Integration of your philosopical outlook with your day to day life

Idioteque

Hi,

I would be interested to hear peoples' thoughts on the below 'rambling'. If possible, could you suggest some reading which you feel covers some of the below questions or contains a similar theme. I don't have much of a philosophical background other than an interest in it and so am looking to further my reading.


It is very difficult in todays society to have the ability to have a true philosophical outlook, to 'practise what you think' and at the same time, live within in the material constraints of day to day life.
If you take someone who has read many philosopical works and as such has a brodened knowledge of different thinkers and their perspectives on life, I believe that that person will have a more balanced and less superficial outlook, something which can only be for the better. However, I also believe that it is difficult to live in day to day life whilst also being true to yourself. You can learn to control your emotional instinctive response to situations, but ultimatly you need to 'confrom' at some point or to not so rigoursly hold your flag so high. With this in mind, I also believe that the key to true philosophical awareness, is to learn to live in the balance between the two.i.e A life guided by philosopical contemplation and a life governed by societies 'norms' How do we decide on this balance? is it something individual or is it a common line(fence?) upon which we should all strive to stand(sit). Where is this metephorical line drawn? at what point does something become no longer a neccessity but a materialistic want?
There are only so many of us that can life successfully from philosophy, must the others dissappear of in to some far coner of the world like Tibet and meditate on the unjustness within modern day society - surely not, so how do you attain the balance? as by deduction, if one does not attain this balance, surely we are merely alluding ourselves to the fact that we are picking and choosing our philosopical moral ground.

Thanks.

Pocari Sweat

Have a read of Bertrand Russell - "History of Western Philosphy". Try Kant and Nietsche for deeper tackle. Nietsche is a bit tongue in cheek as well as serious at the same time, but funny none the less.

Jung is a bit philosophical but more of a psychology bod. But apart from philoshophy and psychology try a bit of Michael Moore to broaden yer scope of real life / politics than getting too far into floss, he gets up the noses of materialistic republican america.

Maybe also a spot of biogs, Ghandi, Mandela. All inspirational stuff.

Laplandman

This is what you might call an ethical question. Unless a person feels his intellectual convictions are indissociable from their very being (and as a rule these people are insane) I would say that compromise is inevitable, thats life.
As for reading, I recommend Aesop's Fables.

DublinWriter

Idioteque wrote:

There are only so many of us that can life successfully from philosophy, must the others dissappear of in to some far coner of the world like Tibet and meditate on the unjustness within modern day society

That's why I practise Mahayana Buddhism. Small daily acts of kindness and compassion that lead to a greater mindfulness.

I'd give you several examples from the past week, but I'd only end up sounding like a self-congratulatory Boy Scout on Bob-a-Job week.

The Buddah travelled around India before his famous tree sitting episode studying many famous Hindi holy men (Yogis!). Most showed their Holiness by acts of self-discipline such as holding their arm in the air for years on end, or practising starvation.

Needless to say, he wasn't that impressed.

Neuro

Idioteque wrote:

It is very difficult in todays society to have the ability to have a true philosophical outlook, to 'practise what you think' and at the same time, live within in the material constraints of day to day life.

I believe the primary constraints by which we live our lives are psychological and social, not material.

Idioteque wrote:

If you take someone who has read many philosopical works and as such has a brodened knowledge of different thinkers and their perspectives on life, I believe that that person will have a more balanced and less superficial outlook, something which can only be for the better.

It depends what you mean by 'better' - if by better you mean happier, I think you're incorrect since truth, or a better approximation of it, more often than not undermines our comforting illusions. If by better you mean having a more accurate mental model of the world and how it works, then I would agree that philosophy does make you a better person. For a more in depth discussion of metaphilosophy, that is, the purpose of philosophy, see Metaphilosophy & Free Will.

Idioteque

Thank's everyone for your input and also reading suggestions.

Doctor Fell

No offence to the previous poster, but not Michael Moore, please! He's not objective , just very emotional. If you want a truly objective and truthful account of the world today I strongly recommend Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: the conquest of the middle east." It really will give you a new persepctive on the workings of this world. Some shocking stuff in there too. Bit of a long read, but definitely worth it - I really think it should be the sort of history taught in schools.

Also, my favourite book of all time - "The Rebel" by Camus. It's on the nature of human rebellion and nature, and its not too philospohically heavy. Brilliant stuff I think. And of course, "The Republic" by Plato!

Black Swan

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (translated by Fitzgerald) has merit for reducing stress in one's daily life. It makes for good reading under that favorite tree between you and the person who means most to you. And as suggested in poem, you should bring along some laughter, bread and wine.

DadaKopf

Also, my favourite book of all time - "The Rebel" by Camus. It's on the nature of human rebellion

Wow, there's a blast from the past. This was the second philosophical work I ever read - I lapped up every page. I read Camus' 'The Outsider' just before it. Afterwards, I read nearly everything he wrote. As a teenager, I found it very exciting and empowering.

