Granted, I talk about it often. But that is because philosophy is more than just my profession. It is my life, something that is a part of me. That might sound weird, but maybe that’s because I have a very specific idea about what philosophy is. And as there are so many definitions about what philosophy is, saying that I cannot but be a philosopher might very well be confusing. Not in the least for people with a different definition. So, in this post I’ll try to clarify why being a philosopher is inevitable to me.
Loving wisdom
Pretty much every philosophy book you’ll read, will start out with defining philosophy. It’s one of the oldest intellectual occupations, but still it remains necessary to redefine it. (Maybe this is why it remains also something weird and confusing to people?) The most common definition you will find is something attributed to Socrates, even though there is no surviving written document by Socrates; Philosophy as the love for wisdom. And even though this might seem a good fit, and etymologically sound, there are at least two problems with this definition.
First, this presupposes there is something like ‘wisdom’. Wisdom as opposed to what, stupidity? Is wisdom truly something that exists, something out there that we can search for? What does this mean for the ontological structure already presupposed in the idea of philosophy? Is wisdom something we can aim for, isn’t it more of a side product? Is it even an object we can long for, or is wisdom something else? And does this mean that philosophy cannot be about stupidity? Or does it mean that we can decide what is wisdom and what is not, are there any rules we can learn? Can we go to a wise person and ask them to give us some of their wisdom?
Secondly, philosophy as a type of love creates some distinct problems. When philosophy is reduced to a kind of desire, how then do we deal with the fact that loving brings about a lot of unwanted side-effects. Blindness, hormones. Desire and love are processes in which a subject tried to get closer to an object. Tries to envelop, obtain, possess an object. But this wanting, this desire, taints that object as well. Wisdom is no longer an object in itself, but has become an object that can only exist in relation to the subject. Or, in other words: the philosopher wants to obtain wisdom for his own sake, not for the sake of wisdom.
Philosophy as an attitude
Instead of considering philosophy to be a method of reaching some goal, like wisdom, I prefer to understand philosophy as an attitude. An attitude is a way of being and should thus be distinguished from a method. Being is a state, something you practise continuously, and which never ends. It is a ‘way’, and not an ‘end’.
This is hardly a new idea. We can find it already clearly in the Tao Te Ching…
Hence,
The sage focuses on non-action in his works,
Practices not-saying in his speech,
The myriad things arise but are disregarded
The sage produces but does not own
Acts but does not claim
Accomplishes work but does not focus on it
Does not focus on it, and thus it does not go.~ Tao Te Ching, Chapter 2 translated by Wikisource.
But it is an approach to philosophy that is not often shared. Philosophy is often considered to be a method to find good arguments or the study of logic. I’ve even met people who call themselves philosophers who want to prove things, make things measurable. (And yes, I’m talking about ‘famous’ philosophers here, although I’ll not name names.) To me that is an absurd definition of philosophy.
Philosophy is a search, an inner search for something that remains unknown. The moment we know it, it stops being what we are looking for. This is what makes the search both valuable and continuous. And it is not wisdom that we search for, long for, as that is a state of mind, a judgement about how something is applied. Instead it is Truth, the Real. It is something unknown to us, that we grasp for. Truth, which cannot be found for once we do, it slips through our fingers. And yes, Meno's paradox hits us right in the face - but let's save that paradox for later.
Perhaps it's best to go back to the Tao, where all of this was already said, but much clearer:
If everybody knows what beauty is,
then beauty is not beauty [anymore];
If everybody knows what goodness is,
then goodness is not goodness [anymore].~ Tao Te Ching, Chapter 2 translated by Wikisource.
But this is not solely an Eastern understanding of philosophy. We can find the traces of it in the roots of Western philosophy as well. Philosophy as a spiritual exercise instead of a method to make distinctions. Even though the focus on distinctions and judgment has gotten much more attention throughout the history of Western philosophy. The idea of dualism is firmly rooted in a Western (or male?) understanding of philosophy, which can be traced back to not only Hegel and Descartes, and even all the way to Pythagoras, who outlined dualism in his Table of Opposites.
Philosophy as a way of life
Philosophy cannot be distinguished from life itself. Not for me, at least. There is no way of shutting philosophy off. It’s not possible to halt the search for truth, the attitude towards life and myself that is fundamental to who I am. This doesn’t mean I’m always going about thinking “What would Deleuze have thought about this?” But it does make me observe silence and ponder something before I jump in to have an opinion about something. It does make it possible for me to both say something with absolute conviction and change my focus and direction some minutes later in response to input that I hadn’t considered before. I does make me question assumptions before understanding something.
When I talk about philosophy, I am talking about something so dear to me, as my own life. Philosophy is as close to who I am, as breathing is for my body. It is an attitude that has developed over time and something that continues to grow and change. That makes it so much fun, and frustrating as well. Although perhaps more frustrating for the people around me, than for myself.
Disclaimer: This post is a reflection of my present understanding. It in no way is to be considered as a limit on my future views. Philosophy as I aim to practise it, is to strive to break one's understanding of the world and incorporate the new void into your future self, who is nothing but present in the present.
I avoid calling myself a philosopher as a (perhaps foolish) tactic. I imagine that if I present an argument as a philosopher, it may distract those in a position of authority or those who look to authority from the argument before them. They may instead focus on my qualifications for calling myself a philosopher and what my credentials are, which from the perspective of a submission to authority, I have none to speak of. This makes it a simple matter to dismiss the need to consider the argument at all, as other philosophers with a different idea of what makes a philosopher might dismiss me as a fake and a fraud, and my arguments along with it. The baby and the bathwater.
