The value of philosophy, as a way of life..

Shawn

I would like to apologize the reader of a topic about my own beliefs, but I can't adequately speak for anyone else let alone for a group of people. So, I'll leave it to the reader to criticize or correct any thoughts of mine if they care to do so. With that said, feel free to comment on your own thoughts about philosophy as a way of life...

For the most part, philosophy, as a way of life, has been recognized by ancient philosophers as the study of an amalgamate of; wisdom, experience, and knowledge according to an established ethical doctrine. According to Plato, this was the kind of life in The Republic. According to Aristotle this was the prescriptive life in accordance with virtue. For Kant, this was a deontological life in accordance with duty. According to John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism in accordance with a prescriptive and descriptive hedonic calculus. According to Hegel, dialectical materialism, and so on...

Speaking from personal experience, I can identify stoicism as a way of living that has most influenced my life. In essence, discerning what is under one's control or not is of supreme importance for one's psychological barometer, as I have a tendency to monitor. It's very confusing to live without knowing where my beliefs about my behavior start and end in relation to my-self and what effects it has on my affect in the world. Being pragmatic also, I would be able to also say that modern day living is important to think in a utilitarian manner with regards to a unit of exchange that since the Industrial Revolution has so dominated our lives. Marxist economic theory has value to myself as a way of explaining why so much inequality exists in the socioeconomic cosm of my affairs, although this knowledge is superficial to explaining why capital has a tendency to benefit so few rather than the many.

Along these lines, I have had an idea about what is the greatest net benefit to society apart from wealth, that is "intelligence" (under a veil of ignorance!). My understanding is that for one to enjoy life one needs to reify the medium under which its progression happens. In clearer terms this would consist of personality, experience, and, wisdom, which manifest in rational and sound beliefs about oneself and the surroundings they willingly choose to inhabit.

Some of this sound very much like Wittgenstein's sentiments about philosophy as a way of life, which is rarely discussed for some reason. Wittgenstein's view on life was antiphilosophical, meaning, that he despised the way philosophers used language. The simple deeds and the ordinary workings of the world convinced Wittgenstein that ethics lies beyond the workings of the descriptive world. In a way ethics is behavioral rather than cognitive. It's mostly seen in actions such as deeds.

To not only ramble on about my own philosophies that have guided my behavior and thought, what are your thoughts about this?

Whereof one cannot speak should one remain silent?

180 Proof

Excerpts of longer posts from old (related) threads ...

General.

I understand philosophy as a performative and noncognitive exercise. Neither "truth" nor "relativism" obtain with respect to it as creating criteria or methods for discernment is a/the basic function of philosophy. In the end, I agree, choice of a philosophy is dispositional and not propositional because, as Pierre Hadot reminds us, it is/ought to be a way of life (which cultivates flourishing (eudaimonia) according to one's 'needs'). That there is more than one path up the mountain is pluralism and not "relativism". — 180 Proof

Particular.

Philosophy's sine qua non "purpose" I've found is both (meta-cognitively) hygenic & fitness-maintaining, that is, to unlearn self-immiserating, unwise (i.e. foolish, stupid ~ maladaptive) habits ... — 180 Proof

Personal.

These days, late in middle age, my 'holy trinity' (mana) consists of philosophy, music and long walks. — 180 Proof

:death: :flower:

Shawn

)I understand philosophy as a performative and noncognitive exercise. Neither "truth" nor "relativism" obtain with respect to it as creating criteria or methods for discernment is a/the basic function of philosophy. — 180 Proof

I see this as a performative contradiction in how to determine those criteria are mostly doctrinal. Unless you mean this as pure egotism?

Shawn

Philosophy's sine qua non "purpose" I've found is both (meta-cognitively) hygenic & fitness-maintaining, that is, to unlearn self-immiserating, unwise (i.e. foolish, stupid ~ maladaptive) habits ... — 180 Proof

I have found this to be true in terms of unlearning distorted behavior and even to the point of constraining wants. But, the way people practice hygienic deeds is mostly egotistical or desired towards some end, for example spending time devoted to enhancing one's self. I notify myself often of the instrumental role of reason and altogether avoid the need to expose myself if possible to altering my way of a modest living.

Tom Storm

I understand philosophy as a performative and noncognitive exercise. Neither "truth" nor "relativism" obtain with respect to it as creating criteria or methods for discernment is a/the basic function of philosophy. In the end, I agree, choice of a philosophy is dispositional and not propositional because, as Pierre Hadot reminds us, it is/ought to be a way of life (which cultivates flourishing (eudaimonia) according to one's 'needs'). That there is more than one path up the mountain is pluralism and not "relativism". — 180 Proof

That's a very helpful and nicely phrased paragraph.

↪Shawn

Nice OP. I relate to Wittgenstien's view of philosophy but I don't have his intellectual fire power. In relation to remaining silent, I wish people would do this more often about most things. I interact here a bit because I am very interested in what people think and why - especially if it is informed by theory and reading. I did philosophy briefly at University but left after an argument with the head of department.

Personally I'm not attracted to systems and theories and schools of thought and prefer to just get on and do things, knowing full well that we all absorb and employ philosophical ideas (often a kind of mosaic of incoherence) just by living in the world. I have no need to hold truth or grasp eternity and just want the years to go by as pleasantly as possible whilst being of some use to others in a way that satisfies my own standards of virtue. Perhaps this is why @180's notion of philosophy as a performative and noncognitive exercise resonates with me.

Shawn

Personally I'm not attracted to systems and theories and schools of thought and prefer to just get on and do things, knowing full well that we all absorb and employ philosophical ideas (often a kind of mosaic of incoherence) just by living in the world. I have no need to hold truth or grasp eternity and just want the years to go by as pleasantly as possible whilst being of some use to others in a way that satisfies my own standards of virtue. Perhaps this is why 180's notion of philosophy as a performative and noncognitive exercise resonates with me. — Tom Storm

But as per 180proof, one is looking for a criteria to evaluate one's conception of the self with regards to this arising or unpolished method of behaving. Normally people aren't born Zeno's or Buddha's to be so intuitively intelligent to conceptualize such a criteria or a working methodology. Hence, my response to him about dogma and eventually arising egotism.

Tom Storm

↪Shawn

I can only go by what I do which is muddle through. If I had anything to guide me it is the Golden Rule - a version of which has been conceived by just about every religious and ethical system. My experience tells me that people generally know how to behave, but there are many distractions. Most of us have the capacity to look around and see if we are creating chaos and damage or not.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

You've lost me.

Shawn

↪180 Proof

When you say that philosophy is about establishing a criteria through a performative or non-cognitive method, then doesn't that mean that a type of cognitivism is required to formulate such a criteria or method as a way of life?

180 Proof

↪Shawn

As I wrote in reply to you on another thread

[T]he function of ethics is reflective inquiry into (as well as empirical studies and artistic expressions of) practices which prevent increasing or reduce misery (harm, dehumanization) of others in order, more likely than not, to prevent increasing or reduce one's own misery. — 180 Proof

so that philosophical self-cultivation isn't mere "egotism", as you say, because the benefits are intrinsic as positive feedback from non-reciprocally – non-instrumentally, that is, without extrinsic benefit or recompense for – cultivating and/or caring for others.

When you say that philosophy is about establishing a criteria through a performative or non-cognitive method, then doesn't that mean that a type of cognitivism is required to formulate such a criteria or method as a way of life? — Shawn

Developing conceptual criteria (or a practical method) isn't any more "cognitive" than assembling a toolkit for, say, ripping out & installing a new bathroom. A criterion, as I understand it, is useful for making types of judgments, and is not "true" (or "good" or "beautiful") itself. Witty's forms-of-life, no?

Amity

I can only go by what I do which is muddle through. If I had anything to guide me it is the Golden Rule - a version of which has been conceived by just about every religious and ethical system — Tom Storm

I think you do more than 'muddle through'. Your work alone requires more than that:

...30 years of working in the area of addiction and mental health services. A key responsibility for sustaining any worker who is supporting people in crisis - suicidal ideation, sexual abuse, substance misuse, psychosis- is reflective practice. The worker who doesn't examine their own assumptions about themselves (their understanding of meaning and culture for instance) while they assist others may (amongst other problematic end results) succumb to burn out...
In short; examining yourself - being aware of the systems you and the person you are supporting are in, and the beliefs that underpin your choices and actions - is just as beneficial to others as it is to yourself. — Tom Storm

You also mentioned 'Narrative Therapy' elsewhere.

