Daily Archives: December 11, 2011

Notes from fall of 1987: Some Reflections on Philosophy I

By Juan Bernal

11/16/87

Traditional Philosophy (sometimes called “speculative philosophy”) is similar to some forms of religion in these ways:

1) ..it tries to achieve a synoptic view of reality (i.e. attempts to view reality as a whole);

2) ..it deals with questions concerning the significance of human existence;

3) ..it takes up questions of value and attempts to define the highest good.

***********************************

The more admirable type of philosopher is one who attempts to live and teach in accordance with the Socratic principle that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

The better part of philosophical wisdom discloses that the examination of human existence is lifelong enterprise, and that there is no assurance that we will ever achieve knowledge, much less achieve spiritual fulfillment or peace of mind.

***********************************

Religions claim to teach “higher truths”. They purport to teach about the spiritual aspect of reality, the significance and purpose of human existence, and the spiritual-moral obligations that apply to humanity. Religion –more than other institutions– assumes the role of telling us how we ought to live our lives (..also how we can deal with such aspects of reality as ageing, suffering, and death).

***********************************

Ch. 2, Why Explore Philosophy? (Making Sense of Things, Troxell & Snyder) approaches introductory philosophy by asking how people attempt to make sense of the world.

An attempt to make sense of things?   Maybe philosophy should be seen as simply being an attempt to make rational sense of our world, of both natural and social phenomena that we experience.  Of course other disciplines come into play here: the natural sciences, social sciences, history, ..So after we touch on the sciences and historical inquiry, what is the contribution of philosophy?  Can we say that it is an attempt to make sense of those aspects of our world not treated by the sciences and by history?

Do we …

Sort out, analyze and interpret the findings of the sciences (?)

Evaluate our claims to knowledge and justified belief (?)

Attempt to make sense of our experience and existence (?)

Analyze and clarify such concepts as knowledge, truth, reality, justice, moral evil, etc. (?)

Analyze the notions of moral value and human freedom. (?)

Evaluate such traditional problems as that of mind/matter, freedom/determinism; knowledge/skepticism; existence or absence of a deity; problem of evil. (?)

State the value or dis-value of religious faith (?)

Sometimes we just try to make sense of existence, both at the social and personal levels.

**************************************

We should distinguish between a philosophy of life (viz. a personal outlook on things), on the one hand, and philosophy as a discipline (the study of philosophy), on the other hand. These are two distinct things, although in some cases there can be a relationship between them.  For example, as when my study of philosophy results in my adopting a particular outlook on reality.

————————————

Questions sometimes arise regarding the value or desirability of a specific law, a set of laws, or even an entire legal system.

Suppose that we find ourselves arguing for or against a specific law: e.g. laws of apartheid in South Africa, segregationist laws in the U.S., or laws that require participation in a war even when this is contrary to the individual’s conscience. Could we say that in such a context philosophical considerations become relevant, even crucial?

Similar questions may be raised concerning other institutions: e.g., forms of government, economic systems, religions, technology, consumer-materialistic values, etc..

Arguments bearing on issues such as these would presuppose certain “deeper” values and assumptions. Undoubtedly, philosophical critiques and re-constructions would come into play here.

************************************

Most likely, the world that we confront every day is a reality open to philosophy. Understating it, we might say that philosophical values do not predominate.

How should a philosophically-minded person deal with this situation?  Should one be heroic and try to follow the Socratic model?

************************************

(12-3-87)

What is the Socratic model?

Socrates took the position of “one who does not know,” or one who makes no claim to knowledge; then he proceeded to expose others as being mere pretenders to knowledge; i.e., as really not knowing what they claimed to know (e.g., not really knowing what “virtue” is, or “courage”, etc.).

By exposing pretense and ignorance, Socrates was laying the groundwork for a genuine pursuit of truth.  Supposedly, he showed us that one cannot advance in the direction of truth until one has cleared away error, ignorance and pretense. In so doing, he also showed us how very difficult the pursuit of truth is.

 ”The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor whether he soweth or not.”   Robert G. Ingersoll

 

“What we’re destroying is nothing but houses of cards, and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand.”                           Ludwig Wittgenstein

Here the philosophical spirit is found working to clarify things, to sweep away confusion and error, ….all as a prelude to the mind’s journey toward knowledge, understanding and truth.

“We cannot pursue the lady called wisdom until we clean up our mess and learn to walk straight” .—- Pale Moon

Notes from fall of 1987 – Some Reflections on Philosophy II

By Juan Bernal

What can the “philosophical spirit” mean to the non-philosophical world, a world that cares little about clarification, analysis and the pursuit of truth?  Should the “philosophical person” take the role of a missionary and work to win converts among the un-philosophical?

