Bill, the Philosopher
I never understood what philosophers did all day. To me, it seemed like people were wasting a lot of time. This changed two weeks ago. I pondered the topic, “Why are we here,” and did an internet search. Surprisingly, the question had already been vetted by philosophers. Really? Is that what philosophers do?
So, I wondered what they came up with and downloaded a few free philosophy books to get some background on the topic. I quickly realized I did not know the basics of philosophy, which is the detailed study of thought and an attempt to answer big questions.
The more I read, the more I wanted to learn, but I ran into a big problem. Philosophy books fall into two categories. The first begins with, “In year X, the great philosopher Y said Z,” and each chapter has different Xs, Ys, Zs. The second type of book answered “life’s biggest questions,” with each chapter tackling one question. The answers are supreme philosopher one said X, supreme philosopher two said… I found the result to be not universally accepted doctrines but chaotic history lessons.
To me, it seemed like there were distant targets, and philosophy experts were wildly shooting arrows at it. Because they could not clearly see the target, they claimed, “Look, I hit something.”
Why did so many great visionaries miss? In my opinion, philosophers got hung up on religion, on methods for proving their points, and on unnecessary/unrelated tangents like mathematics. Plus, they diverged into strange pseudoscience areas like numerology, mythology, astrology, or folklore. The result was that each philosopher developed a system that had many holes and was incompatible with other philosophers’ systems.
Granted, from my brief dive into the topic, I gained some helpful knowledge and could see the value in further study. A good example is these two gems: “Until we stop fearing death, we cannot enjoy life.” “Don’t figure out the right solution. Instead, figure out the right question.” A lot of wisdom in those words.
Another area I appreciated was the philosophical approach. Like engineering, philosophers developed a logical problem-solving method. It started with taking a step back, organizing the information, and undergoing a methodical approach.
I know we (humans) do not have all the answers, but I had expected that we would be much closer by now. At least there would be a universal philosophical outlook or some commonly accepted ground. Nope. We have only different flawed approaches.
Now, wait. We used to have all kinds of flawed ideas about chemistry, mathematics, language, and history. However, scholars came together and developed universal terms and official rules. The result was accepted, and users/teachers/experts continue to improve their discipline. So why haven’t philosophers done the same with universally accepted philosophical principles? I think the differences between the many approaches are too great. I also think the existing philosophical work is not good enough to build a solid foundation.
Are we on the right track? From my reading, I concluded no. Philosophers got stuck on details without building a solid foundation. I find this circumstance odd because philosophers write thousands of well-researched papers every year. It is also apparent that when somebody tries to come up with something new, they get ridiculed.
What does philosophy have to do with writing? Motivation and logic. Why did Sally do X? Understanding the basics of philosophy improves my ability to define and describe character motivation. Why? To provide proper motivation, an author requires a logical foundation for their character’s reasoning. Reading about philosophy is helping me in this area, but I still have a long way to go before considering myself a philosopher.
You’re the best -Bill
August 25, 2021 Updated January 19, 2026
So, I wondered what they came up with and downloaded a few free philosophy books to get some background on the topic. I quickly realized I did not know the basics of philosophy, which is the detailed study of thought and an attempt to answer big questions.
The more I read, the more I wanted to learn, but I ran into a big problem. Philosophy books fall into two categories. The first begins with, “In year X, the great philosopher Y said Z,” and each chapter has different Xs, Ys, Zs. The second type of book answered “life’s biggest questions,” with each chapter tackling one question. The answers are supreme philosopher one said X, supreme philosopher two said… I found the result to be not universally accepted doctrines but chaotic history lessons.
To me, it seemed like there were distant targets, and philosophy experts were wildly shooting arrows at it. Because they could not clearly see the target, they claimed, “Look, I hit something.”
Why did so many great visionaries miss? In my opinion, philosophers got hung up on religion, on methods for proving their points, and on unnecessary/unrelated tangents like mathematics. Plus, they diverged into strange pseudoscience areas like numerology, mythology, astrology, or folklore. The result was that each philosopher developed a system that had many holes and was incompatible with other philosophers’ systems.
Granted, from my brief dive into the topic, I gained some helpful knowledge and could see the value in further study. A good example is these two gems: “Until we stop fearing death, we cannot enjoy life.” “Don’t figure out the right solution. Instead, figure out the right question.” A lot of wisdom in those words.
Another area I appreciated was the philosophical approach. Like engineering, philosophers developed a logical problem-solving method. It started with taking a step back, organizing the information, and undergoing a methodical approach.
I know we (humans) do not have all the answers, but I had expected that we would be much closer by now. At least there would be a universal philosophical outlook or some commonly accepted ground. Nope. We have only different flawed approaches.
Now, wait. We used to have all kinds of flawed ideas about chemistry, mathematics, language, and history. However, scholars came together and developed universal terms and official rules. The result was accepted, and users/teachers/experts continue to improve their discipline. So why haven’t philosophers done the same with universally accepted philosophical principles? I think the differences between the many approaches are too great. I also think the existing philosophical work is not good enough to build a solid foundation.
Are we on the right track? From my reading, I concluded no. Philosophers got stuck on details without building a solid foundation. I find this circumstance odd because philosophers write thousands of well-researched papers every year. It is also apparent that when somebody tries to come up with something new, they get ridiculed.
What does philosophy have to do with writing? Motivation and logic. Why did Sally do X? Understanding the basics of philosophy improves my ability to define and describe character motivation. Why? To provide proper motivation, an author requires a logical foundation for their character’s reasoning. Reading about philosophy is helping me in this area, but I still have a long way to go before considering myself a philosopher.
You’re the best -Bill
August 25, 2021 Updated January 19, 2026
