The nature of philosophy.

Professor Daniel A Kaufman, writing in New Philosophy, suggests philosophy is ailing as a guide for western culture, and considers how it might be revived. He identifies philosophers principally writing papers for other philosophers rather than to ignite interest in the public arena and to engage in debate with centres of power or influence. He argues its interest can be reignited to shed a more comprehensive light on contemporary issues.  What I intend in this paper is to talk about the history of philosophy and where I think it’s future lies.

But first of all I will briefly trace the evolutionary journey of westernised philosophy which has its roots in ancient Greece. Socrates believed an unexamined life is not worth living. Plato was his student, who talked about living a virtuous life to give it meaning, whilst Aristotle expanded on the categories to introduce an elaborate system of logical reasoning.

The ancient Greek philosophical enquiry was how to live the good life, entailing an existence which was supported by elegant sufficiently in such basics as food clothing, education and freedom. But living the good life principally also required one’s life to be grounded in a meaningful purpose.         

The extent of his influence can be gauged by the fact his philosophy remained a guiding light for over a thousand years. It was not until enlightenment philosophers, emerged from the dark ages, that new light was shed on Philosophy. They were principally represented by Descartes. Hume, Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Voltaire.

One could say they introduced rationality, liberty, tolerance, fraternity, and the separation of church and state. In the political arena it became the foundation of western political democracies. Nevertheless they mostly failed to confront the immorality of slavery. Possibly the most famous was Descartes who stated:  

That I am certain that I can have no knowledge of what is outside me except by means of the ideas I have within me.

Descartes was a logical thinker who underpinned the foundation for modern philosophy, geometry and the development of calculus.  He is most famous for his thinking arising from his Meditations, “What can I know for certain?” His conclusion was the senses can deceive and what we think might just be recurrent dreams.  

His most famous statement I think therefore I am, could be logically analysed as:  

All thinking things exist (universal premise)
I am thinking (specific example)
Therefore I exist (conclusion)

But according to Keren Parham writing in Philosophy Now, this fails the logic test inherent in a valid Buddhist Koan because the conclusion does not embrace the universal premise.

I agree with her conclusion and concur all one could say (let us imagine Descartes was a Buddhist meditating) logically is:       

All Buddhists meditate (universal premise)
Descartes is a Buddhist (specific example)
Therefore Descartes meditates (conclusion)

Parham concludes Descartes’ thought process about what he can be certain of is an incomplete argument: an enthymeme. An enthymeme is a deduction without the universal premise.

The reason I raise this issue is to demonstrate a flaw to his logic which also relates one way or another to all philosophers. That is there will always be some flaws in their philosophy.  

Concurrent to these philosophical ideas the field of Phenomenology (structure of consciousness as viewed in the first person) gained prominence with the works of Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre. One could also argue it was also present in the philosophy of Descartes and Kant when they referenced states of perception.     

But the importance of balanced ‘self’ was talked about by Soren Kierkegaard, who remains relevant today to practising existential psychologists. He remains a challenging philosopher to comprehend, but in a nutshell he proposed humanity is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, the temporal and the eternal, and of freedom and necessity. Hubert Dreyfus, summed up his idea; one cannot resolve our own paradoxical nature except through an unconditional commitment to a cause or GOD. This was so called leap in faith. 

Although predating the existionalist movement he is regarded as the father of existentialism, which came to prominence following the Second World War.  It is worth noting  that the terrible outcomes of the first and second world wars were possibly even worse that envisaged by Frederick Nietzsche who feared humanity was sinking into nihilism due to its slavish mentality - that is the absence of values.

In the immediate post Second World War period Jean Paul Sartre developed a cult like following in Europe. His philosophy in turn was influenced by Heidegger, as Satre believed we are radically free and coined the phrase before it (our consciousness) is a nullity. i.e. - All we are and bring to the world is ourselves and hence our ability to make whatever choices we elect to take. He skirted a temporary affinity to reconstructed Marxism and resisted arrest as the authorities declared, ‘you cannot imprison Voltaire, and such was his standing in the community to compare with Voltaire.        

His lifelong partner Simone De Bouvier held similar views and penned an interesting essay entitled The Ethics of Ambiguity.

