Philosophy as a Practical Life-Art Form (wisdom, Montana, state, problems)

[Cliffie]

I was raised, in an overwhelmingly Catholic area, to believe that church was someplace you went to drum up business contacts, or a place you turned to when you wanted to get out of thinking -- I was astounded and edified the first time I saw a girl try to worm out of having read the science chapter by saying she believes in Adam and Eve, and the teacher backed down. So, no religion. But having 2 mentally ill parents, I was essentially raised on a Discordian philosophy: nothing is true, everything is permissible. This has been extremely helpful to me in my work as a shrink; I see people's belief systems (initialized to B.S.) as clogging the drains and keeping people from being able to do what they need to do. So I apply a Roto-Rooter or grenade technique to those beliefs and go home knowing I've helped people.

[Huckleberry3911948]

very few that post themselves as intellectuals are.

[Visvaldis]

I'm an anarchist.

[Bluesmama]

Well, I'm 57 and still growing up. But I'm getting there.

I've always had a strange, strong sense of "something out there". I was raised in a strict Catholic home but have not been active in organized religion since becoming an adult. However, I do experience an almost-high feeling of calm whenever I step inside a church now 'n' then.

I've lived a life of trials and tribulations but always carried some common sense with me, even when I made a few bad choices. Gratefully, I usually learn from mistakes, although some things never have turned out the way I wanted them to (and no one has that blessing. . or luck. . depending on how you look at it).

Although I'm on City-Data Forum quite often, I'm actually quite the loner, and I like it that way. I'm not a people-person and my friends are very patient with me. They would like to see me more but they also know how I am.

While I never accepted the Bible's Creationism (Adam & Eve), I never accepted Darwin or science's version, either. But I'm a firm believer that life does not "end" at death, and again, this has to do with that strong, almost higher-conscious feeling I've always had of Another Side. And when my daughter died a long time, I experienced a lot of interesting things that convinced me that we don't end up just dust (and I hasten to add many of her friends, and my husband, went through the same thing; some of them were just mind-boggling). I started looking more into myself, researching into myself, in a quest for knowledge an comfort.

I still have no "religion" and may never. The closest thing I've encountered to matching my own beliefs and views is the Urantia Book.

I also do not believe in The Big Bang Theory as some people do. I do not believe there was ever a beginning and that the universe is infinite. Life somewhere else? I think so. In fact, I think earth is basically a School of Hard Knocks and, based on that, is not meant to be easy for any of us. I also believe in a hierarchy of deities that involves the entire universe. I also believe we all have a purpose, although it doesn't have to be something BIG. A "lovable zero" who has a gift for making people laugh is contibuting something to his fellow man's well-being.

I'm not a bleeding heart and do not make excuses for people, whether it's individuals or the masses. The world became negligent and over-populated, and I blame that for most of the problems. Since it's still growing, I do not see much relief in that area for a long time. And my own political views do NOT include a "free-for-all" government. I am a little Lefty on a few things but very Righty on most. I believe in the right to bear arms and to protect what is mine.

So while I don't go to church, I live my life with common sense and always try to do what I think is right. And while I don't let people get too close, I treat them well and try to be a pleasant person.

[harry chickpea]

I remember clearly, at age five, in Bible school, we were cutting construction paper and making crowns out of it and some foil paper. I can still smell the paste. The teacher, who also happened to be the first grade teacher in the local school, sat in front of the class and recited the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, and living inside the whale. I dutifully listened, then when the opportunity came up for me to talk with her privately for a minute, I asked her incredulously "Do you really think a person can live inside a whale?" I knew enough even at that tender age to recognize BS. This was my first (but not my last ) experience with an authority figure going off the deep end.

She responded that that was what we were supposed to believe. As our town was the site of the local insane asylum, so I already knew that some people didn't have a grasp on reality. From that point forward, I was of the opinion that a lot of folks had some strange notions that didn't have any basis in reality, and I was very careful what I said around her and others.

Much later, I found that the phrase "in the belly of a whale" is an ancient idiomatic phrase with the modern correlation of "in a pickle," and could be phrased that way in a modern translation of the OT. I'm not suggesting that we should all think that Jonah lived inside a pickle (kosher, I guess?), just that the rote learning that passes as faith is both uneducated and unedifying. Those who recite it as Gospel truth tend to be the same ones that tell me Bill Gates is going to send them money for forwarding an email. I'm not joking, just relating my experience. Very few of those folks even know of the scholarly dissections of the Pentateuch and associated history.

