Purpose of Philosophy
Do you know what the purpose of philosophy is?
The true purpose of philosophy is to maintain nature's course---to make sure humans don't depart too much from it. That's it. It doesn't teach anything. In fact, philosophy is impossible to teach. You're either a philosopher or you're not. And the things philosophy expresses are most difficult to share.
The true purpose of philosophy is to maintain nature's course---to make sure humans don't depart too much from it. That's it. It doesn't teach anything. In fact, philosophy is impossible to teach. You're either a philosopher or you're not. And the things philosophy expresses are most difficult to share.
Comments (59)
Click on the little return arrow that appears at the bottom of a post to let folk know you have replied to them.
Then the purpose of philosophy is to avoid bad things happening?
Doesn't that amount to a teaching though? And how can you prove that this is the "true purpose" of philosophy? How do we know that there is no higher reality than nature that is trying to teach us about itself by means of philosophy?
. What is the purpose of Philosophy?
. Philosophy has no purpose ... And if it has ... It is to stupefy human ...
. I want you to see this, with no preconceived idea; with clarity of mind; with emptiness of mind ...
. Philosophy is playing with shadows, thoughts, speculation. And you can go on playing infinitely, ad infinitum, ad nauseam; there is no end to it.
. One word creates another word, one theory creates another theory, and you can go on and on and on.
. In five thousand years much philosophy has existed in the world, and to no purpose at all.
. But there are people who have the philosophic attitude. And if you are one of them, please drop it; otherwise you and your energy will be lost in a desert.
. Be simple, and by being simple ... by being ordinary ... so much ordinary ... effortless, you'll become extraordinary ...
You gotta work that SOB.
X and Y exist, and the simple fact they don't matter, itself does not matter. So they proceed apace as if they did, and that is all that matters. Philosophy is the proceeding apace with the brain.
And some of us (me) should learn to stretch and pace ourselves or we'll pull a muscle.
Oh, and if you hang out in conservative Q safe-space echo chambers of confirmation bias, compounding stupidity, then you are basically having your brain lay on the couch eating McDonalds all day. That is not only dangerous for you, but it's dangerous for everyone else. Get out there and engage in philosophy: not the easy weights you want to lift, but the hard ones that will grow your brain.
What is it to you? That's really all that matters in the end.
Brilliant - I just edited a post in another thread to include this. 'Self-immiserating' - fabulous word :fire:
Lots of interconnecting going on, huh ?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10817/how-do-we-understand-light-and-darkness-is-this-a-question-for-physics-or-impossible-metaphysics
This is close to my own practice and to how philosophy was practiced in the Socratic schools, but, as I am sure you know, this does not describe the practice of philosophy for much of the history of western philosophy or what is most commonly taught in academia.
I have not found a description of philosophy that is all inclusive of what it is that those who are called philosophers do. And so, there is no single answer to what the purpose of philosophy is that will be agreed on.
But don't we all make philosophical decisions every day? Don't we decide what events "are" and then how best to live with them? We may be wrong, or do it poorly, or don't want the awareness of what we are doing but no one else is doing it for us. Don't we all have a current world view that we have accepted whether we worked at it or not?
Do we do all that for the love of it?
"The purpose of philosophy is to make man feel better a notch than before." = A.T. n T.
"The purpose of philosophy is to find answers to the unanswerable questions."
"The purpose of philosophy is to unify the consensus on what the purpose of philosophy is."
"The purpose of philosophy is measured by the same valuation scale as the meaning of life."
"The purpose of philosophy is to show man how to not disturb nature while we rape Mother Nature, pillage her goods and pilfer it on nonsense like producing The Kardishians or that show which shows four past-middle aged women post-multi-aesthetic corrective surgery sitting around and having a conversation, all speaking at the same time."
"The purpose of philosophy is to counteract as an antidote the serious occupation of work."
"The purpose of philosophy, in particular to the Internet, is to counter-act the potential overdosing on cute cat pictures."
No. We do it because we can't do without it. Formal philosophical positions are just a light cast on what we accepted yesterday. And we will amend tomorrow. Even if we accepted ignorant positions we still accepted them to make our way. Everyone is in the driver's seat. If the car is rolling then they are going somewhere. To say they don't know where they are going is a judgement not a condition.
You just answered the question. Philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom. That's what distinguishes it from all the day to day thinking you reference.
