Philosophy 101: What and Why?

The owl; a symbol of wisdom since Ancient Greek times

I am kicking off a series of posts here which I am calling philosophy 101. These will be a collection of posts by a self-confessed amateur philosopher (myself) written to provide tips and encouragement to every reader who has decided to reclaim the art and science of philosophy from the dingy halls of academia for use in their own lives.

I am starting by answering two questions I meet on a regular basis when I mention that one of my majors, political science, is largely concerned with philosophy. The first question is "What exactly is philosophy?". Once this is out of the way I find that generally people are sceptical of the practicality or necessary of philosophy and are disinclined to engage in philosophical reasoning or arguments. The suspicion, contempt and general ignorance many people hold for philosophy today is nothing new. Plato writing in the Republic also bemoaned the expulsion of philosophy to the fringes of society. Instead Plato held the maxim of his teacher Socrates that the “unexamined life is not worth living” holding that the only person capable of true freedom, justice and virtue was the philosopher. The problem is thus perennial. It is the first challenge thrown down by the naysayers of philosophy. What is the legitimate realm, if any, for philosophy in the life of ordinary individuals?

First of all, what exactly is philosophy? My understanding is that Philosophy is the “Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means (logic) and moral self-discipline”. Leaving aside for later posts what is involved by “intellectual means” and “moral self-discipline” what is meant by wisdom? This I define as an accurate understanding of the fundamental questions of human life; the questions about the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values. Such questions may have implications or even foundations to be found in empirical science but are ultimately investigated through the use of logic. Questions like; is there a God? Is there such a thing as meaning to life? If so, what is meaningful? What is right and wrong? What is justice, freedom, love or beauty? Is the material world all that is important? All these questions and more are in the legitimate realm of philosophy.

Are these questions that can be ignored by individuals keen to concentrate on more ‘practical’ matters? Or is their importance such as to necessitate every person first arrive at solid understandings to these questions and to base their lives on the foundations of their understanding? My answer is to claim that irrelevant to a person’s interest in pursuing philosophy their life is unavoidable founded upon one. The consequence of failing to pursue philosophy is that a person will adopt a default philosophical system either from their family or, more likely, from society in general. The unwitting individual will have his decisions shaped by a system that he is ignorant of and, thus, in a very real way he is enslaved by his ignorance. It is impossible to make a decision to ignore philosophy because it is ‘unimportant’, such a judgement implies a hierarchy of activities and values itself a highly philosophical notion. Persons uninterested in philosophy are not less influenced by philosophical notions than those who pursue philosophy; they just become bad, manipulated, often illogical and ignorant philosophers.

The default philosophical system for our society (by which I refer broadly to western civilisation and specifically to the highly secular Australian brand), to which so many persons unwittingly fall victem to, is a mixture of materialism and liberal relativism. Materialism is the belief that there is no such thing as spiritual entities or ideals. It is the belief that scientifically quantifiable matter is the only substance that exists. Matter is all that matters and all meaning, morality, beauty etc. must derive from atoms or exist only in human constructs. Our society accepts a ‘soft’ version of this belief, rather than declaring the spiritual world non-existent outright it sees beliefs concerning the spiritual realm as impossible to verify. Spiritual concerns are thus thrust out of the public sphere. Matter becomes the only legitimate concern in public. The economy, as a provider of material goods, becomes the most important ‘sector’ of a society. This is witnessed every election where a parties economic credentials are fundamental to their success. With virtue off limits societies begin to judge people by their wealth, beauty or slightly less superficially their personal charisma. Success is measured in how early or with how much money a person retires or with the speed at which they climb the corporate ladder. Consumerism abounds as material goods are all that is worth acquiring. Love is reduced to the physical act and scientifically calculable pleasure of sex. Children are valued more for what they bring to their parents and the state not for who they are and thus become the property of their parents and the state. Materialism also promotes a hedonistic worldview in which pain is the only evil and pleasure is the only good.

Liberal relativism is the other half of which the default philosophy of our society is comprised. Liberalism primarily seeks to exalt the freedom (defined as choice) of individuals. Relativism lends support to liberalism by abolishing objective morality leaving the legitimacy of moral actions to the belief of individuals. Relativism, the bastard offspring of the Protestant challenge to objective morality which in its logical conclusion leaves morality solely in the judgement of the individual. It is the true ‘debt’ our society owes the Reformation. With the glorification of choice over objective truth philosophical discussion is forced from the public square. It is ‘wrong’ to question the decisions of others. Tolerance is the only virtue; the only sin is intolerance. The focus on choice also leads to people becoming synonymous with their choices the distinction of ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ is lost on a society too terrified of the label ‘bigot’ to allow for moral questions or philosophical debates to be initiated. For liberal relativism goodness is defined as choice, evil as restrictions.

