U3A Philosophy Network – Thinking Philosophy Spring 2016

in

focus

Editorial I am writing this editorial in place of Glynn who is taking a break from the task due to health considerations. Glynn will decide on whether he can continue or not depending on the outcome of imminent diagnostic tests. I would like to express my thanks to Glynn for taking on this role in an attempt to make Thinking Philosophy into a useful educational resource. It is a fact that many members of the U3A Philosophy Group Network have had no or little formal training in academic philosophy. Now this is a situation to be applauded and encouraged. Drawing people into participate into thoughtful contemplation and discussion of every aspect of life and existence is of immense benefits to the individuals and to society as a whole. I make this claim as self-evident requiring no supporting arguments. However there are certain methodological skills required to navigate ones way around the great canon of thought on such matters that have gone before. And indeed to be able to subject one’s own thoughts to a certain philosophical rigour and hence to express ones ideas cogently and clearly. It was Glynn’s avowed intention in taking over the as Editor to raise the game of papers published in Thinking Philosophy and to subject submissions to a critical appraisal. Not I should say of the views contained therein, but of the manner in in which they were expressed. In short they should adhere to certain standards of philosophical content and clarity of expression if the papers were to be good exemplars. This has not been without its problems and finding the appropriate level and role for Thinking Philosophy is an ongoing project. I believe great progress has been made in recent editions in asking for submissions on specific questions. In this edition it has been back to basics by asking the question ‘What is Philosophy?’. It is by the nature of the beast a philosophical question in its own right, not one that can be answered by a dictionary definition. Here we have four clear but different examinations of the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of philosophy. I can only urge you to circulate this journal to your group members and perhaps have one or two of your meetings discussing the views expressed herein. Once again my thanks to Glynn on all our behalf’s for his sterling efforts and wish him well in managing his health. Edward Link U3A National Philosophy Subject Adviser

What is Philosophy (1)? “What’s it all about,” asked the cheeky taxi-driver of Bertrand Russell, “and get this,” continued the cheeky taxi-driver, “he didn’t even know.” This

Editor –Glynn Phillips; email address [email protected]

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

demonstrates the complexity of the concept of “philosophy” wrapped up within a single linguistic term. It also shows sagacity in not attempting an economical reply to an apparently simplistic question. Socrates would possibly have had other ideas because he argued that no one could sensibly believe anything about philosophy if they could not even say what it was! The term “philosophy” comes from two Greek words, from philo, meaning love, and from sophia, meaning wisdom, translating as a love of wisdom. And how do we go about acquiring wisdom? We acquire wisdom by acquiring knowledge, by listening to others, by reading, by asking questions and by discussing. Humankind has always philosophized at some level, be it concerning the inappropriate behaviour of the young to the considered wisdom of the tribe. As tribes became complex states so new questions arose concerning the place of the individual within their own social and spiritual order. From the first millennia BCE we have evidence of sophisticated writings from China, India and the western world questioning issues relevant to their societies, questions that are equally pertinent today. We can see philosophy as a pursuit of truths undertaken by logical inquiry attempting to answer both perennial and emergent questions. Its aim is to examine the general ideas and principles of the subjects on which they are based. Within these parameters, three main areas arise; a) the problem of knowledge: b) the problem of conduct and c) the problem of governance. In turn, these can be broken down into further subfields. Within the problem of knowledge we can place metaphysics, ontology and philosophy of the mind. Within the problem of conduct comes ethics and moral philosophy and within governance, areas of politics and the law. Increased knowledge brought about greater subdivision of those categories so that today, we see even greater refinement. It is reason that is the quintessential tool of philosophy. The philosopher searches for truth and appeals only to reason. Empirical questions are of incidental concern. The philosopher’s interest lies in fundamental or open questions – those that cannot be answered by an appeal to facts alone. The argument for the existence of God bears this out: however great the claim of His existence, the claim is unsound without substantial reasoned argument and proof. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the study of the philosophy of religion because such study concerns itself with its subject’s general ideas and principles. Bertrand Russell saw philosophy as sitting in a No Man’s Land between science and theology, between the sacer and the profanus - a place where Page 2 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

