As my studies in Philosophy have broadened and shifted, I’ve been considering the role of Philosophy; not only for philosophers, but also in society in general. Often my thoughts on the subject are sparked by surprise and jest at my choice of major in college. I would like this post to appear more as an (admittedly limited) exploration of the changing roles of Philosophy, than as simple apologetics, but my own interests may shine through…
I found my studies in Ancient Philosophy to be valuable as a foundation and stage setting for future study. A very passionate professor once climbed onto a desk and exclaimed, “Ancient Philosophy is not the study of fossils!” This seems like the most fitting point of entry for my explorations. From my rather brief study of this period I notice a trend towards philosophies as a way of living, not just a way of thinking. Perhaps the apparent connection between these early philosophies with a reactionary attitude towards popular religious ways of life (and thinking) at the time is not without significance. As I project my exploration forward it seems popular religion and philosophy will remain connected in society. Whether the discussion be of Epicurus, the skepticism of Pyrrho, Stoicism or simply the Virtue Ethics of Aristotle the focus is on a way of living. I don’t intend to portray these schools of thought as simply focused on a way of living, for often the change in the way people think about the world is intimately tied to the way they live in it. Nonetheless, I think there is a shift in later Philosophy.
The transition from “Ancient” Philosophy to “Modern” Philosophy is not a clean break. So much of Modern philosophical thought seem focused on revising the Ancients, be it the scholastics or skeptics. The role of Philosophy seems to shift with the revisionist attitude. It isn’t that moral systems are left out, this is obviously not true. Rather, it seems that Philosophy is wont to move away a role in determining how people approach life on a practical level, leaving this instead for religion. Moral systems become entwined with religiosity in a role of justification. This is a shift away from the revision of even Platonic thought. Perhaps it is simply the presence of Christianity as such a dominant force in the thinking of the era that blinds me to obvious counterexamples. But the ever-changing role of Philosophy suggests a kind of pendulum action at work.
Post-modern Philosophy starts a shift back away from religious models of life. Perhaps this is a contentious generalization, though for the purposes of my exploration it seems a fit. Without a doubt, many post-modern thinkers do not shift away from Christianity, but Existentialism seems to move back towards a philosophy more concerned with how to live life, not just how to look at the world. The shift towards atheism would continue on beyond the initial reactions of post-modern Philosophy.
Western Philosophers begin to incorporate Eastern thinking and religion. The wall that Christianity constructed against these alternate worldviews collapses on many intellectual levels. I don’t mean to suggest that Eastern Philosophy had no prior impact on the West, but simply that the shift away from Christianity allowed it to be more drastic and pervasive. My brief exposure to Eastern Philosophy has me wanting to claim that these Religion/Philosophies line up more with the thinking of the Ancient West than with Modern Philosophy. Perhaps only because I see Modern Philosophy in the West at conflict with Christianity unless it plays the role of apologist, whereas in the Ancient West and East Philosophy and Religion are at times indistinguishable.
So, what is the role of Philosophy? At times it seems to temper religion with critical thought and high expectations for justification. Other times Philosophy seems to have stood directly at odds with popular religion in a revisionist role. Perhaps more often, in terms of number of schools, Philosophy becomes religious and offers an alternative to popular religion. I suspect there are a great many roles for Philosophy outside of these simple categories. If indeed there is a pendulum action at work, then we might suspect a shift back towards Religion and Philosophy tempering one another, rather than being so often at odds as they seem to have been recently.
- Quincy Faircloth
Quincy,
I would like to highly recommend to you some great books. “GABRIEL MARCEL” by Sam Keen,
“ZEN BUDDHISM & PSYCHOANALYSIS” by D. T. Suzuki, Erich Fromm, and Richard
De Martino, “WHAT IS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY?” by Pierre Hadot, and “ECLIPSE OF THE SELF” by Michael E. Zimmerman ( on Heidegger’s philosophy)
Quincy,
Great post and I am in agreement with your critique of modern philosophy vs ancient philosophy. I would like to quote Gabriel Marcel from his book “Man Against Mass Society”
that affirms your thought.
” The universal against the masses: no doubt that should really be the title of this book. But what is the universal? What are we to understand by it? Not, of course, it goes without saying, a wretched abstract truth reducible to formulas that could be handed down and learned by rote. The universal is spirit or mind-and spirit or mind is love. On this point, as on so many others, we have to go back to Plato. Not, of course to the mere letter of a philosophy of which, for that matter, hardly more than the letter, than the outward, unsecret aspect, has come down to us- but to the essential message which that philosophy still has for us today. Between love and intelligence, there can be no real divorce. Such a divorce is apparently consummated only when intelligence is degraded or, if I may be allowed the expression, becomes merely cerebral; and of course when love reduces itself to mere carnal appetite. But this we must assert, and as forcibly as possible: where love on one side, where intelligence on the other, reach their highest expression, they cannot fail to meet: do not let us speak of them becoming identical, for there can be no mutual identity except between abstractions; intelligence and love are the most concrete things in the world, and at a certain level every great thinker has recognized this or had a presentiment of it.”
jack
Good post Mr. Q. That is a very philosophical way to look at the role of philosophy if I do say so myself.
