The problem with philosophy

[Linusthe2nd]

If you guys disagree with me, tell that to all the atheists I know who philosophize themselves into a world where God cannot exist, even though He actually does. Their axioms are all wrong.

They will never concede a point. If they do they are lost and they know it.

 

[Sair]

But wait, given that a philosopher is a lover knowledge, then how can one be a philosopher if the premises they wed themselves to are false?

You can purport to love actuality all day long, but unless you truly are attracted to truth, it isn’t so.

I think we are all, to some degree, predisposed to consider ‘truth’ that which we find most congenial. There is a great deal of philosophy devoted to rationalising that which humans want to believe.

This is, ultimately, a waste of time and mental energy if we are not also concerned with empirical realities - facts about how we experience the world which must inform our philosophy if it is to be of any use to us.

Epicurus, the philosopher whose ideas I admire most, is reported to have written, “Vain is the word of that philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man.” Perhaps the real point of philosophy - the truth of it - is to reconcile us to the facts of our lives. We cannot genuinely comfort ourselves with false ideals, so in order to make our peace with the world and our own existence, the search for truth - so far as we may discern it - is valuable.

 

[Qoeleth]

You raise an interesting philosophical question … what is the difference, e.g., between Aristotle’s Metaphysics and the Illiad.

Yes, each of these works is an arrangement of words. But they seem very different.

What is the plot of Aristotle’s Metaphysics? Where are the usual literary values?

Maybe Aristotle is a bad example, of philosophy as literature.

Levinas (your name sake) reads beautifully as literature- so many neologisms, such a rich, play of language “Ethics is an optics”! Even if Levinas was frames as an extended prose-poem, it would still be a great work.

It would be great to see someone stage one of Plato’s dialogues as a drama, too, or maybe make a movie with one of his dialogues as the script.

What about Sartre’s ‘Nausea’, or, better yet (IMO), Camus’ ‘The Fall’? The distinction between philosophy and literary art seems to become indistinct.

 

[levinas12]

Maybe Aristotle is a bad example, of philosophy as literature.

Levinas (your name sake) reads beautifully as literature- so many neologisms, such a rich, play of language “Ethics is an optics”! Even if Levinas was frames as an extended prose-poem, it would still be a great work.

It would be great to see someone stage one of Plato’s dialogues as a drama, too, or maybe make a movie with one of his dialogues as the script.

What about Sartre’s ‘Nausea’, or, better yet (IMO), Camus’ ‘The Fall’? The distinction between philosophy and literary art seems to become indistinct.

But Levinas is a response (negative yes) to Aristotle. And Aristotle is a response (maybe negative) to Plato. And Plato is a response (definitely negative) to Homer.

Literature is a form of disclosure. And philosophy is a form of disclosure.
They are both involved in “truthing” but in different ways. Articulating this difference is a philosophical problem.

Heidegger wrestled with this. Note his preoccupation with Holderlin.

 

[PseuTonym]

Bravo, Katholish!

I have never really considered the hard part about philosophy coming up with a valid logical argument. Choosing correct premises is the difficult part, because premises often seem true when in reality they are not. The reductio ad aburdum then becomes the most important tool in philosophy which is based in what we call common sense. Those who consider themselves philosophy experts tend to follow a logical path and are slow to recognize the absurdity (of their premises).

I think most common people are capable of seeing the theories of modern philosophy as absurd when they sit down and try to understand what the experts are really saying. We also need to keep in mind that if what you are doing is trying to “win” a debate, you are not really doing philosophy at all. Philosophy is a pursuit of wisdom and truth and once you close yourself off to truth by trying to force a certain conclusion which has not been sufficiently established, your ego gets in the way of any real philosophy.

Some Catholic Answers philosophy forum threads (that have been active this week) could have had much better quality posts if all participants had read your words immediately after reading the post they were predisposed to reply to – before formulating a reply – and also immediately before clicking the “Send” button to post a reply.

I wish there were a “first draft of a knee-jerk reply” forum for the first draft of a reply. A new thread that elicits a lot of replies could then be an opportunity for the thread creator to select the best replies and – with a single click on a “bravo” button – put them into the real thread. All of the other replies would stay in the “first draft of a knee-jerk reply” waiting area forum until one of the following happens: the author of the reply deletes the reply, the creator of the thread selects the reply for the real thread, or the author of the reply revises the reply.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One of the wisest men who ever lived, G.K. Chesterton, had no formal training as a philosopher. He is proof, as if proof were needed, that common sense is the fundamental trait of all great philosophers.

 

[puzzledtoo]

I don’t know much (very little indeed) about philosophy and debating. Couldn’t “win” a debate if my life and the lives of others depended on it. One thing I’m sure of though is that too much emphasis is placed on “common sense”. Common sense tells us that we can drink and drive. It tells us that we can eat until we are stuffed and can’t move. In other words common sense satisfies the ego. Uncommon sense is what I’m looking for. I believe uncommon sense is the stuff that great philosophers are made of. They go beyond the common sense of the culture.

 

[Entwhistler]

Think again. An “expert” philosopher will never admit a mistake, because by doing so he would cough up his “expert” status.

An expert philosopher is one who can defend whatever idiotic statements he, she, or it makes, against all comers, to the satisfaction of other “expert” philosophers, who are mostly a consortium of university-inbred nitwits whose job is mostly to protect their positions and status— finding truth, not so important.

There is no such thing as an “expert philosopher”. As Socrates said (paraphrasing here), the road to wisdom starts when you admit that you know nothing. That is what distinguishes a philosopher from a vain, stuck-up professor.