faith could lie in juxtaposition with the reason of science. Spirituality, an important part of the human psyche has always needed myth to explain away the inexplicable. The cruelty and unpredictability of immediate environments became, and still becomes rationalised. Societies created their own gods and human beings worshipped their deities and accepted their own human inferiority. Geographical and environmental differences between cultures help explain the intrinsic attitudes that influenced and still influence philosophies, creating differences that can be seen to this very day between east and west and other cultures. Philosophy, as a historical discipline has found its concepts change over time. Some of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, considered as “pagan” by the early Church fathers, came to be recognised as worthy of consideration by the Scholastics. Isaac Newton’s publications forced intellectuals to give new respect to science and to recognise the elegance of the scientific method within the purview of natural philosophy. The Enlightenment, as the age of enquiry, saw the gradual crumbling of many a hallowed concept. Our own present-day knowledge concerning the way the mind works is somewhat different from the views of Descartes, Locke and others; yet they were seekers after truth and within the limited knowledge of their time, they were exercising reason to reach the truth and to pave the way for further thought. Over the years, this discipline has made paradigm changes to the ways we think and behave. The study of philosophy can be a revolutionary experience because many its outcomes can disturb our common beliefs. But the unexamined life is not worth living if we do not develop intellectual integrity and use reason, perception, imagination and intuition to analyse and construct our arguments. To sum up: Philosophy can mean many things to many people. It is fair to say that the value of philosophy is in its uncertainty, its release from habitual beliefs and prejudices by asking two main questions. The first is an ontological question concerning what lies at the heart of what it is that exists. The second is an epistemological question of how we can know that which we are seeking to know. In Hospers’ words, philosophy is the study of reality covered by arguments that require justification and analysis. Russell maintained that it could be seen to be the product of two faiths – inherited religion and ethical conceptions together with scientific investigation. Warburton considered its importance was to learn from the earlier philosophers and to establish firm foundations. For him, philosophy consisted of both effects and causes – effects of their own social circumstances and of the politics and institutions of their time - and causes Page 3 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

of their beliefs which mould the politics and institutions of later ages. We can look forward to a constant refining of ideas with the progression of time. Robinson, Daniel. The Great Ideas of Philosophy, 2nd ed. DVD. The Teaching Company, USA. DVD. (www.thegreatcourses.co.uk ) Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. O.U.P. Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics. Routledge. Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 4th ed.Routledge Louis P. Pojman & Lewis Vaughn. Philosophy, the Quest for Truth. O.U.P

Joan Allsopp. Shaftesbury U3A

What is Philosophy (2)? There is a paradox at the centre of my musings on this question. On one side is the strict diktats of logic which must underpin any philosophic questioning if that questioning is to have any more substance than that of a random rant. On the other hand there is the philosophy that tends to be mired in language that is not logical and yet is trying to articulate the ‘great’ questions of life. Which takes precedence when enquiring and attempting to understand or even answer the questions doesn’t really matter as I believe the same understanding can be reached from either starting point. At some point the precision of logic will deal with the usually messy real life question in hand, otherwise we cannot move the argument forward and likewise our irrational musings and obfuscation of the big questions must resort to logical analysis if any progress is to be made. Where do I start? It may be easier to consider what it is not. I am glad that it is not a programme that if studied diligently will give me the answer to all of life’s great unknowns. Neither will a detailed historical study of the life of a particular philosopher tell me what the meaning of life is, e.g. why some people suffer and others seem to sail through life unperturbed, etc. etc. I personally think it is a relief to discover that there is no secret set of answers, and that by doing more reading and study, then all will be revealed. If it was as simple as that then I am sure that by now we would have reduced it all to a snappy philosophical version of the Ten Commandments, so no more thought is required and we can close the philosophy departments and our minds to further thought. So what is Page 4 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

