Philosophy: What's the point?

Whereas I sympathize with your focus on the darker side of Heidegger as a reaction to Dasein's sycophancy above, I would point out that Heidegger's unique analysis of language in particular was partially taken up by Rorty in the promotion of "philosophy" as "political therapy" which can lead to the stimulation of democracy. Perhaps every cloud has a silver lining.

Again, Guigus, you're on your own.

Guigus' reminder that the meaning of philosophia is "love of wisdom," along with reminders from various commenters that neither philosophy nor wisdom is "a thing" (like a dogma, for instance) makes me think about Socrates' dispute with the Sophists over the question of whether wisdom can be taught. Socrates (according to Plato, at least) denied that it could, and his approach to philosophy, the constant questioning of everyone's claims to knowledge including his own, seems to reflect this.

But also from a Socratic point of view, the object of philosophy, the object of the seeking, is to find some kind of guidance toward living "the good life."

In the Socratic tradition, the best life was seen as "the philosophical life," in whatever way that was defined (even among the Epicureans, I would argue).

As I've said before, I'm a pre-modern, and this way of looking at things does appeal to me.

I guess what prompted my query here was that I'm sort of alarmed by my suspicion that more recent philosophy has given up looking for the good life (much less "the good") and instead is obsessed with the coherency of statements or the demonstration of empirical validity or similar things.

The point is, hot air needs somewhere to go.

Classical Greek philosophy was contemplative: working was a dishonoring activity -- as also unnecessary, since there were slaves to do it. Even today, there are still purely contemplative philosophers, but pure contemplation has no longer the novelty and fecundity that it once had: it is called today "mental masturbation" by some.

Quote:

Amphiclea wrote:
As I've said before, I'm a pre-modern, and this way of looking at things does appeal to me.

Yeah, I noticed that.

Quote:

Amphiclea wrote:
I guess what prompted my query here was that I'm sort of alarmed by my suspicion that more recent philosophy has given up looking for the good life (much less "the good") and instead is obsessed with the coherency of statements or the demonstration of empirical validity or similar things.

You are confusing philosophy with the now dominant -- especially in the US -- "analytic" school of philosophy, which privileges logical formalisms. There is another current opposing it, which is called "continental philosophy," of which a very interesting -- and quite unusual -- voice is Alain Badiou. Philosophy has lately passed many rich conflicts, and I think we are in a very interesting moment for those who really want to think.

Quote:

Classical Greek philosophy was contemplative: working was a dishonoring activity -- as also unnecessary, since there were slaves to do it. Even today, there are still purely contemplative philosophers, but pure contemplation has no longer the novelty and fecundity that it once had: it is called today "mental masturbation" by some.

Quote:

Amphiclea wrote:
As I've said before, I'm a pre-modern, and this way of looking at things does appeal to me.

Yeah, I noticed that.

Quote:

Amphiclea wrote:
I guess what prompted my query here was that I'm sort of alarmed by my suspicion that more recent philosophy has given up looking for the good life (much less "the good") and instead is obsessed with the coherency of statements or the demonstration of empirical validity or similar things.

You are confusing philosophy with the now dominant -- especially in the US -- "analytic" school of philosophy, which privileges logical formalisms. There is another current opposing it, which is called "continental philosophy," of which a very interesting -- and quite unusual -- voice is Alain Badiou. Philosophy has lately passed many rich conflicts, and I think we are in a very interesting moment for those who really want to think.

Speaking of noticing things, I've noticed your Marxist inclinations. Your remark about classical philosophers having slaves to do their work, for example, is typical of the over-generalizations Marx employed to argue his economics-centered metahistorical narrative. But surely you remember that Epictetus was himself a slave, for instance. As for "pure contemplation," I do understand that there's a bias against it in the West, at least since the "Enlightenment," but it's still a very vibrant practice in Eastern philosophy, and I highly recommend it.

On the subject of Badiou, naturally he's a far-leftie, too.

In addition, he may be an example of exactly the kind of disconnect I'm having a problem with between the practice of contemporary "philosophy" on the one hand and living the best life on the other, if the accusations of anti-Semitism are true. Sort of like Heidegger in that respect. I guess some of the problem I'm having is that I want to see philosophers teach as much by example as by discourse.

Did you see where your sense of humour went.

to bring in all ologies together

The First Law of Philosophy For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher. The Second Law of Philosophy They're both wrong

Quote:

The First Law of Philosophy For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher. The Second Law of Philosophy They're both wrong