Philosophy, Life and Scholasticism

[speed]

Every month on this board, I’m tortured by the same thoughts and ideas. What causes me such intellectual torments? The nature and purpose of philosophy of course—although I do say, the same split occurs in different manifestations in my non-philosophical life. Such a vague question you surely ask. Indeed, quite nebulous; perhaps I will elaborate upon it further, so I may find some sort of solution to my terribly vexing problem.

Can philosophy take on and address life issues; and, should philosophy be accessible to non-philosophers/academics, or not? And, if philosophy does take on and address life issues, what problems or benefits does that bring? Moreover, if philosophy is to only be the realm of academics, then has it lost its central meaning and becoming entirely pointless and only indirectly influential? Or, if philosophy becomes accessible, does it become terribly superficial and even harmful, and thus meaningless as well?

 

[Blowtus]

How would you determine the scope of it's accessibility / influence, even if you decided what was wanted? Surely anyone can think about philosophical issues and make use of the ideas, conclusions, and methods of thought drawn from it. More analysis (thus hopefully understanding) of human thought and systems by some / all could seem only a positive thing to me.

I don't think I could be considered a philosopher or academic, but my long term interest in thinking and choosing 'well' (a logically consistent manner) has led me down this path of beginning to read philosophy and posting in this forum

 

[derbeder]

What sorts of issues do you take to be "life issues"? Questions in normative ethics? What else?

 

[derek]

Every month on this board, I’m tortured by the same thoughts and ideas. What causes me such intellectual torments? The nature and purpose of philosophy of course—although I do say, the same split occurs in different manifestations in my non-philosophical life. Such a vague question you surely ask. Indeed, quite nebulous; perhaps I will elaborate upon it further, so I may find some sort of solution to my terribly vexing problem.

Can philosophy take on and address life issues; and, should philosophy be accessible to non-philosophers/academics, or not? And, if philosophy does take on and address life issues, what problems or benefits does that bring? Moreover, if philosophy is to only be the realm of academics, then has it lost its central meaning and becoming entirely pointless and only indirectly influential? Or, if philosophy becomes accessible, does it become terribly superficial and even harmful, and thus meaningless as well?

Philosophy only really means a love of wisdom. What manifestation said love for wisdom takes is almost arbitrary.

Whether philosophy is taken to the point of mundane Academia or simply thought upon as basic metaphysical questions seems irrelevant to me. It's still philosophy.

Moreover, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who first loved philosophy because they stumbled across the Journal of the American Analytic society, I think the basic philosophical questions were always what introduced the wonder of philosophy to most of us. I think the great power of philosophy still lies in those questions.

 

[speed]

Philosophy only really means a love of wisdom. What manifestation said love for wisdom takes is almost arbitrary.

Whether philosophy is taken to the point of mundane Academia or simply thought upon as basic metaphysical questions seems irrelevant to me. It's still philosophy.

Moreover, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who first loved philosophy because they stumbled across the Journal of the American Analytic society, I think the basic philosophical questions were always what introduced the wonder of philosophy to most of us. I think the great power of philosophy still lies in those questions.

Someone give rep points to this man!

 

[derek]

It's just a reflection I've always had on philosophy. I entered serious study of it in University and found myself left wanting. It dawned on me that what really stole my heart about the whole endeavour was not pedantic Academia but simply a Love for Wisdom.

I found myself reading Hume, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, Locke and Mill and loving it. When I made the transition to a rigid philosophical teaching environment, I hated it. Perhaps that is just me, though.

 

[Justin S.]

For me, "Philosophy" was something rare that presented glimpses of honesty- even if most is terribly dishonest. I ask for honesty- "wisdom", let alone love of it, seems too much.

My character, even prior to exposure to philosophy, is "post-modern" to the core- What lured me into philosophy is nearly opposite to that which will attract a "classicist" like Derek.

I loathed the systems of Philosophy, "Philosophy" as ubridled metaphysics- Plato, Locke, Nietzsche, all made me cringe.

I craved something more penetrating, "simple" in its claims, "complex" in its considerations, and radical in its projecting force. It was after reading Wittgenstein's Tractatus that I was determined to pursue "philosophy", and not because of "agreement" ( I am not fond of the analytic tradition).

