Thursday, December 17, 2009

Oh How I Want to Be A Philosopher, a Philosopher I Want to Be

But how can I be a philosopher of which I want to be? A philosopher is one who takes a critical examination of the world and looks at details of life and tries to build up a way of life based on what the philosopher observes in the world. However, since many philosophies have already been developed in the course of history, philosophy tends to follow a certain methodology based on observation and logic which connects to the experience and reason of the philosopher.

The first challenge of the philosopher is to pick a particular system which is consistent in logic and with experience. This can be done in many different ways, though the most prevalent is by observation, mostly sight. What do I see? Sight is the primary means by which events emerge to people, of course other senses can be used to have knowledge, but sight is the most stable confirmation of an event happening. (This is why in trials eyewitness testimony is extremely important to making a case.) Only with this question can one advance to further questions such as, "How is the person taking in this experience? How does this experience affect others involved with the person, etc?" What a person sees in life affects their openness to particular types of philosophical systems, bad experiences in life can lead to a lack of trust, which in turn shapes the view of a person. The events a person sees in their life are the most important thing to their philosophy because experience shapes how people engage the world. Picking a particular system will not be an exercise for this particular blog entry; consequently, this is the process by which a philosopher begins to make conclusions about a particular system. As such, the process is extremely important and worth noting.

However, this cannot be the only thing, because with everything which is seen, there are always things which are unseen. (from Jean Luc Marion's In Excess) The next step to being a philosopher then is to listen to and examine the lives of others. The unseen is something which is a part of any event because in a particular event it is impossible to observe every reality which an event can have. Listening to others is an important opening of the unseen because it opens one to more knowledge. It is a move from "what do I see?" to "what do you see?" When this move is made from the self to others it opens people up to make comparisons of experience. On comparison, there will be many similarities between two people, and also many differences. This list of things is something which builds with every relationship in which the philosopher chooses to engage. As people have more experiences with others, there will be some common things which are expressed in all people. Another important part of this process is to discern commonalities in the many ways in which they can appear. Something which initially looks different upon further examination can actually look really similar, which commonally happens between people. The conclusions of the seen and unseen are numerous, but alas, not the point of this entry, what is important for learning how to be a philosopher is to understand the process.

After one has experiences of their own life, and of the lives of others, then reflection and synthesis is needed. Why do the events of experience happen in a particular way? Is there order in the universe? Without reflection time, these questions do not arise, and possible answers for them cannot be given without knowledge of the question. The particular answers to these questions will not come in this entry, explanations and thoughts, which will be shared in due time. But this is how to get inside the head of a person who wants to be a philosopher, and how you can be a philosopher yourself. The joy of philosophy is that it allows for reflection and synthesis because a person becomes open to insight and time with others. In this way, we can all become philosophers and still be sociable as well.

2 comments:

  1. Interesting, I really like the part about not being able to perceive all of reality. Didn't Kant talk about the idea that we can't assume that our 5 senses are able to perceive the totality of reality and therefore our ability to describe reality is limited or is that someone else? (I'm assuming that I didn't just make it up, it seems too insightful!!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Omahensis: I'm glad you picked up on that part of the comment. Kant is going to privilege sight in his philosophy (since his focus is on experience.) Descartes is going to be the one that questions the use of senses to know all of reality, however, Kant is going to have some agreement because of the noumenal realm (realm of the things-in-themselves.) Therefore, Kant is going to say we cannot know this realm with our senses, and also that we can know nothing about this realm, but allows for the realm to exist. In allowing for this realm to exist he also asserts the possibility of knowledge which is outside of our experience (though because it is outside experience it cannot be definite knowledge.)

    ReplyDelete