philosophy? The meaning of the word is the love/pursuit of wisdom/truth. It is not, subjective opinion, or views and prejudices held at a specific time and place. It needs working at, philosophy is an activity to be engaged with, it has no end, and every moment of everyday brings new situations and experiences that must be considered. Philosophy involves thinking, analysing, accepting and discarding with neither fear nor favour. It takes time and effort as recognised in the tongue in cheek (?) quote by William Smellie – ‘Were all men philosophers, the business of life could not be executed, and neither society nor even the species, could no longer exist. Yet I think that without it, we would not be humans and society as we know it would not exist.’ You have to deal with the charge that ‘you are always changing your mind’. Yes I do change my mind if my research leads me to the rational acceptance of a new position, which we accept readily in the sciences. To seek the truth, to seek wisdom, all avenues must be explored. Go to www.philosophybites.com and click on the sub heading ‘What is Philosophy?’ for an entertaining bite on what leading philosophers think philosophy is. It gives informative insights, with lots of comments to consider. So where do we go from here? One lead to follow is from philosophers who tell us what philosophy can do for us. Most famously according to Boethius, it is a consolation. Alain de Botton also makes this claim. What do they mean? Boethius was seeking an explanation as he sat in prison awaiting his execution, as to why it had all gone so wrong for him. He led a good life, worked hard for the benefit of his country, he and his family had a comfortable life. How did it go so wrong? Life is just not fair. Lady Philosophy visits him and begins to ‘cure’ him by showing him the error in his beliefs. Even being in prison and facing death, having lost all the benefits of his previous life he still had his mind and reason to comfort him. She urges him to think clearly and honestly about his experience and rejects erroneous thinking that suggested to him that there was a permanence to his life that can somehow be reinstated. The consolation of philosophy is the comfort it will bring if he accepts and understands that good fortune is only on loan to us. It is brought to us on a wheel of fortune and will go again from us as the wheel turns. If you don’t let go you will be dragged on by the wheel and when you finally have to let go the pain will be worse. Go to YouTube and search out http://feelingmyage.co.uk/tag/steve-coogan/ for a pithy resume of Boethius’s philosophy delivered by a beggar played by Christopher Ecclestone to a morose Steve Coogan who has thrown the beggar some money. No quick and easy answers from Lady Philosophy for Boethius or Steve Coogan, just the long and hard task of acceptance. What is Alain de Botton’s basis for claiming there are consolations in philosophy? De Botton identifies six philosophers who he considers tackle real life issues and show how philosophy can Page 5 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

help us deal with the difficulties that life will bring. De Botton recommends Socrates to help us with issues of unpopularity. Epicurus with how to deal with not having enough money. He looks at Seneca to help us deal with frustration. Montaigne to help with feeling inadequate and Schopenhauer who offers consolations on dealing with a broken heart and Nietzsche offering consolation for difficulties. Two quotes from de Botton’s book echo Boethius in recognising that there is a limit to what we as individual can have influence and control over, “at the heart of every frustration lies a basic structure: the collision of a wish with an unyielding reality.” and “Not everything which happens to us occurs with reference to something about us.” The clarification of thought to establish a truthful meaning, which is given by many of the philosophers answering the question, what is philosophy, is worth considering. Alongside this is the related question of what is philosophy for? Such clarification gives us a light to lead us out of a dark tunnel, a way out of the labyrinth that is created by the everyday imprecision of our language. Wittgenstein claimed that ‘Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language’. This quote identifies why doing philosophy/being philosophical, is important otherwise we will become bewitched. The attempt to ‘bewitch’ can be observed daily in media reports. Philosophy demands that you check the apparent legitimate truth of a statement to make it sound more legitimate and impressive, but which may well be unsubstantiated and meaningless….'It is a well-known fact that ...',.’all are …’, ‘no true would do ’. The response to such assertions has to be ‘what do you mean by….?’ Without the rigour of philosophic scrutiny, arguments often consisting of one set of people standing on a soapbox shouting their ‘argument’ at another set of people on their soap box. I take it as a compliment when it is claimed that it is no good trying to have an argument or even a discussion with me as I keep seeking an explanation of the terms of the argument, annoyingly asking ‘but what do you mean by………?’ While the answer to the question ‘What is Philosophy’ is important for U3A philosophy groups the question ‘what do you mean by’, is equally important. It may be that how we do philosophy is the more important one, so as to avoid becoming a ‘discussion group’. Philosophy groups have a threefold task apart from the social aspect of meeting up. We look at the big questions that are tackled by philosophy and we consider how different philosophers have grappled with them. But running parallel to this, is a third task where each individual member and each group collectively must work and act, as philosophers, being philosophical in their approach and response to the given topic. Groups and individual group members need to have confidence in their own philosophic skills and must ask ‘what do you mean’ ? We must point out if formulaic and often outdated language is used and ask if such language is verifiable and can be defended in critical analysis. This may

Page 6 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

mean that we never get beyond the opening statements of a topic at a meeting, but hopefully we will be doing philosophy.

