How to Do Philosophy

There is a slight error here: when Aristotle makes this distinction, it is not between things that are useful and things that are not, but between things that are sought for their utility and things that are sought for their own sake.

We make art supplies in order to make art. We make art because we like art. Aristotle pursued knowledge, not because he wanted to use it, but because he valued it for its own sake; much like a hacker will write a program, not so that he can do his taxes with it or watch really cool videos, so much as because he enjoys the craft. This attitude, that knowledge is not just a means to and end but rather an end in and of itself, today is usually called 'curiosity.'

I think the lesson here is that people who aren't curious about the questions that philosophy attempts to answer probably shouldn't study it to any great deal. It's just like people who don't like to program shouldn't become programmers; they won't get anything out of it.

The comments below are intended to amplify and to ever so slightly change the direction of some aspects of the presented essay.

Fundamental and central to the dissatisfaction that many people feel with philosophy is the realization that it is not formal or concrete -- that it is ultimately abstract and seems to be nothing more than 'word play' (semantics). They study "process" since that seems to be all that can be done.

The author writes: "that the concepts we use in everyday life are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard."

The trouble with this idea is that it hides incomplete assumptions. Concepts are defined _as_much_ in terms of continuity as in symmetry. Saying that a concept 'breaks down' in analysis is simply saying that the concept of symmetry (a logical sameness while under conditions and contexts of the applied analytic force) is not sufficient to fully contain the meaning of a concept. That is true, but not a problem. The logic of continuity is as complete in its own way as any formalisms based on symmetry. There is no paradox in this; nothing is lost, and it is right that concepts be understood in this more complete way. The /process/ of philosophy needs to be changed in a certain way, a very different kind of discipline, equally as hard, than that a mathematician would use.

For example, the "Ship of Theseus" paradox is a direct exploration of how the notion of continuity must be included in the very basis of a notion of a notion. If that were not enough evidence in this post, may I point out that it is also possible to directly construct "barber" type paradoxes that show that the notion of a concept of a particular type (ie, non-fuzzy) cannot somehow be more basic than the notion of a concept itself.

Philosophy does have a strong and irreducible core of definite knowledge -- it just does not happen to be widely known or taught in USA universities at this time. Mostly I suspect that this is because philosophy _as_a_practice_ does not have an obvious direct connection to bottom line profitability (ie, ideas like "education is about business" -- "right intelligence/information is success", etc). It is therefore treated as a 'has been' -- something for people to do in their spare time, for reasons of interest and/or hobby.

Yet the connection of philosophy to practicality is (astonishingly) far more real, powerful, and potent than 99.9% of the worlds people will ever realize, because it /also/ happens to be so completely subtle and everywhere pervasive. This means only that it will also be the most neglected, particularly in younger civilizations (as ours is).

It has been observed that when a technology is truly powerful, it also tends to be unobtrusive. In fact, some have proposed that the proper measure of the power of a technology is in its unobtrusiveness. An advanced technolgy appears as "magic" to an unknowing and primative people (A. C. Clark). Similarly, philosophy is, if anything, much more subtle than the much more basic and simpler forms of religion and contemporary politics. A Master of the Art can move entire nations with the stroke of a pen, but such people are very rare and unobtrusive themselves.

For an example of the forgoing, Consider the effect of the -- at that time very novel -- ideas of "life, liberty, and the presuit of happness" (as suggested by John Locke) on the historical development of the USA. These ideas are so central to the way that we think and define our self identity now, individially and nationally, that they are totally taken for granted. Yet indirectly, one mans philosophy shaped the course and outcome of wars, and indeed everything 300 million people do, in every practical business decision, the world over. Go just a little farther and you find that the "love philosophy" of one (presumed) man has affected billions more for far longer (2000 years).

Although stated informally, something about their ideas must somehow /feel/ true to /most/ people, regardless of context -- a definite indication that 'something is up' and should be considered carefully. Although an examination of the logical form of their philosophical assertions does not hold up using ordinary mathematical logic, something about them makes them very pervasive and influential -- a power that like any other in nature, must be somewhere connected to a real truth. A different kind of discipline is needed to discover these connections, not just a different type of domain knowledge.

Q: How is it that a handful of gurus/buddahs in ancient history can have effects so far out of proportion to the scope of their lives? A: In one form or another, they all taught philosophy that had at least some, possibly unknown, connection to a real truth of nature and life.

Q: Is philosophy practical? A: Yes. It is at once very subtle and very powerful -- nearly invisible and yet when 'right', nearly invincible. These are all notions based inherently in foundations of continuity.

