The True Philosophical Journey

speed

Member
Nov 19, 2001
5,192
26
48
Visit site
I know we have a previous thread on Socrates, but, I came across this passage in a wonderful book on Socrates by Luis Navia. This is the concluding paragraph of the book, and i transcribed it, because I thought it was so meaningful. It covers the whole of the intellectual gamut. Please read and post any comments.



Socrates is not a language philosopher for whom the analysis of language is the goal of all philosophical activity, and neither is he an existential thinker facing the absurdity of the human condition. He is not a Platonic idealist whose imagination roams at the ease in ethereal dogmas of speculation, nor a theological philosopher for whom the dogmas of this or that religion constitute the basis of his thoughts, nor a militant humanist for whom anything that transcends immediate human physical dimension is devoid of meaning. He is none of these things, and yet, in a sense, he is all of them. He is a philosopher, simply and purely, that is a man of reason and curiosity. To the confused and aimless world in which we now live he teaches that philosophy is not merely an academic profession for the benefit of linguistic dabblers and ideological preachers, but a total commitment to a life of reason and honesty, through the example of which, the young may learn to reorient their lives in a meaningful direction; that education is not a thoughtless system of instruction and indoctrination whose exclusive aim is to satisfy blindly the demands of the job market, but a process of self-growth in which people can learn to be better and happier persons; that science is not the embodiment if the truth which is pontifically preached, as if from a pulpit, by scientific dilettantes, but an open and honest search for knowledge, and an activity that must be forced to conform to the spiritual and physical exigencies of the human condition; that religion is not the entrapment of the mind in emotional and obscurantist bonds created, heaven knows why, by fallible persons who declare themselves infallible, or by fundamentalists who sacrifice the spirit in the name of the inert word, but an attitude of critical reverence towards a higher dimension which may possibly hover over us; that politics is not the unintelligent allegiance to parties, flags, slogans, or anthems, through which shrewd manipulators enslave and exploit the unthinking masses, but a general concern for the welfare of humanity, not of this or that country, not of this or that race, but of the whole human world; that ethics is not the scholastic study of ethical utterances and usages in which analytical experts, just like the ancient Sophists, often excel, but a way of life committed to certain ethical convictions that make sense in the light of reason; that human existence is not just a concatenation of fleeing moments which are devoted to the pursuit of pleasure, wealth, power or success in some form or another, but a task to be pursued by each one of us, just as a great artist strives to complete his supreme creation; that revolutions, whether cultural or political, are bound to fail, as long as the spiritual revolution to regenerate the soul in each one of us has not been successful. This is, I believe what Socrates teaches. His message may be difficult to accept and even more difficult to actualize. But do we really have any other choice?
 
Philosophy is not, and should never be viewed as, a body of doctrine. That is left to Ethics. Foucault decribed Philosophy well as "The History of Systems of Thought".

While I admire Socrates in his context, there are many, many flaws in his thinking that have been analyized in depth. It would be reactionary, irresponsible, and intellectually indefensible to return to some neo-Greek ethics and thought.

No rigorous thinker would fall back on some specialized formula of thought. Reality is not a simple, one variable sequence, and neither should be ones approach to understanding it.
 
Justin S. said:
Philosophy is not, and should never be viewed as, a body of doctrine. That is left to Ethics. Foucault decribed Philosophy well as "The History of Systems of Thought".

While I admire Socrates in his context, there are many, many flaws in his thinking that have been analyized in depth. It would be reactionary, irresponsible, and intellectually indefensible to return to some neo-Greek ethics and thought.

No rigorous thinker would fall back on some specialized formula of thought. Reality is not a simple, one variable sequence, and neither should be ones approach to understanding it.

I am going to disagree with the second part of your statement.

Of course, there are irreconceivable flaws in every philosophical system, or thought. But the Ancient greeks pondered the very same problems as modern philosophy: the fallibility of language, and hence the pointlessness of logical systems; the nature of the world, how one thinks, etc, etc. And how much does Nietszche owe the Sophists and Pre Socratics? And all the rest owe Plato and Aristotle?