Philosophy, as that bloated and arrogant world-historical tradition, is a barrier to honesty. It is when it falls from its perch into simple saying that it deserves to be called mindful thinking.

"Philosophy", when understood as mindful thinking, knows neither "life issues" nor "academia". These distinctions fall before a more originary thinking.

As far as its "accessibility", honesty is a rare virtue...

 

[speed]

For me, "Philosophy" was something rare that presented glimpses of honesty- even if most is terribly dishonest. I ask for honesty- "wisdom", let alone love of it, seems too much.

My character, even prior to exposure to philosophy, is "post-modern" to the core- What lured me into philosophy is nearly opposite to that which will attract a "classicist" like Derek.

I loathed the systems of Philosophy, "Philosophy" as ubridled metaphysics- Plato, Locke, Nietzsche, all made me cringe.

I craved something more penetrating, "simple" its its claims, "complex" in its considerations, and radical its is projecting force. It was after reading Wittgenstein's Tractatus that I was determined to pursue "philosophy", and not because of "agreement" ( I am not fond of the analytic tradition).

Philosophy, as that bloated and arrogant world-historical tradition, is a barrier to honesty. It is when it falls from its perch into simple saying that it deserves to be called mindful thinking.

"Philosophy", when understood as mindful thinking, knows neither "life issues" nor "academia". These distinctions fall before a more originary thinking.

As far as its "accessibility", honesty is a rare virtue...

I really truly believe like Derek, the attractiveness to philosophy is wisdom, and the imparting of said wisdom and ideas the study of philosophy brings.

As for Justin S' comments: you know, I am totally with you on your hatred of systems and love of post-modernism; but, I adore the classics as well. My philosophical loves are those who didnt create systems: The Cynics, The stoics (ok, a code of ethics), the epicureans, pre-socratics, Nietszche, Kierkegaard, Wittegenstein, Cioran, and Camus and a smattering of others. I also have a rather deep background in political economy (part of philosophy until a hundred years ago) like Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Turgot, Schumpeter etc.

But anyway, I think this problem about academia and accessibility is present in almost every discipline, and in society as well. The two philosophy classes I took in college were most depressing, pedantic, and pointless. I learned nothing, I read only one great philosophical tome and was forced to regurgitate my professors opinions on it and other useless philosophical writings. But I can say that the very same practices are found in History, Literature, fill in the blank academic departments.

But as for accessibility, you know, almost everything seems to be dumbed down these days; and anything a little more difficult, is totally ignored. Thus we have this culture of ignorance. And its a real problem for academia, which instead of trying to be a mediator between thought and the world/public, instead only produces works that are entirely useless to anyone but fellow academics--unless your'e a prof in a more applied field, and get a nice contract with a company, government etc.--then you find yourself writing executive summaries, forgetting about the theories etc.

So, thought has become ridiculously pedantic and methodical in academia, and terribly dumbed down in society. This is terrifically important for a field like philosophy that only exists in universities and conversations at cafes; a profession with no real direct practical use. And thus the problems...we see what happens on this board when persons become enraptured with Nietszche or Evola etc. in a watered down or misinterpreted form. So, what will the future bring? Will philosophy become entirely sealed off into its own little academic realm, while economists and scientists influence or ideas and world view? And what will happen as people become even more oblivious to the collected wisdom of 2,600 years?

 

[derbeder]