First I would like to say that starting off with ancient philosophy isn’t just a good basis but it is necessary to understand half of anything you’ll learn in upper level philosophy classes. I started out taking modern philosophy and virtue and vice (a debatably post-modern course) and have struggled through both classes in my attempts to both read the literature and understand the many, many references to Plato, Aristotle, Sappho, etc. I feel as though I would have been extremely better off if I had started from the beginning and worked my way up.
On a side note who was that professor because they sound very interesting and I would like to take them for my own ancient philosophy seeing they did help produce your philosophical views.
As far as modern philosophy’s shift away from religious tones I’m afraid I can not agree. In every philosopher I’ve read there have been very strong undertones in religion, namely that they all have some proof on the existence of a higher power, and even in our discussion of their lives they were always running into problems with the Vatican or some other religious organization. In some it is even obvious they wrote to code their feelings about such religious points in their writing style.
Also I have trouble seeing the pendulum you discuss. You say that the ancients were not as focused on religion but wasn’t part of the reason Socrates was forced to drink hemlock was because he refused to recognize the Gods? Maybe I’m just not as well informed, I’ll admit I know very little about post-modern philosophy outside of existentialism, but post modern seems to be the only philosophy largely unconcerned with religion so the only thing I can think is that a swing will begin soon back towards religion. If that is the case then I fail to understand your evidence towards that as I do not remember philosophy ever working well with religion. But then my own feeling is that religion is a philosophy and as incomparable to time periods of philosophy as a cat is to a dog. (unless you have a catdog like nickelodeon)
I know almost nothing about Eastern philosophy as well other than Confucian sayings and stories I learned in social studies so I can not make much of a statement on that account of your post.
For the most part I agree with you and your musings but I mainly see philosophy’s role as an alternative to religion and with the rise of atheism I see the rise of philosophies that don’t focus on religion, such as existentialism. I’m not defending religion but I see society as needing a reason, a reason to exist, and post modern philosophies topic has simply arisen to fill the religiously skeptical persons need for reason. And by this idea I think it is impossible to determine where the pendulum will go in the next few decades especially with incorporation of Eastern Philosophy.
Dear Mr. Faircloth:
Having come to the formal study of philosophy in a very round about way, it seems to me that the questions that the average individual given to thinking about these matters will ask are:
How should I live my life?
Why should I live it in that manner?
Have I the capability to do so?
and finally,
Was I successful in living my life as I thought it should have been lived?
It is very gratifying to sift the philosophical sands, weighing this theory against that one while luxuriating in or wincing at the prose used to present them. But eventually one must begin to test theories, adopting them and putting them into daily practice. Putting into practice the conclusions one has reached, whether spiritual or analytical, Western or Eastern, may be, to my mind the best definition of the word “religion.” What I believe is translated into what I do and finally what I become.
It is at that point, I think, that the introspective individual, the philosopher, is driven to leave something for those who will come after, a note in a bottle, a sign by the road saying, “This Way”, or “Stop, GO BACK!” There is very little time after all, for any single individual to grasp the point if it is to make a difference in their life. Philosophical theories and spiritual creeds alike are useless if they remain in books on the shelves or in as lectures in the classroom, as much as the study musical theory or rules of composition are useless until you go down to street corner, lay open your case in front of the public, and begin to play the trombone. Not everyone will play music but many will benefit from the hearing. This in my opinion is the role of philosophy in society.
Quincy,
I would like to quote a passage from Abraham Josua Heschel’s book (Who Is Man). “The predicament of much of contemporary philosophy is partly due to the fact that ongoing conceptualizations have so far outdistanced the situations which engender philosophizing that their conclusions seem to be unrelated to the original problems. After all, philosophy was made for man rather than man for philosophy.” That quote comes from a book that was published in nineteen-sixty-five. How can this statement by Heschel be true in the light of all the advances that man has made in every other conceivable field of endeaver? Philosophy is not a science of objective verifiable truths that lends itself to being easely confirmed by any man who happens to question it. Authentic philosophy like authentic religion can only be verified by men who are willing to live subjectively or intersubjectively in the Truth. Heschel’s statement is echoed in another book by Pierre Hadot (What Is Ancient Philosophy) when he says ” I intend to show that a profound difference exists between the representations which the ancients made of philosophia and the representation which is usually made of philosophy today- at least in the case of the image of it which is presented to students,because of the exigencies of university teaching.” Hadot’s book was published in nineteen-ninety-five.On the same page he also quotes these words of Aristotle “If one wishes to understand things, one must watch them develop and must catch them at the moment of their birth.” So what does Aristotle’s statement mean?