Of course, I realize in the academic realm (of which I'm sure you've dealt with far more frustration than I) it would be just as damning to say you aren't a philosopher, as they may feel that only real philosophers are worth hearing out. That, and academics seem to be inclined to not utilize philosophy as a system of exploration, rather a regurgitation of the history of philosophy. Repackaging the recorded thoughts of bolder thinkers gone before.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
I absolutely agree on your pointed view on how academics consider philosophy and philosophers. And you're also right that I have dealt and still deal with the frustration of the inability to grasp the difference you point out: basically between being and referring. I'm very much interested in those who are who they say they are, and find them wonderful to talk to. Credentials, but more accurately it would be to say that the present educational system, fails to acknowledge that being cannot be labelled. In my forthcoming book I actually talk about this in a chapter, this need to repackaging thought as you call it. It is one of the reasons I'm disappointed in academic philosophy, and trying to stay on the verge of it at best.
Those who need the authority of a title to make a point, should not have such authority.
Any chance your forthcoming book begins not by defining philosophy, but evaluating the philosophic need to define it? Will it attribute Plato for attributing Socrates and giving weight to philosophic attributes? To unprove the (yes, probably male) desire to logically prove things? ^_^
However you go about it, @nobyeni, I am excited to read more of your philosophical compositions. Steem is very fortunate to have you amongst its truth seekers, and I am very fortunate to be able to read and challenge myself through your sharing of... would it be wisdom? I'm going to say wisdom, but maybe more sharing of 'seeking'?
Either way, thank you for talking about what you are talking about when you are talking about philosophy, Nobyeni, always elated when one of these comes across my Steem feed.
Pretty good guess, yes. Although the book that will hopefully see the light of day this autumn, will deal with that in a more philosophical fashion - and in English, so hopefully that will give you something to look forward to.
If wisdom is the act of the search for truth, then go ahead and call that a wise attitude. Looking forward to more conversations, carmalain.
I've never read a definition of philosophy that satisfied me. I guess your approach is as good as any.
But I do have to say I disagree with your criticism of those philosophers who want to prove stuff. Look at it historically: the ancient Greeks wanted to prove stuff all the time. Philosophy is filled with arguments and logic. It's why all lawyers take at least a couple classes on it. I don't understand what philosophy would be without these things. Poetry? Literature? The things you say are exactly the things some scientists say when they want to ridicule philosophy, because they think it's just people arguing about things that no one can know, just spend their time in French bistros sipping coffee and talking nonsense for 2000 years without reaching any conclusions.
My opinion of philosophy is radically different. Philosophy has created most of the sciences we know. Philosophy can prove things, like the non-existence of free will for instance, and when coupled with proofs from science it becomes that much stronger, because the methodologies are entirely different.
I also, like you, identify myself with philosophy like we're one thing! So I understand your 'way of being/life/attitude' approach. But without logic, there's nothing to stop you from just talking nonsense all the time, saying something and then unsaying it while saying you said the same thing, something like an Alice in Wonderland completely absurd world.
In general, when we look toward what philosophy is, I guess the most objective way to go about it to ask what it is that philosophers do. Just like if you wanted to understand what medicine is, you'd check what it is doctors do. Philosophers are clearly trying to understand reality, prove things, drive toward a conclusion, argue their case. This is history. We may not be able to offer a definitive definition of philosophy, but we know it when we see it. If you give me papers from chemistry, biology, history, music, physics, and philosophy, I'll be able to tell you which ones are philosophy papers, even if you hide the title and journal etc. So clearly we know what philosophy is, practically speaking.
This reminded me of the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." He was institutionalized for trying to quantify what quality is. It can indeed be frustrating, as you point out. I believe the key is in realizing all of us have our own perception bubble and rarely will take the time to focus on ideas that are not relevant to that bubble.
I have never gotten into any formal study of philosophy, and perhaps it is because of the - at times - argumentative nature of some aspects of western philosophy. I did read the Tao Te Ching many years ago, and that spoke to me very clearly, and am happy to see it quoted here.
I think a lot of western philosophy has merit, but the whole scene just tends to overwhelm me so reading your thoughts and ideas gives a sense of clarity.
I agree with the notion that philosophy is an attitude. To me, if I were to attempt any form of definition, it would be that it is about bettering one's understanding of life and the myriad circumstances we find ourselves in. Making sense of the seemingly senseless, and developing a way of being that helps us move, grow, increase in overall awareness.
For philosphy I'm always interested in watching it from afar without interacting with it. I have some "life philosophies" myself, most related to my Religion (Islam).
But I don't like the debates, comparison and history that comes with studying philosophy. So yeah, I just like watching it from afar.
Love in philosophy - philia - is not eros, which your post seem to indicate. It is affection for another, non-relative person, and thus, freely chosen rather than instinctual. It would be akin to stating affection towards choosing wisdom, rather than desire for possession from lower emotion of eros.
Wisdom can be defined and assessed, as stupidity can be characterized and noted. To deny otherwise would defeat the purpose of any examination regarding man's behaviors and motivations. Denying the ability of man to segregate the wise and the fool would also make the very field of philosophy irrelevant and moot.
The Taoist way, being, and oneness all seem convincing, except to live one's life mired in search only is akin to prefer being in the subway for the sake of being in the subway. Search must have a purpose and a focus, just as the subway is but a means to an end.