I agree with that too. I don't expect everyone to seek the same things in philosophy and indeed the analytical and logical aspects of the subject are of more interest to many than the metaphysical side. But my motivation has been different, I am interested in, and will try and represent to the best of my ability, the spiritual or 'pan-religious' side of the subject. And I am pleased to find that there is plenty in Western philosophy that supports this aspect of philosophy still.

And no, we are not 'alone', and we will never be if we are recognise we are 'all-one' - and the world we have made is very much one of our own creation. 'As you think, so you become'.

I started a thread more or less like this one some time ago.

What is the argument you obtain normally when you ask someone why isn't he or she (*) interested in philosophy? In my case, I've been answered most times that it is useless.

Would any kind of philosophy be of any use to someone who is completely satisfied about his way of living?

I guess philosophy (not history of philosophy) is sort of patrimony of the unsatisfied.

So I'll asume most people here thinks there must be something else/better... No matter wether he is religious or atheist or agnostic or...

What are you looking for?

And, why are you looking for it? Do you think there is some universal reason to take interest in philosophy (**)? Do you think mankind will evolve towards a philosophical way of understanding?

(*) I'll stick to the he from now on, I find this political correction tiresome and I assure you I don't intend to offend anybody. Being myself a "she", I guess it's ok.

(**) I mean: Is there any kind of pattern in the events that lead someone to take interest in philosophy?

If people think philosopy is useless, they'r immensly ignorent (utterly stupid) To ponder, to ask "why, how, when, if ..etc" is philosophy!

Philosophy and sience go hand in hand, without it we wouldn't have schools, navigation, hospitals, geometric, TV, hot water, the wheel ..etc, all evolved from philosophers who envisioned that there was more to life than a blunt stick and smelly armpits.

I agree. Philosophy is swell. Is questioning always philosophy? You say so. I say sometimes.

Wittgenstein tells us that philosophy is an activity, not a theory. It is not a set of truths, but it consists in the analysis and understanding of our basic concepts of thought and language. Sounds right to me.

It sounds wrong to me, with this 'activity' you can also produce a theory. If it's an activity alone ..it's just a waste of time or mere amusement for a party.

If it is an activity alone, it can produce clarification, and that may make us understand what we did not understand before the activity. Don't you think that is something useful? If, for example, we clarify the question, what is it for something to exist, we may be able to discover the answer.

You have to have a theory in order to produce clarification.

A theory about what?

Clarification about what?

Traditional Philosophy, I would say, is reasoned speculation about matters of ultimate concern.
Analytic Philosophy and logical positivism, I would say, is logical analysis about matters of trivial or limited concern.
At least it is clear which side of the fence I prefer.

Knowledge and morality are matters of trivial and limited concern? Hmm.

I do not think morality lends itself well to the verification principle.
Knowledge is justified belief? (read belief that can be verified) . Rather severely limits the concept of knowledge from my position but it is clear that our more basic worldviews are fundamentally quite different and most of our other philosophical differences arise from those more fundamental metaphysical disagreements.

Hear hear. Well said and I concur. This is why I am turning to traditional philosophies of various kinds, because I honestly believe that much modern, or should I say 20th century, philosophy, is actually anti-philosophy because it is based on the centrality of the ego. Your statement 'those who are capable of living virtuous lives' would be agreed to by philosophers of all creeds and cultures, yet it remain a hard task. But if it were not difficult, there would be no need for philosophy.

This is why I am turning to traditional philosophies of various kinds, because I honestly believe that much modern, or should I say 20th century, philosophy, is actually anti-philosophy because it is based on the centrality of the ego.

It is difficult to say exactly where 20th century philosophy became anti-philosophical. It seems to me to be the wholesale rejection of metaphysical approaches which was perpetrated by the logical positivists. Philosophy was dethroned at that historical moment (for some). Philosophy became the handmaiden of Queen Science rather than the other way around. Philosophy became merely the craft of making the statements of Science clear. (Again, for some)



The true Queen, Philosophy, lives in exile on some secret island of the human experience, I dare not say where, and but for a few loyal vassals, her favor among the people is very little indeed.