Elizabeth Kelly. South Lakes U3A

Philosophy in Action Philosophy we know means the love of wisdom. I would say that wisdom is a universal resource, an impersonal intelligence readily available to humanity, although a little used resource judging by the prevailing global condition – widespread violence and chaos. The meaning of love is perhaps best understood by what love isn’t as Jiddu Krishnamurti says: “When there is negation of all those things which are not love – desire, pleasure – then love is, with its compassion and intelligence.” As for the practical application of philosophy, I would say that this is giving our undivided attention to the task of investigating questions about life, society and the universe and about challenging the foundations on which our beliefs are based. In brief, philosophy is the act of contemplating pressing questions confronting humankind. Perhaps the most pressing question any philosophy group might contemplate is: What, if possible, would bring an end to the violence and chaos humanity is currently suffering? If we are to discover something new or gain an insight or two from contemplating philosophical questions then our undivided attention is essential. This means setting aside what we know, that is, our accumulated knowledge and treasured beliefs. In this way we ensure our contemplations and the outcomes are prejudice free. So, if as philosophers we are to act out of universal wisdom, that is, to act intelligently, with integrity, and unhindered by thoughts or mental constructs based on memory then we must be aware of the limitations of such thoughts – as Hamlet clearly is as he informs Horatio that: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet’s observations then are that Horatio's philosophy is bound by the limits of thought and dreaming. While Hamlet does use thought or mental constructs in a skilful way to communicate his observations nevertheless

Page 7 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

his observations aren’t clouded by an unskilful use of thought or mental constructs. Although thought has its place in our lives, for example, in learning a skill or when we are working within disciplines such as science, art and education, we must use thought with care, particularly in the realm of philosophy and ideas. Like a power tool when thought is used carelessly then thought becomes dangerous, a risk to life and limb. When thoughts no longer serve us, they easily become our masters. Should we doubt the power of the unskilful or unwise use of thought, we need only consider those ideological institutions and organizations that began first as a thought and then developed into unruly monstrosities that suppress and destroy anyone who has a mind not to conform to whatever the ideology might be; political, religious, and tribal and so on. I suggest that William Blake, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet was also aware of a realm prior to thoughts, a realm absent of ‘dream stuff’ when he observed: “Each Man is in his Spectre's power Until the arrival of that hour, When his Humanity awake, And cast his Spectre into the Lake”. As I see it, both Shakespeare and Blake allude to the prevailing condition in which humankind is born; an ongoing dream (Maya in Sanskrit). Try as we will to escape the dream it’s impossible as long as we are imprisoned in a personal dream created by that imaginary character that inhabits the mind and is commonly known as me. Truly, ‘All the world’s a stage’ a stage populated with dream characters acting out dream roles in an ongoing dream comedy-drama-tragedy. Readers of Thinking Philosophy will no doubt come up with a great many answers to the question “What is philosophy?”, nevertheless philosophy ought to ensure our actions are wisdom sourced rather than by the stuff of dreams, otherwise what’s the point of philosophy? Meanwhile, philosophers, “Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.”

Peter Marron, Redruth U3A

What is Philosophy (3)? Originally, ‘philosophy’ meant ‘philo-sophia’, i.e. love of wisdom’. Wisdom about what and for what? For the ancient Greek philosophers, ‘philosophy’ was above all something that helped you to conduct your life more satisfactorily, helped you to ‘lead a better life’. Aristotle thought happiness Page 8 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