These two philosophies exist in our society side by side. They may sometimes conflict; for example, regarding the issue of smoking, the liberal relativist may allow for its propagation in the name of choice whilst the materialist may call for its abolishment in the name of longevity. There is also conflict within a philosophy; thus one brand of liberal may call for higher taxes to extend freedoms to the poor whilst another may call for a reduction of tax to promote individual freedoms over big government. There are also extremes of both philosophies thus a militant atheist is an example of extreme materialism and probably is not affected too much be liberalism. An example of an extreme liberal relativist would be a post-modernist, unwilling to accept even the laws of science. But while there are these variations within at least one ‘truth’ from both philosophies are accepted by almost all; the supremacy of matter as the only legitimate area of concern and the promotion of what is viewed as tolerance over intolerance.

Can you see how our society is comprised of these two philosophies and people are affected by them without even realising it? How both materialism and liberal relativism furthermore protect their unwitting converts from discovering the philosophical assumptions which underline all their values? And can you see how those who ask “what good is philosophy” already unknowingly employ a philosophical system? Nor am I condemning all aspects of Liberal relativism and materialism, every philosophical system is founded upon some truth or it would fail completely, but even those who are influenced by the best parts of these philosophies often fall into error because they are unwilling to examine their premises. Consider the social worker who is so focused on providing for the material wellbeing of the poor that he ignores the promotion of virtue to disastrous results. Consider the liberal who while fighting against an oppressive regime also promotes abortion in the name of choice. Both of these examples are common enough and commonly occur because the driving philosophical force in our society remains unquestioned.

I this post I have been fairly critical of both materialism and liberal relativism, though this reflects by own beliefs, this was not my object. It may well be possible to have a philosophically sound system of belief based on materialism or relativism which individuals accept through logically sound arguments. If this were truly the case it would be fantastic and hopefully discussion could be promoted between people holding different beliefs. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. Most often, in my experience, people form their entire would view with some half thought out musings based on their favourite television program or (if you are lucky) book or politician. They are often unwitting to apply the hard test of logic to these beliefs. The very questions “how does philosophy affect me?” or “what good is philosophy?” at once combining so much ideology and ignorance is proof of this. Let us start to examine why we do things, why we values certain things rather than be pawns for an ideology we cannot comprehend.

Beauty: Modern vs Classical

Beauty, it must be understood, does not wholly revolve around aesthetics.  Just as a Guido may look good on a wall, so might a well placed blue canvas. Alas, I think only one sparks true beauty in man the other seems void of that connection with the viewer; the blue canvas although it may represent something of beauty, it itself does not reflect this strive for beauty, it simple informs us that there is beauty out there. Whereas, the other, educes an “emotional shock, that makes man leave his shell and sparks this enthusiasm by attracting him to something that is other than himself”. I believe this is because they seek to capture beauty not to merely represent it.

 “Nostalgia and longing impel him to pursue the quest; beauty prevents him from being content with just daily life. It causes him to suffer.” If only art could live up to such a standard, a ‘Beauty which causes man to suffer’. In my experience, nothing has caused me more grief, than spending a few hours in a small gallery in New Norcia (It being filled with beautiful sacred art), and then having to leave it. For two hours I was in a world not of my own, I had “left my shell” so to speak, and the shock of coming back after leaving was enough to cause this discontent with daily life. It hurt me to know that such beauty had been forgotten in daily life. Art galleries these days tend to focus more on modern art, art which is the product of such a society that has left beauty for dead. Personally I have never experience such shock from a piece of modern art. In fact the last time I experienced something similar was when I viewed a painting of “the high alter of Seville”(done in a classical style), which was placed in some forgotten corner of the gallery.  

The main difference I think is that, classical art seems the capture the moment as well as capturing the romanticism in it, in such a way to tell a story through the painting. It is not merely a representation of beauty; it is in itself a thing of beauty.  Here I shall leave you with a quote, which sums up my view of beauty quite nicely:

“Beauty should bring consolation in sorrow and affirmation in joy” 

(Reni, Guido: Atalanta and Hippomenes (c.1612)

Book Review

Towards the Gleam by T. M. Doran

I was interested in this book because it represents a modern attempt to publish Christian literature in a similar vein to the literary giants of the Catholic literary revival in England. In fact so influenced is Mr Doran by the likes of Chesterton, Tolkien and Lewis that he has actually incorporated them into his novel as characters. Though I don't know the background of Mr Doran I would assume that he is a "traditional" Roman Catholic from his treatment of philosophical notions in his novel.

The weaknesses of the novel were mainly in its prose which, whilst more than adequate, suffers, naturally enough, from comparisons with the famous literary giants who are the characters. The novel also suffers, in my opinion, from far too much inner dialogue and reflection on the part of the main character and too little dialogue and engagement with other characters. The central villain in the story was also, I found, a little one dimensional and hardly intimidating.