My quest since then has been too long, convoluted, and personal to relate here. Fortunately it doesn't involve bears. Suffice to say I have learned a lot since then and have developed a personal world view based on a lot of research and life experiences. While I could defend it in debate or display it, I don't see the point. It would first require explaining and defining a bunch of basics, then building the logic in a way that could be understood, then formatting the result in a way that would be palatable to someone with a (sometimes wildly) divergent view. If anyone was really interested, I'd get a firm commitment and have them wait at least a full year before even beginning to teach how them it fits together. There are just too many people who flit from place to place seeking "enlightenment" and/or eternal cookies and milk and/or talking points in conversation.

[rifleman]

So..... Hmmm..

To me, a critical point comes in your life when you realize you become very interested in such things as "why you are here". Many, including a person who was at one time important to me until he pushed me away with his proselytizing, found themselves with an insatiable need to have some more expansive meaning in his life, some direction, some 'explanation" for why "we" were here.

He found it, through the simple expedient of taking his wife's long-time badgering advice and going to a few sermons at his local Southern Baptist Chruch. He was soooo very happy that he'd done this, because almost overnight the mysteries of his universe were explained to his apparent complete satisfaction.

No questions any more; he was, when I last saw him, completely satisfied with the answers that The Southern Baptist Convention provides him. One wonders, with this particular philosophical approach, what one does if, in the dark moments when you are all alone and question an overly simplistic answer to a complex question, perhaps there might be more.

I had many of the same questions, but because of my significant experiential differences, plus my exposure to facts which any rational mind would say had to conclusively discount a supernatural origin, plus my detailed scientific and engineering background, I always saw everything as needing a rational, thoughtful & careful approach.

Now, having thought and pondered myself through perhaps 25 years this way, I have an approach, a rationale and a system which is most satisfying for me. I never feel left out, even in the many cases where the "final answer" is not yet available.

I'm really OK with that "Not Yet" part, while perhaps some of you out there may not be. Understandable. The huge variations within the human psyche will always provide examples of a wide wide range of "comfort levels" for the degree of answers and certainty necessary to enable one to go to sleep at night. With a smile on their faces rather than a look of terror.

So... that timely conflation of science, wilderness experience, adaption of a tool-set to find answers, allows me to function positively now. The only thing I don't like: it took a long time to get there. I certainly didn't feel this inner calm when I was, say, 28 years old. Not even 45. I'd say it all clicked for me around 50 to 55 years of age; not that long ago!

Unless one chooses to become a Buddhist monk or a Jesuit priest, it's unlikely that single belief system (i.e.: religion or science alone) will provide you with a happy functioning system that can grasp anything life throws at you. Actually, I know not even one single scientist in all my travels and projects who relies only/solely on science. Most bring something else into the picture. Some philosophical perspective, a few include religion while acknowledging it's limits in relating to modern findings. some tern to middle- or far-eastern philosophies in order to reach their own enlightened states.

What came together for you, and at what age? Perhaps, as I said in the OP, a particularly memorable event?

[Kyrsyan]

Hmm. In that case, that point for me came when I was 20. I was in school and didn't want to be. Didn't know which way I was going or why. Dropped out for a semester to just work, and take the time to figure out why. Ended up taking a year off because I got a bad back injury at my job. I discovered a lot about myself and others, and haven't stopped discovering.
When I got back into the university I took several philosophy and ethics courses which I found to be greatly amusing as well as educational. Amusing because of the number of people who signed up for a course and then took the material being taught as a personal attack. My favorite professor dared you on the first day. If you could figure out his personal ethics on the items discussed, you would automatically get an A. He was very, very good at presenting things in a completely nuetral way. It was my favorite class. But in all the classes, I really enjoyed just sitting back, watching and listening. People would really get going to defend their personal beliefs. They would completely forget that we were just learning what people in that past had said, not trying to say that they had to believe that way.
As for my faith, I allow that there are as many forms of faith as there are people. I required no one to follow mine, and that they offer me the same respect. I will discuss things, but can agree to disagree. The only thing that I cannot respect or tolerate is the belief that someone must be abused or that someone must be hurt for someone else to succeed. Note I said "must". I accept that these things happen in the course of life, but I do not in any way accept that they "must" deliberately to empower someone.
I know and accept that my faith doesn't cover everything and evolves as I learn. It has some basic tenets that most likely will not change, but I'm always open to learning. I know that sounds wishy washy but I'm not a wishy washy person. In fact I'm often told I'm very stubborn.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Kyrsyan

I know and accept that my faith doesn't cover everything and evolves as I learn. It has some basic tenets that most likely will not change, but I'm always open to learning. I know that sounds wishy washy but I'm not a wishy washy person. In fact I'm often told I'm very stubborn.

A functionaly valuable perspective, Krysan. We arrive at a point when we have a workable, functioning means to come to an answer that fits as well as any answers can fit. We acknowledge that we may not ever have all the answers, unless we leave unanswerable questions to a spiritual being.

GCSTroop, I'm thinking that your rather global experiences, esp. those in the Far East (Japan, etc.) probably opened your eyes and mind to alternate ways of thinking. It seem obvious to me from having read quite a few of your past posts, and having spent some time in Japan & Korea myself.