To go out and attempt to convert the world is silly and Quixotic. The world in general is not disposed toward philosophical work.  But some individuals within the large non-philosophical set are naturally disposed to ask philosophical questions or ask questions that require philosophical treatment. Such individuals are susceptible to the philosophical, Socratic sting. We might approach them.

What does one attempt to teach?  ….philosophy as a method for dealing with certain questions and problems?  ….a reflective, logical approach to life?

*************************************

It seems that most people do not perceive a need in their lives for philosophy.  But there are others (a minority) who regard philosophy as critically important.

(12-4-87)

Probably most people who complain that philosophy is a useless and boring subject do not know what philosophy is, but base their view on a misconception (e.g. philosophy as armchair speculation and groundless metaphysics dealing with the supernatural). Such people commit the “strawman” fallacy.  They have an erroneous idea of philosophy, and on this “basis”, reject all philosophy as useless.  For some, experience has given them a caricature of philosophy; hence, they see nothing to recommend it and hence is easily reject it as a frivolous activity.

————————-

But if people attempt to think for themselves on significant, vital issues, they will see a need for philosophy.  If people have some curiosity about the way things are; if they still retain a sense of wonder about existence; if they haven’t conceded all spiritual, moral and intellectual work to the “experts”; they have a need for philosophy.

***************************************

(12-9-87)

The human psyche is vast and has incredible depth. Individuals occasionally get lost within it. We are shocked by its distances and depths, and frequently are led to think that somehow we have stepped beyond it.  Thus we have belief in such things as: out-of-body-experiences, soul transmigrations, reincarnations, etc..

The psyche presents us with astonishing visions, and speaks to us with many voices —some awesome and terrible.

(It is not clear that the preceding remarks have much to do with philosophy.  Do they touch on religion?)

——————————

When I sit down (or stand up) and try to sort things out for myself…..Is this philosophy?

Most likely this by itself is not philosophy. Genuine philosophy requires a special kind of reflection and intellectual work.

***************************************

Philosophy is difficult to define.  Sometimes analogies and similes can help:

An intellectual exercise:

Philosophy can be seen ….

“      as a game ……(hobby).

“      as a way of life.

“      as a style of problem solving.

“      as a form of intellectual work.

“      as a form of spirituality ……(religion (?)).

“      as a type of illness ……(a nervous disorder).

“      as a life-long commitment to searching for truth.

***************************************

The psyche seeks to express its depth; this expression may take the form of philosophy, art, poetry, religion …etc..

Philosophy as an art form.

“      as imaginative literature.

The poet and the writer of literary works (e.g., novels) attempt to express their experience of human existence. They each work at giving expression to their vision of reality; and if they succeed, they enable us, their readers, also a share in that vision and offer us a “living”  of their experience. This is how great works of literature function.

Can we say correctly that philosophy also functions this way? The activity by which an individual attempts to express his/her vision of some aspect of reality?  (…attempts to express some significant experience in his/her existence?)

Our immediate inclination is to say that philosophical work must be distinguished from poetry and literary art.  The philosopher attempts to resolve (at least clarify) problems in a rational, discursive way. This is very different from the poetic, literary expression of a significant, moving experience.

However, we may hesitate when reminded that some of the great philosophers combined their philosophical work with expression of poetic and literary vision (e.g., Plato, Nietzsche, Santayana).

[Generally when someone expresses his vision of things, he is not engaged in the work of grappling with philosophical problems; however, someone's poetic view of reality or experience could lend insight to the philosophical worker, enabling him a to see things in a new light, or even lending a clearer view of something he could only see obscurely before.]

Great music or a beautiful song may be great art, even a poetic expression of something the composer saw or felt; but it would not appear to be a form of philosophy.  By appreciating it I may feel (experience, “see”) some of what the composer felt; and it may lead me to look at things (the world, existence, other people, suffering, joy) in a different way.  But only if we were  to speak metaphorically or figuratively would we refer to music as philosophy. (Yet there  could be a philosophy behind it.)

Religion, more so than philosophy, seems close to literary art and poetry.  Some forms of religion, at least, can be seen as human attempts to express certain visions, experiences, aspirations, hopes, fears, etc..

A song, a cry, a prayer may be the means by which I express what I feel or try to express what I see (experience).  If I am truly inspired and have sufficient talent, I might create some form of art (poem, musical piece, novel) by which I express my experience.  But my attempt to express my experience of the world does not imply that that I have created a philosophical work.