It is true, the meaning of the word philosophy when looking at it from an etymological point of view, is the love of wisdom.
So would you say the purpose of philosophy is to satisfy the love one feels for wisdom? To seek out truth, and be able to use logic to defend it?
I would argue, that that's pretty well it. Or very close to it, at any rate.
That sounds good to me. Everyone has a muscle. Everyone has a brain. But the love of their use, simply for the use (and not some practical goal) would separate them.
And humans love to think they are wise. Whether they are or not.
True. And sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.
Yep, and sometimes the ones who think they aren't, are and the ones who think they are, aren't.
Loving wisdom doesn't mean you have any. I've never been quite sure how to interpret this 'love of wisdom'. It sounds passive and slightly lackluster. It seems to miss something of the vigor attached to challenging one's assumptions and beliefs and actually fighting to comprehend something new and alien.
I guess love can be feigned. Maybe a better vetting process would help. Maybe trying to avoid triggering someone with comments about their thoughts. Maybe questions from sincere curiosity. Maybe trying to be helpful instead of superior. I've written about complaint and the strong/weak, wise/stupid dichotomy, and I always try to recognize the humanity of it, and the fact that we all are human and lack wisdom and strength. The best way to prove that, and engender humility, is to try and carry, understand, and feel. That's a hard pull for folks like me, especially when triggered.
Like-wise.
However, the 'wisdom' part can be seen as a 'notion'; what is 'wisdom'.
The 'love' part can be seen as the 'emotion', the spark which triggers the 'motion', the process you talk about. That earlier 'notion >emotion > motion' we talked of before.
Wisdom: what is it to be 'wise' ? Well, you will find different types according to any espoused 'religion'.
I tend to a practical, everyday type - the desire to lead a life combining knowledge and experience to gain insights into what might be the best action to take in certain circumstances.
That depends on context and connections, not having an absolute ready-to-go answer.
Quoting James Riley
Yes. For me, strange as it may seem...coming here is a way to exercise my brain. It needs all the help it can get. It is also a way to increase tolerance levels, or not. To learn how to respond, or not.
Spending time to think - read, question and respond carefully. That's about my limit. I can't 'do' the heavy stuff nor can I read like the junkie I once was...the physicality of it tires me out. Pacing is practically compulsory...
Quoting James Riley
'Love of wisdom' - might be taken as 'love of philosophy', doing philosophy, writing philosophical theories, acting philosophical...
Are they the same thing ?
We can all self-deceive as to the quantity and quality of our professed love and wisdom.
Quoting Tom Storm
@James Riley - see my numbering and underlines in your quote above.
I agree with 3. and 4.
I question 1. and 2.
1. What kind of vetting ? How would it help ?
2. Comments about thoughts are part and parcel of being challenged, no ? They are a stimulus which can be responded to. Both in positive and negative ways. Part of the learning process.
So, the purpose of philosophy. If it is a love of a certain way of life, what does that mean?
For me, it is a cyclical, ongoing process.
Observing, reflecting, assessing, evaluating, decision-making, acting.
Appreciating in awareness. But then just getting on with it all...to the best of my ability.
And I explore - a lot - perhaps too much :nerd:
I found this:
http://blog.cambridgecoaching.com/blog/bid/315728/Philosophy-Tutor-What-is-the-love-of-wisdom
I did not number them as you did. In my opinion, doing so makes them seem exclusive as opposed to complementary.
I consider your 3 to be explanatory of your 1.
Quoting Amity
Again, your 2 is explanatory of your 1.
If my intellectual curiosity is sincere, then I will not ask you a question in such a way as to get the answer I want. The vetting I suggest would be questioning intended to elicit a reasoned response. I can't speak for others, but if you say to me: "You are weak and stupid. How can you arrive at that conclusion?" The answer you get, whether reasoned or not, will be more likely to have a similar impedance to reason. In my experience, the love of wisdom is eventually lost to a pissing match.
I was once taught that using logic as a weapon is itself a fallacy. Having seen teachers help students makes fools of themselves in front of a class did indeed reveal the character of the student in his response. But it was usually just a witness to human nature and nothing new. Anyone can piss someone off. If that is a teacher's lesson, say in psychology or whatnot, it need not be done at the expense of the love of wisdom.
Yes. Apologies for that. It was for ease of reference. It turns out that it didn't make things easier at all.
Thanks for clarification of what you meant by 'a better vetting process'. It is not the moderation of participants as I thought it might be.
