Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is a multi-valued term. It is usually used in three senses::
It is about the latter that it makes sense to talk, especially since very often people do not understand what kind of activity this is.
There is a very common classification error – people think that if philosophy is what a philosopher is doing, then people who are not philosophers are not doing philosophy. That's not so. Similarly, the cleaning lady is busy cleaning, but we all clean sometimes, just not everyone is doing it professionally.
It remains to determine what kind of activity it is.
A person is so arranged that he is forced to live meaningfully. He might not want to, but he can't.
And a meaningful life requires solving the same questions – from each person, every time, and even, for some, every moment of their lives. These questions are philosophical. They cannot be resolved once and for all, because they are not questions of what is, but questions of how it should be.
Why live, how to live, whether to live at all. Whether to think, if so, about what, how and why. And what is it to think and live? Rather, how should one think about “think” and “live”? Within almost every human activity, these questions begin to sparkle with new facets, demanding answers.
And so on – the more people ask such questions, the more questions arise and there is a temptation to give an answer to these questions so that they justify themselves and stop the flow of new questions. Someone closes this hole by saying ” God.” Some people just fill up all their time with worries – when instead of life survival, there is no time to think, and since it is hard and sad to think, survival instead of life seems to many a convenient way to plug the hole. Some have accepted the hole. Yes, there is. Yes, it blows from there. They like it when there's a draft. Some people try to come up with ways to organize their minds so that they don't have to think at all. Or at least as little as possible. But everyone thinks. Everyone is a philosopher. Everyone is busy with philosophy. Just some more than others.
All this can be said in different words. I like Deleuze's version, he writes that philosophy “creates concepts” for problematic questions (and since the question ” what is philosophy-philosophical and problematic, Deleuze creates a concept to work with it, illustrating his idea). I myself have said that philosophy provides a conceptual framework. But all the same, it comes down to questions – quite a certain kind of them.
Everything is simple. Philosophy is the cradle of science. And as long as the philosopher did not wrap up his attempt in a scientific work on the basis of which scientists created something useful for society, this is all reasoning. And here at Kew, it's a collective thing. Each reasoner has a philosopher, the level of truth and depth of judgments is different.
Philosophy is a living knowledge, it is not reduced to the sum of theoretical propositions that can be transferred from one head to another, you can learn and remember. Philosophy is life in the strict and precise sense of the word-a life in which there are no ready-made patterns, stereotypes, or templates to look back on and follow them. Everything that can be reduced to such a set of patterns and stereotypes, to the sum of ready-made and finished knowledge – all this is not philosophical in philosophy. In this sense, the presentation of a set of information and provisions about philosophical concepts, laws and categories calls into question the specifics of philosophical knowledge.
On the one hand, it should inform about established categories, trends and traditions, on the other hand, it inevitably creates illusions that philosophy can be “learned” in the manner of physics or mathematics, and not suffered.
Philosophical truths are accessible only to a “living” person who is trying to know himself, his place in the world, a person who is tormented by eternal questions of his being, who doubts, who seeks. Philosophy should not transmit knowledge, but awaken a person, awaken his soul; thinking about philosophical problems can inspire a certain state of mind, ignite the fire of understanding, and thanks to this fire, a “second birth” of a person can take place – his birth in the spirit.
I'll explain it this way.
We are entering a world that was not created by us,
in a body that we didn't create
And all that we are and are is our Self, our understanding, our life experience.
We are, as it were, immersed in a certain external environment, in a certain system,in reality, in being.
Our reflections in order to understand where we are, who we are and why we are here – philosophy.
Philosophy generates a system of sciences that study the reality in which we are immersed.
There was such a German philosopher Martin Heidegger (Google about him). He has an interesting article. And it is called: “What is philosophy?” (you can also Google it and read it. It is translated into Russian). We are interested in the most important point of this article. And he is like this: any conversation (information) about philosophy will not lead us inside philosophy. We'll always be there for her. In order to get inside philosophy, you need… already be there. Otherwise, if it does not “speak” in you, then it is useless and even harmful to read philosophical books. Philosophy “says” the question — ” how is this possible?”. Example: I conduct classes with part-time students at a technical university. In its own way — Socratic conversations (I also have a channel on Yandex.Zen, which is also called “Socratic Conversations”). And suddenly the guy gets up and says: I understand that I don't need philosophy (and my friends agree that this is useless bullshit), but for some reason I come back and think about what we said here in class. The philosophy in him spoke surprisingly to himself.
From the etymology of this word, it follows that it (philosophy) must relate to wisdom or be it. But, of course, this is not the wisdom or all of it that is associated with a person and with his life. This is also the wisdom that matters in public life, the development and use of knowledge and sciences in the matter, so to speak, of arranging the surrounding reality (and the world).
And perhaps they used this concept (wisdom) rather than another and (more) for the reason that the ancients were inclined to imagine the world full of life and even to be a kind of one living being with it.
Philosophy is a process of reasoning that has as its goal the process of reasoning as such.
Everything that a person does first appears as a useful phenomenon, developed by a long and difficult evolutionary path. But after its appearance, this phenomenon is always and without any exceptions repeated in the form of a parody, when the external signs are observed, and the essence of the phenomenon is emasculated.
The general principle of parody is simple: to any occupation of sapiens on his difficult evolutionary path of development, you need to add energy savings and an irresistible desire to dominate. As a result, there will always be sapiens who observe the form of the phenomenon, but in principle, a useful result from their activities is never observed. This process is called simulation.
For example, if you add energy savings to the daily hard struggle of people for better living conditions, the result is a religion – a simulation of achieving the goals of evolutionary development. To achieve such parody goals, you do not need to strain your intelligence, but you need to follow a small set of ready-made rules, after which all your dreams will come true… after death. Sapiens likes it very much.
Exactly the same thing is “philosophy”, which has all the signs of intellectual activity, but never provides for a useful result during life. And this class, like any other, has its own fans.
Philosophy lovers are divided into two groups. The first group is philosophers who themselves generate meaningless but complex conceptual constructions, such as” dialectic”,” negation of negation ” and other conceptual husks. The second group is their fans. Fans are easy to find out. They do not produce verbal constructions themselves, but they constantly refer to the former as the absolute truth.
Ergo: philosophy is a game of reasoning for the sake of the reasoning process itself – a parody of intellectual activity.