what philosophy actually is....

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

so what actually happens in philosophy?

we use philosophy, along with science, religion, history, economics,
to explain and describe what it means to be human and events that
we human see, hear, touch, taste and smell…and by those senses,
we receive information about the world…for example, I see a tree…
but let us say, I don’t know what a tree is… I was born underground and lived
there all my life… and on my first trip to the surface of earth… I see a large,
green thing… how would I go about explaining or understanding it?

I would first of all, refer back to my childhood, my experiences to inform
me what that mysterious thing is… then I might ask someone, what is that?
and they might say, that is a tree… ok, but does that really tell me what a
tree is? not really… to make sense of what a tree is, we have to make connections
from the tree to its surrounding area… a tree doesn’t exists as a solitary being,
no, a tree is part of its surrounding and part of what we call nature…

to make sense of that tree we have to understand that the place that
tree plays in its environment…its role as it were… it cannot be understood
as an isolated being…a tree to make sense, has to be connected to the environment
around it…

the how of the tree is discovered in science… how a tree grows from a acorn to
a large living being is found through science…the why of the tree, can be found
in either philosophy or in religion…

let us work out another event… a kid and their dog… now the parents
might come to the kid and say, bobby, fido has died… but to a kid, what
does that actually mean? a kid of say, age 7, has no sense of what death is…
so the parents lie and say, bobby, Fido has gone to doggy heaven… how is the
kid going to make sense of that explanation? if you think about it, death is a rather
complicated and confusing topic… even adults get confused by then notion of death…

how would bobby make sense of it? we can, by science, understand the how of death,
but we need another format to understand the why of death… why do we have death?
how are we to explain or understand that concept?

we could bring in the idea of god, of religion, or we could use science,
but we use philosophy to make sense of death… and what is philosophy in
this context? a rational attempt to make sense of experiences that quite often
defy any rational attempts to explain…or to make sense of…

what does it mean to be human? we can use science to understand that or
we can use a irrational attempt which is religion, or we can try to explain
what it means to be human by a rational explanation… being human means
we…as I have defined it, we seek out our possibilities of existence…
we can possible, be a writer, a philosopher, a scientist, a bum, a politician,
we have a wide variety of possibilities as human beings… which possibility
do I and should I seek?

the rational explanation of existence might be the best explanation of what
philosophy is…but what of the irrational actions that also define humanity?

for example, love… love isn’t a rational event… in fact, love is so irrational that
it is hard to even explain what love is, rationally or irrationally…

so, how do we explain the experience of love?

and therein lies the failure of philosophy… it is unable to explain
irrational events rationally…so what tools and philosophy is certainly
a tool, what tools do we need to rationally explain the irrational?

let us end this here and think about this…

Kropotkin

2

so how do I go about explaining events?

for example, how would I explain the nuclear blast of Hiroshima?

I can, in the post-nuclear world be able to explain Hiroshima,
but could I have explained it before 1945? no… even
scientist would have had a hard time with an explanation of
the nuclear bomb before 1945…so we can see that our current
environment can impact any explanation we have of what it means
to be human and what the events around us means…

but the reverse is true… we cannot get into the heads of the Ancient Greeks
to understand what they were thinking… their environment created
a certain mind set and we, no matter how hard we try, we cannot enter that
mind set…and the situation we find ourselves in, also provides us with
certain parameters we have to explain and understand people, events, idea’s…

for example, I am white… I cannot, not matter how hard I try, I cannot
image what it is to be black… I cannot, ever, hold onto or understand
what it means to be black… and the same is true of me being male
and not being able to understand what it means to be female…
I simple cannot enter that mind set…at best, all I can do is guess…

so we can use philosophy to rationally explain events, people, places
and idea’s but we cannot go beyond our set parameters…
philosophy itself will not allow me to understand what it means to
be black or to be female…and the fact is, half the human race is female…
thus we must have a female understanding of what it means to be human,
of what events, idea’s, people mean to one who is female…their very
difference in sex, changes what they think about events, people, places and idea’s…

this isn’t a judgement on the validity or value of male or female or black
voices, it is simple an acknowledgment of the fact that we are different
and by being different, we see and understand the world differently…
and those differences must be acknowledged and understood…

now, as a white person, I might not see a law as being racist, whereas
a black person might see a particular law as being racist…
and now, how do we work out, decide if said law is racist?
what judgements or standards are we to use to decide if a law
is racist or not?

hence the need for a neutral standard… but can we find such a neutral standard
to use in this matter? by the very fact I am white, I am ''biased"… and by being black,
another person is “biased” and by being male, I am “biased”…

so how do we work out and understand our inherent biases?