What passes for philosophy in postmodernist circles is essentially all gibberish that noone really understands. It is fairly easy to get into the swing of how to speak and write like a postmodernist and get fooled into thinking that one is actually on the way to understanding something (and/or fool others too, as in the Sokal hoax). But it all boils down to catchphrases and rhetoric - there is not a decent argument in sight in any of the postmodernist authors that I have read. Only some "considerations", some seemingly irrelevant stuff pulled from history and literature and occasionally some conclusions, but it is usually a mystery how one actually gets to the conclusion. The main background assumptions that postmodernist opearate with - eg. that there is no objective knowledge, that much of the world is some kind of a social construct (they tend not to explain what this really comes to) - are not well argued for. Indeed it all seems like they take Kant to have established that we can only conceptualize and think about a mind-dependent world, and all they do is to reject Kant's assumption that the concepts different minds use to construct the world they think about are the same. So we get a plurality of mind-dependent worlds, for each society (supposing in each society individuals in that society share key concepts and that each society differs from others in their key concepts.) This surely seems false, but even if it were true, this is not the way to argue for it.
If it is pedantic to ask for clear formulations of philosophical issues and good arguments for them, then so be it. I doubt this is really being pedantic however. If we are to get some results, we need to do hard work, and some ramblings in a cafe corner with some seemingly irrelevant literature and history mixed in will not do. The intelligent dabbler in philosophy may not really be interested in getting results, but someone really serious about philosophy will legitimately have that interest. In an academic environment, one has to be clear and careful in a way that one need not be at the cafe, and even though some things are annoying about being surrounded by academics, this is not one of them.

 

[Justin S.]

^ I expected such a response. As I am a philosophy student in a rigidly analytic department, I am used to the above arguments being wheeled out, as they have been for decades.

Not only do these sentiments betray a total lack of understanding of "continental" or "post-modern" thought, but also point to a poor reading of analytic works within Philosophy of Science, Mind, etc.

The foundations of "analytic" thought are far from the stability you seem to imply. One need only to look at the failed projects in Philosophy of Science to see the vague, disruptive, and ambiguous metaphysics always lurking in the background. The honest and thoughtful analytic thinkers admit this, and do not display such an arrogant hostility to "non-analytic" thought.

On what ground stands the scoffer?

 

[Cythraul]

On what ground stands the scoffer?

intelligibility

 

[Justin S.]

intelligibility

Which, of course, is "self-evident", not ambiguous in the least, immune from acculturation, and solid as an oak.

Yes, lets move along now without further ado...

 

[Cythraul]

Which, of course, is "self-evident", not ambiguous in the least, immune from acculturation, and solid as an oak.

I require nothing more than that a person says things that makes sense, and makes themself capable of being understood. Y'know, kind of like what we're doing right now.

I have no idea how your objection applies to what I said. I don't even know what it would mean for intelligibility to be self-evident. This is not some weighty metaphysical or epistemological issue. At least I don't see it that way. Intelligibility is a necessary condition for genuine communication. That's it.

 

[derbeder]

The foundations of "analytic" thought are far from the stability you seem to imply. One need only to look at the failed projects in Philosophy of Science to see the vague, disruptive, and ambiguous metaphysics always lurking in the background. The honest and thoughtful analytic thinkers admit this, and do not display such an arrogant hostility to "non-analytic" thought.

I actually happen to read a good deal more continental philosophy than most of the people I know in graduate programs. But my readings is essentially limited to Husserl, early Heidegger and some Merlau-Ponty. There is actually a good deal to learn here, even though not everything is as clearly expressed as possible. Indeed, I take the project of extracting whatever is useful from the analysis of worldhood in the early sections of Being and Time very seriously. People working on the foundations of artificial intelligence (and some working actively in the field, especially mobile robotics in the early 1990s) found many ideas of interest in Heidegger (and Merlau-Ponty to an extent), but a detailed interpretation did not come by which stayed very close to the text and had points of relevance to AI research (Hubert Dreyfus' interpretation is not close enough to the text, but it is a must-read.). I might at one point go back on working on that project. I doubt I show any hostility to those continental philosophers that have something interesting and important to say even if it is expressed in a rather abstruse way. But I have had a lot of trouble interpreting the writings of many other continental philosophers, especially postmodernists, and the parts I did understand were usually poorly argued.

What point are you referencing in relation to the philosophy of science? I hope not anything inspired by Kuhn or Feyerabend.

 

[speed]

Well this has turned into a very interesting academic debate between Justin S, Cythraul, and Derbeder; but, what about the non-academic debate?

