“Philosophers
aren’t in the real world. They don’t get on with it.” –
Beverly Moss
“Ignorance is
everywhere. How much more relevant could philosophy be?” – J.A.
Licon.
Quite often, I have
been asked by a member of the public, “What is the point of
philosophy?” Usually, I give an answer which states that philosophy
is about the love of wisdom, and how practising philosophy assists
one in the rational investigation of truth in the universe. However,
I am then told, “But you can’t make much money from philosophy,
can you?”
At this point, I feel inclined to tell
them that Ricky Gervais is exceptionally rich, and that he studied
philosophy. Furthermore, I could tell them that the UK’s current
Prime Minister, David Cameron, studied philosophy, politics and
economics (PPE) at Oxford University. However, anyone who knows
anything about philosophy knows history is abundant with philosophers
who were fettered to debt; Marx is a notable example. We can also go
further. There are philosophers who have rejected their wealth:
Wittgenstein, born to one of the richest families in Vienna, gave
away his entire inheritance.
Socrates, the profound Greek
interrogator, sacrificed his very life for his philosophy. This is
quite extreme, but he refused to bow to religious censorship.
Although this isn’t the same as giving away one’s wealth, the
fact he died for a non-religious cause in favour of philosophical
logic and reason should motivate people to reflect about the
relevance of philosophy.
Whilst it would be unfair to claim all
philosophers were as frugal as St Francis of Assisi, or as
self-sacrificing as Socrates, it can be suggested that many
philosophers do not view their lives within the narrow paradigm of
accumulating coins and paper. As such, when asked whether you can
make money from philosophy, you can reply, “Yes, but would that add
any value to my life?”
If philosophy isn’t incredibly
crucial to human economic potential, what is the point of studying
it? After all, we live in a capitalist system. Capitalism requires
its citizens to become skilled so that they can perpetuate its
existence. Philosophy, it seems, is something of an anomaly. It is
almost as if humans can live their lives in a more holistic way
(holistic meaning that we should look at life as a whole, not in
narrow compartmentalised boxes such as work, family, friends and the
like). Who would have thought that so many people could dedicate
their lives towards studying a subject with no assured economic
dividends? It is simply fascinating.
One obvious answer is that philosophy
is damned entertaining. It is intellectual popcorn, isn’t it?
Philosophy challenges you – yes, the very you reading this – to
think. Let’s go through a few big questions, shall we?
- What
is truth? Do we have the ability to grasp it?
- Is God relevant?
Can his existence be proven?
- What is a thought?
Does everyone think?
- What is the
meaning of life? Is there one?
- What does it mean
to be human? Are we just animals?
These questions are provocative. Humans
think about such things every day. I, for one, am attacked by my
brain with such questions at the most inconvenient of times.
Philosophy is relevant, because humans make it so. Many people think
of such things, without considering themselves philosophers, when in
fact they are. Many of the best philosophers never call themselves
so; many of the worst always do.
However, I will add
a caveat. I don’t think that philosophy is as relevant as religion
– yet. The Catholic Church outnumbers the members of philosophical
societies, and humanity is much the worse for it. The Catholic Church
has 1.2 billion members, and a chequered history, to say the least.
On Facebook, the Philosophy page has 293'207 likes: type the word
“Catholic” in, and one million likes are registered, (whilst
“Jesus Loves you”, has 5'764'625 members). Though far from
scientific, I think you get the point of the supporting evidence to
my claim.
No one is baptised into a particular
philosophy, but it would be most antithetical to philosophy if this
were allowed to happen. However, the reason I don’t think
philosophy to be as relevant as religion is due to people labelling
themselves through religion. No-one states, “I am a Nietzschean, so
I can’t marry a Hypatian.” People don’t label, or define,
themselves in philosophical terms in the same way they would do if
they were religious.
It is arguable that there is an overlap
between philosophy and religion. I, for one, would not deny it.
However, theology and philosophy are two distinct disciplines.
Theology, after all, focuses purely on the study of God, God’s
attributes and his relation to the universe. Philosophy is – in my
opinion -- broader than this.
Philosophy has many
definitions. Yes, as we all know, it can be defined as the love of
wisdom. To me, that definition is stale. I think that it is best
defined as the rational investigation of truth(s). This is opposed to
an irrational investigation of truth, in which such investigations
are predicated upon Abrahamic fairy tales – or any other fairy
tales, for that matter.
The beautiful thing about philosophy,
however, is that unlike religion, no one is compelled to agree with
each other. This leads to some excellent arguments. Wittgenstein
infamously wielded a hot poker at Karl Popper; his mentor, Bertrand
Russell had to intervene to calm him. It was the only time the three
great men were in the same room as each other.
I digress, I digress. I hate to tell
people, but most people are philosophers, whether they like it or
not. Every one of us has internal conflicts regarding certain values
we have – what meaning our lives will have, how we define love; the
list is almost endless. We have a world of philosophers who are
asleep to the truth: if they looked inside of themselves, they may
see a robed ancient Greek with beard asleep. I’ll leave you, the
philosopher, to work out that not so subtle metaphor.
Samuel Mack-Poole
