Impossible?
This is being written within minutes of departure, so bear with me if I break off suddenly.
The complete lack of anything that is completely true, or correct in philosophy is telling.
There are the occasional sterling examples of knockdown truths, the cogito, deep foundationalism, the sceptics master argument, and so on. But these are tiny little blips on a otherwise blank radar screen. Like three grains of green sand on a beach, they are remarkable when pointed out to you, but what to do with them?
Having long since understood that aside from a few notable exceptions, nothing in philosophy is 100% correct (and likewise, nothing aside from a very few examples is 100% wrong), I look at philosophy as the refinement of a system of thinking. The system of thinking, thanks in no small part to the analytic tradition, is amazingly good at looking at ideas, examining them, their use, function, how they fit with other ideas, and so on. What frustrates everyone eventually, sooner or later, is the realization that philosophy never seems to get anywhere.
Folks sit around arguing this or that point, and for some of the longer running arguments they argue the same point for literally thousands of years, with seemingly no headway.
There are the occasional excitements, the inclusion of science and such, which offered the tantalizing possibility of actual, honest to goodness, facts. However, it was not to be, when introduced into the system of thinking that is philosophy, science...or is that Science, with all its majesty and supposed hardline facts about the world, was unable to deliver on the promise of truth, or is that Truth. In any case, there are still some folks who feel that science and philosophy have a great deal they can teach each other, folks who tend to be on the edge between science and philosophy. Personally, I doubt it. Philosophy is to rigorous for science, the demands of making a scientific argument philosophically watertight would require too much external argument. It would weigh down a scientific paper which seeks to do little more than report data and an interpretation of the data with arguments about perception, epistemology, and ontology. Science is better off without having to argue for basic scientific assumptions.
Anyways, the reason I started this, is I feel there needs to be something new.
A way of using philosophy, or the system of thinking that is philosophy, for something other than an ever more minute and careful discussion abstract arguments. A real life philosophy.
A system of thinking designed to be used in the day to day. Don't get me wrong, I don't think philosophy as it stands has anything wrong with it. The tendency is towards hermitage though, hours in isolation spent pondering topics far removed from the day to day, or if not in isolation, spent with other philosophers or those who are philosophically minded discussing topics which are far from the everyday. I like these topics, I love discussing them and thinking about them, but I came to the realization the other day that I have gone a little too far this direction. I have lost out on some of my ability to chat with people. This is a little distressing. I think it can be remedied, but I'm not really sure how.
So I am thinking about a philosophy of the everyday. A system of thought which takes its cues from philosophy in regards to being a system of critical thinking, but instead of grappling with topics of death or existence, is able to incorporate the situations and choices we face and be useful then and there.
The complete lack of anything that is completely true, or correct in philosophy is telling.
There are the occasional sterling examples of knockdown truths, the cogito, deep foundationalism, the sceptics master argument, and so on. But these are tiny little blips on a otherwise blank radar screen. Like three grains of green sand on a beach, they are remarkable when pointed out to you, but what to do with them?
Having long since understood that aside from a few notable exceptions, nothing in philosophy is 100% correct (and likewise, nothing aside from a very few examples is 100% wrong), I look at philosophy as the refinement of a system of thinking. The system of thinking, thanks in no small part to the analytic tradition, is amazingly good at looking at ideas, examining them, their use, function, how they fit with other ideas, and so on. What frustrates everyone eventually, sooner or later, is the realization that philosophy never seems to get anywhere.
Folks sit around arguing this or that point, and for some of the longer running arguments they argue the same point for literally thousands of years, with seemingly no headway.
There are the occasional excitements, the inclusion of science and such, which offered the tantalizing possibility of actual, honest to goodness, facts. However, it was not to be, when introduced into the system of thinking that is philosophy, science...or is that Science, with all its majesty and supposed hardline facts about the world, was unable to deliver on the promise of truth, or is that Truth. In any case, there are still some folks who feel that science and philosophy have a great deal they can teach each other, folks who tend to be on the edge between science and philosophy. Personally, I doubt it. Philosophy is to rigorous for science, the demands of making a scientific argument philosophically watertight would require too much external argument. It would weigh down a scientific paper which seeks to do little more than report data and an interpretation of the data with arguments about perception, epistemology, and ontology. Science is better off without having to argue for basic scientific assumptions.
Anyways, the reason I started this, is I feel there needs to be something new.
A way of using philosophy, or the system of thinking that is philosophy, for something other than an ever more minute and careful discussion abstract arguments. A real life philosophy.
A system of thinking designed to be used in the day to day. Don't get me wrong, I don't think philosophy as it stands has anything wrong with it. The tendency is towards hermitage though, hours in isolation spent pondering topics far removed from the day to day, or if not in isolation, spent with other philosophers or those who are philosophically minded discussing topics which are far from the everyday. I like these topics, I love discussing them and thinking about them, but I came to the realization the other day that I have gone a little too far this direction. I have lost out on some of my ability to chat with people. This is a little distressing. I think it can be remedied, but I'm not really sure how.
So I am thinking about a philosophy of the everyday. A system of thought which takes its cues from philosophy in regards to being a system of critical thinking, but instead of grappling with topics of death or existence, is able to incorporate the situations and choices we face and be useful then and there.