Space for Philosophy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Yeah, I know…another metaphilosophical post about, what else, philosophy.

Here goes…

Is there space for philosophy today? Was there ever space for philosophy?

Has the philosopher ever been relevant to anyone but the philosopher? And how relevant is philosophy for the philosopher? We’re all living relatively normal lives (we’re posting on an internet discussion board on a regular, at least repeat, basis…). We have families, jobs, obligations, etc. How is philosophy useful? Or is it just your amusing distraction?

Philosophy doesn’t deal in concrete goods or services. It’s not an “applied” discipline. Oh certainly, it’s applicable to many things; its breadth of subject matter and broad-mindedness are part of its utility. But there it is again – that ugly idea, “utility”. Use. What is it good for…? Nothing…specifically… Anything…potentially…

But goddammit it has intrinsic value! Who cares if it’s good for something or not – who wants to have lived life without contemplating their very being? Or whatever. Right?

Philosophy.
Does it make us better people? Is it personally beneficial in a way that exceeds or complements the benefits of applied disciplines? Is it just masturbatory?

I’m sure we’ll get some git psychoanalyzing my post telling me that it amounts to nothing more than projections of my own insecurities, doubts, inadequacy, and daftness. Well no shit.

Moving along.

I love philosophy. Like I love music. Epic music. Emotional music. Music that spreads out before me, wresting my soul from where it lay dormantly. Beautiful synchronicity. Harmony that’s not necessarily harmonious.

But the same tune, the same style, gets old after awhile. Thinking is a tired activity when you think about the same things all the time, over and over again. Especially for intelligent people who are used to invention and insight. I suppose a certain amount of monotony belongs to philosophy, like most things. Here, I mean specifically the monotony of thinking through the same thoughts or ideas over and over trying to get somewhere new…and failing. It’s part of the process. I can put up with it, but only some days and only for so long.

The amount of energy I spend on philosophy or the amount of energy I spend on music… how much of it contributes to (results in) me paying my bills, keeping my health, and nurturing my overall development and happiness* ?

I don’t know, but I daresay it has frequently cost me money, health, and therefore some amount of happiness. No, I’m not ready to give it up. Even though it has been ultimately sort of a detrimental relationship. There’s something in me that finds itself at home with philosophy…in doing real philosophy. Not textbook philosophy. See, textbook philosophy contains the rags of what-might-have-been real philosophy for someone, but what will only ever be textbook philosophy for many people. Anthologized, decontextualized, abridged, and impersonal. Stale. Without urgency or meaning. I’m not going to try to articulate what, on the other hand, real philosophy might be. I think you’ll know what I’m talking about if…well…you know. And I’m content to leave it at that.

The anxiety and preoccupation, the time lost, the big resultant tangible nothing gained from it… it adds up. Perhaps if I had the focus or the concentration to document my process and my insights, and to build upon them systematically…I should have published an academic masterpiece, a public bestseller, and started my own company by now. Then I could justify the utility of my pursuit. Useful, tangible results.

Would I want to live in a world without philosophy? The thought isn’t stirring. So how frustrated and invisible and abandoned must I feel now; for a world without philosophy is the world that most people live in. And among the small sideshow of philosophers there is too much pretension, dishonesty, and bravado to keep company.

Even now, I can hear your rejoinder ringing wretchedly in my head, choking on itself like a kid who opens his mouth too soon after swallowing: “fuse, retch you sentimental, passive idiot, retch the world doesn’t sit on someone’s fireplace mantel like a photograph or some framed portrait. It is in flux, receptive to change, and ready to be shaped at every moment. You talk as if the world doesn’t change. With your outlook, it’s not surprising that your world doesn’t change; however, there are stronger types who lay their hands on the world – without hesitation, without permission, without thought of approval – and fashion it by their own intuitive design. They don’t look for space for philosophy in their lives; they make it.”

*(The word ‘happiness’ here doesn’t get at what I really value which is not constant pleasure or contentment but a deep underlying satisfaction with myself and acceptance of the world.)