 

The nature of philosophy today         

But many of those ideas were challenged in modernity as subsequent knowledge specialisation reveals a more complicated  world. The likes of Richard Rorty penned convincing arguments that the traditional foundational aspects to philosophy were flawed.

Today as neuroscientists point to an increasing reliance on the subconscious, the slippery concept of consciousness remains a hotly contested topic. There are two schools of thought, those who favour the idea that all our consciousness can only be a product of the material brain, and those who believe it to be ubiquitous. That is, our minds make sense of all of our experiences from conscious streams that can exist within and outside of the realms of the brain that continually change at any given snapshot in time.

The nature of philosophy today then is struggling to find a cohesive identity. One could distinguish between academic philosophers and the criticism they revert to unceasingly complex subjects based on knowledge, the coffee shop type where ordinary people talk about issues and finally, those involved in public and private institutions. The latter often have their roots in ancient philosophy but can be dressed up as new age thinking. 

A good example I heard when attending a past philosophy conference was a paper presented based on Aristotle’s idea for cities and the construction of buildings. There was a formative group from NZ charged with the responsibility of building a goal with the aim to reducing recidivism. How you design institutions rather obviously can have a profound effect on its outcomes and the group noted smaller less threatening mega structures provided, amongst other aspects, the environment to reduce repeated incarceration and ultimately the cost to the community.  What I am alluding to is the importance of a narrative in contemporary society that reflect philosophical underpinnings which can be a methodology which results in increased benefit to the whole of society. 

What becomes apparent is there is no longer any unique philosophical truths that we can relate to a particular subject, but rather a narrative based on principles and experience that point to better outcomes. In an age of increasing specialisation we have to rely on the expertise of those whose life long dedication can give rise to a shared knowledge presented in a down to earth manner. The role of the questioning philosopher however is crucial, to advance the debate and ensure a more comprehensive coverage of who we are and the societal values that best represent community standards.

What comes out of this is no matter what concrete ethical values we ascribe to, nothing can prevent us falling off the tightrope at times. But is this not the role of the philosopher, as guardians of rationality, as advisers to others, as passionate advocates or behind the scenes types or as coffee shop conversationalists, to see fit to advance the cause of humanity in different ways. 

From my perspective I think one can say that life is the great experience but it is that experience that shapes our beliefs. But how many people today believe this and how important are our beliefs? 

Conclusion

The basis of philosophy and the world’s great wisdom streams is predicated on what is believed to be the truth and how this is translates into living a meaningful life- i.e., in terms of the guiding principles on how to live and informs that sense of self. That sense of self that allows us to feel reasonably satisfied with our existence, given the emotions will give high and lower points as a natural interpretation to how we feel about our life in general. 

But, the hand of fate seems to cast its mysterious shadow over us just as things appear to be going well. Inevitably, what is unexpected arises effortlessly to our consternation, to shatter the beliefs previously held. 

Like it or not most will change their beliefs in the light of such earth shattering experiences. They may not be earth shattering to others, but that’s not the point, it’s how they are viewed in the mind of the individual. Acknowledging that event can be a watershed moment, to enable one to move on with a fresh outlook of what is believed and a renewed sense of self.

I think its part of the business of being human. It’s what seems to be the basis that overcome the trials and tribulations of tumultuous climatic events that most likely might have shattered the beliefs of those ancient tribespeople. For, according to the anthropologists we were within a whisker of becoming extinct as one stage of our early evolutionary journey. 

Instead they most likely adopted different beliefs that allowed them to cope and even prosper. That same crisis faces us today in in a far different format as we are now living in the age of the humans – the Anthropocene – a field of study that has only come to the fore in the past several decades.      

Sure, some might pride themselves in saying they have remained true to what they believed, but in my opinion that can be the result of not wanting to face up to reality. 

Religion and philosophy should never be afraid of an evolution in thinking that means our beliefs will change during our life. The person who holds fast to the teachings and beliefs of his youth notwithstanding life’s experience, in my view, denies what it is to be human. The stoics have a point to make, but not to take it to an extreme. Others are free to disagree, but I feel it is our experiences that shape our beliefs. That is not to say we don’t start out with evolving beliefs, that stand us in good stead, but they will change given our momentous life experiences. 

Everything in moderation was Aristotle's call to embrace a virtuous life, to leave room for modifications and renewal along life’s long and winding road.