Does it mean that man is alienated not only in his personal relationship to philosophy but also in his personal relationship to religion. I believe that is exactly what it means. To catch Philosophy and Christianity at the moment of their birth in Plato and Jesus and to see and understand the truth of their teachings with an unprejudiced eye would be to better understand mankind’s captivity under the yoke of what Socrates described by saying “They think they know what they do not know.”
Thanks for the comments. So, Jack, do you think that a possible course of action for the contemporary philosopher would be to discover what paths were left us by Socrates and Plato; then follow them, as they would be representative of the birth of Philosophy? Or, do you think the suggestion leads to a futility? Are we too far removed from the conception of Philosophy and Christianity to ever hope for a good, or complete, understanding and undertaking of either?
This question of mine calls on Louis’ proposition:
“Philosophical theories and spiritual creeds alike are useless if they remain in books on the shelves or in as lectures in the classroom, as much as the study musical theory or rules of composition are useless until you go down to street corner, lay open your case in front of the public, and begin to play the trombone.”
Which I think resonates with some of my ideas about Philosophy, but for me represents a divide between Ancient (and Eastern) Philosophy and Modern (and post-modern) Philosophy. The philosopher’s are out of the marketplace, relegated to armchairs, books, the Internet and, the unfortunately not public enough, Universities. Of course, this is simply my opinion. If one blurs the lines between Philosophy and Religion this divide is not so great, but for me the divide represents something real that has developed since the aforementioned fathers of Philosophy first posed an alternative to popular religion.
~Quincy
Quincy,
I do not have the impression that philosophy came into being as an alternative to religion, so I am not sure of your meaning. It is true that too often religion is merely a set of beliefs that one has come to accept as true. They often go no deeper than a water bug floating on the surface of a pond. What we need to do is to put our beliefs on the rack and start questioning them. I see philosophy, psychology and zen as the means of doing just that. I see them as kindred spirits to religion. They should be like deep penetrating roots acting as anchors sunk deep down into the Ground of Being and searching for sustenance. Religion too often looks at reality as through a telescope at something far a way. Philosophy, psychology and zen are more open and freer and are better equipped to look at reality as through a microscope at something very close. Religion’s Ground of Being is plainly expressed in the following two quotes. ” I AM WHO AM” and ” In GOD We Live, Move and Have our Being.” This is the GROUND of All BEING that all Men are seeking, irregardless of whether they are conscious of it or not. When a man is thirsty or hungary he is looking for clean water and nutritional food for the sake of his body irregardless of whether he knows it or not. Does not the same criteria hold true for the Soul also which is of infinite and eternal value not only for us but also for GOD. Thomas Merton said something that is echoed by many others. ” We already have everything we just don’t know it.” In other words all we have to do is ” WAKE UP! ”
jack
Quincy,
Everyone more or less assumes that scientific and historic truth or any other truth can be verified by other qualified observers regardless of the fact that one is a theist or a non-theist. But does that hold true for philosophy? Gabriel Marcel said that the reason he was a non-theist until he was 40 years old was because he had no experience of God. At age 40, he became a Christian and yet his philosophy essentially did not change. One has to wonder how much his philosophical search contributed to his conversion experience.
If Philosophy is LOVING WISDOM and GOD IS LOVE and GOD IS WISDOM then is it at all possible that doing philosophy could be a path to an experience of GOD ?
Jack
Jack,
I think that it is possible that philosophy could be a path to an experience of GOD for some people. I suppose I might hesitate to assert what that concept holds, especially generally.
As far as my comment about the origin of Philosophy, I don’t mean it to sound as if I have some certain idea or privileged perspective on the history of Philosophy. It just seems to me that, the commonly accepted father’s of Philosophy, Heraclitus, Plato, etc., were critical, if not opposed to, popular religion and popular world views. Even if this wasn’t the role they intended or an effect they set out for, it happened, I think, by virtue of the role that popular religion played in the time (and consequently, the role it played throughout the history of human thought).
~Q
Quincy
I believe your reasoning may be right on. It also seems that history repeated itself about four-hundred years later in the person of Jesus as he also was critical, if not opposed to popular religion and popular world views of the religious leaders of his time.