What the Hell is Philosophy?

The Meaning of Philosophy Part 1 - Philosophy, What Is It Good For? (Absolutely Somethin')

As I mentioned in a recent post, I think it's time for me to put together an introductory philosophy series. I hope to make the series engaging and entertaining. This first post will cover what philosophy actually is. I didn't even begin to know the answer to this question until I was in college, and even then found the answer somewhat lacking.

Alright, quit stalling. What the hell is philosophy?

Ok. I'll get straight to the point. To me, philosophy is nothing more or less than the active pursuit of happiness through the study of truth and falsehood, and the subsequent application of that study to your life.

Yeah, but isn't that just psychology?

That's a good question, but philosophy is different from psychology in practice. Psychology is the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses. Psychological study and treatment is certainly massively helpful in removing certain barriers to happiness, but doesn't provide a fully formed set of instructions on how to live life morally. Psychology is great at finding and fixing problems, but philosophy is necessary to determine what sort of actions are morally good, and what sort are morally wrong. In each discipline, it is essential that the participants first identify the source of a problem, determine the methodology for explaining and fixing that problem, and then execute that methodology in their real lives.

In that way, philosophy really is quite a lot like a science, and can benefit greatly from the application of the scientific method. But we'll get to that in a later installment.

I thought philosophy was something that existed in books and was done by old dudes with white beards.

That's the view of philosophy I got from college. The bulk of undergraduate philosophy is taught as a course of study in the history of thought. There's lots of reading. Lots. And lots of paper-writing that basically amounts to book reports with logical analysis. You get the sense that throughout history philosophy has been one long line of ideas written on paper, passed to the next generation for examination, and then re-interpreted for clarity and the cultural needs of the time. This effectively amounts to studying cultural anthropology. You find out what the great thinkers of the past and present thought and think, and there is very little (outside the notable exception of Socrates a short 2,400 years ago) about the great doers of the past and present, and what they did and do.

My intention is not to discount all the thinking and writing, but simply to point out how an undergraduate degree in philosophy did fairly little for me in the way of teaching methods for applying the philosophy I was learning to my life. We would learn Kant, read criticisms against and support for his ideas, and then move on to the next philosophical movement. Sometimes it would be connected or directly influenced by the previous movement or philosopher, so we would get this idea of philosophy as an interconnected web of written ideas, cast across the span of recorded human history.

Ethics is by far the most visible part of philosophy. It's the application of a culmination of study in all other areas of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, logic). When your entire philosophical system of understanding ahead of ethics is rational and logically follows, is based on reality as it actually exists, and contains a methodology for determining truth from falsehood, your system of ethics ought to be an accurate instruction manual for right-living. They taught us this in school, but then dodged the conclusion altogether, by simply teaching it in basically the same manner as all other aspects of philosophy. Ethics, then, was also relegated to the web of interconnected ideas; historically interesting, and fuel for debate in the classroom, but by no means something to attempt to any great degree within your own life. The communistic ideas of utilitarianism were given as much time and credit as the invisible world of Plato's forms and as much time as Aristotle's insistence on the study of sound logic and empirical reality, and so on.

Each part of philosophy, then, was treated as an almost purely intellectual pursuit. Even ethics, the supposed vibrant and vital methodology for right living, was largely left out to dry to a crusty brittleness, like a graying lung on a clothesline. This might all sound like the ravings of a disgruntled bachelor of arts, but the point I'm trying to get across is that philosophy can be (is) much more alive than I was initially led to believe. The reason that the misconception of philosophy as "a series of ideas and their critiques, written by old men with big white beards" can persist is because philosophers do little to dissolve the misconception. An extraordinarily small percentage of people who study philosophy actually alter their lives in any major way to fit their ideas. Of those who do, an equally small percentage alter their lives to the degree required by their philosophy. For an example of this, imagine walking up to a socialist (who doesn't believe in individual property ownership) and asking them for the contents of their wallet. Imagine asking a group of socialists this question, then imagine how few wallets you'd get out of the group.

But why don't most philosophers actually practice what they preach and live by the consequences of their ideas?

