The purpose of philosophy

Philosophim

A common question that is asked on these boards is, "What is philosophy?" While the answer, "The love of wisdom" may be the definition, it doesn't answer the deeper and more important question of, "What is the purpose of philosophy?"

Is it to find a particular philosopher, quote them as if their words are gospel truth, and worship at their feet? No.

Is it to use complex vocabulary in conversations that can have multiple meanings that can be conflated towards an outcome you want? No.

Is it to assuage our own ego, finding things that justifying what we want, then talking down to others who don't come to our obviously superior intellectual conclusions? No.

Is it to find an ideology to spout at people in hopes of furthering an ethical, political, or cultural viewpoint? No.

Its about one thing, and one thing only: "Thinking in the face of the pressure not to." Philosophy at its base, breaks down the cultural understanding of terms and phrases and shines a direct light on them to say, "But is this rational?" Think of the major questions that philosophy asks:

1. What is good
2. What is knowledge
3. What is mind
4. What is God
5. What is...anything

All of these are typically terms and ideas that we have believed to be a particular way most of our lives, then one day doubted. But the things that are doubted are often taken for granted in one's life and/or culture. You are raised to have a particular outlook towards good, knowledge, mind, God, and multiple other things. But then one day you really ask, "I was told this, but does it really make sense?"

Many people will likely discount your questions. "Why are you questioning what's good? Do you want to justify doing something wrong?" "Why are you asking about God? How dare you question and doubt his righteousness?" "Of course the mind is a soul, why are you such a fool?" "Don't question this law or political idea. To do so is evil, and I don't have to debate with evil."

The reality is that there is often immense pressure to not think about things. For many, thinking about common ideas that hold society together is dangerous. It is 'immoral' to think in the minds of many. Even on these boards, you'll find people who will attempt to restrict what you think because of a philosopher quote or 'you should use this term' to control the outcome of your thought process. Because even many fans of philosophy are uncomfortable actually thinking about things, and merely reuse things they've read about before and liked. Even to them, questioning evolves from 'Lets think about this together" to "This is an assault on my ego, my comfort in thinking a certain way, and I will attack you until you stop it."

Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy.

Athena

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living," and for me, never again having the experience of a new realization would be worse than death. My father said people avoid thinking, and that appears to be true. If it were not for the internet, and especially this forum, I would die from lack of intellectual stimulation or at least wish I were dead. In my everyday life, I do not come across many people who enjoy thinking.

There are some wonderful books about thinking, and ever since reading Daniel Kahneman's explanation of thinking, I have regretted not fully understanding the process and better forms of thinking. But then I read another book and :gasp: Kahneman's explanation of thinking could be lacking because of a lack of emotions. I think we have been encouraged to be logical and not emotional, but that may not be the best thinking, especially when making judgments about how we should live together.

While I live to have new realizations, I am concerned about the people who appear to be excellent thinkers but who have no joy in doing so. What is up with that? :worry: It is so sad that everyone doesn't enjoy thinking and having new realizations. I think that is why Socrates said what he said.

180 Proof

[Philosophy]'s about one thing, and one thing only: "Thinking in the face of the pressure not to."

The reality is that there is often immense pressure to not think about things. For many, thinking about common ideas that hold society together is dangerous.

Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. — Philosophim

In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree.

baker

The reality is that there is often immense pressure to not think about things. For many, thinking about common ideas that hold society together is dangerous. It is 'immoral' to think in the minds of many. — Philosophim

I've always thought that the reason why people don't think much (or at least don't seem to) is because they've already figured it all out, are beyond uncertainty and doubt.

In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree. — 180 Proof

Exactly.
There is such a thing as idle doubting.

Philosophim

In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree. — 180 Proof

A fair clarification.

Chisholm

↪180 Proof

For me philosophy goes wrong when it urges upon us a criterion of rationality, a norm for right action, a project of enquiry, that has been arrived at without due consideration for the complexities and frailties of human nature. This insensitivity to how we actually are can take two forms. It can attribute to human nature some unreal power that human nature does not, perhaps could not, possess, alternatively it can pass over, or fail to give proper weight to, something that is integral to us as we are. Philosophy can attribute to human nature some unnaturally abstract faculty that it chooses to call "reason", or "the good will", or it can devalue the place of desire in our lives or it can make light of the intensity of human emotion.

baker

In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree. — 180 Proof

This also explains the trend of anti-intellectualism and anti-philosophy. People who are actually living in constant state of existential anxiety due to the pressures from trying to earn a living cannot add to this same existential anxiety by thinking about it without this somehow hindering them in their efforts to earn a living. Perhaps counterintutively, this can apply to people of any socioeconomic class; living paycheck to paycheck is not limited to the poor, not by far.

Which is why I say that philosophy is and should be the domain of the leisurely elites.

