top of page

The Rubinshteinic Guide to Being Friends With Philosophers

Updated: Feb 9

A young man looking angrily.

When you desire to be friends with philosophers, there are certain things you may want to take into consideration. Keeping these insights in mind will help you avoid unnecessary stigmas that will cloud your judgment, and are unfortunately common when interacting with philosophers.


You may find that you may hold these thoughts and view them as truth just because they are convincing impressions. Furthermore, these stereotypical impressions may be regarded by yourself as truth even after a long period of knowing your philosopher friend.


Unfortunately, these stereotypes are here to stay due to emotions being involved and interfering with one's judgment.

It is often difficult to distinguish between the mind and the heart when interacting with a philosopher because much of philosophy is basically verbal logic, and verbal communication is not without emotionality being involved, unnecessarily or otherwise.


It isn't to say that philosophers are necessarily emotionless verbal logic machines. However, the competent philosopher, unlike many people, does not live in the mindset of post-truth.


Post-truth, in an age of misinformation, is a very common part of many people's mentality. It is considered humble to say "that's my opinion, anyways" or relate anything to our personal opinion and experiences, as far more important than the truth. Modesty, however, may be a barrier, but I digress from my main point.


My main point is that it isn't the case with philosophers, and as such, they may even undermine their own sentiments in the name of reality. It also means that they may even undermine yours, despite respecting you and seeing you as an equal.


You, however, who lives in post-truth, may feel insulted by them putting your post-truths in lower priority. You might feel compelled to be intimidated, and thus begin to insult them. Begin to regard them as arrogant, as narcissists. All because your emotions weren't as considered as you hoped them to be.


For that matter, you may even find that your overall personal experience has been undermined in the name of them trying to understand reality. However, you might not be aware of their intentions (AKA, trying to understand reality). And this could be a quick downward spiral towards anger, frustration, and false impressions.


Philosophers can be very blunt beings, saying the truth without sugarcoating it. A good philosopher can criticize anything they have enough knowledge about. It's one of the reasons I wrote many articles. As such, they may undermine societal norms because norms are not meant to be criticized. They meant to be obeyed as if they were laws. Since they are not laws, the philosopher shouldn't have problems with, you know, doing what they naturally and/or professionally do.


So, it would only be natural that they will criticize you, their friend. They may even criticize you in a way that you will deem harsh, while they do not. For them, criticizing is a basic function. For you, it may be hurtful.


Logic is merciless, in a way. It's either that you are something or you aren't. Correct, or incorrect. Post-truth is not the concern of logic, and post-truth prioritizes the subjective experience over the truth that exists independently of it. Philosophers choose logic over subjective experience because logic is a better asset to understand reality. It allows us to have certainty wheras faith and intuition may require a leap of faith and nothing more.


It isn't because of ad-hominem nonsense such as being narcissists, psychopaths, and other unverified mental conditions you might think they have just because it feels that way in your eyes. Do you see how post-truth fails to recognize the truth? Whether someone is a narcissist, for example, has nothing to do with how you see things. It has to do with whether they actually are, or not, based on the symptoms they display. Along with other methods, of course.


So here, when I may say that some perceptions are irrelevant, it is not to insult you or to disregard you, but because your post-truth is not sufficient to determine whether someone is a narcissist, psychopath, etc. You have no reason to be insulted even if you feel compelled to be. It just goes to show how merciless logic is. And since reality is built on logic, AKA objective meaning, then reality is quite merciless, yes.


Philosophy is a logical tool one can use to understand reality through verbal means. You may find that people who lack emotion may be interested in it, but it does not say by itself that all philosophers are heartless, potential serial-killers with no scrap of empathy.


You just need to understand that philosophers are conditioned to prioritize logic over post-truth as part of their jobs. Some self-described philosophers may be pretentious because their arguments are impaired by their emotional problems. They may see certain things as more or less than they are because their emotions heavily bias them towards a certain position, thus making their arguments poor.

And you can't be considered a good philosopher if your arguments are poor, correct? So, the good philosopher needs to work and solve their emotional problems, just as I have done with mine over the years.

It is false to throw the responsibility of your emotional problems onto others. If your emotions are out of proportion, you need to work on them regardless of the triggers they may cause you. One of the reasons I'm against trigger warnings is because one can work on the problems that cause them these triggers in the first place. A world filled with trigger warnings could discourage people from working on their emotional problems.


So if words like "whine", "grow up" and so on may trigger you, taking care of your emotional problems will help others, including philosophers, communicate with you better without needing to walk on eggshells.


Because we might whine and we might need to grow up mentally even if we're in our 40's or 50's. As I said, logic can be merciless. Because the philosopher may criticize you for whining. They may even tell you that you need to grow up regardless of your age. Their criticism does not necessarily come from a desire to assert their dominance.


I've decided that I will not accept friendships until those who want to be my friends will read this guide. I have no desire for unnecessary drama that is caused on a false understanding of what a philosopher is. I have no use for these misunderstandings. I want to live peacefully and work on Philosocom until I die while reducing annoyances. I have no time for those who don't want to understand the truth, or who prefer post-truth.


Thanks for reading and, if you think this guide has been useful to you, consider sharing it to people whom you think can benefit from it, thank you.

94 views0 comments

Related Posts

See All

Comments


Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosocom's Founder & Writer

I am a philosopher from Israel, author of several books in 2 languages, and Quora's Top Writer of the year 2018. I'm also a semi-hermit who has decided to dedicate his life to writing and sharing my articles across the globe. Several podcasts on me, as well as a radio interview, have been made since my career as a writer. More information about me can be found here.

צילום מסך 2023-11-02 202752.png
bottom of page