simple exchanges. Just like cultural memes get invented and popularized, likely so does philosophical insights. Or maybe that's not as much the case as I make it out to be

[take_276]

The lack of face-to-face interaction is troubling, but I think that will change once technology (and political action) frees us of some more of our obligations.

Well, maybe I'll be proved wrong about this, but I doubt that technology and/or government will ever free us from the obligations that rob us of our time and limit our personal interactions. History shows us that technological advances generally benefit factory owners and investors, not workers. Let's say some sort of technological breakthrough makes it possible for a factory to double its production. The plant owners could continue to pay workers the same salary for half the work. 40-hour weeks could become 20-hour weeks, increasing our opportunities for leisure and friendly interactions. But that's not what happens. Instead, the plant owners lay off half the workers and require the rest to continue working the traditional 40-hour week. I would love to be wrong about this, but I just don't see the powers that be freeing us from our obligations.

What troubles me is our

A Second Atlas

[catalyst123]

Plato, and whole bunch of other greeks, conducted most of there philosophizing(?) in conversations with other people. Of course back then, you had the one guy, and the other guy, maybe a small crowd. Now it's out for anyone who wants to to see it, and whoever wants to can reply to it. Arguably, neither of these are things are easy to do due to the size of the world wide web. But we are still communicating in a much larger arena than those guys ever could have had. Public debate of the masses, by the masses, and for the masses. Good thing the founding fathers of America thought to include freedom of speech

Re: Where have all the cowboys gone?

[the_mess]

The lack of popular interest in law is troubling. It's such an interesting subject. I'm surprised more people don't go into it. It seems the humanities were so much more deeply entangled in previous times.

Yet where is the modern Plato? Socrates? The Descartes and Kants? Or the next Democritus?

I'm not saying I'm half of what any of they were, but I'm trying. I think I have written some sage insights. You have to ask yourself if they would even be published today. It's a disturbing thought, but, really, how much of a market is there for philosophy now? It's all about markets. People want light reading. They want fiction. Not all people, but a good amount of them.

Re: Where have all the cowboys gone?

[catalyst123]

You hit the key point: You are trying. That is all that is required. A market is created by fostering interest in the topic. Therefore, if you wish to expand this market, you must try your utmost to learn from, and eventually achieve more than, the great philosophers who have already had an impact on Human society.

I believe that pushing ourselves will make arousing interest in philosophy that much more. We will be able create the market, the demand, the desire for a free and open exchange of viewpoints.

I am not much either. I am trying as well.

[poisongirlxv]

It does make it quite hard for anyone to philosophize with distractions. We live in a world that has rationalized us and hardly anything is individualistic, but on a mass level. The individual is not merely as separate, liberated, and as unique as one could have been during Socrates' time. We're really irrational human beings, and if we weren't so computerized, and living in a world that has us thinking one dimensionally, philosophy would probably burst into beginnings we cannot currently anticipate or envision at the moment.

But perhaps the consumer and globalized paths can serve as a platter for possible expansion of philosophy. But unlike mass communication, this will take time.