the basic question of philosophy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

the basic question of philosophy is simple, how should one live?
This Socratic question is the basic question of our lives.
Socrates took philosophy out of the sky (pre-Socratic philosophers)
and brought it down to the earth. It is not a question of how it all began or
is the beginning of the universe natural or created? those question can be answered
by science which excels in answering who, what, how, when, where, but not answering, the why.
Why as a question, is philosophy.

How should one live?
Science gives us clues by laying out the groundwork of our universe, so we know
what type of universe we live in, so that we may better decide how we should live.
The principle of sufficient reason says that everything exist of necessity, everything has a reason.
Science suggests that universe exist with chance and probability. Evolution, quantum physics,
the creation of the universe, all suggest that we live in part or all with chance and probability which
suggest the principle of sufficient reason is wrong. It would be hard to know how one should live without
knowing what kind of universe we live in, one of necessity or one of chance. Thus the value of science.

How should one live? We have rules, codified by laws, ideologies, religions, customs as to how we should
live. But we have no assurances that those laws, ideologies, religions and customs are either right or
complete. To blindly accept those rules is to abdicate reason in our lives. Those rules and ideologies and
religions and customs are broad, sweeping general statements as to how one should live?
Not all rules and ideologies are a fit for everyone. The bible clearly states that one should give
sacrifices to the lord. We have rejected that notion but have kept other notions in the bible.
So even commandments of the lord is subject to our approval as to how we should live.
Reason suggest that I can accept or reject whatever ideology, religion and custom just
as we have collectively rejected sacrificing animals. Accepting or rejecting ideologies, religions
and customs is an individual act, not an collective act, for the broad scope of ideologies and religions
and customs cannot possibly cover all aspects of our individual lives. How should one live is an
individual choice and an individual act. The custom of marriage being between one man and one woman
does not cover the individual choice, act, of gay marriage. The question of how one should live
requires us to face how one should live individually. To those who demand one must live with
god or with marriage only between a man and a woman or with no choice to abortion, reject
individual choice or the individual act of living our lives as we see it. They reject individual choice
and belief in favor of collective belief. They are the true Marxist in the world, demanding everyone
share the same beliefs and the same actions regardless of personal choice. If you cannot act individually,
you can only act collectively, as a group, and in a group, however small, your choices are really only
what the group offer you. One part of the question (one part) of how we should live is we have to
choose individually, what our lives is suppose to be.

Part one

Kropotkin

2

Part 2

as we have seen the basic question of philosophy is, how should one live?
For those who try to find an objective platform to say how one should live,
I point out this, we have no, no, place in the universe or stand we can take that
is absolute and objective. You might say, light travels at 186,000 miles per second
and yet we know that gravity affects light to the point where a black hole’s gravity
is strong enough to prevent light from traveling 186,000 per second. It is not an absolute,
objective truth that gravity travels at 186,000 miles per second. Another so called “TRUTH” is
that all men die. The truth is we don’t know that. The bible reports men living very long lives,
that have one man, Adam? perhaps, living a thousand years and other men living 2 or 3 hundred
years old. We dismiss the bible as the word of god, but what about the bible as an historical
document. It doesn’t prove the word of god but simply report early Jewish history.
We cannot know that all men die for the simple reason, we don’t have information about
everyone who has lived on earth. We have tree’s that live for thousands of years, why not some man?
We assume that all men die, but in fact, we don’t know that all men die. Another absolute, certain “fact”
that is dismissed. So what truth or fact would we base our question of, how should one live, on?
If there is not objective, absolutely certain “TRUTH” we can make judgments on, then every judgment
we make is subjective. We can decide our individual answer to the question, how shall one live.
I can live with or without faith, with or without god, with or without gay marriage, it is my choice.
To those who say, to allow choice is to allow anarchy, are making an assumption.
to say we must force all men to abide by certain rules, certain laws is to say, we must force
men to obey the collective. Man is not a individual who makes choices, but a being who is told
what to believe, what to do, what choices they have. That is not free will nor is it individual freedom,
but obeying the collective will. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Lenin would all approve that men must do what
they are told regardless of their individual choices or free will. So the basic question of philosophy must
be an individual choice or it means nothing at all.

Kropotkin

3

there is no basic question of philosophy

4

Let us look at philosophy itself.
You have ethics, theology and political philosophy, all of which directly look
at the question of, how should one live?
You also have various academic fields which look at how should one live,
including economics, sociology, social science, history and humanities to list some.

There is no other question as important as, how should one live.

Kropotkin

5

can you think of another question that comes in second…

6

I can agree that one of the most important questions we can have as human beings is just how should we live, but that is far from saying that that’s the main concern of philosophy. As important as moral philosophy is, it was always predicated by the metaphysical philosophy of the individual. It still is.

7

More basic still - Who Am I? How did I get here?

How can we answer the question - How Should One Live?.. before at least having a sense of the other two?

8

Arcturus Descending: More basic still - Who Am I? How did I get here?

How can we answer the question - How Should One Live?.. before at least having a sense of the other two?
[/quote]
K: who am I and how did I get here? Who am I is a question ask by the young. Once you get to a certain
age, you no longer ask that question. You know who you are. I am 55, I don’t recall the age I was when
I knew who I was. Quietly, one silent night, I knew who I was. I no longer needed to ask that question.
How did I get here is an historical/ scientific question, depending on how you ask it. Historical in one
way, scientific in another way. I don’t see the question of how I got here as being very philosophical.
Why am I here? yes, that is philosophical, but not how.

Kropotkin

9

Peter Kropotkin: Let us look at philosophy itself.
You have ethics, theology and political philosophy, all of which directly look
at the question of, how should one live?
You also have various academic fields which look at how should one live,
including economics, sociology, social science, history and humanities to list some.
There is no other question as important as, how should one live."

Turtle: can you think of another question that comes in second…"

K: “why am I here” is a second question.

Kropotkin

10

Peter Kropotkin: Let us look at philosophy itself.
You have ethics, theology and political philosophy, all of which directly look
at the question of, how should one live?
You also have various academic fields which look at how should one live,
including economics, sociology, social science, history and humanities to list some.
There is no other question as important as, how should one live.

Omar: I can agree that one of the most important questions we can have as human beings is just how should we live, but that is far from saying that that’s the main concern of philosophy. As important as moral philosophy is, it was always predicated by the metaphysical philosophy of the individual. It still is."

K: I didn’t say it was the main concern, I said it was the most important, slightly different.
As you well know, I don’t believe in the metaphysical, beyond the physical, I believe in the
physical. The here and now. I believe that theology is but one aspect of our lives whereas you
believe that theology should be far more important. I respect that but I think you are wrong
and you think me wrong. I have read enough of you to know, you are an honest explorer of
of the human experience and I truly do respect that. You are just wrong, that’s all. O:)

Kropotkin

11

Peter,
You know me from way before and I feel a certain respect for you as well as a thinker. I believe that I have confused you a bit. Let me clear that up.
I don’t believe in religion but not out of a humanist or atheist concerns. It is an existential concern that everyone should be aware of their responsibility in what they believe. Anyone wants to believe in God? That’s fine. Rather not? That’s fine too so long as both realize the precarious nature of either belief.

Now about moral philosophy: the point you make is taken but irrelevant to my objection. How should we live requires preexisting assumptions about man that can only be defended or challenged from the basis of metaphysics. The value of your neighbors cannot be answered by science. Caring for the sick and hungry in distant lands cannot be defended using a moral philosophy void of metaphysical answers to questions about value. That’s my point.
There are many ways to live. For some having an abortion is immoral while others consider that denying the choice of an individual is immoral. So, the floor is open for you. What is moral?

12

I can live with this;
OP: “the basic question of philosophy is simple, how should one live?”

However don’t forget the other basic purpose of Philosophy stated by Socrates-Plato;
“Philosophy is a preparation for death.”

To achieve the above one need to;
‘Know Thyself’ -Socrates.

Then only can one live to die eventually.

13

Perfect example.
Socrates stated that but if you never heard of him the statement would sound queer. Why does he even believe that death requires preparation? The question would eventually reveal metaphysical assumptions taken on faith.

14

I am old and a co-worker of mine just passed away from a heart attack, he was two years older than me,
(funeral is Friday, day after x-mas, that sucks the big one)
Death is front and center for me and yet, I don’t think philosophy is really preparation for death.
My evolution about death has gone from first understanding it to total fear of death to pretending
it doesn’t exist to no fear of death. It will happen, regardless of my personal feelings, so I may
as well get used to it. I don’t consider that philosophy as much as simple acceptance of the inevitable.
It will happen to me, at some point in the future and having fear or laying awake at night about it, isn’t
going to change anything. I even have an age whereby I am seriously consider ending it all, (BTW, its 75)
20 years from now. I think the difference is the question of how is one to live is about choices whereas
death is not a choice. I can choose how I am to live whereas I have no choice about death and I think that
makes all the difference in the world. Philosophy is about the choices we make and death gives us no choice.

