• substantivalism
    A curious thought has presented itself to me as I've considered what point there is to even continuing philosophical investigations from the purview of the masses or among the academics. In greater force given it seems to me that philosophy and those who participate in it seem rather plentiful in their appetites' for the cannibalizations of themselves as well as those around them. The destruction of themselves for the sake of self-honesty in the name of skepticism while still holding conservative philosophies or the resurrection of self-informed rationalist intuitions to hold tight to their worldviews amidst the damning attacks of all others.

    Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do?

    I don't ask this merely in the sense of a negative reading of self-deception nor an admission of some childish thought process we have all had in times past regarding anything but ourselves. Such as those of non-religious fevers who decry the religious of dogmatic irrationalism but they themselves retain similar looking ad hoc rationalist intuitions of bare content. In a similar way their arise the eliminative materialists whose philosophy either borders on mere tautology or outright rejection of what allows for them to investigate these subject matters in the first place. The religious and mystics who try their best to bolster their own philosophical foundations with the vaguest impressions of the unknown.

    Perhaps the only such philosophies I can think of which attempt to admit to this are those cousins of the ancient pyrrhonian skeptics. Who would argue as strongly for their positions as they would against to leave their audiences dumb founded. To be the one in the middle. That or some modern breed of falsificationism which always attempts when needed to admit of the experimental death that will inevitably befall all such testable claims.

    However, even those assumptions (or meta-beliefs) of the pyrrhonians or the falsificationists could be carved away and in their own time found lacking. Further, even those who espouse these doctrines may not live up to their namesake and many would gladly even abandon them momentarily despite their intuitiveness for the pleasure of other philosophical desserts.

    Why isn't it the case then that one not revel in deceiving themselves or always seeing others deceiving those around them no matter the issue or position held?

    It seems philosophy is rightfully so concerned with truth. What's acceptable and what isn't by a authoritative dictate or the objectivity of some doctrine which hopefully has suppressed its subjective features. In the end, even those things philosophers try so heavily to discredit will remain within them despite the attempts to carve it out and philosophically exclaim, "See! It is dead and not one facet of it remains! From here on out it will haunt me no longer!"

    I hope I have not been too pedantic or vague/esoteric in my own way.
  • unenlightened
    If you think that the effort to discern the universal nature of philosophy is not a philosophical enterprise, then you are certainly deceiving yourself. :wink: Thus it always appears simultaneously as the malady, and its own homeopathic remedy.

    I will simply suggest that illusion arises as a possibility from the existence of vision, but that does not make blindness preferable. Likewise one can deceive oneself if and only if one can also possibly be honest with oneself. To be open to both possibilities is to already be a philosopher.
  • schopenhauer1
    Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do?substantivalism

    Philosophy raises the strictly pragmatic to that of aesthetic reflection... Even the philosophy of Pragmatism itself is an aesthetic view of things. It is to not walk in the world from one task to another, but to look at the whole, and see it upon reflection, whether that be metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and values. These are things that take a secondary-reflection and not meant necessarily as to obtain some practical end. In this way, philosophy acts as therapy from the mundanity of everydayness, the feeling of being instrumental, and of only survival, and filling up one's free time with proscribed activities of society.

    Why people choose particular philosophies, is a different matter. That is too complicated to answer in one mere post. However, I will say that certain philosophies often appeal to people's aesthetic sensibilities. It is when one can be critical of one's own dearly held philosophies, that one can be open to the synthesis of one's own efforts with others, participating in a sort of dialectic, that will form a novel understanding based on the other, previous ones, even if just small tweaks.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.