by acknowledging them… we are inherently biased because
we are different beings… I am a white male, thus I see the
universe differently then a black female… and each of us, is
biased in our own way…the first step to any solution, is to
acknowledge there is a problem… and by acknowledging our biases,
we have taken the first step to finding a solution…

to making sense of the universe takes us to the point where we
begin by seeing and acknowledging our inherent biases…
I see the universe as being inherently indifferent to the
problems and woes of the human race…the universe just
doesn’t care if we live or die… it is neutral in its actions…
the universe doesn’t have any type of inherent biases…
we are biased beings in a unbiased universe…

so when one says, the universe is a cold and dark place… that is a biased
judgement that isn’t supported by what we know about the universe…
the universe just doesn’t give a rats ass about us… it isn’t cold or dark,
that is simple how we see it…
and we can see it another way, we can see the universe as being a warm,
inviting place also…we can put our own biases upon the universe because
the universe is a neutral and anything neutral can be thought of as being
anything we want…we can put our own brand on a neutral universe,
be it positive or be it negative…

so we can use philosophy to gain knowledge about the universe…
we can see the universe in a rational, logical sense…
we can see, hear, taste, touch and smell the universe and
make our own interpretations about those sensory input we receive
from our senses…

let us pause and see where we are at now…

Kropotkin

3

ok, part of what philosophy does, is to get behind events, people,
places, idea’s… for example, when the sky has lighting and thunder,
how do we explain it? we can explain it, as the ancients did, as
caused by the gods in their anger… or we can explain it as we do,
thunder is the sound caused by a nearby lighting strike… Thunder is
created when lightning passes through the air…and lighting is caused
by an electrical discharge caused by imbalances between storm clouds
and the ground or within the clouds themselves…

we try to get behind the events, experiences, idea’s, that our senses
pick up… for example, the unconscious mind as discovered by
Freud is a fairly recent idea and does explain, our actions and beliefs,
and it gets behind the events and behavior of people…

just as philosophy tries to get behind the sensory perceptions
that we experience as human beings…what is knowledge?
so we use philosophy to get behind our understanding of
what knowledge is, the scope, limits and extent of knowledge…

Biden is in the white house… I have this knowledge, is it true?
what, if any limits does this knowledge have? could I be mistaken
about this knowledge? how would I go about confirming this knowledge?

so we seek to understand the nature of the knowledge we have of events,
people, places and idea’s…

we try to get behind such philosophical idea’s as beauty, truth, wisdom,
and morality… to make sense of such ideas in a rational, logical fashion
that allow us to know and then report such knowledge to any who is interested
in that knowledge…what is beauty? we have an entire philosophical method to explore
the idea of beauty… called Aesthetics…to see behind mere beauty and see
what is beauty and how do we define beauty?

so, philosophy is also the method of seeing behind events, people,
places, and idea’s…we see the lighting, what caused that lighting?

we see beauty and what is the cause of that beauty?
what are the limits and scope of our knowledge of beauty?

to get behind is the goal of philosophy…

Kropotkin

4

now we come to the tricky part… for people who hold
knowledge that they believe to be true but in fact isn’t true…
a good example is when some believe that George Soros
has a laser in space that causes wildfires…

Now this is clearly not true and there is no, none evidence that it is true…
but this exists as a clear knowledge, epistemology problem…

how do we determine the truth of this claim?

this belief in soros laser has no validity or basis in facts or evidence, but
this doesn’t end or stop some in having faith in this belief…
and that word is the point, faith… faith doesn’t require something to be
true…faith lies outside of and beyond questions of epistemology/knowledge…

faith doesn’t need truth or facts or evidence to hold said article of faith…
indeed, luther among others have rejected reason or direct knowledge to
hold in faith above reason… faith is considered to be of more value
then reason…in other words… questions of faith are theological questions
not philosophical questions…

so those who hold faith above reason are engaged in theology, not philosophy…
and must be held to theological believe, not philosophical reasons…
and as I am a philosopher, not a theologian, I must reject faith…
and hold to reason…

Kropotkin

5

So did someone actually ask the California communist who regularly prostrates himself before the alter of political media servitude – what philosophy is (of all things)? :confused:

6

K: unlike yourself and others, I practice philosophy, not theology…but as
a philosopher, I regularly engage in some thought as to my beliefs and why those
beliefs and not others… it doesn’t matter to me if anyone ask or not, I engage
in these questions…in other words, I engage in rationality, what is the nature of…
instead of what you practice, which is confirmation of your already held biases…

I engage with philosophy which opens the mind and you engage in theology
which closes the mind…

