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.