I disagree with most of the comments. I believe the article has great merit, which lies in its conclusion, but most would never make it that far.
For those who'd like the condensed version:
"you are confronted with the one philosophical problem that no book or tradition or teaching can ever know or solve; being you, in your world."
What the article says is that philosophy is not very useful to an individual, which, having failed to gain any relevant insights from raw philosophy myself, I agree with.
However, I would argue that the application of raw philosophy in stories, like Crime and Punishment or The Stranger or Arrival or Romeo and Juliet, is what makes philosophy useful––being able to see it applied in a relatable character's existence, not unlike our own, with the requisite cause and effect chains. Ay, there's the rub.
I have gained great insights from stories that make excellent use of philosophy–through its application. It could be argued that great works of fiction follow from new developments in raw philosophy. Both fiction and philosophy play in the space of universal truths.
I also liked the article's critique of Western philosophy as being too analytical and divorced from real life. Apparently that wasn't always the case in the ancient world and philosophy had more practical application, which probably explains the revival of Stoicism lately as well.
A good starter book on the Stoics that also reinterprets the ancient lessons for the modern age:
I wonder if Stoicism's rise is also related to organized religion's decline and society's increasing secularization, since both Stoicism and organized religion give concrete guidelines on how you go about your day-to-day.
Western philosophy has been divorced from real life for quite a while, and Stoicism's rise seems relatively young comparatively.
I've always thought that the revival of Stoicism is because 20th century philosophy messed with our heads to such an extent that we were left with an empty husk of our former selves, like ghosts floating in a meaningless world, and all we could do was laugh at ourselves to exhaustion lest we commit suicide.
No, I think it's a reaction against the new-agey types that pick up stuff so often from Eastern philosophical and religious traditions. Basically it's new-agey stuff for people that would never be willing to conceive of themselves as anything like a new-agey person.
"[T]he requisite cause and effect chains"? But don't Eastern philosophies deny cause and effect, as an implication of denying non-contradiction? (For denial of non-contradiction, see Buddhist "four-cornered truth.")
For those who'd like the condensed version:
"you are confronted with the one philosophical problem that no book or tradition or teaching can ever know or solve; being you, in your world."
What the article says is that philosophy is not very useful to an individual, which, having failed to gain any relevant insights from raw philosophy myself, I agree with.
However, I would argue that the application of raw philosophy in stories, like Crime and Punishment or The Stranger or Arrival or Romeo and Juliet, is what makes philosophy useful––being able to see it applied in a relatable character's existence, not unlike our own, with the requisite cause and effect chains. Ay, there's the rub.
I have gained great insights from stories that make excellent use of philosophy–through its application. It could be argued that great works of fiction follow from new developments in raw philosophy. Both fiction and philosophy play in the space of universal truths.