'Philosophical'
and 'Philosophy'
I often find myself wondering if the 'Talk to a Philosopher' sign
at the stall is truthful. It certainly works, and is a great way to communicate
things on a direct level. But how much philosophy are we actually doing? It is
seems so open and easy - is philosophy really just questions out of a hat?
Posing the question
It is safe to say that there are various levels of philosophy. This does
not mean that the more complex is any better or worse, but only that it
requires more vigour to understand. Some philosophy is so rigid and heavy that
it would require a spare three months and the aid of a Dr.Bowles to come to
grips with! This is why I want to make the distinction between 'philosophical'
and 'philosophy'.
A good example of the philosophical can be found in any of the Nasreddin
Hodja anecdotes. He is a wise man, and a notorious prankster, who is famous in
a number of lands, but most closely associated with turkish folk-lore. Let us
have a look at one of these anecdotes:
One day, Great Tamerlane went to the Aksehir Central bath, where Hodja
was waiting. After getting undressed and wrapping pestamals (large bath towels)
around themselves, they entered the hot room. They sat on 'gobek tasi' (large
very hot marble). There, Tamerlane asked the Hodja:
'Hodja, you are a very learned
one! You know to appraise value properly. Tell me, what is my worth?'
'Ten Akce' replied the Hodja
Tamerlane flew into a rage, fuelled by such a low appraisal of himself.
'You idiot!' said Tamerlane,
'how can you say my value is ten Akce. This bath towel alone is worth ten Akce!'
'I included that when I gave you
my estimate!'
Funny it is. To ruin this brilliant jest by explaining it, Nasreddin is
saying that Tamerlane is worthless. And it is quite philosophical. But
philosophy? The beginnings of philosophy yes, but I would say that we are not
doing Philosophy (capital P!) through the above anecdote. It is profound, but
it is not part of a larger systematic profundity! Our Nasreddin Hodja is a
wisened prankster, underminer of authority, a secular voice for sanity and
practical master of common sense, but he doesn't have a single system which he
espouses - at least, not one that I am aware of. This does not make such a
folk-hero any less enriching to the soul, but I would not put him in the same
category as, say, Immanuel Kant. Nasreddin is far too readable!
To provide a counter point, I will provide a random quote from
Parmenides great poem 'On Nature'. Beware – it is a dense one!
One path only is left for us to speak of: that it is. On this path there
are a multitude of indications that what-is, being ungenerated, is also
imperishable, whole, of a single kind, immovable and complete. Nor was it once,
nor will it be, since it is, now, all together, one and continuous. For what coming-to-be
of it will you seek? How and from where did it grow?
Parmenides is saying here that we can only speak of what exists. He is
saying that what exists cannot have been generated out of nothing (because we
cannot speak of something which does not exist) and is therefore uncreated,
undestroyable, unmoving and complete. Change is therefore impossible. This is
part of Parmenides metaphysics (which is a fantastic word for theory of
reality). If you were to ask me what school of thought this was, we could go to
the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. There we might find a raging debate:
Is Parmenides true to the 'Strict-Monist interpretation', a
'Logical-Dialectical Interpretation' or even a 'Meta-Principle Interpretation'!
I do not know, as most of these words are beyond my meagre understanding. Yet
on a surface level, it is demonstrating how philosophers categorize thought,
and how an understanding of the history of philosophy is essential to
participating in these discussions and understanding someone like Parmenides.
This shows that philosophy is not one thing, but a huge variety of
well-argued (and sometimes lived) ideas. Great dialogues have raged throughout
years, the decades, the centuries, even the millennia. To continue them, we
must first understand what came before us. To look forward, we follow the trail
of history to its horizon (which for Western philosophy lies in the direction
of ancient greece).
To ignore this challenge for more easily accessible philosophy is to
blind ourselves. This is why academic philosophy is so important - it will
ensure that there is always someone out there who understands the immortal
classics. I cannot stress enough the importance of the classics, the power
beholden in those ancient words. They are more powerful than any religious
revelation, or any particular political ideology, or any transient consumer
enterprise. You can rest assured that the most 'successful' in even today's
society are familiar with their Plato. Anti-intellectual rantings against
academic philosophy are pursued by people who have neither the courage nor the
consistency to deal with it.
Answering the question
So, what are the differences between philosophical and philosophy? I
would say that something philosophical is often a question, or a wise saying
relating to practical life. A small piece of a massive puzzle, placed down on
the jigsaw board of reality every now and again.
Full-on Philosophy does raise questions, but I would say that it also
attempts to answer them afterwards. For what is the point of a question if
there is no answer? I call utterly false the prejudice against philosophy which
sees it as a purely questioning discipline. Many a philosopher has ended
philosophy (at least in their own minds!) with an epic piece of work. And other
great philosophers produced complete systems of thought, Spinoza and his Ethics
coming instantly to mind. These were massive jigsaws, with all of the pieces in
the box (you just have to work out how to do them).
Philosophy does provide us with the best-reasoned answers, even if we
can never truly know that they are absolutely right. It also provides us with complete
answers; just look at any of the four great schools of ancient greece for a
working example. These answers often lead to more questions, or challenges
against them, and never truly seem to solve it all. This is surely better than
a hodge-podge of ideas on random t-shirts or holding onto a belief because it
feels comfortable to. Furthermore, philosophy can provide a guide on how to live.
It just requires a lot more understanding and effort than a one-off quote.
Philosophical systems might use maxims to promote themselves and be easier to
comprehend, but these are not replacements for the harder work of
comprehension.
'Philosophy' is largely systematic and truly deep, not just in the
questions it tries to answer, but also in the literal length and time taken to
understand it. 'Philosophical' thinking is profound, but out of the context of
a complete system. Both are useful, however, I would not say they are the same
thing. This article for instance is 'philosophical' but not a work of
'philosophy'.
What we must truly be careful of are intellectual tricks disguised as
philosophy, catchy little sentences or attempts to be clever. To finish on a
cynical note, this is a quick paraphrased line from some horrible advert I once
saw on the brain-melt-box: 'What if we replaced 'OK', with 'What if?'
Utterly sickening.
Selim 'Selim' Talat
The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 50 'Open Topic'
