Do you agree to this statement I heard yesterday : ...?

Question: Do you agree to this statement I heard yesterday : !.!.!.!?

!.!.!.!. " Philosophy is only for those who are full "

Please, explain your opinion!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Of course!.!.!.there's only so much we can take from the world around us!.!.!.from physical substance and solid information the world knows!.

But once that's taken and done!.!.!.digested even!. What's there left to 'eat'
Philosophy is just that fodder!.!.!.so to speak!.
It feeds the mind and soul that is already 'full' of what the world has to feed it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

This raises a very similar issue to that of a quote that I had to discuss a while back:
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied!. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question!. The other party to the comparison knows both sides!." - Mill, J!.S!. (1863) "Utilitarianism"

I think I wrote about 4 pages at the time, but if I fix it up to fit your question I think I can summarise it as:

If you are bothering to do philosophy, you cannot be full!. The process of thinking about one's environment is confined to those who always seek further knowledge - whose curiosity and hunger will cause them never to cease their quest to know!. On the other hand, those who are full have no drive - no interest in bettering their lot or that of mankind in general!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

This is usually said by those who feel somewhat foreign to the kind of discussions philosophy involves!.

There are two different meanings here!. Firstly, that a philosophy discussion or pursuit can not be accorded any higher priority than the necessities of life!. Secondly, that the pursuit of philosophy can not provide for a living!.

Both implications are true, but that only proves to me that the pursuit of philosophy is a far higher order endeavor than mere survival which even all animals and other beings know how to cater to!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Philosophy is for everyone, yet only those who seek knowledge, truth and the meaning of the philosophical spectrum and want to contribute, or get some meaning out of it, will truly appreciate it, understand it and contribute to it as well as get some good out of it!.
It's for everyone, yet if one is ignorant and arrogant, they will never truly appreciate it!.

I wish everyone was into philosophy!.
World would most likely be a way better place!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I think this statement suggests that philosophy is only for those with the luxury of having what they need to survive and therefore have the time or inclination to ponder the mysteries of thought and existence!. I don't agree however!. I believe most people at some time or another question the meaning of their lives specifically, or life generally, whether or not their life involves a daily struggle for subsistence or not!. Philisophy might well be even more important for those who struggle daily!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If you did correctly hear the statement with the word "FULL", then I'm sure it came from a witty guy!. And it's 100% perfect observation!. Philosophy is not for the 'incomplete' guys!.
If you did hear incorrectly the above statement with the word "FOOL", then I'm sure it came from a witty comedian!. In that case, no comments from my end!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

True!.

http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Abraham_Mas!.!.!.

'Maslow saw human beings' needs arranged like a ladder!. The most basic needs, at the bottom, were physical -- air, water, food, sex!. Then came safety needs -- security, stability -- followed by psychological, or social needs -- for belonging, love, acceptance!. At the top of it all were the self-actualizing needs -- the need to fulfill oneself, to become all that one is capable of becoming!. Maslow felt that unfulfilled needs lower on the ladder would inhibit the person from climbing to the next step!.'

'Maslow theorized that unfulfilled cognitive needs can become redirected into neurotic needs!. For example, children whose safety needs are not adequately met may grow into adults who compulsively hoard money or possessions [2]!. Unlike other needs, however, neurotic needs do not promote health or growth if they are satisfied!.'

Www@QuestionHome@Com

Philosophy truly speaking is about deliberations about "Nothingness" or about a "vacuum"!. But when you talk about philosophy, you should fill in that vacuum with lot of sobriety, nobility, sacredness, sanctity, piousness, auspiciousness, freshness, purity, perfection, Peace, Happiness, Justice, Knowledge, etc!. etc!. When you talk philosophy with such a moral, intellectual and spiritual background in your mind, it will look good!. It is beneficial for the thirsty disciples!.

On the contrary, if you want to talk about the same subject of philosophy for the sake of gaining popularity, or for the sake of accumulating more wealth, it is of no use!. These days I am finding lot of people who practice philosophy for filling their belly!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I would disagree - Philosophy is only for those who are hungry for knowledge!.

Simply Put - It introduces Questions that cannot be answered; then an answer of a question will introduce atleast 2, then repeat the cycle!.

We're just like donkeys who don't give up on chasing our own tails!. (We can feel/sense it but we can never reach it)Www@QuestionHome@Com

I tend to agree with this statement!.

Philosophy and morality both are luxuries which cannot be practiced on an empty stomach!. Try feeding them to a beggar, if you don't believe me!!! He will definitely tell you keep your precious words and hand him the change!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Full or fool!? If it's only for fool people, then it's a nonsense as philosophy means love of knowledge, so!.!.!. u get me!.!.!. Full I'm not sure what means in this context, but, anyway, the philosophy is for everybody!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'm agree with this statement!. "full" means person who have a rich inner world, who highly educated, who can judge about different things
surrounding us (I mean music, poetry, history etc!.)!. Only that person can be philosopher!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!.

Philosophy is for those who want to be full but know they will always be empty!. It is not wet you know that matters but what you question!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Sounds like the sentence or saying isn't finished!.!.!.as in " full of S*** "
if that's the case, it may make more sense, but do I agree !?!.!.!.well, not really
Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes, you arent going to ponder the meaning of life if you are wondering where your next meal is coming from!. its a luxury to do that!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

"Empty vessels are always noisy"

If it is full then you will be brimming with ideas !.

Clap your hands !

You cannot hear noise from brimming vessel!
Www@QuestionHome@Com

Philosophy is not for hungry!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Full!? of what!? ; )Www@QuestionHome@Com

!.!.!.of wisdom and and open mind!.!.!.

they missed this at the end, i feel!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com