Because we're scared. In a society full of falsehoods and pandering for social approval, it's incredibly uncomfortable to even study truth and falsehood, let alone talk about the difference, let alone live by the consequences. It's far more comfortable for most people to outwardly demean philosophy by calling it opinion. If everything is one person's opinion versus the opinions of everyone else, then nobody is ever hurt by the idea that they might be living based on utter falsehoods. That it would hurt to know you're living illogically or based on false premises should be very instructive. It's clearly an important part of human nature to conform to truth and reality. But it's an even stronger part of human nature to conform to the group. This is an important holdover of human nature from when food was short and shelter was temporary and there were no practical means of mutually beneficial trade. In western society, this hasn't been the case for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

It's more comfortable for the atheist and the theist to "agree to disagree." It's in social vogue to bad-mouth politicians as weasely, power-grubbing maniacs, but to consider their existence as leaders of nations as "necessary." It's expected that an overbearing mother-in-law is "just that way," and shouldn't be confronted or ostracized on the basis that "it's just how she is."

Philosophy is what should happen in the awkward pauses in conversations. Most people haven't studied philosophy in any great detail, and aren't well-equipped to tackle situations like this. But those who do study philosophy too rarely stick to reason when awkward pauses in conversation occur. Perhaps if more philosophers did philosophy rather than just study it, then others would catch on to the effectiveness of always speaking and acting on the truth. Even when it makes us uncomfortable. Especially when it makes us uncomfortable.

Who are you to tell me what philosophy is anyway? Hasn't it been around for like a bazillion years?

To be sure, we all stand on the shoulders of giants to some extent. I'm most certainly not claiming to have come up with these ideas on my own in my study, with the lights dim, and reams of crumpled paper littered about the floor near the wastebasket. I just think that these specific ideas are among the most important ideas to humanity. With the recent proliferation of communications technology, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least duplicate (if not add to) a message I thought to be capable of minimizing human misery to a fraction of a fraction of what exists today.

The ideas I put forward in this series will be based on rational empiricism--the idea that reality can be derived from the senses, and that we should use logic on the information provided by the senses to determine all we need to know about the world and how to live ethically in it. The ideas follow back in time to Socrates and Aristotle, through John Locke, through Ayn Rand, and right up to my main source of the synthesis of their ideas, contemporary philosopher Stefan Molyneux. I owe my knowledge on these topics to these thinkers, and feel that the foundational philosophical work they've done is sufficient to provide the world with a truly rational and moral human race, minus one variable: People actually living by the philosophy they study. This is a project Molyneux has gone to great lengths to work toward in just a few years with his Freedomain Radio podcast.

Every so-called "complete" system of philosophical thought is just one step away from being completely validated. After "Does it conform to reality?" and "Does it contain a methodology for determining truth from falsehood?" and "Do the premises about reality and truth lead to conclusions about moral living?" comes "Can people actually live it?" And then, "Do they?" With the philosophy I'm going to discuss in subsequent installments of this series, I can answer in the affirmative on all of these questions, the last two of which are rarely approached by most philosophers (likely for the same reasons of social discomfort discussed above).

Living according to rational philosophy based on the evidence of the senses and the logic of the scientific method is extraordinarily liberating. But, as I've said concerning social conformity, extraordinarily difficult and stressful at first. I can't say I'm a picture perfect example of moral virtue and the "philosophy-come-to-life" I've described above, but I've most certainly seen and understood the importance of it, and am working toward the life I'll endeavor to describe in this series.

If this is all just too confusing an ordeal for you, I encourage you to read on! (and leave comments about what's confusing) Subsequent editions in this series will more fully explain my definitions and methodology. For now, thanks for reading!

When You Say It Like That...

Theory

Anyone who defends a position with the statement, "Well, when you say it like that..." either has an indefensible position, or hasn't thought their position through. Those with consistent logic based on evidence will not use this defense.

Practice

Example One

Me to the Santa Claus Believer: So you believe in a fat man who constantly wears a red suit and has an army of elves to make toys for him. You believe that once a year, he distributes these toys from a magical sleigh flown by eight magical reindeer, and that he enters homes through the chimney, eats cookies and drinks some milk...all this at millions of homes worldwide in the space of one evening. He does this with absolutely no sense of self-interest. When he's not spending one night a year in worldwide charity, he's chilling at his home at the North Pole. Nobody has ever actually seen the real Santa Claus, though many of his "helpers" seem to pop up at malls just before Christmas each year. Am I getting it right so far?