2

“Real philosophy” is about self-interest. In providing a means in which to better get what you want. Thus, it’s about utilising the things one knows or comes to know. “Utility” need not be the ugly duckling.

3

philosophy has to do about the survival of the individual and the survival of the species…

also for those who love wisdom…

4

No, it’s not reducible to self-interest. How can you define philosophy as pursuing one’s self-interest? That doesn’t capture what it is at all. People already are self-interested whether they are philosophers or not. Philosophy is something else, something more.

I take it you don’t agree with the distinction I made between philosophy and applied disciplines?

5

If you were talking about medicine and the medical profession I might be more likely to agree. Philosophy about survival? No. That’s way too specific and often times not at all what philosophy is about.

6

You misunderstand me but I’ll take the blame for that, I’ll try and flesh out what I meant a bit more. I’ll use a metaphor. If you consider yourself a maleable object, like clay, then philosophy acts like a sculptor’s intuition. The process of philosophy, analysing oneself, puts words to thoughts and thoughts to action. A means of fashioning oneself. I guess, I’m broadly referring to Moral philosophy but morality in only a relevant sense, in doing rather than talking, thus, it’s a much more hands-on self-interest as opposed to abstract self-interest which merely says that everything we do we do because it’s in our interest. I also have in mind the old-school essayists like La Rochefoucauld, the only “philosopher” I’ve been impressed by, who write about behaviour, etiquette, etc.

I take it you don’t agree with the distinction I made between philosophy and applied disciplines?
[/quote]
I guess not. I sense a kind of dualism in your OP, that there’s philosophy, a.k.a. the stuff of thought, and then there’s “concrete goods,” the stuff of the world. I guess my aim is for my philosophy to bridge the two, an umbilical cord of sorts.

7

philosophy is about understanding the nature of everything…

8

You’re very generous, sir.

Sure, philosophy is this. But I would say only because philosophy affects, or can be used to affect, one’s ideology. That is, I wouldn’t say that the goal/purpose/essence of philosophy is to be a means to fashion oneself.

Yes, I do believe in that division. However, I also believe you can use philosophy to have an effect on the “stuff of the world” and you can make philosophy work for you. I just don’t think that that part of things is philosophy itself.

9

Ok. But my posts to you have been in response to your own distinction of “textbook philosophy” and “real philosophy,” and it’s the “real” that I’m trying to articulate. Also, I’m unsure as to what kind of goal can be said to be the aim of each distinction…

I’m repeating myself here but I thought of a better description of what I was initially saying. Embodiment. It’s about being the embodiment of your beliefs and ideals.

10

What does that even mean?

11

It means understanding his statement.

:wink:

12

That’s exactly how I have taken your posts. Apparently we have different interpretations of what “real philosophy” might mean. I did give a vague idea of what I meant by the term. Just think the opposite of philosophy “Anthologized, decontextualized, abridged, and impersonal. Stale. Without urgency or meaning.”

There is no single, unified goal of real philosophy. One philosopher might harness his work as a means of self-fashioning, and another might be consumed with the pursuit of some T/truth without regard for his self, perhaps even to his detriment. Of textbook philosophy, there is no single, unified goal either. However, textbook philosophy frames the discipline, creating a new context for philosophy that I think is limiting and distorted.

I appreciate the trouble you are going through to explain this idea. Unfortunately, the idea of philosophy as a discipline that gives form (body) to a philosopher’s beliefs and ideals, although this might be part of what it does, does not, in my opinion, capture the full spirit of philosophy.

13

I want to; and so I am asking for his help.

14

twas just a joke. :wink:

But maybe the answer can come more into the light if one were to consider what the world of homosapian would be like without it.

