What is the purpose of philosophy?
I am asking about the purpose of philosophy as an underlying issue which arose for me as I was reading and replying to the thread about studying philosophy. It appears to me that generally speaking philosophy is not primarily aimed at the most material of goals and many people shy away from the subject altogether.
My own position is that it may in itself be a vocation: a quest for truth and a deeper understanding of reality than people experience by just taking life and its conflicts at face value.
Nevertheless, I would say that it can have great social value as well. It can be a means of questioning assumptions at the heart of politics itself. In this way it can be at the core root of social change. In this sense, it can be dangerous and perhaps this is why it is not a key part of most school curriculums.
From my point of view, philosophy is about deeper awareness and examination of the assumptions and others. When I read threads on this site I come across writers who I believe come from a standpoint similar to my own. However, some response seem to be clever and quirky retorts or laboriously argued theories. Of course, I am not suggesting that their arguments are of any lesser value than that of others. I simply wish to ask the question of what is the purpose of philosophy?
My own position is that it may in itself be a vocation: a quest for truth and a deeper understanding of reality than people experience by just taking life and its conflicts at face value.
Nevertheless, I would say that it can have great social value as well. It can be a means of questioning assumptions at the heart of politics itself. In this way it can be at the core root of social change. In this sense, it can be dangerous and perhaps this is why it is not a key part of most school curriculums.
From my point of view, philosophy is about deeper awareness and examination of the assumptions and others. When I read threads on this site I come across writers who I believe come from a standpoint similar to my own. However, some response seem to be clever and quirky retorts or laboriously argued theories. Of course, I am not suggesting that their arguments are of any lesser value than that of others. I simply wish to ask the question of what is the purpose of philosophy?
Comments (53)
Then again, I didn't really answer the question of the OP of 'what is the purpose of philosophy', but rather addressed 'what is a purpose of philosophy'.
I find the former to be a somewhat narrow scope; thus I can't answer it.
From an old thread, and to paraphrase the Mayor, this is 'the purpose of my philosophy':
Quoting 180 Proof
To the first sub-question I answer that doing philosophy is literally practice at being a person, exercising the very faculty (sapience) that differentiates persons from non-persons. Doing philosophy literally helps develop you into a better person, increasing your self-awareness and self-control, improving your mind and your will, and helping you to find meaning in the world, both in the sense of descriptive understanding, and in the sense of prescriptive purpose.
It is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose, into what might better be termed "phobosophy".
In a perfect world, the latter uses of either martial arts or philosophy would be unnecessary, as such attacks would not be made to begin with, but in the actual world it is unfortunately useful to be thus prepared; and even in a perfect world, with no external attackers, martial arts and philosophy are both still useful for their internal development and exercise of the body, mind, and will.
To the second sub-question, I answer that philosophy is the lynchpin of the entire chain of activities conducted by society, and so is instrumentally useful, in some distant way at least, toward any practical end whatsoever.
Every practical activity involves using some tool to do some job. That work may be the original jobs of keeping our bodies alive using the original tools of our bodies themselves, i.e. medicine and agriculture. It may be the jobs of making new tools to help with that, i.e. construction and manufacturing. Or multiplying and distributing our power to do that, i.e. energy and transportation industries. Or multiplying and distributing our control over that power, i.e. information and communication industries.
At the lowest level of abstraction away from the actual use of whatever tools to do whatever jobs, technological fields exist to maintain and administrate those tools, and business fields exist to maintain and administrate those jobs. A level of abstraction higher, engineers work to create the tools that those technologists administrate, while entrepreneurs work to create the jobs that those businesspeople administrate.
Those engineers in turn heavily employ the findings of the physical sciences, which could be said to be finding the "natural tools" available from which engineers can create new tools tailored to specific needs. And though this step in the chain seems overlooked in society today, the ethical sciences that I envision could be said to find the "natural jobs" that need doing, inasmuch as they identify needs that people have, which we might also frame as market demands, toward the fulfillment of which entrepreneurs can tailor the creation of new jobs.
And those physical and ethical sciences each rely on philosophical underpinnings to function, thereby making philosophy, at least distantly, instrumental to any and all practical undertakings across society.
