5 ms·

Sounds like we're confusing philosophy as investigation with philosophy as a way of living.

hosh 10y ago
I'm curious, how so? I've always considered the investigation with philosophy worthless without it as a way of living. Is distinguishing between the two useful?
- plaidturtle 10y ago
  I've only taken three philosophy classes in college so I'm by no means an expert. However, the distinction I see between philosophy as a study and philosophy as a way of life is that the latter is a consumer version of the previous. In philosophical discipline, we talk about the nature of things. For example, "what does it mean to be virtuous", "what is the fundamental mechanics behind what is good and bad", "how do we logically conclude that we exist", "can logic be trusted". While these discussions might seem frivolous and too-up-in-the-air, these are essential questions. Laws are a derivitive of philosophy. Today's understanding of human rights started from Immanuel Kant. The power dynamic between the state, private sector, and th people is explored by Foucault. Aristotle talks about what is the nature of the good life. Our current laws and society is heavily influenced by John Stuart Mil. On the other hand, philosophy as a way of life is like a bumper sticker. It's like saying "we should be kind to others to have a good life", or "do what makes you happy". These can be derived from philosophical texts but are stupidlfyingly simplified. If these philosopher could say what they wanted to say in a sentence, instead of writing a long book about it, they would have done so. So I think while philosophy as a way of life is very practical (since people don't have to really investigate it and just believe it), it is to some extent a dumbed down version, that lacks the backbone of hard philosophy (because it lacks the proof and arguments behind such ideas). The purpose of philosophy is not to give someone a lifestyle or life advice like a self-help book, it is to arrive at fundamental truth as hard as 16+26=42. Now whether that it is successful is a hard question to answer. But life style and life advice is a derivitive of the truth. That's the distinction.
  - hosh 10y ago
    That's interesting. I've been reading an medieval Indian philosophy called non-dual Shaiva Tantra. The philosophy, or called the View, is only one part of it. The practice of philosophy and the way of life is not separated from the View, and yet it also addresses those fundamental questions that you are talking about with the Western philosophers. There is no dumbing down. A large part of it is that, in the non-dual Shaiva Tantra tradition, there is a extensive experiential component to it. Someone who merely believes in a philosophy has not yet embodied the philosophy. Philosophical investigation is a crucial stage towards embodying the philosophy. There is a Western philosophy that is also experiential. It's called alchemy. Here, the truths that were developed are considered the second of three stages of transformation. The last stage is plunging those principles back into the messiness of life, until the philosopher is a living embodiment of the philosophy. This last stage is called the "red stage", where the philosophy is tested in life and further distilled over and over again until it becomes alive once again. So I'm not sure I buy your argument on that distinction. It seems more to me what you are saying is insufficiently applying and practicing the principles and fruits of philosophical investigation.
    - plaidturtle 10y ago
      I'm not familiar with medieval Indian philosophy but that sounds more like a set of principle derived from a religion than a philosophy, much like zen buddhism. Again, that's my observation solely based on your short description. That is to say that I could — most likely — be completely wrong. The point I was attempting to make was that philosophy is more about process than the verdict. A good analogy would be math. What is important is not that 1+1=2, rather the fundamental law of addition. In addition, all other proofs in math use previously proven facts as building blocks. In the same way, philosophers use “a priori” and use them to build up to another truth. Syllogism is a good example of this. Where as in lifestyle philosophy, what is shown is the result, not the process that took to arrive at the truth. I would argue that what matters more is that you know how you arrived at that truth, rather than being told the truth and practicing that truth. Disclaimer: My view of philosophy has heavy western bias because of the three classes I took (they were all about western philosophers). As a side, I thought alchemy was a pseudo-chemistry aimed at finding elixir of life (immortality juice) and philosopher's stone (turning things into gold). I believe Newton was an alchemist himself and he harmed himself in his fruitless pursuit. I never knew there was a philosophy of alchemy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

hosh 10y ago

I'm curious, how so? I've always considered the investigation with philosophy worthless without it as a way of living. Is distinguishing between the two useful?

plaidturtle 10y ago
I've only taken three philosophy classes in college so I'm by no means an expert. However, the distinction I see between philosophy as a study and philosophy as a way of life is that the latter is a consumer version of the previous. In philosophical discipline, we talk about the nature of things. For example, "what does it mean to be virtuous", "what is the fundamental mechanics behind what is good and bad", "how do we logically conclude that we exist", "can logic be trusted". While these discussions might seem frivolous and too-up-in-the-air, these are essential questions. Laws are a derivitive of philosophy. Today's understanding of human rights started from Immanuel Kant. The power dynamic between the state, private sector, and th people is explored by Foucault. Aristotle talks about what is the nature of the good life. Our current laws and society is heavily influenced by John Stuart Mil. On the other hand, philosophy as a way of life is like a bumper sticker. It's like saying "we should be kind to others to have a good life", or "do what makes you happy". These can be derived from philosophical texts but are stupidlfyingly simplified. If these philosopher could say what they wanted to say in a sentence, instead of writing a long book about it, they would have done so. So I think while philosophy as a way of life is very practical (since people don't have to really investigate it and just believe it), it is to some extent a dumbed down version, that lacks the backbone of hard philosophy (because it lacks the proof and arguments behind such ideas). The purpose of philosophy is not to give someone a lifestyle or life advice like a self-help book, it is to arrive at fundamental truth as hard as 16+26=42. Now whether that it is successful is a hard question to answer. But life style and life advice is a derivitive of the truth. That's the distinction.
- hosh 10y ago
  That's interesting. I've been reading an medieval Indian philosophy called non-dual Shaiva Tantra. The philosophy, or called the View, is only one part of it. The practice of philosophy and the way of life is not separated from the View, and yet it also addresses those fundamental questions that you are talking about with the Western philosophers. There is no dumbing down. A large part of it is that, in the non-dual Shaiva Tantra tradition, there is a extensive experiential component to it. Someone who merely believes in a philosophy has not yet embodied the philosophy. Philosophical investigation is a crucial stage towards embodying the philosophy. There is a Western philosophy that is also experiential. It's called alchemy. Here, the truths that were developed are considered the second of three stages of transformation. The last stage is plunging those principles back into the messiness of life, until the philosopher is a living embodiment of the philosophy. This last stage is called the "red stage", where the philosophy is tested in life and further distilled over and over again until it becomes alive once again. So I'm not sure I buy your argument on that distinction. It seems more to me what you are saying is insufficiently applying and practicing the principles and fruits of philosophical investigation.
  - plaidturtle 10y ago
    I'm not familiar with medieval Indian philosophy but that sounds more like a set of principle derived from a religion than a philosophy, much like zen buddhism. Again, that's my observation solely based on your short description. That is to say that I could — most likely — be completely wrong. The point I was attempting to make was that philosophy is more about process than the verdict. A good analogy would be math. What is important is not that 1+1=2, rather the fundamental law of addition. In addition, all other proofs in math use previously proven facts as building blocks. In the same way, philosophers use “a priori” and use them to build up to another truth. Syllogism is a good example of this. Where as in lifestyle philosophy, what is shown is the result, not the process that took to arrive at the truth. I would argue that what matters more is that you know how you arrived at that truth, rather than being told the truth and practicing that truth. Disclaimer: My view of philosophy has heavy western bias because of the three classes I took (they were all about western philosophers). As a side, I thought alchemy was a pseudo-chemistry aimed at finding elixir of life (immortality juice) and philosopher's stone (turning things into gold). I believe Newton was an alchemist himself and he harmed himself in his fruitless pursuit. I never knew there was a philosophy of alchemy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.