Philosophy Proper
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:18 am
I admit it: parts of what follows in this post are plagiarized. Even though I am solely responsible for the association and recombination of the plagiarized ideas, detractors can rightly accuse me of not thinking for myself in all things. That's okay. After all, 'think for yourself' has become a mantra for 'free thinkers' everywhere even as they march in lockstep to the beat of a single drum.
I seriously doubt whether most posters here even know what philosophy is. Virtue, let alone the virtue of wisdom, is scarcely mentioned in even the finest schools so it comes as no surprise that philosophy forums would be used as a platform to espouse political ideas and sentiments rather than discuss philosophy proper. Philosophy, the rational investigation of questions about existence, knowledge and ethics, should be beautiful as well as true and good. Like art, its beauty is largely a matter of the unification and harmonization of contrasts. Philosophy mediates between things that have being — particulars — and the nature of being. It studies how particulars play out in relation to universals or, in my book, it is not philosophy.
Both religion and philosophy are concerned with the inherent unity of all things. It is, therefore, difficult to imagine how philosophy can be philosophy without also being religious. A philosophy that concerns itself only with particulars, that is, a philosophy without the guidance of a unifying principle, can never be systematic, can never be more than a random assembly thoughts. G. K. Chesterton succinctly explains what I mean when he writes: “A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli [an Italian painter of the Early Renaissance] matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.” Particulars matter, but the nature of being itself does not.
It is not at all uncommon to see religion railed against in philosophy forums such as this, as though it were some kind monster from the deep. Well..., maybe it is. After all, Francis Bacon did famously say: “A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.”
The more I learn about Hegelian philosophy the more I am fascinated by it. From what little I've learned, it seems very much like my own. Unlike Berkeley, Hegel does not deny matter but believes that what is not spirit is determined by spirit, therefore it follows that nature is not absolutely other, but understood as other and therefore not essentially alien. We do not relate to the world as if it is apart from ourselves, but find ourselves within the world. With the realization that both the mind and the world are ordered according to the same rational principles, our access to the world is made secure. Kant's proclamation that being as such ('Ding an sich') to be ultimately inaccessible is brought down. This serves as my basic proposition — at least for now, until something better comes along.
What are the basic propositions in your philosophy that brings it all together?
I seriously doubt whether most posters here even know what philosophy is. Virtue, let alone the virtue of wisdom, is scarcely mentioned in even the finest schools so it comes as no surprise that philosophy forums would be used as a platform to espouse political ideas and sentiments rather than discuss philosophy proper. Philosophy, the rational investigation of questions about existence, knowledge and ethics, should be beautiful as well as true and good. Like art, its beauty is largely a matter of the unification and harmonization of contrasts. Philosophy mediates between things that have being — particulars — and the nature of being. It studies how particulars play out in relation to universals or, in my book, it is not philosophy.
Both religion and philosophy are concerned with the inherent unity of all things. It is, therefore, difficult to imagine how philosophy can be philosophy without also being religious. A philosophy that concerns itself only with particulars, that is, a philosophy without the guidance of a unifying principle, can never be systematic, can never be more than a random assembly thoughts. G. K. Chesterton succinctly explains what I mean when he writes: “A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli [an Italian painter of the Early Renaissance] matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.” Particulars matter, but the nature of being itself does not.
It is not at all uncommon to see religion railed against in philosophy forums such as this, as though it were some kind monster from the deep. Well..., maybe it is. After all, Francis Bacon did famously say: “A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.”
The more I learn about Hegelian philosophy the more I am fascinated by it. From what little I've learned, it seems very much like my own. Unlike Berkeley, Hegel does not deny matter but believes that what is not spirit is determined by spirit, therefore it follows that nature is not absolutely other, but understood as other and therefore not essentially alien. We do not relate to the world as if it is apart from ourselves, but find ourselves within the world. With the realization that both the mind and the world are ordered according to the same rational principles, our access to the world is made secure. Kant's proclamation that being as such ('Ding an sich') to be ultimately inaccessible is brought down. This serves as my basic proposition — at least for now, until something better comes along.
What are the basic propositions in your philosophy that brings it all together?