I hold that the relationship of philosophy to the sciences is the same as that between administrative fields (technology and business) and the workers whose tools and jobs they administrate. Done poorly, they constantly stick their nose into matters they don't understand, and tell the workers, who know what they are doing and are trying to get work done, that they're doing it wrong and should do it some other, actually inferior, way instead, because the administration supposedly knows better and had better be listened to. But done well, they instead give those workers direction and help them organize the best way to tackle the problems at hand, then they get out of the way and let the workers get to doing work.
Meanwhile, a well-conducted administration also shields the workers from those who would detract from or interfere with their work (including other, inferior administrators); and at the same time, they are still watchful and ready to be constructively critical if the workers start failing to do their jobs well. In order for administration to be done well and not poorly, it needs to be sufficiently familiar with the work being done under its supervision, but at the same time humble enough to know its place and acknowledge that the specialists under it may, and properly should, know more than it within their areas of specialty.
I hold that this same relationship holds not only between administrators and workers, but between creators (engineers and entrepreneurs) and administrators, between scientists (physical or ethical) and creators, and most to the point here, between philosophers and scientists. Philosophy done well guides and facilitates sciences, protects them from the interference of philosophy done poorly, and then gets out of the way to let the sciences take over from there. The sciences are then to do the same for creators, they to do the same for administrators, they to do the same for all the workers of the world getting all the practical work done.
I like your reply above and I hope a lot of people read it as it gives plenty of scope for thought.
He's the one behind the porpoise of art. Oh wait, you said purpose. Never mind.
My phone could not key into the link you provided. Surely, philosophy can be about words and not just yet another aspect of techno glamour.
What I love about this site is about communication in words. Could you have not this? The world is already abounding in web links Perhaps philosophy will only survive if it can engage in dialogue with writers fully, rather than just become links the glamour of techno sources.
Dolphins they may be, but they're known as the porpoises of art and philosophy; porpoises, that is to say, for those purposes.
Dolphin have profound awareness. In spite of my own wordy responses, and complaints of difficulties about writing on a phone, I the first person to admit to the limitations of words and language, a mystic truth.
Perhaps, the dolphins engage in sophisticated philosophical debate. Unfortunately, for the present time I am stuck mostly in a verbal mode wondering about the purpose of philosophy in a strange historical debate, wondering about the foundations of everything we have hitherto taken for granted. Will we collapse amidst a myriad of chaos, or can the philospher kings lead the way forward as illusions of cultural progress shatter before our eyes?
I am not in any disagreement with you. My only contentioun would be that as philosophers we need to write as clearly as possible, in order for truths to be conveyed, free of jargon as possible, in order for philosophy to aid understanding of life rather than make it even more confusing than it is.
French is the most poorly pronounced Latin in the world.
Perhaps we have a tower of Babel and not enough dialogue between cultures in the quest for what is important. Perhaps, greater engagement between nations and exposition of such philosophies would enable the most expansive worldperspectives to develop.
Philosophy does not have to be about arguments always but about drawing out what lines of thought work, with a view to some kind of synthesis. But of course that is my view of a purpose of philosophy and others may see the purpose of the quest differently, with valid reasons.
I liked the concept of philosophy as "martial arts for the mind". So I googled it. And sure enough that phrase is being used as a come-on for selling services for corporate training : "get off your butt, and let someone flip you on your butt, to relieve stress".
I think teachers of college philosophy classes might increase their sign-ups, if they advertise the course as "martial arts for the mind". I'd show-up, as long as there is no actual butt-flipping. :smile:
The main (only?) use of philosophy is that it helps to question the unquestionable. That is why its tool is analysis.
Other purposes are illusory and disproportionate to its real powers. When philosophy offers itself to be a guide for humanity it becomes a religion in disguise or falls flat on its face. It is the same thing.
Philosophy can also be useful in rationalizing the life project that we have semi-consciously chosen. But this path can become an illusory one if we are not able to apply analytical criticism to ourselves. This is the main illusory use of philosophy: to convince us that if we are not Superman it is due to accessory circumstances.
Yes, we need to get beyond justifying our life choices as that of a superman.
Surely philosophy is about engaging with the large questions of reality and truth with freedom, with a view to trying to put together a way of seeing the world which makes sense, but with an open mind, watching life unfold with an open mind but spirit of critical analysis
Philosophers have spent decades trying to make sense of the world. Surely, our task is to refine this and contribute to the unending search for truthful means of understanding the fuzz and chaos of life, death and the universe.