Since then, I've deviated from existentialism, but keep coming back to Camus tangentially for other reasons, mainly work-related. By the end of my philosophy degree, I had developed a dislike for Sartre's philosophy but a great respect for Merleau-Ponty, Derrida, Ricoeur, Adorno, Habermas, Foucault, Zizek, Wittgenstein, but also back to Kant, Hegel, Dilthey and Spinoza. But also political and social theorists like Gramsci, Rawls, Castells etc.

The year I finished, I didn't know what do to, but eventually decided the only thing for me would be to put my interests to practical use. So now I'm working in the development sector, doing what I can to get rid of poverty and exploitation in the developing world. I'm also into graphic design, particularly when it comes to representing the developing world in print. So, for me, my philosophy has both informed my ethical outlook and my career path. Philosophy is very important to me, and it always comes in very useful when looking at issues and problems. For example, post-modernist thinkers I learned about reminds me that there are multiple ways to see the world, and my own vision is only one of billions - this reminds me to respect differences of worldview because other people have as much right to theirs as I do to mine.

As for books, important ones for me have been:

• Paolo Friere - Pedagogy of the Oppressed
• Various - The Continental Aesthetics Reader
• Richard Kearney - Modern Movements in European Philosophy and The Wake of Imagination
• Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer - The Dialectic of Enlightnment
• Greil Marcus - Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century
• Marshall Sahlins - What is Anthropological Enlightenment?
• Various journal articles by Hilary Putnam, Robert Cox, Immanuel Wallerstein

A possibly world-changing book I'm currently reading is 'Multitude' by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. In this book, they lay out a radically new analysis of globalisation and map out a possible future world of true global democracy and justice. Their contention is that globalisation - or 'Empire' - is not a single thing but a ‘tendency’ in the world which is supported by the creation of a permanent state of war in which all areas of life are politicised. While globalisation is connected with the 'biopoliticisation' of all forms of life through its new strategy of accumulation and control, it's also generating a demand for democracy of a type that has never emerged before. The possibility for true radical global change, they say, has never been so necessary nor so possible before. I'm critical of some of the things they have to say, but it's an amazing mix of philosophical, political, social and literary theory. It brings everything together. Their first book, Empire, is available on the web in PDF format if you google for it.

GoldieBear

My personal philosophy is what I call 'negative positivism' (i actually dont know if this is an actual recognised form of philosophy or not so if anyone can recommend reading material around this topic i'd be most grateful indeed).

Basically my view consists of looking at the worst possible outcome to everything so you wont be hurt when something dosent go according to plan. you are prepared in a way from failure and it doesent hurt as much when it happens. however if you look totally on the positive, the jolt down to earth when something goes wrong can hurt quite a bit and dent the ego. Despite the negative tones of my personal philosophy i feel that it has stood me well as i'm quite a happy person (well i like to think i am!).

Neuro

GoldieBear wrote:

Basically my view consists of looking at the worst possible outcome to everything so you wont be hurt when something dosent go according to plan. you are prepared in a way from failure and it doesent hurt as much when it happens. however if you look totally on the positive, the jolt down to earth when something goes wrong can hurt quite a bit and dent the ego. Despite the negative tones of my personal philosophy i feel that it has stood me well as i'm quite a happy person (well i like to think i am!).

Your outlook brings to mind the philosophy of the Stoics:

"How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life!" - Marcus Aurelius

Bodhidharma

Interesting topic! I like it.

I believe that it is possible to integrate your philosophical outlook with your day to day life. The key word being YOUR. Reading the past responses i notice that a lot of people are quoting other philosophers. The key to philosophy (In my humble opinion) is to arrive at YOUR own view. Referreing to the great writers is helpful in gaining a broader world view but ultimately you need to make your own "Philosophy".

This sounds terrbily pretensious but i would describe my own philosophy as Zen Existentialism. I take what i want from the various topics and see what is important to me. I find no difficulty in integrating my philosophy into everyday life because it is fluid and constantly evolving.

I think too many people are eager to classify the way you think and live. Its personal, it should be idiosyncratic.

GoldieBear

Neuro wrote:

Your outlook brings to mind the philosophy of the Stoics:

"How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life!" - Marcus Aurelius

i'm going to do a bit of research on them and im looking forward to learning more on this. Thanks!

DadaKopf

Bodhidharma wrote:

Interesting topic! I like it.

I believe that it is possible to integrate your philosophical outlook with your day to day life. The key word being YOUR. Reading the past responses i notice that a lot of people are quoting other philosophers. The key to philosophy (In my humble opinion) is to arrive at YOUR own view. Referreing to the great writers is helpful in gaining a broader world view but ultimately you need to make your own "Philosophy".

This sounds terrbily pretensious but i would describe my own philosophy as Zen Existentialism. I take what i want from the various topics and see what is important to me. I find no difficulty in integrating my philosophy into everyday life because it is fluid and constantly evolving.

I think too many people are eager to classify the way you think and live. Its personal, it should be idiosyncratic.

Being a slave to dogma isn't good, but I think it helps to relate one's own views to others' who put the hard work in because otherwise, you lose connection to humanity.