I like all this. Don't like in believing deeper in it though. That would be restricting and not worth it. Like having Fancy's Flames of Love forever.

As distraction even Alan Watts may be ok. Getting 10-20% of it internalized is probably the max though. But all great men have some BS percentages needed to be cut out.

Really- if you all have a case against Watts, you'd be able to elevate your mockery to satire. I call all your bluffs. The anti-philosophy posters should have empirical evidence to support trolling of philosophy threads with mockery absent informative content. Please proceed. LMAO.

I may take the challenge.

ToothSayer is mentally ill, and Plaaynde is a joke. What do you expect to gain by taking either of them seriously?

Even though the chips are invisible and may or may not have an infinite amount, I went all-in. Busy as ****. But I can make time daily for applied philosophy and expressions of humanism.

And you are a nerd. Team up.

What's your opinion on Zeno? So we get the Watts triumvirate covered.

I'm not very. Uh, serious about "them" at all. I'm skeptical of mental illness jokes. I'm present for ideas. And thread topic in general. It applies to self-knowledge thinking, as individual parts of wholes and so on and so forth.

I'm not very certain of gaining from being actually serious about ideas on the whole, but it does seem that the whole of ideas includes the parts which one may become serious about for gains.

That is what I gained posting. Thanks for asking. I avoid expectations except intentionally. I avoid taking expectations seriously on the whole. I don't know what to expect now , seriously.
It's great. Let expectations go. Very Wattsian approach as it roots back to present-tense thinking as of the branches derived in English from classical "eastern philosophy".

You?

I am a strict adherent to the philosophy of Christmas Humphreys, prosecutor of Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and Timothy Evans. My mother's partner had him as a trial judge once, and received (a comparatively lenient) 18 months.

It's good to be skeptical of Watts and of anyone, and to take with you only that which resonates with you. Watts does present his ideas in an emotionally appealing manner; and that does draw skepticism.

The common belief amongst scientists is that presenting your ideas in this way is only ever for the purpose of obfuscating the truth. Yet, if you're much of a reader of philosophy you'll know that philosophy treats truth differently to science. The school of thought in which Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Camus and Watts belong to, treat it more akin to poetry and art. They do not use philosophy as a pragmatic or analytic tool like science; knowing full well the limitations of such an approach. This is often lost on many.

Camus, for example, who is one of the most recent of these philosophers writes extensively on why philosophy should not be used in a scientific manner and why the opposing approach is more fruitful. He explains, for example, the absurdity of the human condition: the endless conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning*in life and the inability to find any. He explains the futility of scientific endeavour in the face of the infinite and endlessly paradoxical.

Progress for the sake of progress, yet all this is irrelevant if you, for example, cant find a reason to answer yes to the question of - should i live in this world? Irrelevant, with awareness that as much as things change, they stay the same - the bad still needs to give definition to the good. The game may change, it may be more refined or sophisticated; yet the underlying duality between positive and negative will never change, only it's appearance.

Camus refocuses our attention on the personal and non-falsifiable questions in life, to which philosophy is more suited, and for which an analytic approach is inadequate and misleading. Treating truth as a target may not be the only way to get at truth.

Oddly enough, reading Camus and Nietzsche has helped me understand Watts' approach far better than reading Watts. The Myth of Sisyphus in particular. Highly recommended.

IMO, Camus is worth reading and not just for his literary merit and storytelling abilities. I think The Plague is the best of his books. His philosophic exploration of the human condition has merit and insight.

But this brings into focus the main disconnect and the misleading and misunderstanding inherent in this thread. And that is the dividing line between science (in the empiricist tradition and with its set and critical methodology) and what answers science can give and what is under its purview to provide answers to. Philosophy just so is a different beast. In a strict sense science does not, nor is it suppose to, provide answers about meaning to the universe, your personal existence, or human life in general or why are humans “here” - Beyond the physical laws and evolutionary theories about life. The “why am I here” question of that every kid of six asks his parents is not under the purview of Science.

Bluntly, there is a separation between science and philosophy. Where that separation line or blurred boundary is and what it actually entails and means is a contentious issue that is endlessly debated. Sides are drawn up and each thinks the other has less merit. It is also a way for weasels to wedge in and start in with what I term the Deepak Chopra syndrome. Where boundaries blur the charlatans have a perfect place to wedge in whatever nonsense sells books, makes you feel good, or strokes they own egos or to start a following. Evidence of this abounds. And it is endless.

I'm not on the list at all?

Oh, wait. As Zeno has mentioned, I'm the weasel. Never mind.

Sure.

But...a focus on finding charlatanism can blind us to some important insights or ideas. And that's fine, they're not for everyone; it's just difficult to build a constructive dialogue with someone of that disposition.

What is amazing though, is that science has provided partial answers to many of the questions of philosophy, far better than philosophy ever has. And it's not even close in that contest.

VeeDDzz has me completely backward. I'm strongly against science type thinking going any further than its very narrow bounds. I think Watts is a brainless zombie because I love philosophy, not because I love science.
They rope in science to give their horrible philosophy - that a child would laugh at as obvious nonsense - a veneer of credibility and mystique and deniability. And people lap it up. It's weird. Even there, science helps, amazingly. If VeeDDzz had studied some of the hard sciences, he would drop Watts in a heartbeat; he's an obvious zombie to intelligent minds.

The insecurity endures.

So you suck at both philosophy and psychology. What's left?

Dozens of posts of personal attacks by feather-ruffled Watts fanbois, but not a SINGLE quote of something he said that's praiseworthy. Incredible. At this point I can only conclude that none such exists, and he's a religious/cult figure to you rather than a mere philosopher with ideas.

He's selling certainty and an easy way out to the stupid, and they're buying.

[My Bold]

You are on everyone's list. Mostly their hate list I would assume. And they are just more afraid of you than me. I'm too nice, playing the duel role has its disadvantages. I need to rearrange my priorities.

There are good weasels and there are bad weasels. You veer toward the good. Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Chez veers towards the bad, and his priorities became skewed. Too much Kurtosis in his veins.

We are not all going to get along. It would be boring as hell if we did. And SMP would die like a whimper instead of bang along like a gong.

Why are we here? Think science may put that right too with time, it'll just feel natural to be here.

Yes, I've been duped by smooth talking charlatans as usual. It happens unfortunately, especially when you dont study hard science or do some arbitrary combination of x, y, z or lack something like intelligence or x, y, z.

Feeling better now?

I'm here because my parents ****ed. Something to do with oxytocin and friction.

My highly scientific guesstimate is that you are here for similar reasons.

I've always been here. Where else could I be?

Asking - why am I here - implies you could be somewhere else...where?

No separation.

Your scientism is showing.

I am here. You are there. One of us could be in Cleveland, I guess.

It'll feel being the wrong question to ask. Because there's no alternative.

Why am I in this life situation? That can be fruitful to think about, if done properly.

Maybe these two are mixed up?