If we achieve some level of handling a new idea or concept, do we also become, as Krysan says, stubborn. Or at least perceived to be that way? As we realize that our mid-life tool-set generally doesn't let us down, do we thus have less patience for those who are quick to insult us, to dismiss our ideas just because they apparently can't adjust their ideas to our way of thinking?

I've been dismissively labelled stubborn and arrogant right here on C-D! Amazing, eh? I've therefore (usually) then gone off to a quiet corner of my mind, all whilst sipping on some spectacular single-barrel Bourbon (a philosophy all unto itself, actually...), to think it over. If I determine that I've been overly generalizing about something, or that my well-established think-speak has forced me to skip over some point of value, I (hopefully) wil re-adapt my thinking.

Of course, we do become set in our ways after a while. After we've adapted our thinking & reasoning paradigm, do we then kind of close the doors on any new ideas relating to key elements in our lives? We are, after all, only humans, right?

Do we all become stubborn old curmudgeons, reading off our well-established point-form philo-list, or does our hard-won philosophical paradigm actually generate a higher capability to deal with any and all newcomers to our minds? Do we ultimately all become arrogant and pompous about OUR knowledge, OUR philosophy of life, OUR spirituality?

And finally, how does your mindset deal with those who have possibly or obviously not spent enough time at all in thinking through anything? My visiting MiL today told me about her views about how the Earth formed and how life began. She's 94, and I rather quickly realized that I was listening to what her memory system had retained about a 1920's Sunday School version about life, which was obviously completely lacking in ANY scientific or even logical rigor.

That was hard to resist, but in the end I just smiled at her and said "Yep! Interesting theories!" What did impress me though was that I then imagined just how many folks out there actually use such fairy-tale thinking (...about whatever. Medicine, "Them new-fangled com-pew-turs!" iPods, Blackberries, politics, religion, etc. etc.). It left me a bit worried about our survival, which would seem to require at least some levels of critical thinking, no?

[Kyrsyan]

We acknowledge that we may not ever have all the answers, unless we leave unanswerable questions to a spiritual being.

That tends to be the source of the battleground for these discussions. I don't expect to have all the answers. Don't want to have all the answers.

If we achieve some level of handling a new idea or concept, do we also become, as Krysan says, stubborn. Or at least perceived to be that way?

Yes. But I am most often perceived of as stubborn when someone thinks that only their opinion counts and/or fails to recognize that my life experience may have taught me something different from theirs. I have a general rule for new situations that I can't get a handle on. I call three people I respect, and ask for their advice. I may or may not use it, but generally it gives me good starting points.

As we realize that our mid-life tool-set generally doesn't let us down, do we thus have less patience for those who are quick to insult us, to dismiss our ideas just because they apparently can't adjust their ideas to our way of thinking?

Depends on the person. Since I'm not always willing to adjust to their way of thinking why should I judge them because they can't adjust to my way of thinking? I don't know what lessons life has taught them anymore than they know what lessons it has taught me. And it would take years to get to know one another that well (if not more time). In fact I have several very old friends that still surprise me (and I surprise them) when new things come up because I thought I knew how they would respond and I was wrong (or right, but for the wrong reasons).

Of course, we do become set in our ways after a while. After we've adapted our thinking & reasoning paradigm, do we then kind of close the doors on any new ideas relating to key elements in our lives? We are, after all, only humans, right?
Do we all become stubborn old curmudgeons, reading off our well-established point-form philo-list, or does our hard-won philosophical paradigm actually generate a higher capability to deal with any and all newcomers to our minds? Do we ultimately all become arrogant and pompous about OUR knowledge, OUR philosophy of life, OUR spirituality?

We are only human. But I hope I don't close my mind to new ideas. I don't know everything and I'm no where near perfect. I hope I can always learn new things. But sometimes, when stress is high or I am tired, it's just not gonna happen. At those times I have to trust myself.

And finally, how does your mindset deal with those who have possibly or obviously not spent enough time at all in thinking through anything?

Who am I to say that they have or have not spent enough time on it? I generally respond like you did with you MIL. Now, if they try to force it down my throat, I tend to get nasty, politely. But I have no right to judge them or their life decisions unless they are deliberately harming another person, so generally I change the topic or walk away. (And before it starts a debate, I have personal reasons as to why harming another person deliberately is wrong and it's not a topic for here.)

[Kyrsyan]

(And before it starts a debate, I have personal reasons as to why harming another person deliberately is wrong and it's not a topic for here.)

Ok, I was in the middle of washing dishes and realized that this makes me sound like a complete pacifist. I'm not. Let me state that more accurately. I have personal reasons as to why harming a person deliberately for the purpose of self empowerment is wrong.