Quoting James Riley
OK. If the intention of a questioner is simply to find agreement there is doubt about the whole point of the enterprise. However, that isn't necessarily wrong or insincere, is it ?
Questions are not always easy to form. Even well thought out questions with a view to reasoned discussion can lead down surprising avenues to explore, including others' reactions.
We aren't ideal, we have to deal with the unideal. And we ask unideal questions for all kinds of reasons.
Quoting James Riley
Compared to the classroom experience, the 'new' part of learning in TPF environment is perhaps less about people showing or witnessing character but more about processing our own thoughts, feelings and attitudes.
Reason tends to fly out the window when we feel under attack. Initial sensations of dislike or discomfort can limit our ability to stand back and think 'straight'.
I don't mind being 'pissed off' or people being 'pissed off' with me.
It shows passion and action.
It is better than complete apathy or indifference.
A little bit of aggravation is good for the soul. Now is that 'wise' or not ? :chin:
Does that last question meet the standard of a 'sincere intellectual curiosity'?
Does that one...?
Plato's Symposium is about eros or desire. Socrates talks about the desire for wisdom, a passionate pursuit for something you do not possess.
As Socrates put it, God alone deserves to be called “wise”. Humans could only aspire to be wise like God as far as humanly possible. In this sense, philosophy is the effort humans make in becoming as “wise as God” as possible, especially in spiritual, religious, and ethical matters but also in other fields such a mathematics, astronomy, etc. which formed an important part of Greek philosophy. As can be seen from Plato's writings and other sources, this could even include politics.
The intention of one who loves wisdom would not be to simply find agreement. It would be to elicit a reasoned response, to help the asker to understand.
Quoting Amity
This is true. That is why the question is so important. If you are looking for another's reactions, as opposed to his reasons, then I think philosophy is not the enterprise. Maybe politics, or boxing, or psychology.
Quoting Amity
No truer words were ever spoken. The question about the purpose of philosophy would go to those reasons. If one's reason[s] is not to find reason, then again, philosophy doesn't seem to be the enterprise.
Quoting Amity
I would hope so. It is an aid to processing our own thoughts, feelings and attitudes when any character, other than the love of wisdom, takes a seat. Granted, no one is perfect, and the proof of that, in oneself, is in trying to carry another, especially when that other is looking for reactions instead of reason.
Quoting Amity
Bingo. So, if philosophy is about sending reason flying out the window, I guess I've been misunderstanding it.
Quoting Amity
You are a better man than me.
Quoting Amity
I don't believe it is an either/or proposition. The vetting described is the demonstration of passion and action. I'm seeing it in you, now.
[quote="Amity;530879"]A little bit of aggravation is good for the soul. Now is that 'wise' or not ? :chin:
I find a distinction between that which is wise, and the love of the pursuit of it for wisdoms sake. The former is simply being, and the latter is seeking the reason for it.
Socrates may deny being a wise man, but lets say we perceive him to be such. If he presented himself to an open forum, I would ask him questions to understand why he is or is not as I perceive him to be. If he wanted me to piss him off in the pursuit, I guess I could try to humor him. But he would have to tell me that, or I'd have to ask him: "Hey Socrates, how best can I get you to explain to me why I think you are wise? Should I piss you off, so you can show me I am wrong about you? Or should I just ask well-thought-out, probing questions?" But if he just wants to go be wise somewhere, I'll leave him alone.
If you were to visit most university philosophy departments the faculty would regard this claim as quaint.
I suspect you are right. Drilling down on the word "love" might cause some discomfort.
It may be the word "wisdom" that they have a problem with.
:up:
Do you conclude from this that all those professors getting paid to teach and write are not doing philosophy?
No. I merely stipulate to the notion they might find my understanding of it to be quaint. Regardless of what I think, I hope they love what they do.
This shows the problem with the question about the purpose of philosophy. People are engaged in different activities, and the only thing they all have in common is that they are called philosophy.
Yeah, I wish they all had in common of love of wisdom, but that's too quaint, I guess.
For me, the purpose of Philosophy (quest for wisdom) is to figure out what's wrong-with-the-world, in order to do something about it. Mis-using Nature is one of those "wrongs". And "self-immiserating" is another. Also, frustrated Desires is just one more of the many ways that our natural & cultural world fails to be a perfect home for thinking & feeling creatures. Unfortunately, most creatures don't have the means (Reason + hands) to actually change the world, and the self, for the better. Science (applied philosophy) is how we learn to make the natural world better. And Philosophy (introspection) is how we learn to make the Self better. :smile:
For the ancients, I think that the 'love of wisdom' was not about reason alone but concerned knowledge of the self and of the whole. For the examined life, the psychological 'character' is included.