Kropotkin

7

I would something that is quite interesting in philosophy
I call the ‘‘the curious case of Twentieth century philosophy’’

and what that refers to is surprising amount of mysticism that
exists in 20th century philosophy… for example, Heidegger mysticism
is well known…his book “being in time” isn’t about being, but replace
the word “Being” every you read it, to the word, “God” and the book makes
far more sense…it is really a book about “God in time”… and a rather
mystic journey once one figure’s out the book is about god and not
being… the other mystical philosopher of the 20th century is
“Wittgenstein” for further research, see William Barrett book,
“The illusion of Technique” chapter 4, ‘‘mysticism’’…

in a letter to his publisher, in German, Wittgenstein says the most important
part of his first book, “The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” isn’t what he wrote,
but what he didn’t write…and ends with this: whereof one cannot speak, thereof
one must be silent" and in this, Wittgenstein follows Nietzsche…
N. could be considered to be the originator of this form of 20the century
mysticism…where the power of a person’s philosophy is found in the
silence, that which is not written…

the question becomes, in the 21st century, is this form of mysticism,
an answer in philosophy or does it become part of the problems within
current philosophy?

Kropotkin

8

let us spend a moment working out mysticism…

what exactly is mysticism?

Mysticism: noun; 1: belief that union with or absorption into
the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of
knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may, may be attained through
contemplation and self-surrender…

into this definition flows much of both intellectual and
religious history… we can put into this understanding of
mysticism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam… in fact,
any religion that puts becoming one with.“…”, is a mystical
religion and we can see, because of the word, Absolute,
we can see a very Hegelian word…so we might be able to
see the Hegelian philosophy as being an “mystical” one…
and as I have pointed out, 20th century philosophy beginning
with Nietzsche to Wittgenstein to Heidegger…and all of 20th
century has been impacted by these three philosophers…

so let us follow mysticism further by exploring another aspect
of philosophy… Ethics or morality…we can follow ethics
by being consider that morality/ethics is dictated by
god/gods/the absolute/the one…how do we bring down
ethics/morality back to human considerations?

in other words, ethics of human beings, for human beings,
by human beings…which can be summed up with that tired
old cliche, Government of the people, for the people, by the people…

so how do we take morality/ethics out of the sky and back to human beings?

that was the problem that Nietzsche faced… how do we create ethics/morality that
didn’t, didn’t involve a god/or gods?

“thou shall no murder” is an excellent maxim, but on what grounds do
we base it upon? how are we to ground ethics/morality upon human values,
human utility? the unspoken modern day rule is that any action or inaction,
that disrupts any aspect of society is forbidden… hence, a private fight
between two private individuals, is considered to be within the purview of
the state…and is punished according to public/judicial rules…

and we certainly could use this maxim, that ANY disruption of the public
good is grounds for governmental action… which leaves conservatives shit out of luck
because then it means that the government, can and must, interfere with
any and all private actions that threaten the public good… thus this
allows the government to enforce mask laws, to take away any private
goods that “disrupts” the public good, hence we can take away guns,
the state can and must be allowed to act on any action it considers
to be a disruption of the social/public good…the problem with this is
that, as has been proven since 9/11, that the agenda of the state differs
from the agenda of the private individual… the two are no longer, (if they
ever were one) two different and distinct agenda’s…
so the question becomes, what is the most important part of, or aspect of
government? is it the safety of the state/citizens that is the sole criteria
of governmental policies and actions, or does the state/government
policies and actions rely on another principle beside the safety of
the state/citizens?

conservatives hold that one of, but not necessarily the most important aspect/reason
of the state/government is to hold to the freedom of the individuals within
that society/state…and it is this yo-yo between the government role being one
of safety or of keeping freedoms alive, that has caused conservatives to seem,
well, Schizophrenic… what values are they pushing, the safety of the citizens
or, or the freedom of its citizens, in which case, the safety of the citizens
can become a secondary impulse of governmental actions/policies…
what comes first, the safety or the freedom of the individuals within a society/state?
and how do we answer this question without any recourse to mysticism?

what human values do we use to justify our response to this important question or
do we have recourse to the mysticism of a metaphysical answer to this question?

so another question becomes, how do we answer the question, what is
proper ethics/morality of human beings? do we answer in terms of
the mystical, the metaphysics or do we answer within our human needs
and values? upon what is ethics/morality based upon? supernatural/metaphysical
values or do we base our ethics/morality upon human values and needs?