Philosophy, even when poorly done, represents originating thought such as to begin construction of thought, “Logic”, to a hopeful end of wisdom. We often erroneously believe that we observe and then imaginatively decide truth. But that isn’t the way it has ever really worked. That imagination skill is actually the result of logical endeavors that merely draw on possibilities based on observations. The deductive skills is what brings logic into the picture such as to say, “well that can’t be true if this is true”. And thus a filtering means is established, “The Law of Identity”. From there a great many discernments are attempted to decide of what “this” actually is such as to say if “this is true” in the first place before we can decide whether “that can’t be true”.

All reasoning is born of philosophy, the seeking of truth with the hope of eventually gaining wisdom.

Thus to see what the world might be like without philosophy, we must remove from our speculation all of the above qualifiers for what philosophy really is; no logical thought, no pursuit of wisdom; no investigating nature; no critical analysis of assumptions; no ethics or aesthetics, and no values with which to guide one’s life.

Hmm… sounds like a mere animal to me.

But what would really happen is what happened to the animals. What happened to the animals? Some of them grew to include reasoning skills, philosophy. into their makeup. They then used their philosophies to overpower all other creatures. But of course, if the homosapian was merely one of the other animals, guess what… he would merely be dominated by that creature that accepted philosophy as a natural part of its make.

So you have a choice as a species, not to mention as an individual in a world of dominating other people. No philosophy = inability to defend against those who reason. So those who reason would of course choose to ensure that no one else could reason. To choose to not reason is a choice to be forced to never be able to reason and thus be forever oppressed and controlled by others.

The Israelites escaped from the Pharaoh only by Moses’ ability to reason out a means to confound the Pharaoh and destroy the hold he had over them. Jesus did the same with the Jews. The Humanists did the same with the Catholics. The Nazis did the same with the Jews. And Those dirty little Americans did it with the King of England, not to mention quite a number of others.

I would say that without philosophy, the homosapian is seriously screwed. Not that he isn’t going to do it to himself anyway.

15

Self-interest a.k.a. Egoism. What else is more contextual, personal, full of life, urgent, and meaningful than your own concerns!? :laughing:

But it sounds as if you have something else in mind, so I’ll leave it at that.

Does a musician fail to capture the full spirit of music because he plays only one instrument or only one genre? Maybe this analogy is inaccurate, but if so, how so?

16

James,

If we were to visit a world without philosophy we would retain values and perhaps logic, however, we would lack the ability or the desire to evaluate or reflect on them.

Reasoning, as an activity, cannot be held synonymous with philosophizing. We were able to reason before we were able to philosophize. You might say reasoning is a precondition for philosophy. I will agree. Our formal systems of logic were born from philosophy, but now Logic is it’s own discipline and I would say that the logician is not necessarily also a philosopher. I’m sorry I can’t be more precise.

Also, it’s not clear at all that the creature that develops the capacity for philosophy will necessarily dominate other creatures in its environment. If one species was sufficiently stronger via brute force I can imagine a smaller, weaker species of philosopher creatures being dominated. Philosophy may exist in some correlation with intelligence, but I’m not sure philosophy makes one more intelligent (or at least not to a significant degree more intelligent).

I don’t think that philosophy as a practice is necessarily evolutionarily advantageous. And I don’t necessarily care. I like philosophy anyway.

17

That’s true, but self-interest is not the only thing I believe fits that description. Philosophy, which I believe is somehting more than self-interest, also fits. I know that doesn’t help.

I’m happy to discuss more ideas if you have any. FWIW, I appreciate the discussion.

One song, one instrument, one genre, is, broadly speaking, one instance of music. But a single instance of music, e.g. a particular song or musician, does not define music as a whole, i.e. in essence.

18

Taken from Three Times Great’s thread: “Future of Philosophy, Love & Vision”:

I think this is a rather succinct answer to your question, fuse.

19

I think “personal relevance” is the phrase.

20

“In essence” is a dubious term. What exactly do you mean by it?

As far as I’m concerened, a musician has more value, worth, credibility even if he/she is just one instance of music than some abstract ideal of music’s “essence.” Would you say otherwise?