Ciceronianus

↪Philosophim

"Thinking in the face of pressure not to" sounds rather like Hemingway ("grace under pressure"). The philosopher as matador, perhaps, fighting an unusually ponderous bull fed on platitudes? Or out hunting the dreaded guardians of the common herd of humanity? Perhaps philosophers in that case would be taking themselves too seriously.

Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first.

L'éléphant

Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim

Okay, good conclusion.

Not all of us will be thinkers. Solitude and thinking is a predisposition. That's why philosophy is always misunderstood. Yes, there is a point of thinking philosophically -- what is reality, what exists in the deepest analysis of the world, the meaning of what we say such claims, beliefs, arguments, and opinions. We want to know the truth and if truth is knowable.

These type of thinking is not an everyday activity that everyone cares for.

Tom Storm

While the answer, "The love of wisdom" may be the definition, it doesn't answer the deeper and more important question of, "What is the purpose of philosophy?" — Philosophim

True enough: although I suspect purpose may be plural. I doubt it could ever be one thing.

My issue with the ususal definition is: what does “love of” actually mean, and what is wisdom? The hermeneutics of either of these broad, portentous terms could keep us guessing forever.

Many of us have met enough people who claim a love of wisdom without ever cultivating it for themselves.

But here’s another question. Does it matter? When people say they aren’t interested in philosophy to those who aspire to be, there’s a tendency to hold them in mild contempt, or at least to consider them somehow inferior. I suspect, however, that having no interest in philosophy can be a perfectly legitimate way of being. It may simply be dispositional, and I wouldn’t want to live in a world where philosophy must appeal to everyone, and those who aren’t interested are somehow suspect and intrinsically plebeian. That said, there's probably a right way and a wrong way to be disinterested.

Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first. — Ciceronianus

Quite. But one might consider: how is it that one comes to the view that anything should be questioned at all? I suspect one needs a skeptical bent to begin with.

Philosophim

For me philosophy goes wrong when it urges upon us a criterion of rationality, a norm for right action, a project of enquiry, that has been arrived at without due consideration for the complexities and frailties of human nature. — Chisholm

And this is a correct philosophical response. One should always feel free to ask 'Why?" and point out problems with assumptions. Perhaps there are good reasons for these approaches, but perhaps not. Nothing should ever be beyond question as long as one is trying to find an that aligns with reality.

Which is why I say that philosophy is and should be the domain of the leisurely elites. — baker

I think a better clarification is 'Some philosophical concepts are for people with niche contexts and/or interests". Philosophy is open for the poorest and most stressed among us. What is examined will be more pertinent to one's situation. "Why am I loyal to this job? Is job loyalty something I should hold over finding another job with a 2$ raise?" Not a complex question, but a re-examining of the situation that one is in and a questioning of the things taken for granted that got you there matter. Will such a person be interested in debating Hume? Almost certainly not. Does the person need to freely think despite the pressures around them not to? Yes.

Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first. — Ciceronianus

Of course. But if you have a reason to question, do so despite the pressure around you not to.

These type of thinking is not an everyday activity that everyone cares for. — L'éléphant

Correct. Just like not everyone does math or science, or other activities that have reasons for people doing them. Yet we can still evaluate the purpose and value of doing those things properly.

True enough: although I suspect purpose may be plural. I doubt it could ever be one thing. — Tom Storm

A fantastic philosophical response. :)

Does it matter? When people say they aren’t interested in philosophy to those who aspire to be, there’s a tendency to hold them in mild contempt, or at least to consider them somehow inferior. I suspect, however, that having no interest in philosophy can be a perfectly legitimate way of being. It may simply be dispositional, and I wouldn’t want to live in a world where philosophy must appeal to everyone, and those who aren’t interested are somehow suspect and intrinsically plebeian. — Tom Storm

I don't think I ever implied that the purpose of philosophy is to play social status games. I'm also not claiming that everyone should approach or be a philosopher. I'm merely pointing out the purpose. Can you not be a plumber but understand the purpose and value of understanding plumbing? Of course. Does everyone need to understand or partake in plumbing? Of course not.

↪Philosophim

I think you're onto something here. There's a particular type of thinking that is philosophical, though it's hard to state clearly. I would emphasize philosophy as questioning. We ask difficult questions and discover, to our dismay, that we may have to live with many of those questions, rather than claim definitive answers. What could be the purpose of such an activity? At the risk of sounding mystical, I would say that the "love of wisdom" enters at this point. Is true wisdom the ability to propound a series of answers to hard questions? Perhaps, rather, it's the realization of limits, a simultaneous embracing of rational inquiry and a willingness to know when to stop, and seek other means. Other means? Kindness, generosity, creativity, and courage are avenues of knowledge and self-transformation, in my experience.

baker

I think a better clarification is 'Some philosophical concepts are for people with niche contexts and/or interests". Philosophy is open for the poorest and most stressed among us. What is examined will be more pertinent to one's situation. "Why am I loyal to this job? Is job loyalty something I should hold over finding another job with a 2$ raise?" Not a complex question, but a re-examining of the situation that one is in and a questioning of the things taken for granted that got you there matter. Will such a person be interested in debating Hume? Almost certainly not. Does the person need to freely think despite the pressures around them not to? Yes. — Philosophim

Do you find that professional philosophers (people who have a formal degree in philosophy and who are payed for producing philosophical texts) are sympathetic to your view expressed above?

baker

Quite. But one might consider: how is it that one comes to the view that anything should be questioned at all? I suspect one needs a skeptical bent to begin with. — Tom Storm

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status.