Notes from fall of 1987 – Some Reflections on Philosophy III

By Juan Bernal

Walt Kaufmann tells us that “in the end, true education is a process of self-education.”  But, as he also notes, there is still a great need for teachers and guides in this process of educating oneself.

An analogy might help: Suppose I set out to climb Mount Everest. If I accomplish my goal I will have realized a great personal achievement; something I will have done myself, but not entirely by myself. For this great personal achievement will have required the help of others; instructors, trainers, guides and such.

*****************************************

Genuine education involves self-development and spiritual growth.

Philosophical development:  All persons start as nature’s primitives; many have the potential to become much more, to develop their intellectual, creative and spiritual faculties.  But this growth and development does not come easily. Effort and sacrifice are required.   Most people are not willing to pay the price.

———————————–

(12-14-87)

Start with the premise that we are rational, autonomous beings; that we are meant to think for ourselves, …that we are not mere drones who perform functions mindlessly,  unquestioningly following appointed authorities.

Then ask: How much is truth and how much useful myth in the pronouncements of our religious, governmental, and military authorities?

———————————-

(12-21-87)

Truth-Seeking                |

God-Seeking                  |       Are these aspects of the same

Soul-Development         |        enterprise?

Seeking the True Self     |

It’s difficult to say how one would deal with this question.

The poet might say that all these seek to achieve the same goal.  But certainly such a proposition cries out for clarification, and even if we were to clarify it, we probably would have no way of evaluating it.

******************************************

(Nov. 24, 92)

…check W. Kaufmann’s Future of the Humanities (p. 26) for a statement of the utter failure of German academic philosophy in the 1930′s to confront the crisis of NAZI criminality.

(Nov. 30, 92)

A dilemma for academic philosophers: ..we prefer to deal only with “philosophical issues,” and avoid the messy arena of the world’s social, economic, political, and moral problems. We don’t want to become partisans and advocates for political movements and ideologies; and we surely don’t pretend to be prophets and wisemen.

Subsequently, we mostly avoid discussion of society’s political/economic, social and moral problems. Most of us don’t think it is our business to do critiques of other people’s behavior and values, or to criticize government policies and social conventions.

We go on as if things were generally all right. But things are not all fine. (“Peace! Peace!” they cry, “but there is no peace…”  Jeremiah (?) ) And there are plenty groups and individuals ready to step into the role we have abandoned and offer their “solutions” and ideologies as remedies, often to the greater detriment and increased suffering of society.

———————————————————————–

Two tendencies in philosophy:

1) ….to be impressed and excited by mathematical reasoning (& formal logic) and the scientific method as models for philosophical inquiry. [Here we find most rationalists such as Descartes, Spinoza; Logical Positivists; Bertrand Russell (at some stage of his development); the early Wittgenstein; and many Anglo-American, analytical philosophers.

2) ...to be excited by poetry, literature, drama, and thus see philosophy as imaginative work that attempts to express some aspect (or aspect(s) ) of human experience. [Here we find such philosophers as Nietzsche, Santayana, W. Kaufmann; some of the existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Heidegger)]

[Plato's work touches both camps.]

Roughly, the two tendencies are those of the positivist and the existentialist. One sees philosophy primarily as analysis; the other tends to see it as human drama.

————————————–

Our motto could be: Learn to think for yourself, but also work to discipline your thinking. (…suggests that genuine autonomy is conditioned by self-discipline.)

Practical ethics/morality: One should emphasize the need for fair dealing with our fellow humans.  . . . the need for honest, candid talk. The principles of seeking the truth and speaking the truth to the best of our ability. (Compare this to the attitude of the politician/salesman, who says whatever will gain him an advantage and help to achieve his purpose.)

From one style of critical philosophy: The study of epistemology in which we do an analysis of the concepts concerning knowledge, belief, is our central focus. . . .  We carry on inquiries into the different kinds of knowledge, the grounds for knowledge, the range of our knowledge.  We explore the many ways in which belief, opinion, conviction, and such pass for knowledge.

We argue the need for rational inquiry, empirical observation  and rational argument. We recognize the power of emotion and the effectiveness of different methods of persuasion.

We analyze the uses of language, the need for clarification and straight thinking.

We learn how better to handle information; how to find the relevant points; how to draw the logical or probable conclusion.

We shall consider whether there are limits to science and rationally-based knowledge. Is the range of reality far greater than the range of the rational mind?  ….whether science and the rational approach presuppose some conformity between nature and the human mind, which brings in questions as to the value of metaphysics. (…consider also the challenge of quantum physics.)