I am undecided how I feel about the plot. It was highly improbable and relying far too much on happenstance. It also failed to generate the required tension, for most of the novel I was more concerned for the marriage of the protagonist than for his life. The resolution was obvious well before it occurred and felt ridiculous afterward. Despite this if the plot is to be taken more allegorically or as demonstrating the presence of grace in the world then it makes far more sense. And while it would have been nice to have felt concern for the physical wellbeing of the protagonist, concern for his spiritual state and his marriage make more sense.

What Mr Doran did manage really well, I believe, was the presentation of the various literary giants which crop up throughout his story. I especially enjoyed the scene of G. K. Chesterton in an English pub. That said, I am a little annoyed at the presentation of Tolkien whose character in my opinion Mr Doran was a little liberal with. The treatment of philosophy and ideas in the novel was also engaging and, for the most part, deftly handled.

It is the spirit in which, I believe, the novel was published to which I am most attracted. It represents to me an attempt for Catholics to once again have a say in the culture; an attempt to present an attractive alternative through a cultural median. Bring on another Catholic literary revival, another Belloc, another Chesterton and another Tolkien (to name a few)!

I would warn readers, however, that unless they are somewhat familiar and sympathetic towards the lives and writings of at least Chesterton, Lewis and Tolkien most of the enjoyment of the novel will probably be lost.

In Summery;
Though this book is unlikely to be a classic the story was an enjoyable, light read; one which leaves you pondering over the issues raised throughout the novel. Would definitely like to see more. 3 and 1/2 stars

To see more of "Towards the Gleam" check out this webpage or Amazon.

Rerum Novarum - Some Lessons Learnt

120 years ago Pope Leo XIII released Rerum Novarum an encyclical on the “Conditions of Labour”. In my previous post I (or rather G. K. Chesterton) discussed the radical shift this Encyclical brought to thoughts on economic justice. To honour this 120^th anniversary I am writing on the Encyclical again; however, rather than discussing the ‘big picture’ of this Encyclical I want to focus instead on the implications Rerum Novarum contains for the ordinary life of a faithful Catholic. Most of the lessons I draw from this Encyclical will be familiar to faithful Catholics but are nonetheless useful reminders, for myself at least, to apply and reapply to life.

One of the first things that struck me on reading the encyclical was the common sense with which Pope Leo XIII presented his argument. This was especially apparent in the Pope’s discussion on property and property rights. Far from a puritanical, unreasonable ascetic Pope Leo demonstrates a far greater sympathy and understanding with man than either the socialist or the capitalist. Contrary to denying the value of corporal goods Pope Leo affirms that material processions can be a source of legitimate pleasure and enjoyment. Man as the “full perfection of the animal being” can thus “enjoy at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material.” This animal side of man is of course tempered by his spiritual nature but that spiritual nature does not prevent the enjoyment of the material realm. This, therefore, is the first lesson which I take from Rerum Novarum; the material part of man is neither unimportant nor insignificant. If this were true there would be no need for the Pope’s Encyclical because material concerns like the living wage would be unimportant. Matter is not evil and can be legitimately enjoyed. Of course there is a real superiority of the concerns of the soul to the concerns of the body. This does not make your body evil or unimportant, however. Enjoy life’s authentic material pleasures; if you don’t there is probably something wrong with you.

The second point that struck me in Rerum Novarum was the importance of work to humanity. Pope Leo notes that even before the fall man worked in the Garden of Eden. Furthermore

“even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly idle; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. ‘Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labour thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life.’”

Thus work should be embraces as a core element of our being. Pope Leo also attributes the justification of ownership of private property, in part, to the labour through which a man produces goods. Through labour the fruits of man’s work become “indistinguishable and inseparable” from his work and his ownership of goods is justified. As Pope Leo so rightly states;

“Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labour should be possessed and enjoyed by anyone else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labour should belong to those who have bestowed their labour.”

In this way we can see how an idle man could potentially forfeit his rights to ownership through his idleness. Humans are hardwired to work. It’s time to recognise this and quite seeking idleness.

The attempt to avoid the hardships of work is also dealt with in the Encyclical and declared to be impossible. No matter how many times you change your career or workplace seeking that ‘perfect job’ the hardship will remain. A Marxist utopia for the workers is in fact a fools dream. And Pope Leo is totally realistic about this.

The “pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently - who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment - they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles.”

This then brings me to the second lesson I took from Rerum Novarum; to seek to avoid labour is flatly contrary to our essence as humans and the hardships of labour are inescapable consequences of original sin. This is one lesson I will constantly have to remind myself of. Instead of avoiding the difficult tasks offer it up and get on with it. The pain will not disappear in this life.