My point is-- and this is why I posted this thread-- is that Socrates, and much of ancient Greek philosophy, was concerned about what matters most: guiding every individual on the path to eudaimonia and virtue. In Socrates, and the Cynics, Stoics, hell even the Peripatetics and Epicureans case, all these logical systems, politics, and other bufoonery was nonsense. The true aim was virtue and a better society. Philosophy and ethics were lived out not discussed as linguistic riddles discussed by a few petty hypocritical academics. So there may have been flaws? Who cares? Can one imagine talking with Socrates, or Diogenes of Sinope? Men who not only lived what they taught and believed, but openly challenged others to be better men, and to do it not only for personal motives, but to create a better community as well. I agree with Navia; this needs once again to be the aim of philosophy. Today it is a hollow subject of no importance to anyones life.
 
At least nowadays you can score a sweet job at your local coffee shop with a degree in philosophy. :)
 
speed said:
Philosophy and ethics were lived out not discussed as linguistic riddles discussed by a few petty hypocritical academics.

Excellent point. When I studied this a few years back, I often thought the classical philosophers were much more noble in there pursuits. Modern philosophy does seem to be inevitably bogged down with petty squables over things, we could consider, arbitrary.

Sadly, however, i worked at a coffee shop for a few months after i graduated so i could go to Finland.

Its like the old joke: "what do you say to person with an arts degree?.......



......can i have fries with that, please?"
 
speed said:
...the Ancient greeks pondered the very same problems as modern philosophy: the fallibility of language, and hence the pointlessness of logical systems; the nature of the world, how one thinks, etc, etc.

[...]

Can one imagine talking with Socrates, or Diogenes of Sinope? Men who not only lived what they taught and believed, but openly challenged others to be better men, and to do it not only for personal motives, but to create a better community as well.


so which was it?

If language is fallible to the extent that logical analysis fails to appreciate it, then how would it be possible to live according to one's spoken words, ie his or her use of language in a manner that attempts to make its usage apply/adhere solidly (not so abstract that it has no concrete value)?


I would argue that any such time-passing devices as arguments against the solidity and possible universal applications of truly logical systems are mere follies construed by persons with little appreciation for science.


also, modern philosophy is a term that is inclusive of such practices as psychological-therapeutic counsel. I do not agree that these practices mull over such topics as the fallibilty of language; but rather, its depth.
 
so which was it?

If language is fallible to the extent that logical analysis fails to appreciate it, then how would it be possible to live according to one's spoken words, ie his or her use of language in a manner that attempts to make its usage apply/adhere solidly (not so abstract that it has no concrete value)?


I would argue that any such time-passing devices as arguments against the solidity and possible universal applications of truly logical systems are mere follies construed by persons with little appreciation for science.


also, modern philosophy is a term that is inclusive of such practices as psychological-therapeutic counsel. I do not agree that these practices mull over such topics as the fallibilty of language; but rather, its depth.

As for the spoken words, I believe you forget that Socrates and Diogenes never wrote anything, but lived their philosophy by pure example. Clearly this has never again been attempted except by religious and monastic orders. And as you may remember, both claimed not to really know anything, except for socratic thought that believed that knowledge= virtue, etc.

Please clarify your second paragraph. Are you stating that there are logical systems that do have perfect universal applications? If this is true, and exactly waht you believe then I do agree a great many logical, mathmatical, etc systems do have universal applications, but they are never iron clad; hence, they are never totally always true.

And so just what are you stating about psychology and philsophy in the third paragraph? Please elaborate. Seriously, I enjoy the exchange, even if I am proven totally in error.

We have incredibly different beliefs, thus I enjoy the argument. I am more or less advocating a ridiculous semi-return or acknoledgment of classical thought, and you are entirely the modern thinker.
 
Once again, Speed comes to a bunch of erroneous conclusions about modern philosophy. You actually don't realize that the "language problems" that modern philosophers mull over are directly related to traditional philosophical problems, at least in a lot of cases. I won't deny that there's some trifling there though. Anyway, shut the fuck up.

edit: hold on, I missed your point. Disregard this post.
 