Philosophim

We ask difficult questions and discover, to our dismay, that we may have to live with many of those questions, rather than claim definitive answers. What could be the purpose of such an activity? At the risk of sounding mystical, I would say that the "love of wisdom" enters at this point. — J

To my point earlier, sometimes you encounter incredibly difficult questions with no apparent answers. That's pressure to stop thinking about it. The philosopher insists on thinking about it anyway.

Is true wisdom the ability to propound a series of answers to hard questions? Perhaps, rather, it's the realization of limits, a simultaneous embracing of rational inquiry and a willingness to know when to stop, and seek other means. — J

I think this is a fine assessment. Sometimes the point of asking the question is not to find an answer, but to realize the answer you thought you had wasn't it. Thus it can help you experiment and be willing to try new avenues to solve a problem.

Do you find that professional philosophers (people who have a formal degree in philosophy and who are payed for producing philosophical texts) are sympathetic to your view expressed above? — baker

I cannot speak for professional philosophers. If it helps, I do have a formal degree in philosophy and can speak for me. :)

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status. — baker

True, but philosophy transcends this. To ask questions when there is pressure not to is the point. To be a lowly worm and ask a question of the divine is to understand the value and purpose of philosophy.

Tom Storm

I don't think I ever implied that the purpose of philosophy is to play social status games. I'm also not claiming that everyone should approach or be a philosopher. I'm merely pointing out the purpose. Can you not be a plumber but understand the purpose and value of understanding plumbing? Of course. Does everyone need to understand or partake in plumbing? Of course not. — Philosophim

I never said you did. :wink: I was simply responding to an argument often made when people start talking about purpose.

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status. — baker

I’ve not noticed that. Certainly, in the cultures I know here, people of all status commonly ask difficult questions and are sometimes insolent while doing so. What do you count as a traditional culture?

In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes.

180 Proof

To be a lowly worm and ask a question of the divine is to understand the value and purpose of philosophy. — Philosophim

:fire:

In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes. — Tom Storm

Here in America, we fuckin' precariats need to grow some Aussie balls.

Ciceronianus

I confess I wonder just what questions philosophers have asked despite "enormous pressure" not to do so. Of those mentioned in the OP, the only one I think has, and may still, generate serious opposition or controversy is "What is God?" Some (like me) may think that question isn't or shouldn't be of any concern to philosophers, but outside of wishing it not be asked or discussed and perhaps sighing when it is in my presence, I can't recall enormous pressure being applied to prevent it from being asked.

Efforts made to prove that God does or does not exist seem to anger some and provoke bitter responses, it's true, but the unfortunate prevalence of such efforts establishes that any pressure to suppress them has been ineffective.

There is the example of Socrates of course, and whenever and wherever the Abrahamic religions or others similarly intolerant and exclusive hold sway there's very serious pressure applied to repress the question IF it raises other questions related to whether the God favored by the powerful really is God.

I think that the questions mentioned in the OP are so abstract that the claim there is "enormous pressure" not to ask them isn't credible. They lack context--like so much else in philosophy. Imagine enormous pressure being applied to prevent consideration of what it means to know something, or what it means to exist. So I ask for examples of these dangerous questions it's the purpose of philosophy to ask and address.

DifferentiatingEgg

Philosophy, for most, is generally a type of rationalization of ones own prejudices in an attempt to harmonize oneself to oneself, as well as an attempt to project one's views upon the world.

180 Proof

a type of rationalization of ones own prejudices — DifferentiatingEgg

:chin: That's sophistry, not philosophy. (Plato)

Tom Storm

So I ask for examples of these dangerous questions it's the purpose of philosophy to ask and address. — Ciceronianus

I see what you’re saying: what counts as a dangerous question in one country might not be in another. Here in Australia, no one much cares about God or gods. You’re rarely going to find controversy about teaching evolution or privileging science over religious dogma.

But there are enough questions (often with essentialist themes) which seem to provoke antipathy. What is a woman? What is gender? Is taxation theft, or is it the price we pay for civilisation? Is morality objective or just a matter of custom? What is racism? What counts as true? Plenty of wars have been started in pursuit of answers to these sorts of questions.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪180 Proof

All philosophy is a style of Sophist-ication

The purpose of philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions