I was thinking this morning about the nature of philosophy and it’s role in religion and thinking.
Philosophy (in the large sense of the word), the dictionary says, is ‘the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom’. So, philosophy is just ways of thinking around a basic issue – mostly how it affects us as human beings, and what meaning, if any, it could have.
Philosophy is useful in understanding the similarities we share as a species – our desires, hopes, fears and greatest questions – but I don’t think philosophy and rational/critical thinking are on equal footing when it comes to actively engaging with the world around us. I know they can be entwined, but to perhaps oversimplify, this is how philosophy and rational thinking look to me:
Philosophy
Critical Thinking
One is driven by a ponderous, weighty ‘what if’ and ranges from anything like “What if we are imagining this whole existence” to “What is the point of existence” – followed by ponderous, weighty thinking (and correct me if I’m wrong – but seemingly very little else). The other is a constant action toward something, a long distance marathon. I understand the value of philosophy as a precursor to action, but in itself, philosophy bothers me because I’ve also seen too many intelligent people short-circuit rational thinking for a philosophical meander. The thing is, it seems most people don’t see the impractical, fantastical side of philosophy. It’s easy to wonder if, perhaps, we are imagining all of this existence, and in reality are just energy balls floating in an ala Matrix glass tank, but there’s no way to test it, or measure it.
I guess what I’m saying is… Philosophy doesn’t work to give us answers – more often than not, it works to give us questions. And that’s not bad in itself.
But by it’s inactivity, I don’t think it’s particularly efficient for progress, not alone.
The reason I’m an agnostic atheist (as most atheists are) is because the unknown exists. There could be a God. It’s highly unlikely, considering all the information we have and are continuing to amass, that points to the opposite (especially in the case of any God we have ever been proposed), but the question still exists, unanswered. It is neither proof of a God, or proof of no God.
The teachings of Jesus in the Bible are no more than a personal philosophy – and with teachings such as ‘love your neighbour’ and those pertaining to peace – I believe it is a good personal philosophy to have. But religious philosophies like that bother me – because you see, when a philosophy is ugly (Hitler) – or any philosophy at all, really, we question it and we evaluate it against a greater understanding of life as it is, rather than life merely as some think it should be. The problem with a philosophy based on religious belief is that it’s taken for granted. You’re not supposed to ask questions, and it may seem horribly obvious and ridiculous to ask such a question, but I think it’s necessary: Why should I love my neighbour?
It brings me to some of the other definitions for philosophy, in the personal, specific way:
philosophy:
- a particular system of thought or doctrine
- a set of basic priniciples or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
- a precept, or a set of precepts, beliefs, principles or aims, underlying a person’s practice or conduc
And that’s where things get dicey. Because if a personal philosophy is based on doctrine, then it ceases being a philosophy that is open to questioning – not because people can’t question, but because the nature of doctrine is that it is unchanging. Why should I love my neighbour? Because God says so. Er… God? Which one?
When I was little, I used to think that maybe different religions was a test from one God. It was a childish philosophy with no end in sight, and no end intended. And sometimes, when I hear intelligent people start asking critical questions that affect their lives in the here and now (all we can be sure of) only to treat major philisophical wonderings as valid, immediate obstacles, or philosophical precepts as a given, I can understand why so many of them believe the things they do.
Any thoughts? Did this post make any sense at all?
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with philosophy. Partly for something you note here — it’s a bit inactive, disengaged from the world. Oh, I know philosophers will sputter and protest about that, but it’s been my experience. I agree that it’s great that philosophy generates questions — what I tend to worry about is that it is often bad at generating ways to answer those questions. Worse, there’s too many that denigrate the viable, practical ways we do have to answer questions — like science — simply because they aren’t philosophy. Philosophy as a discipline still likes to give itself airs, even though it has long been dethroned as the main source of human knowledge and progress. Luckily, there are folks in Philosophy trying to combat that (Daniel Dennett is one example).