More than 'muddling through', you are informed by theory, reading, reflection and practice, no ?

Amity

↪Shawn

Thoughtful and informative OP :sparkle:

I can identify stoicism as a way of living that has most influenced my life. In essence, discerning what is under one's control or not is of supreme importance for one's psychological barometer, as I have a tendency to monitor — Shawn

Yes, we have discussed this before, a long time ago, and the problems you had with it.
It would seem to be among the most practical philosophy out there.

The checking of our assumptions about our selves and other people, how we react and interact.
Of course, they are cognitive ( objective) - but also about feelings (subjective).

I like your idea of monitoring our psychological barometer...we can talk about swings in the weather from good to bad and in-between, even in the same day. Not just the personal but political.
If we can use a philosophical or any clear thinking process so as to know ourselves, the world better, then the hope is that can lead to improved wellbeing.

Some people can be more aware of a coming change in the weather than others - via experience or intuition. Reading a variety of news sources. No great philosophical theories required.
Just think and feel...and share, like we do on here. I suppose...care is the core.

Hello Human

It seems to me that when talking about philosophy as a way of life, we have to distinguish between using philosophy as a guiding principle, and using it to express those principles. Stoicism, as a way of life, belongs to the first category. Diogenes' lifestyle belongs to both categories. Philosophy as a way of life the, is about bringing the abstract values and principles down to our lifestyle, and/or using our lifestyle as a voice when we do not want or cannot speak.

Shawn

Developing conceptual criteria (or practical method) isn't any more "cognitive" than assembling a toolkit for, say, ripping out & installing a new bathroom. A criterion, as I understand it, is useful for making types of judgments, and not "true" (or "good" or "beautiful") itself. Witty's forms-of-life, no? — 180 Proof

I think your downplaying how hard it is to discover these rules to abide by in life as Wittgenstein would notice when partaking in a forms of life. Or to the matter I doubt the majority of people would be able to come up with the golden rule without hearing it from a parent or teacher.

I also think that aesthetical judgements about the good life are hard to come by as apt or appropriate in most cases. Some formal opinion seems necessary to make them.

Wittgenstein would say that the rules of a language game are implicit in the existing structuralism of the world, and with this I don't have much doubt.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

Okay. I guess. We use the term differently, but you make my point that criteria (i.e. forms-of-life) are noncognitive.

Shawn

↪180 Proof

If you mean by that as indoctrinated or taught, then I suppose I agree. In the context of this thread, they aren't cognitive as forms of life although when treating philosophy as a way of life they ought to be cognitive and hence my disagreement.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

I mean what I said previously: criteria are used to facilitate, even regulate, discursive practices; they are tools for specific tasks however they are acquired. And "ought to be cognitive" – why?

Shawn

criteria are used to facilitate, even regulate, discursive practices; they are tools for specific tasks however they are acquired. — 180 Proof

They are indeed acquired. But how?... I would think, cognitively, as in a reflexive manner towards the good which has to be determined through examination or analysis.

And "ought to be cognitive" – why? — 180 Proof

Because it is important that humans posses this knowledge through their own efforts otherwise no thought would be put into why one ought to behave ethically.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

Humans are not on Earth "by their own efforts" which, in itself, has no impact whatsoever on "why one ought to behave ethically." :roll:

Alkis Piskas

↪Shawn

I don't think someone can have an opinion on the value of philosophy as a way of life, if he has not lived such a life and for quite some time. Only philosophers, dedicated to this field of study can talk about this.

The value of philosophy in life is a totally different thing, of course

Shawn

↪180 Proof

I assume you don't have children or much of an environmentalist?