Feelings and attitudes do 'take a seat' - they have their place but not necessarily centre stage.
I don't know what you mean by 'carrying' another. I agree it is difficult, and perhaps a waste of time, to carry on a conversation with someone who is only looking for an emotional reaction.
However, others might want to poke you and your thoughts with a pointy stick.
Quoting James Riley
Nope.
Quoting James Riley
Neither do I. I see the same passion and action in you. Of course, I am due to have an operation on my left eye so my vision might be impaired. However, it does sound like you are fairly emotionally involved in your defence of reason and 'love of wisdom'.
Quoting Amity
[ Note: this and the original quote is that of @James Riley - not mine.
Don't know how to fix that ? Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/530955 ]
Well. I think it is more likely that it would be the other way around. If S. were to appear in a public meeting place, it would be him asking the pesky questions. He was aka 'The Gadfly' and seen as a pest who could and did 'piss people off'.
However, his aim was to encourage people to examine their lives and the status quo of the day. He was seen as a major threat by the authorities. You know the rest...
He was 'tried' in more ways than one in everyday life.
Apparently, he married a shrewish woman who would, I guess, provide a challenge to his presence of mind...as well as an income.
If S. were to appear here - as a strange and penniless pain in the arse, I hope we would make him welcome. Who knows - perhaps he is here in spirit :scream:
Yes :100:
Quoting Fooloso4
Well, not all activities on here are called 'philosophy' are they ?
This presupposes humans are somehow outside the realm of nature; despite the facts that would suggest otherwise: chemistry in our body operates the same as external chemistry if the universe. We share our biological mechanisms with many other species and fundamentally we are made of cells like every other truly living thing.
Our bodies also have to abide by physics and we evolved through natural selection like all other kingdoms.
Why do we persist in a belief that humans are outside of nature. Even the things we make which we call “artificial” is a false separation from nature - the natural materials and elements available and the biological human that repurposes them. There is no such thing as “not in nature’s course” it’s only nature fooling itself into believing it is something else.
Ah yeah, the age-old difference between living philosophically and making a living from philosophy (or philosophers and sophists). No doubt many academics have made contributions to philosophy worthy of much more than being ridiculed as sophistical pedants, but clearly not most. And almost none of the great philosophers were paid academics.
Anyway, I don't endeavor to address such questions as presented in the OP with comprehensive anthropological / sociological answers because, primarily, philosophy for me is – apparently, you as well, Fooloso4 – experienced as an contemplative practice and, therefore, is better understood intersubjectively (i.e. mutually recognizable, shared experiences of fellow (dialectical) autodidacts) than objectively (i.e. a reductive, subject/pov/language–invariant, algorithm).
Well. That I like. Intersubjectivity. Sounds wholesome. The holistic view of life. :cool:
But wait, am I too quick to agree?
Quoting wiki
How many definitions ?!
Recognising, Contemplating and Discussing shared experiences - is that all there is...to the purpose of philosophy ? But no, you said 'Primarily'...
That is wise. And I do recognise it as similar to my own. Although, my own experience is not as deep or knowledgeable.
Quoting 180 Proof
Well, it's not always that reliable but serves its purpose as a provider of basic information which you can choose to take or leave. Or even amend, should the desire take you...
I have other helpers and support when necessary.
Enjoying the connection with you and @Fooloso4 and others, of course...even some disconnection issues in some areas...
So as not to give offense to the illustrious philosophers on this forum I will leave this question unanswered.
Thoreau talks about this in Walden:
If I am to be what I perceive as strong and/or wise, then I cannot complain about what I perceive as weak and/or stupid without becoming that which I would complain about. My alternative is to carry it. The extreme example would be to love my enemy. Anyway, that's another thread.
Quoting Amity
I understand the concept of "teasing an idea out of someone". That is done with probing, maybe even uncomfortable questions. But a pointy stick gets a turned back at the least, a similar retort along the way, or a bullet at the worst. Insults, passive-aggressive comments, commenting on ones lack of mental prowess, are pointy sticks. Trying to find out how a man reacts to insult makes the victim a lab rat, and not the potential vessel from which to drink.
