What does philosophy do?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

What does philosophy do?

I claim that the task of philosophy is to look inward to find the basis for the presuppositions that form the foundation for all human created theories. I claim that in our first effort to look inward primitive humans saw thier mortality; they hated what they saw and immediately sought a means to successfully repress that thought. That solution turns out to be what we today call religion.

Long ago a professor of philosophy said to me, after my asking him what philosophy is all about, “philosophy is a radically critical self-consciousness”. It took me 30 years to comprehend what he said.

“But I’m a philosopher, and it’s a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in an article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Brandeis University.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01766.html

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.

2

philosophy is about objective understanding and critical thinking and true knowledge

these is the most important fundamental aspects of philosophy bar none

3

I am going to give you a few passages from my book about the philosopher.

“The Philosopher, non quid Marculus, aut Thraso bilinguis, nec quid praepediet procax venenum humani labii, nec Atrocopta, sucks from the wound of knowledge all the poison of human affairs. The philosopher is desirous of truth, not in that form of hopeless, anti-utilitarian knowledge-- contra Boetheium, but in that of a Themis upon whose scales the truth might be realized- not as an egoic possession of the individual, neither as gold or silver, but as the Alensisian communis omnium possessio and sacred right to apprise and re-apprise the whole inventory of personal experiences.”

"Coelo adsimilis hominum fortuna videtur, nanque vices mutat, facieque est saepe serena. [Vadianus Joachim in Helvetii Aegloga] All philosophers suffer from the same deficiency, in that they think they can arrive at their goal of a genuine life by analyzing their ideals- of ‘truth,’ ‘justice,’ or ‘beauty.’ Instinctively they let their ideals and little strings of Arachne’s loom vacillate before them even as a laureum baculum gesto, a proof against all dangers, and a precaution against all spiritual corruptions. Yet, in precisely as this holds, it will be easy enough to make out the fact- that these noble ‘analyses’ of life are mere philosophical vindications of particular ways of living, philosophical confessions to particular ways of experiencing or receiving- life: like great suns do these ideals bestow verdure and solace, and do they relieve one of his dependence upon guilt and shame, or with a noble ‘ridentem dicere verum quid vetat?’ are all mortifications and disgrace even permitted to lay down unto the summer’s flowerbeds.

To redeem these redeemers! But the first little drops of blood- we first redeemers must be also the first sinners, and husbandmen unto the trees of knowledge- for such as these do I write. After all, who is the philosopher? It seems to me more and more that the lover of wisdom, thereby necessarily a sufferer for wisdom- has always found himself, as he often must find himself, like a mad lover, in contention with his Eurydice. Now Eurydice has a still more baneful danger than her beauty, namely, her silence. She might possibly have escaped from the mere sensual ardor of some Orpheus; but her silence, certainly never did a one of them find strength enough to ignore. Romanticism and a slight passion may be formed in stillness, and the languor of a summer’s pond: but true belonging and love are formed in the world’s lively tempest and Anticyre."

“What is a greater irony, than that the chaste will for truth should emerge in the ‘dissimulating animal?’ Sanity is often vitiated against by describing it. And whom does this creature deceive? Were it none, that he would still perform so: for it is chiefly his Cerem nutrim and Cereris iustissima pondera vendi. [Helius Eobanus] Silence may be the severest justice for the philosopher, and holy temulence it is for him to become a stone, and to play the Olenus unto his truths. All pain can be suffered in silence- but sanity.”

4

Hi Ascolo, I like your passages that you put up here from your book, but could I suggest that after the Latin you include a translation, in the text itself? It would certainly make things easier to understand. I do get that its more appealing and effective to throw in Latin here and there, but consider adding a [translation] after the Latin so we can know what its saying, thanks.

Partly this is also because online translator programs are not very good with Latin, and do not recognize many words or phrases. So unless a person reading this is fluent in Latin, which is unlikely, they will have no way of knowing what youre saying.

5

Certainly they don’t really produce anything materially useful!

Analytical Philosopher - make like they’re clarifying concepts by actually making em more complex.

Continental philosopher - Manufacture concepts for Analytical Philosopher and moan
(a lot!)

I guess the idea of manufacturing and clarifying concepts is something to go on.

I really wouldn’t get on a high horse about any thing else.
(depth, truth, absolute knowledge, the meaning of life, a perfect system of what ever yada yada yada)

Also its fun to argue of course and Philosophy seems to be one of the few places were very free form debate - without even supplying the premises, the rules, the pitch, the teams or even a referee is allowed.

This is a good thing though in my reckoning!

kp

6

On mature reflection!!

Hi Coberest (good to have you back) - I actually read the article and though i agree with a lot of her opinions I now think that this:

is pretty cheeky. The most the Greeks ever talked about was the “examined life” or how to “lead the good life” The most Kant ever asked for was freedom of expression and that politicians would listen to philosophers…suggestions, clarifications, concepts - advice even - seems fine but…

I presume she was a good philosopher and I’m down with her feminist views as expressed but I’ve never heard even the most arrogant philosopher use this sort of formulation - even historically.

Whether your life could be lived as a philosophical work is a more interesting idea!

7

You really like your latin, don’t you Ascolo.