Fooloso4

I like this one from Wittgenstein

Work on philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more work on oneself. On one's own conception. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them.) (CV, 24)

Shawn

I don't think someone can have an opinion on the value of philosophy as a way of life, if he has not lived such a life and for quite some time. Only philosophers, dedicated to this field of study can talk about this. — Alkis Piskas

It does seem that philosophy as a way of life is important to profess or has value rather than not. Values seem important but are encapsulated in how we spend our time pursuing different ends. Is it really a matter of preference as I think your implicitly stating?

Shawn

↪Fooloso4

Nice. The language of architecture spoke to him seemingly. Logical form and functionality and all that.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

I was active in the environmental movement in the 1980s, studied deep ecology / ecological economics and worked for the Greens in the 1990s, and Spinoza has been my philosopher for almost three decades (along with other ethical and methological naturalists). But yeah, no children (just 7 nephews & nieces). So what's your point?

Shawn

So what's your point? — 180 Proof

As a methological naturalist, it doesn't seem to me that there's anything structural or non-cognitive about ethics, apart from inherently speaking about human behavior that is concerned about morality or ethics. I'm simply amiss as to why you think that ethics is non-cognitive.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

Ethics, even when grounded naturally, neither describes nor explains matters of fact or formal constructs; instead, it reasons toward more coherent and internally consistent conceptions of moral practice. So like the other areas of philosophy, ethics proposes concepts criteria methods prescriptions etc but does not make propositional statements (e.g. descriptions, explanations). To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or is not a fact of the matter. To assume otherwise, Shawn, is to misconstrue philosophy and reduce it to science or history or lexicography (mistakes made by both Anglo-American "analytical" and Franco-German "continental" academics during the last century or so).

Alkis Piskas

It does seem that philosophy as a way of life is important to profess or has value rather than not. Values seem important but are encapsulated in how we spend our time pursuing different ends. Is it really a matter of preference as I think your implicitly stating? — Shawn

Preference over what? (Preference refers to at least two items from which we like one more than another.)
Anyway, as I read the topic again, there's also another question that arises: "Value for whom?" The society, the philosopher himself or both? In my comment, although I had in mind "the philosopher himself", he is still the most qualified to talk about the value of philosophy, in general.
Who is the one to know better and talk about the value of computer programming if not the computer programmer himself?

Shawn

Preference over what? (Preference refers to at least two items from which we like one more than another.) — Alkis Piskas

E.g, the good, the telos, the dialectical, etc.

Anyway, as I read the topic again, there's also another question that arises: "Value for whom?" The society, the philosopher himself or both? — Alkis Piskas

The philosopher, for himself or herself.

Alkis Piskas

↪Shawn

E.g, the good, the telos, the dialectical, etc. — Shawn

The philosopher, for himself or herself. — Shawn

OK. Thank you.

Janus

Speaking from personal experience, I can identify stoicism as a way of living that has most influenced my life. In essence, discerning what is under one's control or not is of supreme importance for one's psychological barometer, as I have a tendency to monitor. — Shawn

So, for you, the examined life, then?

It's very confusing to live without knowing where my beliefs about my behavior start and end in relation to my-self and what effects it has on my affect in the world. — Shawn

The unexamined life being confusing...and...not worth living?

Along these lines, I have had an idea about what is the greatest net benefit to society apart from wealth, that is "intelligence" (under a veil of ignorance!). — Shawn

Intelligence being the ability to effectively and productively examine your life (and the lives of others?)? (While appearing not to?)

My understanding is that for one to enjoy life one needs to reify the medium under which its progression happens. In clearer terms this would consist of personality, experience, and, wisdom, which manifest in rational and sound beliefs about oneself and the surroundings they willingly choose to inhabit. — Shawn

To me this sounds like you favour an enactive philosophy of life, and an active life, rather than a merely contemplative one. And you prefer to think in terms of subjective experience, than analyze and understand your life (and human life) in objective (scientific) terms?

I'm asking these questions because your way of expressing your thoughts in the OP renders them not entirely clear to me. If you agree with my interpretations then I can only say I mostly agree with what you are saying. (I'm not too sure about the "veil of ignorance", though)

The value of philosophy, as a way of life..

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions