top of page

Why Honesty is So Important in Philosophizing; Philosophy As an Attempt

Updated: Feb 21

A worrier on a mission

It was last night, when I had strange dreams, when I realized that, those who considered me irrelevant, merely considered THEIR OWN lack of will, to face with things and beings which make them uncomfortable. It was... their choice, and not the other way around, to see me as irrelevant.

Do you know why? Because those who are too uncomfortable with certain truths, and with brutal sincerity, won't necessarily try to overcome this lack of relief, when they can simply ESCAPE.

Philosophers, and readers of philosophy, do not escape truths. If they escaped from them, they would have not declared their will to seek them, instead!

This is why I was irrelevant in her eyes all along; NOT because I am irrelevant, but because her own possibility of being comfortable with disturbing truths, is BY ITSELF irrelevant for her, personally!

To philosophize is to seek the truth. There shouldn't be any doubt about it. Once the truth has been revealed, the philosophers and their readers, will not attempt to escape from it, if they are not hypocrites.

Why would one seek something that could in theory make them seek escapism, or any other form of denial?

To philosophize and to be in the presence of philosophers, is to therefore, not seek to escape from sincerity, when that sincerity makes one feel uneasy.

That is because, there is always a chance, in theory, that truths would make one want to escape from them, and from philosophers in general.

Those who do not take that in mind, that they might feel uncomfortable upon realizing something, are not aware enough of the possible result that await one, once they reach a certain truth.

Chen deemed me irrelevant because of herself! She was a coward! A coward of feeling unease at the presence of emotions she doesn't like certain people to have, like love.

I even asked her, at the same conversation, why was she so uncomfortable with my love for her, but she didn't respect me with an answer.

That was, in theory, because she is merely a coward, and because of that, she does not deserve to be in the presence, of a true devotee of sincerity!

The same was with her fiance, who might've was uncomfortable as well, with the fact that people have emotions he refuses to acknowledge. Therefore, they are BOTH cowards, and were cowards, all along!

The irrelevancy of philosophy is merely the relevancy of the fact that, one could always escape; that one could always distract themselves from facts that disturb them. My mother says: "Think of other things, think of positivity!"

The problem with that, even though positivity is beneficial, is that philosophizing isn't always something that will bring pleasure, comfort, and even the love of wisdom, ironically.

This is why the literal meaning of philosophy as "the love of wisdom" isn't necessarily correct, because those who seek the truth, might not always accept it with love. They may accept the truth seeker with approval; The truth seeker might enjoy seeking the truth and so on.

HOWEVER -- when the truth is found and revealed, THAT IS when things and beings are put to the test! What is put to the test? Your own credibility, your own confidence, and ultimately, your own LOVE OF WISDOM.

If you are not strong enough to face the truth, philosophical or not, then you might not be ready enough, to philosophize, and to be in the presence of a philosopher.

A philosopher is just someone who declares themselves devoted to truth-seeking. It's not necessarily something that puts them above anyone else in any social or formal hierarchy.

Those who are not comfortable with the truth, to the point that they will attempt to deny it or hide from it, are not worthy of being called philosophers!

That is the ultimate sacrifice, that is a feature of both being a philosopher and following one -- the fact that one's desire for pleasure and comfort might be greater than the desire to seek the truth.

This is why I am glad that Chen and others have abandoned me. It isn't that I am irrelevant to them. In their eyes, general sincerity is irrelevant because of their OWN perception of sincerity!

That is because, when the truth is painful, when the truth brings misery, it is THEN when a person's love for it and for the thing or being it is about is challenged.

This is why I will also say the following: If you are uncomfortable with the things I have written, then philosophy might not be relevant for you.

Philosophy is not only the love of wisdom, but also the determination to endure what it would entail: pessimism, sadness, condemnation by others, and anything else that could be deemed negative.

He who is afraid to know the truth and share it with others — philosophy is not something that should be relevant to them at this point in time. Even my own "former master", has things to hide.

I know what these things are, but because he is too afraid to come clean with them, I will accept his secrecy and his love for anonymity.

After all, that is the very reason why I insist on his being "former". Hiding the truth is not something an honest philosopher would do!

To put your own desire to be seen positively by others into words, then to admit the truth, even if that truth is not morally wrong or morally bad... is something that makes me feel shameful towards him.

Shameful because, the truth should be above everything for a philosopher, even if it makes people abandon you or see you in a lesser light due to stereotypes associated with certain things!

That is, you see, one of the reasons why I don't believe that philosophy professors are necessarily philosophers themselves, regardless of the depth of their knowledge in that field.

Knowing what a certain, ancient philosopher believed in and their ideas, is NOT the same as being honest! There is no such thing as dishonest philosophers, and people who are dishonest, should not be regarded as philosophers!

Whether you see yourself as a philosopher or whether you read philosophy, this action and role are a direct statement that "I want to know the truth at all costs."

If you are not ready to pay the price for this truth, whatever it may be, then why would you deem yourself a philosopher, and why would you read philosophy?

It isn't to say that philosophers are always right, that is not what I intend to say. To desire philosophy is to desire the truth, whether or not you will actually manage to discover it.

To philosophize is an attempt, and every philosopher, is someone who at least tries to seek the truth and be honest about it. After all, to try is far better than to escape from it, like a coward would.

THAT should be the elementary motive behind every philosopher, and behind every philosophy consumer -- to find the truth, and to be prepared to face any consequence, that might come up with this attempt. It should not matter how uncomfortable it makes you.

It shouldn't matter how much you will suffer because the love for truth, is above all, in this field — even above your own life.

This is why I sit as much as I can, in front of this computer, and try to understand the world, at the price of not having a social life, of not knowing true romance, and ultimately, of not living normally, even if it means sacrificing my mental health, at times.

43 views2 comments


In your article, you mention "cowardness "and "truth" many times.

What kind of truth are you referring to? If you don't mind answering of course.

And ultimately, don't the philosophers in general accept that life is what it is? days to be lived..and to search for meaning in life is absurd as there is no actually any meaning applying to masses of people. Everyone finds its own purpose, does what it makes him/her happy and that's it. Or is it not?

Replying to

Thanks for asking. I refer to any truths that would make people -- including the philosopher themselves -- feel uncomfortable enough, to the extant that would tempt them to not admit it publicly. Nihilism, if true, is not something everyone would feel comfortable admitting as such, especially if you live and interact in a community that, let's say, depends itself on religious studies, and/or is extremist in that regard. If life is meaningless in general, then what is the point of religious documents, which many communities depend themselves upon?

The thing about philosophy is that it is difficult to for all philosophers to agree on one single thing, which means that even a premise such as "everyone finds their own…


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