I'm still not totally convinced its a good thing for philosophy to be popularized and bastardized. Look at what has happened in the past and today, with Hegel, Rousseau, Kant, Mill and Locke, Nietszche, Marx (ok, well that was his own damn fault for writing the ridiculous 2nd part to the communist manifesto), and how such writings were bastardized and utilized by the intelligentsia, revolutionaries, politicians, and second rate writers. But then again, I think its extremely important this wisdom as derek put it, is available to any reasonably intelligent person, and should not be couched in ridiculously obtuse or academic language, or entirely centered on logic or epistemology. So, Im still stuck in this very bizarre situation. I dislike academic philosophy and pretty much everything Ive read produced in the past 50 years besides Foucault and Camus (not the most rigid of philosophers here), and I think philosophy will continue to decline in importance if you will, if current trends continue; and yet, I am also afraid of what happens when philosophical systems and ideas become crudely popularized.

Was perhaps Russell on to something with his split between academic logic/math etc. and his popularized but well-written and common-sensical general philosophical works? I dont know.

 

[Justin S.]

Both Cythraul and derbeder expect continental philosophy to work within the framework (to play by the rules) of the analytic tradition. Indeed, their school of thought is assumed as the only true, or "acceptable", "thought" with all others as flawed approximations that simply needed to be "tidied" up (such as extracting "sound arguments" or "scientifically applicable" segments from Heidegger amongst the "unintelligible chaff"). This is absurd, disingenuous, rash, dogmatic, and strictly authoritarian.

For example: A thinker who is questioning the very notions of "logic", "intelligibility", or "empiricism" certainly cannot appeal to them as grounds, as their functioning, as ground, is under question. Outrage at how this questioning does not follow "logic" as it questions "logic" understands nothing about the pursuit and cannot even address it.

This explains much of why the analytic tradition is nearly monastically sealed off from the world in comparison to the continental tradition, which examines all texts.

The parallel of a religious order is appropriate. Certainly the grounds for the analytic perspective are never truly or decisively questioned, never even conceived as a possible domain of questioning, and are dismissed immediately. An example is Cythraul's casual wave of the hand at something as massive as "intelligibility", as if it is a simple matter, and all inquires are satisfied by the observation that we have some ability to communicate some things through a codified and standardized language, or as if "understanding" is merely a matter of symbology (rather than the meanings of said symbols). If we wish to have some more fun, let's discuss what exactly constitutes the "physical" in contrast to the "metaphysical", the ground for "empiricism", or heaven forbid, "logic" itself. Then we will witness how the wholly rational and rigorous analytic tradition handles simple self-questioning and critical inquiry into its foundations.

About my previous comments on Philosophy of Science: For examples of failed projects, there are too many to list. However, Russell's goals, Nagel's reductivism, and Hempel's Deductive-Nomological model (and all its off-shoots) immediately spring to mind.

As far as more "open" thinkers: Salmon, Van Fraassen, and Lewis seem to be more responsive to problems within their discipline.

 

[judas69]

When I made the transition to a rigid philosophical teaching environment, I hated it. Perhaps that is just me, though.

Can you elaborate?

 

[derek]

I left highschool at an early age to start a University education (around 15 and a bit) prior to that I very much enjoyed reading a wide amount of philosophy. After a few years studying Philosophy I began to get tired of it and after graduating to Honours Philosophy I began to really hate it. The environment was rigid, my fellow students vacant or poseurs, the courses and lectures rigid and far from enjoyable.

In basic terms the lust for philosophy I had was gone. So I pursued a degree and subsequent post-grad in Classics, Latin and ancient Greek instead.

 

[judas69]

I've always believed motivation, curiosity, enthusiasm were among the most important qualities to develop in students and of course, shouldn't be lost at the expense of the knowledge the system or some egocentric prof.

If I ever do become a teacher, I think my excitement towards learning, thinking, creating would rub off on my students, and I surely can relate to what you're saying having spent a lot of years in the system.

 

[OldScratch]

I left highschool at an early age to start a University education (around 15 and a bit) prior to that I very much enjoyed reading a wide amount of philosophy. After a few years studying Philosophy I began to get tired of it and after graduating to Honours Philosophy I began to really hate it. The environment was rigid, my fellow students vacant or poseurs, the courses and lectures rigid and far from enjoyable.

In basic terms the lust for philosophy I had was gone. So I pursued a degree and subsequent post-grad in Classics, Latin and ancient Greek instead.

I sincerely doubt you are alone in this experience. It is in no way difficult to understand how this could happen. I struggle with this even now to a degree...and I'm but a lowly dabbler.