8

Could it be that philosophers, by means of their radically critical self-consciousness, instead of creating, merely make explicit, these assumptions which everyone else misses but makes use of? If so, then what value does the assumption, made explicit, have? When it’s formulated into a philosophical theory, how does it become the very essence of our life?

9

^^ This is also the only thing that seems to stick with me as of late. This was also Deleuze’s concept of philosophy. The first time i read him saying that, philosophy is really just creating concepts, and really thought about it, it all began to made a lot more sense.

10

That seems to be a going consensus of the philosopher’s function. Whereas the majority of “peasants” take for granted the fundamental assumptions of society, it is the philosopher’s job to analyze and test these assumptions and to offer recommendations based on the results. This is why I’ve also thought that philosophers have a very important responsibility (not just function): they are responsible for overseeing the wholesomeness of the beliefs that society appropriates - that is, their job is to make sure society believes things that are psychologically healthy and lead it in the right direction.

This brings up a couple questions: 1) How do we determine what’s “healthy” or what’s “right”? 2) Are there ever situations where what’s healthy/right to believe diverges from what’s true?

11

I’m afraid this ^^ is again giving philosophers to much credit - or to little, depending on how you look at it - , it’s a politician’s job to lead the people, and a priest to tell people what to believe if they can’t do it themselves. A philosopher merely gives some clarity in the existing concepts, and invents new concepts to look at allready existing situations in different ways.

12

Absolutely. Nietzsche’s whole point about nihilism is imo based on this fundamental assumption that true beliefs are not necessarily healthy beliefs–far and contrary to it…nature is “wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purpose and consideration, without mercy and fairness, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time–how could you live according to this indifference?”* Time, causality, justice, self, love, truth, etc, these are all fictions, but man couldn’t live without them. When the will to truth is left unquestioned, and truth itself becomes the only criteria for belief, all fictions, even necessary fictions, fade away and life is left barren. People need to believe life is worth living; that they were the center of the universe; that when punishment is handed out this is in accord with some universal principle or will; etc. This kind of makes a Nietzschean philosopher a willful liar. Plato was one such person. According to Nietzsche, Plato did not believe in Platonism, but he thought it necessary for others to believe in Platonism; a noble lie.

Well, this is a tough one, but if I had to guess, I’d wax Nietzschean and say that the beliefs which can be said to be “right” are those that increase power (empowers), makes life worth living.

13

It’s certainly become what you say, but has it always been that? It seems philosophers used to have some influence on society way back when. I’d like to think Plato and Aristotle had some influence on western thought…but that was during a time when there wasn’t much distinction between natural science, religion, or philosophy. :-k

14

Yes, it sure has been more in the past, and maybe it’s hard not to imagine a more glorious role for the philosopher. But if you believe Nietzsche’s word on it, the influence of said philosophers hasn’t exactly been a god-send. I’d like to think it’s better this way, if the roles don’t get mixed. Maybe the creation and clarification of concepts, and using the same concepts in power doesn’t work well together. They do seem to require a different view.

15

That’s a very sobering thought. If one commits to this answer then one should waive the right to criticize violence or religion that are used as a tool to secure and keep power, or deception often employed in politics to manipulate the public, or encouragement of monetary indebtedness. All these things are the right things to do since they are used by some as routes to power (violence and deception). As a Nietzschean, one should also restrain himself from pitying the masses.

16

if we really want an answer to the question of what philosophy does we should recall that philosophy has it’s negative effects too: philosophy confuses as often as it clarifies - there is always some portion of it that can be used to justify anything and everything we might want or be inclined to believe - it creates boxes inside of which we think - it can lead to dogma or help perpetuate myth - it makes every proposition contradictable or uncertain -

it makes pretentious, arrogant assholes out of many people

it eats its children

it laughs at people in wheelchairs

etc . . .

17

Philosophy can do all these things to people, but people don’t exactly need philosophy for any of this, except maybe for the bolded parts.

18

If you manipulate something closer to its source, you can realize dramatic effects with very little effort. I think philosophy has something to do with that.

19

Pandora,
The question is what makes a belief healthy or right for a person. The use of the word right is not normative, nor moral. I’m not even saying that a person is obligated to believe healthy things. Simply making the point that it is unhealthy to disbelieve all false things/believe only true things. What is right to believe, by which I mean nothing other than what is healthy to believe (and this is where I ventured my guess) are those ideas that make life worthy of living, or those ideas that empower people. But I can see how this way of speaking about the issue can do without the word right. Healthy will do just fine.

Up until Nietzsche, it was assumed that if the will to truth was followed to it’s conclusion, in that if only true beliefs remained, then man would be happier, more capable, more loving of life, etc. It was basically assumed only true beliefs can be healthy. The value of truth was left unquestioned. Nietzsche’s point, with which I agree, is that man would be depleted of capacity, of love for life if this happened. Truth is not so valuable that we ought to believe it even if it means unhappiness, decadence, or even death. Nature provides us with a bland map of the world. We need to color it up and over some lines a bit.

If you can be happy despite pitying the masses, then by all means pity. But, if you can’t, then you will be drained of strength, of capacity to flourish. Life will become an ugly thing. This is a descriptive claim, and you know it to be true. What you do with it is up to you.

20

Well, if I had to choose, what would be my options? What other forces are at work influencing thought? Maybe this is a lesser of a multitude of evils kind of thing.