Cythraul said:
Once again, Speed comes to a bunch of erroneous conclusions about modern philosophy. You actually don't realize that the "language problems" that modern philosophers mull over are directly related to traditional philosophical problems, at least in a lot of cases. I won't deny that there's some trifling there though. Anyway, shut the fuck up.

edit: hold on, I missed your point. Disregard this post.

I was only discussing ancient philosophy. But frankly, I havent read a moden philosopher since Camus, Sartre, Popper, and Cioran--and I wouldnt call them (other than Popper) modern.

But is there a point to reading or discussing modern philosophy? That's what this thread is about. Is there some higher meaning or purpose that applies to each human life or just esoteric nonsense? I dont know; but please, if you know, do tell.
 
I don't really know what you mean by "higher purpose." There's nothing esoteric or nonsensical about analytic philosophy done right. I really suggest you read some of the stuff because a lot has to do with philosophical problems that have been around for ages. Ok, I'll list some writers I like. There's nothing esoteric about this stuff; it's just highly technical. You mentioned that you read Popper so I think you have some idea of what I'm going to recommend. Alright:

John Searle
G.E. Moore (read Principia Ethica)
Hilary Putnam
Ludwig Wittgenstein (I think you're already familiar with him)

read those guys and then come back and tell me that's esoteric nonsense. If anything, shit like Camus and Cioran (from what I've read) is esoteric nonsense.
 
I agree esoteric is perhaps the wrong word. Hm, I guess the word I am looking for is pointless, or academic.

But I will check some of these philosophers out. And yes I do very much enjoy Popper and Wittegenstein. How about Derrida?
 
speed said:
I agree esoteric is perhaps the wrong word. Hm, I guess the word I am looking for is pointless, or academic.

But I will check some of these philosophers out. And yes I do very much enjoy Popper and Wittegenstein. How about Derrida?

Pointless? Ok, it's only pointless to you if you generally don't care about the questions philosophers ask. Why should philosophy be answerable to people like you? It's an independent discipline with its own independent interests and concerns. You seem to think that philosophy should serve a "higher purpose" or some vague shit of that nature. God forbid someone may find philosophical questions intrinsically interesting. Oh and I hate Derrida.
 
Cythraul said:
Pointless? Ok, it's only pointless to you if you generally don't care about the questions philosophers ask. Why should philosophy be answerable to people like you? It's an independent discipline with its own independent interests and concerns. You seem to think that philosophy should serve a "higher purpose" or some vague shit of that nature. God forbid someone may find philosophical questions intrinsically interesting. Oh and I hate Derrida.

Well frankly I feel this way about most subjects these days. They have become so specialized and known and understood by just a few, that they are entirely pointless to the uninitiated--and modern philosophy is one of them. We may reap the indirect benefits of such obscure specializations, but by and large they are useless to our lives. So, yes, I feel if something doesnt have some higher meaning, then it is not that important. Call me crazy.
 
A cursory review of this post shows me a brilliant point on Socrates (I am unfamiliar with the referenced author - and, frankly, I expected to have issue with the text inasmuch as I am readily opposed to anyone who takes to categorically representing previously created ideas - but I think the statements made are well founded) reduced to convoluted semantics.

There is no room here for debate over Socrates' language. As stated, Socrates was "a man of reason and curiosity." He was the Zeno before him and Hume after him - he did not question what we know so much as why we think we know what we think.

Justin S. says "No rigorous thinker would fall back on some specialized formula of thought." This could not be farther from the truth - All thinkers do just this - Socrates simply asked if the particular formula was correct.
 
ARC150 said:
A cursory review of this post shows me a brilliant point on Socrates (I am unfamiliar with the referenced author - and, frankly, I expected to have issue with the text inasmuch as I am readily opposed to anyone who takes to categorically representing previously created ideas - but I think the statements made are well founded) reduced to convoluted semantics.

There is no room here for debate over Socrates' language. As stated, Socrates was "a man of reason and curiosity." He was the Zeno before him and Hume after him - he did not question what we know so much as why we think we know what we think.

Justin S. says "No rigorous thinker would fall back on some specialized formula of thought." This could not be farther from the truth - All thinkers do just this - Socrates simply asked if the particular formula was correct.

Welcome. Excellent analysis! I couldnt agree more.