Kropotkin

15

K: I notice you only said, a certain respect, ummm, I am not feeling the love, anyway, I have in several
OPS tried to understand what is moral? My whole gay incest thread is one of trying to understand what
is moral and what is immoral. As there doesn’t seem to be a group census, I am left with the feeling that
morality is an individual choice and not a collective choice, but that could be quite wrong. That there are many
ways to live is accepted, however I am having a time of it trying to understand your metaphysical point.
If you could be so kind as to elaborate how preexisting assumptions can only be defended or challenged upon
the basis of metaphysics, I would appreciate it.

Kropotkin

16

Hello Peter,

— If you could be so kind as to elaborate how preexisting assumptions can only be defended or challenged upon
the basis of metaphysics, I would appreciate it.
O- Sure thing. As a matter of fact I already began doing just that. Let me back track and quote some things I have already contributed: “The value of your neighbors cannot be answered by science. Caring for the sick and hungry in distant lands cannot be defended using a moral philosophy void of metaphysical answers to questions about value. That’s my point.
There are many ways to live. For some having an abortion is immoral while others consider that denying the choice of an individual is immoral. So, the floor is open for you. What is moral?”
Ok. Now let me go over this. I believe that it is ethical to be fair with others, to help those in need, but why? I believe that we ought to be fair and help those in need. This is not due to a property that can be identified and measured. The value of human life, which is the reason why I believe that we ought to help, is not something within the world that all can discover, like a physical property such as length and weight, but rather a property that I have placed upon the world. It is a metaphysical assumption that underlies my moral behavior because it is an ought and not an is.
The second scenario is similar. Is having an abortion immoral? It is an important question, but what is it that we even mean by the question? What is “immoral”? Morality tells us about how we ought to live our lives from the position of a judgment that some lives are better than others, than some actions are better than others. But from where do we get this standard? Is it an objective feature of the world we discover or just something we decide upon. Plato’s Euthyphro deals with the problem I am referring to. For this discussion the dilemma is whether what is moral is equal to what we like, or do we like it because it is moral- a universal trait that we discover.
I am not concerned here with defining what morality is, what is moral or immoral, but I am saying that saying that something is moral or not requires an assumption about what we are saying that is metaphysical in nature. Am I saying, when I say that something is immoral, that I simply don’t like it (because I assume that there is no universal trait in the action itself), or do I mean that I dislike it because it is in essence (universal trait of the action itself) immoral?
So then, what do I mean by the question “Is having an abortion immoral?”? Do I mean: Is having an abortion dislikeable? or is it: Is having an abortion objectively wrong and therefore universally dislikeable? To me, answering these questions require some meditation that I consider metaphysical because it is not a discussion about a property of the world, but deciding whether there is such a property or not.

17

Your last statement above is very philosophical, but it would have made a lot of difference if you had philosophized on that in your teens or earlier.

For example, if anyone has been through the following experience;

  1. first understanding it to total fear of death to - up age to 45
  2. pretending it doesn’t exist to -from age 46
  3. no fear of death. from age 50
    they would have wasted 45++ years of living in fear without the philosophy, i.e. ‘preparation for death’.

However, if one were to be educated with philosophy in this respect from an early age say 10, then one would have avoided 35 years of living in that sort of fear.

Philosophy as a preparation for death is not that straightforward, it needs some degree of knowledge, reflection and a lot of practices & exercises to ensure the neurons are cultivated to handle it.

The majority of humans mismanaged life to the extent of fighting for an after life of immortality in heaven (some with an expectation of virgins). This results in SOME believers committing the worst kind of terror and evils upon non-believers, other believers and even believers of the same kind.

18

Peter Kropotkin

Now that’s a question which I periodically ask myself. I don’t think age has anything to do with it. Situations and circumstances and the present moments do.

Life is a process Peter and as a process it changes as it flows, as we become, as we are transformed. We are not fixed entities in time. Perhaps that would be a question wasted on the young - albeit they too must ask themselves that question especially in this day and age with peer pressure, knowing what they want to do with their lives, et cetera…

If I were to ask you who you are now, how would you answer me? :evilfun:

As for the first, I’m glad to hear that But perhaps in thinking that way, you might miss yourself a bit.
I also on one beautiful silent night had an intuition of who I was and why I was here. But I’ve had more since then.

Aren’t those two questions kind of interwoven?
Of course, in one respect, i fully know how I got here. My mother gave me the details. lol
But perhaps I’m being too metaphysical here. Just shoot me. But I love to delve beyond what I can know. I love the wrapping under the wrapping. I find it to be extremely stimulating and beautiful.