Santa Claus Believer: Well, when you say it like that...

Example Two

Me to the Christian: So you believe in a non-physical, all-knowing, all-powerful consciousness in the sky who created the world and has handed down rules for us humans to live by. Some of these rules you follow, some you ignore, and others you decide are parables and metaphors, and are not to be followed literally. Every Christian has a different idea of which category all of these rules fit into. You believe you can psychically communicate your wishes to this sky-brain, and that they'll be granted. Nobody has ever directly seen God, though you say that certain people past and present have claimed the ability to more directly experience God, and that gives them religious authority over the rest of us. Your proof for all of this is a book, written by men, but supposedly dictated by this omnipotent, omniscient God. All the same, it's imperfect in that it can be interpreted and re-interpreted a thousand ways, and is not communicated in some sort of 'perfect' language.

You believe that if you're good, this sky brain will send you to eternal bliss in the sky and if you're bad to eternal damnation at the core of the earth. Well, not you exactly, but a little tiny version of his invisible consciousness called a "soul." This soul existed before you were born, and will continue to exist forever into the future, despite the complete lack of any empirical evidence. Even though God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, terrible things still happen in the world every day. Do I have all this right?

Christian: Well, when you say it like that...

Example Three

Me to Government-Loving Statist: Alright, so you believe that people need to be controlled because they're generally evil, or will take advantage if left to do whatever they want. Your remedy for this supposed problem is to give a monopoly of firepower and force to a small, select group of people to wield over everyone else. This group of controllers is granted their power over everyone because a majority of a fraction of the population that actually votes, voted for them. There is no guarantee that the same evil people government is supposed to defend us from won't simply seek out government power for themselves. In fact, the very creation of positions of power will attract evil people to those positions.

Somehow these people (for a specific period of years) gain the ability to tell everyone else what to do--at the threat of murder or imprisonment--just by signing pieces of paper. You believe that your support of these people in positions of power gives them authority over me. Their power includes the ability to shoot me in the head, without repercussion, if I disagree with you or them and act on my disagreement. You openly admit the corruption inherent in this group of people on a regular basis, but continue to justify the existence of the institution they're supported by, for some reason. Am I getting things right so far?

Statist: Well, when you say it like that...

Explanation

These are just a few of the more obvious examples, but a good illustration of the sorts of conversations I've always felt a little strange about. Instead of addressing the contradictions within their position, the people above are basically saying that they think you're mischaracterizing their argument. What you're really doing is stripping away all the propagandistic and confusing language they use to justify their position. You're simply translating their ideas into plain English.

Instead of "somehow squeezing down every chimney in the world in one night, even the houses that have no chimney," Santa Claus's forcible entry into houses is explained to be accomplished by "magical" means. This introduces a falsehood into the argument (that magic exists) as if it's completely true and viable. Any conclusions they come to might even be--or seem to be--true (i.e. it's nice to receive presents) but only accidentally, because of their faulty logic (i.e. presents come to us by way of a magical fat man in a red suit).

Any objectively correct beliefs people hold will not be subject to this same line of deconstruction of falsehoods, because there won't be any falsehoods. For example, I know that the initiation of the use of force is always immoral. If someone attempts to deconstruct this by saying, "Oh, so you don't think I should be able to defend myself from a raving lunatic with a sword," they're not making a valid claim. I would never need to respond to their argument with "Well, when you say it like that..." because they're not accurately translating what I said into plain English. The non-initiation of the use of force still allows for self-defense. Since they're misunderstanding my argument, there's no need to bust out "...when you say it like that."

Thus, I'm pretty sure that whenever you hear someone say, "Well, when you say it like that..." you can take it as fair warning that they've got a position with contradictory or false premises, and save yourself a lot of time arguing over whether you have a "tone" or not.

Challenges welcome: I'm wrong a lot more often than I'd like to be, so please correct me in the comments if you see something wrong with the above arguments. Thanks for reading!

