It's a philosopher's job to tell people how to live

[coberst]

“It’s a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.”

 

“But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in a recent article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University.

 

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

 

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

 

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

 

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

 

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.

[Jehu]

coberst

 

I’m afraid I have to disagree with Professor Hirshman, or at least with her opinion that it is the function of a philosopher to tell people how to live. There are already more than enough people in the world who feel it is their job to show people how to live their lives, clergy, medical professionals, sociologists, and politicians, just to name a few. Everyone seems to think the have the answers, but still the world slides inexorably toward the abyss. The true function of a philosopher is to uncover the truth, and the truth is, in the end, all that can make a meaningful difference in the way we live our lives.

 

This is not to say, however, that philosophers do not have an impact on the way we live our lives. From Aristotle right on down to the present day, philosophers have been inadvertently shaping our collective destinies. They have done this by shaping the way we perceive the world, and the way that we perceive our own function in it. For centuries now they have taught us the world is essentially composed inert matter, motivated by mindless mechanical laws, and that we can improve our lots in life only by learning to subjugate nature, through the sciences. It is a lesson that we were only to eager to accept, for it gave us free licence to do as we please with our world, and to pay no reverence to anything but ourselves. Now the philosophers try to convince us that we must not treat the world us we have, but it is too late, for too many people have accepted the worldview that they, the philosophers, have put forward, and will not be swayed.

 

No, it is not the function of a philosopher to tell us how to live our lives. It is the function of philosophers to discover the true nature of our world and ourselves, and by doing so, bring about a new worldview. Maybe then we can move away from greed, fear, and aggression, and toward becoming authentic human beings.

 

Jehu

[Kriminal99]

I agree, its the philosopher's job to provide information that might make people want to change the way they live.

[coberst]

Jehu

 

Philosophers have provided us with the theories of reality from which we organize the world we apprehend. It is a fact, in my opinion, that every thought and act for all of us rests on the assumptions underlying the theories of philosophers.

 

I suspect if we use the word ‘advise’ rather than ‘tell’ we might not have such an aversion to her statement. In the US and I suspect the other Western societies there is a strong anti-intellectual bias and as a result people automatically reject input from intellectuals even though that input permeates all that we think and do.

[Jehu]

Coberst

 

I’m afraid the term “advise” would suit me no better, for I do not see advising as being the function of a philosopher either. To theorize is clearly the role of the scientist, but not the role of the philosopher. The function of the philosopher, as I see it, is to examine the theories of others, with the aim of pointing out which of their supporting propositions are tenable, and which are not. Philosophy, you see, has to do with the pursuit of the truth, not for ones own aggrandizement, nor to further ones career, but for the love of truth alone. Now, although I harbour no anti-intellectual bias (of which I am aware), I admit that I do not like it when scientists attempt to pass themselves off as philosophers, for everything has it own unique function.

 

Regards, Jehu

[InfiniteNow]

The philosopher can offer suggestions and ideas, but it's the individual who decides. Society then is simply the aggregate of each individual's decisions.

[coberst]

I am having computer problems. Sorry

[coberst]

Jehu

 

I expect experts in some of the natural sciences to advise us on global warming, I expect experts in the science of economics to advise us in matters of economics, believers expect preachers and priests to advise them in matters of morality, non believers expect philosophers to advise them in matters of morality, I expect teachers to advise us in matters of education, I expect generals to advise us how to fight war, etc.

 

Philosophers are experts in matters of what is real, how to think well, morality, etc. The conclusions of philosophers permeate everything we think and thus everything we do. I guess all of our fundamental ideas of what is ‘true’ is grounded in the theories of some philosopher. When we reason, i.e. draw conclusions from a set of facts, we are standing on the shoulders of Aristotle.

 

Independent thinking that is grounded in knowledge is great and must be done. However if we blithely ignore experts we will fly off into the blue without any guidance.

[coberst]

Just one example of what sorts of things come to us from philosophy. We cannot think well without riding on the sholders of Aristotle. Does creating the concept of logic mean that Aristotle can usefully advise us on how to live our life? I think so. Plato said the unexamined life is not worth living. Can we examine life in any critical sense without the logic that Aristotle gave us?

 

 

Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From

 

‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning; but it, like ‘science’, ‘Kleenex’ etc.,

has become a word with a common usage. In our common mode of speaking ‘logic’ means Aristotelian Formal Logic.

 

Aristotle said “A definition is a phrase signifying a thing’s essence.” Essence is the collection of characteristics that makes a thing a kind of thing. Such a definition expresses what is called a concept.

 

Aristotle equates predication (all men are mortal, I am a man) with containment. Predication is containment. To make a predication is to create a ‘container’ that contains the essence of a thing being predicated.

 

This containment leads us to the obvious logic (formal principles of a branch of knowledge) of containers. If container A is in container C and container B is in A then B is in C. This container schema is where all of these Latin terms, such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, come from. This is the source of all of the principles for syllogisms, I think. In other words just imagine containers and various juxtapositions of these will lead one to the principles of Aristotelian Logic. I suspect many Greeks scratched their heads and wondered “why didn’t I think of that?”

 

“Aristotle’s founding metaphor was Ideas are Essences. To conceptualize a thing is to categorize it, which is to state its essence, the defining attributes that make it the kind of thing it is. For Aristotle, then, the essences of things in the world, since they are what constitute ideas, can actually be in the mind. And for the essence to be in the mind, it cannot be in the substance or matter of the thing; rather it must be its form: Essences are Forms. So, if our ideas are the form of things, and we reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.”

 

“We reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.” This, I guess, was the birth of the pure reason of Descartes, of soul in Christianity, of humans placing themselves just below God and far above animals, and of what is the common attitude of most humans.

 

My claim is that the ideas generally associated with Idealism (pure reason having access to truth, mind/body dichotomy, and certainty) are unhealthy for us and that such ideas should be discouraged. This bit on Aristotle indicates his thoughts about such things and that he is near the source of such ideas.

 

Am I wrong? Is my conclusion incorrect? If it is correct is it important? If it is important should we try to correct the common attitude of people? If we do not correct the common attitude of people does it matter? Is anyone curious and does anyone care?

 

These questions are primarily rhetorical because almost everyone, I guess, would have to think and study about such matters for a long time before they would commit a judgment.

 

Quotes and many of the ideas from “Philosophy in the Flesh” Lakoff and Johnson

[Chacmool]

In the US and I suspect the other Western societies there is a strong anti-intellectual bias and as a result people automatically reject input from intellectuals even though that input permeates all that we think and do.

Really? :confused: Do you have evidence of this? I am quite surprised by this statement.

[coberst]

Chacmool

 

 

Chacmool

 

I see evidence of these constantly on Internet discussion forums. There is a strong anti-intellectual bias and as a result people automatically reject input from intellectuals even though that input permeates all that we think and do.

 

I see it displayed in this thread.

 

I see it more often when I post on forums where the membership is very young. I think the automatic rejection of philosophers as guides to living is derived from this ant-intellectual attitude that permeates the attitudes of all of us. I think it is so pervasive that we do not recognize it. Just like racism, it is there and we cannot examine it because we cannot 'see' it.

[Jehu]

Coberst

 

You seem to rely far to heavily upon the advise of others, and I suspect the same is true of most people, however this is not the case with everyone. You see Sir, we have all been endowed with the faculty of reason, and unless there is deficiency in one’s cognitive abilities, then it must be through convenience alone that we are drawn to follow others. What make a philosopher fit to instruct anyone in morality, do all philosophers lead exemplary lives, has no philosopher ever cheated on their spouse? I understand Sir, that if I wish to have an ailment diagnosed, that I should consult with a physician, or if my car breaks down, that I should take it to a mechanic. But when it comes to morality, we must look inward for direction, and not outward. For thousands of years we have looked to others to show us how we should live our lives, but what have we learned by this? We are still doing exactly doing exactly the same things, we are still lying, stealing, cheating, and killing, so what have we learned from these eminent philosophers?

 

You claim to believe that ideas such as “pure reason having access to truth”, are unhealthy for us and that such ideas should be discouraged. How then would you defend the horrific consequences wrought upon the world by the rampant materialism brought about by your eminent thinkers, Aristotle, Newton, and Bacon, just to name a few. Do you really think that you can foster a physicalist or materialist worldview, and not have that view impact the way that people relate with the world? And what of those scientists who are so consumed by the lure of more knowledge, that they are willing to torture animals, poison the environment, or whatever else it takes to fulfil their personal ambitions. Are these who you would have advise us as to how we should live? I’m sorry Sir, but you have strayed far from the truth on this matter. You speak a great deal about reason, but I have seen little evidence that you pay it more than lip service.

 

Jehu