kennethamy wrote:No, what would have made you think I thought that people should not be concerned for each other? But that is something quite distant from your original contention that the passage from Donne was a great philosophical passage.
You had two objections, one was that it wasn't philosophy the other was that it was not true. We have just been discussing the objection about whether it was not true, which is indeed quite distant from the objection about whether or not it's philosophy (and which is why this is moving the goal posts to switch to from the objection about the statement's truth).
As for the objection to it being philosophy you seem to be narrowly defining it and arbitrarily excluding philosophical insight if it were not part of the act of philosophizing but that part of your objection just isn't something I have tremendous nits to pick with (just because I don't really think what particular insights we consider to be philosophy is as interesting as contributions you might be able to make that you do consider philosophy).
I can accept that if there's no argument to support an assertion, that doesn't make it philosophy. Though, eat drink and be merry as a philosophical insight can be used to support hedonism. Everyone is capable of philosophical insight, it's what you do with it, namely argue for or against, is what makes it philosophy.
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts. [...]
There is more chance of an entire public enlightening itself. This is indeed almost inevitable, if only the public concerned is left in freedom. [...] And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all 'freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. But I hear on all sides the cry: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, get on parade! The tax-official: Don't argue, pay! The clergyman: Don't argue, believe! (Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!). . All this means restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which sort of restriction prevents enlightenment, and which, instead of hindering it, can actually promote it ? I reply: The public use of man's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men;