I am not a philosopher to ask and answer the easy questions. But I am a counselor to help people with those easy questions that we often find very difficult.
Now, I’m not saying that it’s easy to counsel people who are having problems with these easy questions; that’s what makes counseling so great to me: because it’s difficult.
￼ Here, though, I making more a comment upon philosophy.￼￼￼
>> a side note: someone really needs to assasinate the person who applied block editing to WP:it is plain anmoying shit.lol
ok, back to actual sense…<<<
Indeed it may be difficult to sort out the meaning of the various answers that philosophers have given us for the easy questions. But the difficulty in sorting out how these answers have been laid out and organized in discourse does not mean that the answer is difficult; in fact, I would say that if one can discern which easy question a philosopher is attempting to answer before they read that philosophy, then it becomes much easier to sort through the difficult discourse in front of us.
But the difficult questions, by contrast, are the ones that really have the easiest answers.
But one of the philosophical problems that I see as significant is why people expect the easy question must necessarily be answered in a difficult way? ￼￼￼￼￼That is: why can’t the easy question have an easy answer?
It seems to me an inherent problem with how people understand Being. People expect significance to be gained through something that is very difficult to understand, so much so, that if you tell them how easy the question is, that is, tell them in a simple way, most often they will have difficulty hearing how simple it really is.
If we folllow my reasoning here, then you might see how I am pointing out that the great difficulty that people are having is usually answered simply, but they will not hear of it: They will hear the difficulty implicitly and inherent to the simple conveyance. They will usually see confusion and difficulty at all times, no matter how simply you give them the question or the answer.
Also, ironically, this is why I often seek out the difficult path….
It my small foray into understanding racial equity￼￼ The question of whiteness is interesting and instructive.
And if I might plug a beginners book on this topic, because I am little more than a beginner, and probably more prone to be a beginner because I am indeed a white man:
Robyn D’Angelo’s book “what does it mean to be white?” Is an excellent starting place for white people who cannot or have great difficulty understanding themselves as a racial being. One of the first tenants of racial equity is to get white people to understand that they themselvesare not merely a race because other people are racialized, for example, color, culture and creed that other groups have. It is difficult for someone who is identified through a category of absence to understand the substance of their category, because that substance is gained through other people’s’ “less value”.
But I’m not gonna go into the whole thing here. You can go read her book; it’s not very expensive and it’s very accessible.
The reason why I’m segueing between these two seemingly incompatible issues ￼￼￼￼￼￼ it’s because I was reminded in my undergraduate years of a department at the university of California at Santa Cruz, called “history of consciousness”. I remember taking a couple classes that were interesting to me on religion in the department and I had a totally different idea of what those classes would be about.
In short, the “history of consciousness” takes off from a pretty significantly deep understanding of consciousness which does not attempt to grant substance to what is essentially substance less Ness.
And the reason why, looking back￼￼￼￼￼￼, I think it was a kind of shock to me at the time, but as well why I think many people have mental issues that they need counseling for (At least the “lesser” kind of, shall I say￼, “amicable to the couch” kind of disorders, that is, not schizophrenia, for example), It’s because before those classes I definitely viewed consciousness as having a substance that was essentially me, constitutive of something that is essentially me as opposed to, shall we say, everything else￼,￼￼￼ eg Family, friends, work, world, school, grass, trees, planets, God– The mistake I was involved in before those classes began to work their magic on me was that I thought I was distinctly and essentially separate, sufficiently separate, from everything else to thereby have something that I, for lack of a better term, owned, that is indeed My Self.
For, the department called “the history of consciousness” centers consciousness in the manner that we know things, that we know of things, how we speak of things, how we view things.
Maybe I’ll elaborate some more in a little bit…￼￼￼￼ ￼