Philosophy can be a very annoying profession. Much like politicians, philosophers sits on their collective rumpus maximus' and lets everyone know what is wrong with everything, yet they DO very little to change outside of intellectually berating the world. I am not against politicians per say, because the ultimate goal of politics in this country is SERVICE for others to better the country. The occupation of politician has morphed more into a job of plausible deniability and general promises in order to unseat an opponent or keep your seat. However, this is a rant about philosophy.
I have a made a limited study of philosophers of all sorts. I say limited, because in all I have studied I know there are ten or one hundred more that I have not read, do not know about, and therefore my search is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, philosophers as an occupation are spineless whiners who have no problem finding fault with the goings-on, and ever so rarely step up with their actions actually attempt to better their world.
Passive resistance like going to prison for their beliefs or oppression financially or socially due to the thoughts and communications of "great" philosophers of the past could be construed as actions worthy of my criteria, but I believe that they are weak attempts to martyrdom. What would be so hard about saying, "This needs to be changed," and then living life in a way that went with hand-in-hand with their words? The entire Christianity movement could be broadly considered a philosophy, but for my argument the Christian faith is a lifestyle, thus disqualifying it as a sedentary philosophy.
To bottom line this, most philosophers either try to overcomplicate things to show off their immense intelligence, or try to verbally berate something in order to "prove" its lack of merit. For instance, religion is very easy to see where philosophers either run from it or attempt to disprove God's existence, due to their perception of God's restrictions on mankind, or they argue its irrelevance and try to update it to fit their personal needs and problems.
While it is true that many very intelligent people have had no ability to work toward any type of societal change and either wrote or spoke or both to get people to see the errors of their ways, other great people let their actions match their words - like Gerald Ford, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr.-these are examples of folks who stood against the popular and acted according to their words. Not one of these folks was ever called philosophers, yet they all lived a great community philosophy.
As I reread this for punctuation and spelling, I can also see where my clarity has been slightly led askew. I don't condemn philosophy as a profession, but philosophers who sit and DO NOTHING. I don't condemn politics, but politicians who don't do what they claim.
I have a made a limited study of philosophers of all sorts. I say limited, because in all I have studied I know there are ten or one hundred more that I have not read, do not know about, and therefore my search is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, philosophers as an occupation are spineless whiners who have no problem finding fault with the goings-on, and ever so rarely step up with their actions actually attempt to better their world.
Passive resistance like going to prison for their beliefs or oppression financially or socially due to the thoughts and communications of "great" philosophers of the past could be construed as actions worthy of my criteria, but I believe that they are weak attempts to martyrdom. What would be so hard about saying, "This needs to be changed," and then living life in a way that went with hand-in-hand with their words? The entire Christianity movement could be broadly considered a philosophy, but for my argument the Christian faith is a lifestyle, thus disqualifying it as a sedentary philosophy.
To bottom line this, most philosophers either try to overcomplicate things to show off their immense intelligence, or try to verbally berate something in order to "prove" its lack of merit. For instance, religion is very easy to see where philosophers either run from it or attempt to disprove God's existence, due to their perception of God's restrictions on mankind, or they argue its irrelevance and try to update it to fit their personal needs and problems.
While it is true that many very intelligent people have had no ability to work toward any type of societal change and either wrote or spoke or both to get people to see the errors of their ways, other great people let their actions match their words - like Gerald Ford, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr.-these are examples of folks who stood against the popular and acted according to their words. Not one of these folks was ever called philosophers, yet they all lived a great community philosophy.
As I reread this for punctuation and spelling, I can also see where my clarity has been slightly led askew. I don't condemn philosophy as a profession, but philosophers who sit and DO NOTHING. I don't condemn politics, but politicians who don't do what they claim.
2 comments:
Within the profession of philosophy there is an unfortunate distain towards mixing philosophical labours with the real world. However, I would like to suggest that your blanket claim that “philosophers as an occupation are spineless whiners who have no problem finding fault with the goings-on, and ever so rarely step up with their actions actually attempt to better their world.” is a little premature.
Case one: Socrates.
Socrates champions philosophy into existence by becoming a martyr. He lives as a philosopher; Athens in response to this sentences him to death for corrupting the youth. If living as a philosopher, and dying as one, does not count as public action, I am not sure what does.
Case two: Plato.
Plato writes some dialogues about Socrates’ trial. When you see that they are written for the general population, with the intention of increasing awareness of philosophical values, then Plato rightly placed within the public arena. Given the worldwide influence of his work, it seems a little foolish to suppose he did not engage society.
Case three: Thoreau.
After developing transcendental philosophy into something that was his own, he moves to Walden Pond to live the lifestyle that he champions. Furthermore, he spends a night in jail for not paying a tax because it would support what he considered an unjust government. Again, he publishes his work in the public arena, the general citizen being his target audience. The influence of his essay Civil Disobedience on people like Marten Luther king Jr., and Gandhi is very noteworthy.
Need I go on?
I will grant your examples are legitimate, and the other handful you and I can name, but I did intentionally say "rarely" for a reason. I have to search hard to find "philosophers" who are not just rationalizationists (Yeah, I made up that word) and need an excuse for their inability to follow God's laws.
Post a Comment