Asking for philosophy to be "practical" and to "have effects" is like asking all the worlds oceans to be "wet". Why should 'wetness' be a more defining characteristic of a "good ocean" than any other? Even the question itself is connected to deeper assumed truths in philosophy.

For the record, I would like it to be known that I do also definitely agree that Sturgeon's law applies to the nearly total current state of Western philosophy. For my own part, to get anywhere with it I have had to start from scratch -- examining the root ideas and assumptions behind science and spirituality to get anywhere at all. At this point, I am glad I did because I can assert with the absolute confidence of owned rigorous proofs that 1) Kant (and others) were wrong about metaphysics, 2) that is possible (and necessary!) to positively and exactly define things like a non-relativistic ethics, and 3) that the fully self describing "auto bootstraping" system of concepts is known and does currently exist explicitly (as would be inherent in any true 'system of metaphysics'). There is nothing 'fuzzy' about a root analysis of the inherent assumptions behind all the 'fuzzy' usages of meaning in everyday languages. But do _not_ expect the sort of concepts that provide a the very basis for everyday logic to look like ordinary logic either -- different protocols of thinking are required. Continuity is as fundamental a notion as symmetry. Again for the record, I note that the basis of these ideas have absolutely no connection to religion or faith, although the net effect of them tends to validate a lot of things most world religions tend to take on faith.

Those who have the eyes to see will see; all others will be blinded or live in darkness.

Regards, Forrest Landry, Apr 19, 2008, San Deigo, CA.

I think the basis of progress in any field of study is the degree and precision of inquiry. This is what Socrates recognized as the way to know. It’s what scientists use with physical reality. I’m guessing it’s how Paul Graham finds start-ups to invest in. Where you have genuine inquiry, you have new knowledge being unfolded and developed. Where you don’t have inquiry, or have insincere inquiry, or have taboos against inquiry, you have stagnation, dogma, and useless speculation. It’s as simple as that.

There’s an author, A. H. Almaas, that has articulated a way of inquiry that is quite penetrating in its quality. He became a physics student because he wanted to know reality. At some point his love of knowing reality turned a corner towards the human condition, and a way of inquiring into human existence gradually became clear to him. So he uses this way of inquiry to help people investigate their experience. And this has the effect of revealing the nature of their existence.

So he and his students use inquiry for inner knowing, but it could also be used in any field of study. And he says as much in his book “Spacecruiser Inquiry” (page 372). Turns out inquiry is a general truth, broadly applicable like Paul’s examples of the controlled experiment and evolution. And when Almaas turned inquiry towards inquiry itself, the basic elements of inquiry became clear: ordinary knowledge, basic knowledge, not-knowing, dynamic questioning, loving the truth, the personal thread, and journey without a goal (chapters 5 through 11). When all these elements are in place, inquiry can be quite effective and efficient, no matter where used.

So to get back to Paul’s essay, I think he’s onto something when he suggests to start with something very specific and then to follow it to something more general. Following the thread of a small, specific experience or observation can lead with inquiry, persistence, and time to larger and more general truths. This is real philosophy. Starting with someone else’s large truths and commenting and speculating on them and adding a few of your own will not do much to add to our understanding of reality or to develop new, useful knowledge and things.

Descartes - I think, therefore I am. Berkeley - To be is to be perceived (his version is prettied up in fancy words with religion thrown in). Kierkegaard - To exist is to have the ability to feel angst.

Craig A. Eddy - I am, therefore I think, I am perceived, and I have the ability to feel angst. One should always start with what one knows.

Craig A. Eddy, B.A. Philosophy (which is to say a Bachelor of Arts degree in BS)

Listen, I can understand your frustration...I am a philosophy major also. The problem lies in two things the answer does not lie in you, self-reflection leads to the emptiness of yourself (not from the eastern perspective) and toy must have a concern for others, and the openness to accept God as Being, not Possibility. If God under our definition falls under Possibility, He is then ruled by existence, and limited. Is God Possible denies God...Does God Exist? This question is also limited, as God does not come into Existence? So you work with the idea God is Existence, how, why, and do I have any respect for people who have died for Him? Philosophy is difficult because we have to read all the history of some senseless ideas to reach to the point we have today. The reason for this is retracing steps if a mistake is made and so that you do not think you did this all by yourself, and like Socrates said to reach the points of other men easily. A pursuit for Goodness, and a surrender to it, instead of Goodness surrendering to you might be another approach, for you are not the God of Goodness.