Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Living Philosophy

1.9k members • Free

10 contributions to Living Philosophy
Most people don‘t care about truth
We love to think that we value truth, but challenging core beliefs, like religion is often perceived as an attack on someones identity. This creates a situation where people tend to accept arguments that fit their existing narrative and reject those that challenge it, not necessarily because they‘re wrong but because they feel threatening. If that‘s the case, then many discussions aren‘t about finding the truth, but about maintaining a stable and comfortable worldview.
1 like • 20d
@Julian K interesting claim. what would you consider good evidence that science as a whole has been co-opted? and how would we distinguish between genuine bias and the normal self-correcting mechanisms withon science?
Do we actually need philosophy?
I've seen a lot of people claim that philosophy is a necessity in this modern day and age. But I have yet to see someone give a clear definition of what type of necessity they mean. It's not necessary for survival in the literal sense, so what do we need it for?
1 like • 23d
@Ostap Moroz you‘re defining „philosophy“ in a way broader sense than before. if you define philosophy as basic logical reasoning then of course it becomes necessary, but that makes the claim almost trivial. the original question was wether philosophy in a more meaningful sense (reflection, questioning frameworks, etc.) is necessary. stating that basic reasoning is necessary doesn‘t really answer that. it seems like the conclusion depends heavily on how broadly you define philosophy
0 likes • 22d
@Ostap Moroz you started by saying that philosophy is not necessary, but now you‘re saying that it can be necessary in some cases, preferable in others and that the term itself might be too strong. that seems to support my point. without clearly defining what ypu mean by „philosophy“ and „necessary“ the conclusion becomes unclear
Why do we need Philosophy?
These are my thoughts on the course "What makes Philosophy important": We need philosophy and I absolutely agree. And It's not taught in school as a general subject, because it probably incentives critical thinking too much. Being able to break down philosophical concepts allows us to break down ANY concept (in my opinion), many famous philosophers were also scientists, mathematicians and artists. Being a philosophers means discussing ideas with others, reflecting on you own worldview, thinking critically of mainstream narrative that the media and school try to convey. I believe that everyone should be a philosopher, yet very few today have the ability to. In ancient Greece, every citizen of Athens HAD TO be literate, informed and intelligent so they are to partake in discussions of judicial matters and town votes. The main message was that we all need to do what we want and for that, we have to first know what we want. And philosophy gives us the chance to immerse fully into that. We do need to be aware of not falling into the nihilistic side, where too much deep thinking sometimes makes you ultra-pessimistic. That's it, thanks for reading
0 likes • 23d
@Amin T.o. my main point of contention is with strength of the claim. if philosophy is defined so broadly that it includes any kind of thinking or implicit framework, then saying everyone engages in philosophy becomes trivial. in that case, i don‘t disagree, but it also doesn‘t show that philosophy is necessary in any meaningful sense. the stronger claim would be that reflecting or critical thinking with those frameworks is necessary for anything meaningful, and that‘s the part i don‘t see justified
0 likes • 22d
@Amin T.o. i‘m not denying that simple forms of thinking can fall under the definition of philosophy, just like counting can fall under mathematics. my point is that if you define philosophy so broadly that it includes any kind of thinking or implicit framework then saying it‘s „necessary“ becomes trivial. so the question isn‘t wether it counts as philosophy but wether that definition is meaningful for the claim being made. and if we move to a stronger definition, like explicit reflection or critical examination, then you‘ve already conceded that it‘s not necessary. so the original claim only holds in a trivial sense
The problem regarding acquisition of comfort.
It is unbelievable how convenient our world has become, compared to any mediaeval standards. Any mediaeval peasant could only dream of such convenience and general comfort of life. We do not have to worry about food, water, shelter, long cold winters. However in the process of that, we have lost the sense of life. There isn’t a fight for survival anymore. Hence, there isn’t anything that pushes a human for life. Our society has lost the meaning of life. In day-to-day rituals, in avoiding death in daily life, the traditions which lived for generations. Our life has become too easy. Not to forget, our bodies are made to survive the harshness and the ultimate cost for living on Terra, which has been taken away and never truly replaced. The amount of problems a mediaeval peasant had he one had to worry about, isn’t that far from what we today have. So, to compromise, our societies had to replace the problems we had to fight for everyday, once they have been largely solved. And indeed, humans have created new problems they have to deal with, in the place of surviving in the literal sense of that word. What does one have to do in this world? Is there a reason to exist for oneself? Any species have evolved for survival, including us, however when we have got rid of the need to survive, what is the purpose for existence? I am sure, that the primary cause of large anxiety and other mental health issues come from the lack of survival. Zoochosis is a term referred to captive animals, who because of the unnatural environment endure mental health issues, regarding the stereotypic behaviour they acquire. We are no different from the goal of existence of any other species, which is survival. Likewise, if we do not actively endure active threats to our survival, which tempers us for better ability to survive in that environment, we degradate. And in addition, when any species is put into a sterile, easy and comfortable environment, it may lead to severe mental health issues exactly regarding the lack of survival action. We are not an exception.
0 likes • 28d
I like this take but I disagree with some things. Yes, we have basically created a life in which we don't have to fight for survival and in which food and water are easily obtainable, but that doesn't mean that we're going to get mental health / psychological issues. Our primary meaning of life was never to find food, water and shelter (maybe only temporarily in some individual lifes). we find our meaning mostly in social interactions, stimulation and reproducing. I don’t think the zoochosis analogy fully supports your point, because the issue in captivity isn’t simply that animals no longer struggle to survive, but that their environments often lack the complexity and stimulation they evolved for. In well-designed environments, where animals can engage in natural behaviors and social structures, many actually live longer and healthier lives, which suggests that the problem isn’t the absence of survival pressure itself, but the absence of engagement. Translating that to humans, it’s not clear that we need “survival stress” specifically, but rather fulfilling social and mental environments. a low chronic stress life is what all animals tend toward and it has never been easier for any animal than for humans right now. activities can be beneficial, but are unlikely to give you a sufficient and long lasting meaning of life, as finding a partner, many close friends, appropriate stimulation and living with as little worry as possible seem to offer a more realistic basis for meaning than deliberately reintroducing hardship.
0 likes • 25d
@Vladyslàv Martỳnenko i think you’re shifting the discussion a bit. my point was about whether lack of survival pressure leads to a loss of meaning, not about spirituality or science. if you want to argue that meaning depends on spiritual belief, that’s a different claim but then you’d need to explain why that is the case, rather than just asserting it. that would be an interesting discussion
1-10 of 10
Thomas Williams
2
2points to level up
@thomas-williams-8148
Road to managing 1% of certain businesses in Germany

Active 6d ago
Joined Mar 20, 2026