A final lesson I took from Rerum Novarum concerns wealth and how material processions should be treated by a faithful Catholic. Pope Leo reaffirms the Church’s stance that material processions are morally neutral. Catholics are allowed to be wealthy and are not to be condemned for being poor.

“As for riches and the other things which men call good and desirable, whether we have them in abundance, or are lacking in them-so far as eternal happiness is concerned - it makes no difference; the only important thing is to use them correctly.”

And what is the correct use of material wealth?

“Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others. "He that hath a talent," said St. Gregory the Great, "let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbour."

Least this statement seems weak and easy to incorporate into your life let me quote again; and this is the final lesson I am sharing that I took from Rerum Novarum. While wealth is not evil…

“When what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms." It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity”

The easiest application of this sentence that I can think of is stop wasting money on frivolities. The Church, in her wisdom, allows us to determine for ourselves exactly what “necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for”; but I know for sure that that sentence is not an accurate description of my spending habits.

This leaves me with another three more areas of my life to work on and to constantly remind myself of and I thought I was reading a dated text directed at multimillionaires and socialists… Well that’s the end of my posts on Rerum Novarum

Vive Christus Rex!

Rerum Novarum – 120 Years

This 15^th of May will be the 120^th anniversary of the release of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII on the “condition of Labour”. In anticipation of this anniversary I have read the Encyclical and have to admit to being impressed beyond my expectations by the wisdom it contains. I was afraid before reading Rerum Novarum that the conclusions would be out of date and/or else blatantly obvious to our society where, in Australia at least, trade unions are most certainly not banned and the almost every worker (and for that matter the unemployed) receive, at the very least, a living wage. Certainly the challenges (of which there are many) to create a Christian workplace have changed radically in Australia since 1891. Nonetheless it is no exaggeration to assert that the Rerum Novarum contains a goldmine of wisdom most of which is still applicable and necessary to heed today.

I will follow this post up at a later date with greater commentary on Rerum Novarum, but for the mean time I want to concentrate on a single point. This is Pope Leo’s simultaneous condemnation of both unbridled capitalism and socialism. Such a denunciation of both practices was fairly radical in its day as the extract from the writings of G. K. Chesterton, below, demonstrates. The rejection of the two most prevalent economic theories of the age, by the Pope, affirmed an alternate road, a more "human" solution to the problems of justice in economics. The condemnation of both capitalism and socialism also presents a striking example of the value of the Pontiff; free, through the grace of God, from bowing to the fads of an age, and thus able to present the necessity of Catholicism to be present, in all areas of life, to the world.

“Shades of the prison-house began to close and with them came a merely mechanical discussion as to how we were all to get out of prison. Then indeed, in the darkness of the dungeon, was heard the voice of Mr. Sidney Webb, telling us that we could only conceivably get out of our Capitalist captivity with the patent Chubb key of Collectivism. Or to use a more exact metaphor, he told us that we could only escape from our dark and filthy cells of industrial slavery by melting all our private latchkeys into one gigantic latchkey as large as a battering ram. We did not really like giving up our little private keys or local attachments or love of our own possessions; but we were quite convinced that social justice must be done somehow and could only be done socialistically. I therefore became a Socialist in the old days of the Fabian Society; and so I think did everybody else worth talking about except the Catholics. And the Catholics were an insignificant handful, the dregs of a dead religion, essentially a superstition. About this time appeared the Encyclical on Labor by Leo XIII; and nobody in our really well-informed world took much notice of it. Certainly the Pope spoke as strongly as any Socialist could speak when he said that Capitalism "laid on the toiling millions a yoke little better than slavery." But as the Pope was not a Socialist it was obvious that he had not read the right Socialist books and pamphlets; and we could not expect the poor old gentleman to know what every young man knew by this time--that Socialism was inevitable. That was a long time ago, and by a gradual process, mostly practical and political, which I have no intention of describing here, most of us began to realize that Socialism was not inevitable; that it was not really popular; that it was not the only way, or even the right way, of restoring the rights of the poor. We have come to the conclusion that the obvious cure for private property being given to the few is to see that it is given to the many; not to see that it is taken away from everybody or given in trust to the dear good politicians. Then, having discovered that fact as a fact, we look back at Leo XIII and discover in his old and dated document, of which we took no notice at the time, that he was saying then exactly what we are saying now. "As many as possible of the working classes should become owners." That is what I mean by the justification of arbitrary warning. If the Pope had said then exactly what we said and wanted him to say, we should not have really reverenced him then and we should have entirely repudiated him afterwards. He would only have marched with the million who accepted Fabianism; and with them he would have marched away. But when he saw a distinction we did not see then, and do see now, that distinction is decisive. It marks a disagreement more convincing than a hundred agreements. It is not that he was right when we were right, but that he was right when we were wrong.“

“The Exception Proves the Rule” from The Catholic Church and Conversion by G. K. Chesterton