was, and should be, the principal aim of life ― though one member of our group argued that ‘contentment’ was a more appropriate term since one can, at least sometimes, be ‘content’ in very unfavourable circumstances. Aristotle might well have agreed, and Epicurus and the Stoics certainly would have. I thus argue that ‘philosophy’ was, for the Greeks essentially a practical matter, a means to an end, something that was to be put into practice. And, as far as I am concerned, this is how it should be. Now, to operate effectively in this world, we need at least some knowledge of ‘physics’ since we are physical beings. It is thus not altogether surprising that Epicurus and Democritus wrote works (which have not survived) on what we would today call natural science, and that Aristotle wrote a treatise on Physics. Similarly, the Sophists taught people how to argue effectively and many of their (paying) customers signed up to their courses because in Athens you had to defend your own case in a court of law. Indeed, at least one sophist agreed to postpone payment until his customer had won his first lawsuit ― an altogether admirable procedure. However, knowledge of the physical world and the ability to persuade a jury, were not, on the whole, regarded as aims in themselves ― indeed Bertrand Russell takes Epicurus to task for having no ‘truly scientific interests’. Rather, the study of logic, mathematics and the natural sciences were regarded as preparations for the ‘real thing’. So, what was the ‘real thing’? Developing a coherent view of the world that could guide one through the vicissitudes of human life and enable one to attain ‘ataraxia’ or peace of mind. Diogenes thought that civilization was a mistake and, in consequence, lived in an upturned tub, thereby acquiring what he claimed kings and rich men lacked, contentment with what they had, plus selfrespect. Likewise, Socrates philosophized serenely while drinking hemlock and Boethius wrote The Consolation of Philosophy while in prison awaiting execution. One does not, of course, need to live and die in such an extreme way as Diogenes, Socrates or Boethius to experience the benefits of philosophy. But the point is that scientific knowledge and knowledge of the ‘laws of thought’ do not make you a philosopher in the original sense of the word. Modern Western philosophy has become a strictly academic subject, deliberately insulated from the hurly-burly of modern life, a study that does not aim to give ‘answers’, its job being simply to ‘pose questions’. And, even then, the questions asked are usually not ‘Why?’ but ‘How?’ questions. ‘Wisdom’ has been replaced by ‘Knowledge’, i.e. information ― indeed the Page 9 of 10

Thinking Philosophy – Issue 2 Summer 2015

in focus

very word ‘wisdom’ today sounds faintly ridiculous. This is short-changing philosophy and turning it into little more than an exercise for the brain, a sort of glorified Sudoku. Moreover, this trend is potentially very harmful since humanity is currently faced by enormous issues that have never confronted it before, such as soaring birth rates, exhaustion of the Earth’s natural resources and climate change ― apart from perennial personal problems. And now that religion is waning in the West, a vigorous and healthy ‘philosophy of life’ is all the more urgently needed. I believe philosophy should help to steer us through the straits, avoiding on the one hand the Scylla of unbridled emotionalism and the Charybdis of vapid speculation: ancient Greek and Roman philosophy set out to do just this and often had a fair measure of success. Those who seek for similar guidance today are obliged to look elsewhere, for example in Eastern religions or the popular ‘self-help’ books that academic ‘philosophers’ thoroughly despise. In the local U3A Philosophy Group I found myself very much in a minority when I defined philosophy as a guide to living a (or the) ‘good life’. The overwhelming consensus was that philosophy deals with ‘logic’ and ‘correct reasoning’ and that is how it should be. Interestingly, the only person present who rallied to my position was someone who claimed to know very little academic philosophy, and indeed confessed that she had been very hesitant about joining the group in the first place. Her own self-taught ‘philosophy’ turned out to be based on the principle of “blooming where you are planted” as she put it ― which, as I pointed out, was one of the key tenets of the Roman Stoics (though she did not know this). Interestingly, after today’s session which, as it happened, was devoted to the teachings of the Stoics, several members of the group conceded that there was, after all, something in what I had been trying to put across since it did fit quite well with the philosophic approach of the Stoics and Epicureans ― though unfortunately the ‘Stoic-without-realizing-it’ of the previous session was not present. To end on a rather more positive note, what one can conclude is that U3A Philosophy does enable us to see the relevance of these ancient thinkers to the present day ― just as it demonstrates that it is possible to sustain a lively dialogue without acrimony!

Robert Mules, Shaftesbury & Gillingham U3A Western Philosophy Group

Page 10 of 10