we can begin with one possibility… that life is sacred, all life is sacred… but that it is sacred
because of human values and needs/possibilities… life is sacred not because
god has decried it, but that we humans have decried it… it becomes
a human value, a human principle… and that is enough to removed it
from a metaphysical/mystical understanding of ethics/morality…
that is one possibility for us to engage with, in our taking ethics/morality
from a human possibility/values/needs…

but that isn’t the only possibility available to us, we can locate
our understanding of ethics/morality into any one of a number of
values/possibilities that we human hold to… we can hold to ethics/
morality upon the values of love, peace, justice, hope, charity,
autonomy, compassion, community, fairness, happiness, inner harmony,
optimism, respect, wisdom, and spirituality…

we can hold to a system of ethics/morality based upon any one of these
or another chosen value/values…we need not reduce our ethics/morality
to be based upon mystical or metaphysical values…

we can also choose to have our ethics/morals based upon other
aspects of philosophy… for example, we can hold our ethics/moral based
upon the study of Aestheticism… an approach to ART that allows us to
think about our ethics and morals in terms of an aesthetics…
what is the beautiful? that can be an aesthetics problem but
it can also be an ethics/moral problem/answer…

we just have to have enough imagination to understand the relationship
between ethics/morals and aestheticism…or perhaps we judge
morals/ethics based on epistemological questions… what is the “correct
knowledge” of what is moral/ethical?

we can judge ethics/moral problems based on any number of human constructs,
we don’t need to confine ourselves to mystical/metaphysical solutions
of ethics/morality…

so let us return ethics/morality to a human solution, not a metaphysical
solution…

Kropotkin

9

came across this in Barrett’s book, “The illusion of technique”
chapter 6…

‘‘Godel showed that even such a relatively simple system as
elementary arithmetic is too rich to be encompassed by any
set of axioms. It will always contain more truths then the axioms
can yield’’

think about this and wonder, if we replace the words, elementary
arithmetic with the word, philosophy…it doesn’t change the sentences…
we can see how philosophy is too rich to be encompassed by any
set of axioms… It will contain more truths then the axioms can yield…

and given what we know about philosophy, this is certainly true…
so let us think about the Machiavelli “truths” that all men are born with
“certain spots” that a man is born either good or evil, with no possibility
of changing those spots, either changing one’s nature to the other,
from good to evil or from evil to good… we are “set” in life…
an axiom that is set, but we know that life contains more truths
then the axioms can yield…human beings can and do change from
“good” to “evil” or “evil” to “good” otherwise why do we celebrate
Dickens novel, “A Christmas Carol”… for it is within fiction,
that we discover truths that cannot be found within the disciplines
of philosophy, history, economic, social studies, biology or any other discipline…
in what discipline can we find the story of “Ebenezer Scrooge?”
can you find that “truth” in history, or in philosophy or in
math or in science?

we see that in philosophy or in history, we see that the axioms of those
disciplines are not always present… for example, the axiom,
“that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
is this a truism or, or are they “truths” that lie outside of this axiom?
is Jesus a god and did that “absolute power” corrupt absolutely?
I for one, wonder…for in reading the bible, one can see the “hubris” of
Jesus…and does that “hubris” come from having “absolute power?”

we see more truths then any axiom can contain… now what?

Kropotkin

10

let us explore another axiom…

“Love thy fellow man”

if there was a central axiom of the bible, this is it…
and yet, we can see Christians violating both
the spirit and letter of this axiom…
if you approve of torture, that is a violation of
this axiom, if you are ok with the police violating
the civil rights of citizens, then you are violating
this axiom…if you favor the death penalty, then
you are violating this axiom…

if you say, there are circumstances which allow us to violate
this particular axiom, then you hold that there are "truths’’
outside of and beyond this axiom…we see more truths
then the axiom can contain…so we violate Gods/Jesus axiom
to “love thy fellow man”…

if every axiom has a exception to it, then every axiom
contains more truths then the axiom itself contains…

to achieve some understanding of any particular axiom then
requires us to, and I mean this sincerely, to think outside of the box…
for an axiom is a box… and if there are truths outside of that box,
then we must, to reach those truths, think outside of the box…

so what is ethics/morality? the box says, we must obey the word of god,
to follow the 10 commandments… because they are the “Law” of god…
to think outside of the box is what Nietzsche did when he tried to engage
in ethics/morality as a human construct, not as a construct of the divine…
how do we engage with ethics/morality within human values, human
devices, human actions…and thus we return to the list of values by
which we can take ethics/morality and judge it by… by love, hope,
justice, peace, charity…so on and so forth…

or we can even judge ethics/morality by aesthetic values or by
epistemological values… what is the “true” knowledge of ethics/morality?
and make that judgement based on what we humans can know, the limits
of that knowledge, the scope of that knowledge…

we could, if we got motivated, we can begin our exploration of ethics/morality
within the philosophical concept of logic or perhaps, political science, or
perhaps an aspect of philosophy like existentialism or perhaps a philosophy
of language… or perhaps analytic or continental philosophy…

we have many roads in which we can explore what it means to be
ethical/moral… we just have to choose one…

Kropotkin