Yes, there could be many purposes to philosophy, as also pointed by Mo.
Often we search in philosophy some ways to work on our weaknesses: to reassure ourselves by analysing away our fears, to buttress our confused thoughts, to strengthen our fledging morale, to calm down and get a grip on our anger, or to find the way out of a connendrum we often face.
I think good philosophy can help solve such real-life problems, when you take it as a (modest, uncertain) self-improvement project. But it can also be treacherous. Bad philosophy can do harm.
The two definitions put together would suggest:
Philosophy is the expression of mind activity related to self organisation.
Why should we need to express it?
I think, so much of the information that surrounds humanity is anthropocentric. It is to do with concepts of value, meaning, love, connection and interrelatedness to friends, family, culture, etc.
It only exists in relation to other humans, and in the absence of other humans would largely not exist. So any resolution to these concepts involves validation from other humans.
This anthropocentric information is entangled in our belief systems and forms much of what we consider to be our life purpose. Much of this information is carried over from past generations. Amongst it are some truths, but a lot of it is beliefs, so half truths, and still a lot else is pure fantasy. Nevertheless it is all entangled into what we call culture or the collective consciousness, and we grow up surrounded by it, so we breathe it in and it becomes a part of who we are.
Philosophy gives us a chance to unentangle some of this information - to see what can be relied upon and what can not – to self organize in a more realistic way. Perhaps this is its purpose.
To me, it's simpler.
Philos: To love
Sophos: Wisdom.
To love wisdom.
Agreed. Other than 'showing the fly how to get out of the fly-bottle', proposing ("self help" or "utopian") plans recipes & rituals for ("successfully") living inside or beyond (e.g. the fly-bottle) amounts to nothing but sophistry.
Quoting dussias
In other words - as I've always reflected on this "love of" - to seek what 'the wise' seek: not merely "to be wise", but understanding how to live - judge & practice - less unwisely (especially in circumstances where and when folly - misjudgment & malpractice - is easier aka "the fly-bottle").
Without philosophy we descend into a biased truth, a truth that is simply "my" version of the truth. The interesting problem seems to be that for the truth to be unbiased it is necessary for that person seeking the truth to have his/her memory banks erased. That way the truth can be investigated from a zero start.
Philosophy has to be used from that zero start standpoint and this creates as many problems as it solves
Yes, I do agree with you that philosophy can be seen as a 'zero start' for examination of truth,
even if this creates many problems.
I suppose this is the beginning of the quest of the philosophers and if it was too easy there would be no work left to be done. Perhaps the constant refinement of truth allows for the evolution of ideas. The art of philosophy does not allow for a static picture.
Of course, even then we have biases based on our life experiences and personal inclinations. But, hopefully, the more aware we can be of our biases, the more thorough we can become in the process of searching for underlying truths.
I would add the caveat that these truths are restricted to what we are able to consider from our limited perspective as animals with a recently emerged intelligence. The truths about existence and any purposes being carried out through our being here are beyond our grasp. This is why some folk turn to religion, spirituality or mysticism to address these issues. Philosophy is to an extent mute on these paths. I am not saying that these truths are necessarily beyond our understanding, but that they are veiled from us and were they to be shown to us, we might understand perfectly well. Madame Blavatsky and Djwal khul, the source of Alice Bailey's writings give an esoteric route to an understanding, although such ideas cannot be analysed philosophically as to any truths therein. So it's up the the reader to decide whether it is worth studying.
I personally have read Blavatsky and Alice Bailey and other esoteric writers, especially Rudolph Steiner.
I think these views have a lot to contribute to philosophy, but I have mentioned the esoteric traditions on a couple of other threads. I am not going to be put off by a couple of negative responses I got because I think an open mind is what is needed.
Rather than narrowing down the perspective which can be incorporated into the philosophical arena, I think we should reading as widely as possible and not worrying too much about whether we can analyse them accordingly to conventional philosophical methods.
:death: :flower:
Quoting Punshhh
Perhaps because "these" esoteric "paths" make it easier to mystify & stupify than to clarify & edify; which, thereby, is probably why Western philosophy - reflective inquiry, freethought - began in Ionia with pre-Socratic proto-scientists (i.e. natural philosophers) such as Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, et al critically deconstructing the esoteric woo-of-the-gaps (i.e. begging questions of Origins, Values, Explanations with 'mysteries' ... and fallacies) of local myths & ritual cults. Logos striving against (yet never without) Mythos.