Regarding the ancients, I think philosophy, at all times, has been a child of leisure, like the arts. As to S, did anyone harry him with questions? That’s what I would *try* to do. Anyway, my synthesis, arrived at in part with your non-triggering help:
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Wisdom is the asking of honest questions in search of honest answers. Honest questions are those based in sincere intellectual curiosity. Honest answers are those based in sincere reason. The love of this process is a love of the process itself. I think it was yGasset who said “I do not hunt to kill. I kill to have hunted.” Answers are nice, but ancillary to the process, the struggle, the honing of one’s edge upon hard stone, the being a hard stone upon which others might hone their edge. Hard does not mean being an asshole. There are other venues where that may be a good thing. But being an asshole buries the process, the hunt, within another process, obscuring the first, and obscuring the process which the lover of wisdom loves.
All the best with your eye surgery.
I wonder about the context. What made him say this ? A disenchantment with a type of philosophy as taught in academia ? Mainstream. Fair enough. But not all professors of philosophy are limited to the confines and theories of the teaching environment - they are well read and open to other aspects of life. Not everyone can take time out in the woods. He must have known this...so why the comment ?
Thoreau himself was a philosopher - among many. He is to be admired. He understood philosophy as a way of life. As such, he not only lived in contemplation in nature but was also involved in political action.
Quoting SEP article: Thoreau by R. Furtak
I like that he connects facts and values as holistic and natural.
Quoting SEP article: Thoreau by R. Furtak
Thank you for taking the time to respond in such a careful and thoughtful manner. I agree with all of this.
Quoting James Riley
Appreciate the best wishes.
It's on Thursday, so I should be giving my eyeballs a rest.
*sigh* - not the wisest of birds, huh ? :roll:
"You" as the general "you"?
I think wisdom is a set of accumulated insights a man or a woman or a child or a hermaphrodite on non-binary spectrum garners in his / her / its/ / their life, and applies to the advantage of himself / herself / itself / theirself/ singly or collectively.
This ain't macrophysics. Anyone can have insights.
You as in those with a passionate desire for wisdom who know that they are not wise.
Quoting god must be atheist
If I was wise I would know what it is, but I ain't. This in not modesty. I don't think anyone else is wise either.
My response to your claim is very dry reading, but it's perfectly logical, as follows:
So the language has a word with no meaning and no application. Maybe the word has a meaning, or a conceptual meaning, but no application. It is an adjective that you don't know what it is or what it means, and you categorically deny that anyone possesses this quality.
You don't know what wise is. So you may be wise, except not knowing what "wise" means, you may be already possessing that quality, except you don't know it.** Not for the lack of what being wise imbues you with, but for the lack of a definition. If you had a definition for "wise", you would have some knowledge what it is. But since you don't know what it is, you don't have a definition... ergo, you can't know whether you are in possession of wisdom, or else if you are wise, or not.
Saying you don't know what "wise" is, but you'd know if/when you were wise, is not logical. Inasmuch as it could be true, or not be true, but is not necessarily true. Since you don't know what "wise" is; since you don't know what being wise is like, you consequently can't know what it does to you. Only empirical evidence would show whether it would make you know what wisdom is, and the empirical evidence, so you claim, is missing to date.
** since you deny any knowledge by anyone to know what being wise is, you can or anyone else could, be wise, and nobody would recognize he or she is, because there is no knowledge what it is, therefore there is no way of recognizing it when encountering it as someone's quality in real life.
That is not the case. The word means different things to different people.
quote="god must be atheist;531529"]Maybe the word has a meaning, or a conceptual meaning, but no application.[/quote]
Some people call someone who knows some fact or how to do something or made a choice that turned out well or is shrewd is wise. Some apply the term to those who give what they consider good council. At least one says that it is accumulated insights.
Quoting god must be atheist
What I have in mind is knowledge of the whole. But it may be unwise for me to think this.[
quote="god must be atheist;531529"]You don't know what wise is. So you may be wise,[/quote]
But if I was wise I would think I would know both what wisdom is and that I was wise.
Quoting god must be atheist
Doesn't my confusion suggest that I am not wise?
Quoting god must be atheist
Yes, I assume that if I was wise I would know I was wise since I think it would include self-knowledge. But what do I know?
Quoting god must be atheist
I agree. It some ways it is like Dostoevsky's The Idiot.