:fire:
[quote=Carl Sagan]I don’t want to believe, I want to know.[/quote]
For example, I occasionally say that one can know things indipendent of one's own mind. It just doesn't compute around here.
That is interesting, please elaborate.
Well, a person (a being) is not just a mind, they are also a body and a consciousness within that body. So each being knows their body, their life and the world their body inhabits through their body and its consciousness. The thinking mind is something different from this knowledge and there is a tendency in the modern world to believe that we are thinking minds with a nature defined by the intellectual knowledge and conditioning that our thinking mind receives from society. In this the innate knowing of our being is marginalised, even not seen, that we are blind to it.
Yes, this is how I also understand it, and there is nothing mystical about my thinking. DNA information is the only constant - the body and intellectual mind are constantly changing and evolving, and we are generally blind to this. That DNA is information, but not information for the intellectual mind is a challenge for western thought.
So how do you get in touch with this innate knowledge? I have postulated emotions bridge these two minds.
I don't know if this is relevant to your debate but junk DNA may be a missing link. There is a body of scientific thought that while only 2 strands were thought to be important the so called junk may contain unknown hidden potential. This may contain areas of potential including aspects relating to emotions, but of course this is an area of speculation.
To learn the truth.
Unless you're asking about university philosophy, which appears to have no purpose. .
But what if the truth is not to your liking, what then?
:up: we should discus this sometime.
Well, I might have been overly dramatic in my last comment. I do that sometimes. You can call me Professor Troll as my punishment. :-)
I'm striving for being realistic though.
Most of us here do have big picture nerd minds, and not by choice. And most of what we discuss together is considered an impractical waste of time by most folks, with some good reason. And I think there is some reality to the notion that we philosopher types often attempt to make ourselves feel bigger by attaching ourselves to big ideas.
"Hey everybody, look at me, here's my huge very important theory about the biggest subject of them all, the nature of God!!"
Don't know about you, but personally I make such ego moves all the time. I see I have a good bit of company.
I'll admit to having a complicated relationship with philosophy, with thought itself. A quick story to illustrate. I spent today way out in the woods in a beautiful palmetto forest. The longer I was there the slower the gears of my nerd mind rolled until finally I was totally content sitting still doing nothing but looking around for a couple hours. Still. At peace. Enough. The price tag for such rewarding experiences is....
Letting go of all my grand ideas. To paraphrase and probably butcher Jesus, :-) I had to die to the realm of abstractions in order to be reborn in to the real world.
The real world is where it's at guys, not our thoughts about the real world. Our thoughts about the real world can certainly be useful, indeed essential, but they are still a watered down, diluted, second hand experience. Our thoughts about the real world might be compared to your photo on Facebook. The photo has it's practical uses, but surely the real you is far more interesting than the photo, right?
Is this a low view of philosophy? I'm content that you should answer that question. To me, it's using philosophy to discover the limits of philosophy.
We either have a good idea about what is going on or not.
It is just like a novel that includes you but compares your point of view with a baseline of the real that does not care what you think.
It is important not to be a fool in this regard.
"But what if the truth is not to your liking, what then?"
What does that have to do with it??? The truth is the truth. Emotion, bias etc are immaterial.
I am with you brother, but not everybody is and for complicated reasons as is evidenced by this thread.
1. Everyone holds philosophical ideas, even if they are not aware of them. It's impossible to take any action or inaction without some notions of what reality is, what life is etc
2. Philosophical ideas that have not been scrutinized are often flawed. Furthermore, while philosophical debates often fall short of concluding what is true, they are actually quite good at exposed flawed ideas.
Just look at theism -- most people are some flavor of theist, yet many of the reasons that people believe in God have compelling philosophical counter-arguments. It's just most people are not aware of them. Because they think that philosophy is useless navel-gazing.
3. Philosophy is the name given for discussions that are at the extreme of human knowledge. When any part of philosophy reaches a stage where we can make testable predictions, it becomes an -ology, or a branch of mathematics or whatever, and we stop referring to it as philosophy.
So, it only looks like philosophy doesn't deliver concrete things, because once things become concrete, we don't call them philosophy any more.
Yes and when it comes to the esoteric, science, academic knowledge etc is also in the dark.
Quite, not an easy thing to avoid.