An Unfortunate Philosophical History (Now With Happy Ending)

When I was a senior in college, I had to write a final paper. The idea was that we'd choose a topic of study that had likely been covered before and then find an interesting or new interpretation of that idea. With the discipline of philosophy, this is a lot like trying to write a fresh and exciting episode of Friends about Ross and Rachel's complicated relationship. There's not much left for territory unless you expand into completely new ideas or study one idea in depth. I decided to study an idea in depth: The idea that being living proof was the best possible argument for your ethical system. It wasn't a complicated or ultra-specific idea, like some of the other students had chosen, but it was problematic to my adviser, all the same.

ME: I'd like to explore the idea that a system of ethics is invalid if it cannot be lived, and that actually living according to the logical consequences of your ethics is the best proof for its validity.

PROF: OK. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you explain in more detail?

ME: Sure. It seems to me that if you preach a system of beliefs with logical contradictions, it'll be impossible to live out its logical consequences, since reality conforms to logic. It seems to me that any non-obvious contradictions in the argument, or any mistakes in the facts of the premises will come to the surface of any ethics as soon as you try to actually live by it. It also seems to me that any philosopher who does not or cannot live by (or point to someone else who lives by) his or her own moral ideas has little or no business telling others what to do. [Note: It seems to me that I had to use the phrase "it seems to me" a lot throughout college. This makes sense as long as you realize that college as it exists today is partially designed to convince you that you can't really know anything for sure...and that you should somehow be sure of your uncertainty.] Like Wittgenstein tried to live by his philosophy and failed miserably and gave up philosophy for a while to teach kindergarten. It's because there was a fundamental flaw (it seems to me, lots of flaws) in his thinking.

PROF: These are interesting ideas... [Then, after a few minutes of tapping a pen on the desk and stroking the philosopher beard...] I'm not sure you'll find much source material for reference. I don't really remember coming across those ideas anywhere.

ME: [Blank stare] You're kidding, right? It's just...well this is the whole purpose of philosophy, right?

PROF: Well, I guess some people might call that the purpose of philosophy. But, nope. Not kidding. Weird, huh? It's an interesting idea, but you don't really have enough room in such a short paper to present an idea so fresh. It's more something that you'd do in a graduate thesis, or even doctoral.

ME: I understand about the length, but I thought there'd be all sorts of writing on this stuff. Like I said, isn't this the whole purpose of ethics? To understand the logic of right living and then actually live it?

PROF: Maybe there's something for you in here...[takes a book off the shelf by some obscure philosopher] this would be a good counterpoint to Being and Time by Heidegger, which has some sections on the concept of genuinity, and might hit on the ideas you're talking about.

It didn't come close to what I was talking about, but by the time I got partway through my research, I had to commit to using Heidegger and all sorts of other obscure sources to argue a point I didn't even really want to make. It's a thirty page disaster, and is on file in my college library for posterity. It's proof that even when you pay thousands of dollars, education by others is always limited by their self-interest. If philosophy were actually simple, accessible, and understandable, then philosophy professors would have precious little time to explore irrational and non-functioning philosophies of the past. Plato, anyone? There are entire courses of study in college philosophy where at the end they say, "But everything we've taught you so far is bullshit and here's why." I wish someone had just passed out the bullshit detector on day one.

My paper was basically incomprehensible, and was ripped apart by my professors on presentation day. At first I couldn't believe they gave it a passing grade, but then realized that they were the same people who set me on the path to this complete nonsense. I considered myself an academic failure, and my idea as one that was either totally wrong or outside its time.

After college I studied up on rationality, and eventually found the novel The God of Athiests, by Stefan Molyneux. In this novel, there is a character who is a graduate student proposing a big new philosophical idea. His advisers respond in a similar way to mine. It's a lovely read otherwise, but contains an amazing breakdown of how and why postmodernist thought has disintegrated any hope of actually receiving a decent higher education in most modern universities. I learned more from this book for the price of a couple of DVDs than I did from thousands of dollars worth of credentialed and certified professional education.

It's amazing, the money you can save just by deriving your philosophy from first principles, using logic and the scientific method to test your ideas. It's lovely, the life you can live if you're tenacious about adjusting your actions to match that same philosophy...I'm only a fraction of the way there, but infinitely better off for it. It's astounding how few people attempt or accomplish this in life, and how infectious their disease can be.

Post number ones are never interesting...

...Until now! Oh wait, no. This one probably won't be too terribly interesting either. I'd just like to offer a bit of background before I get into all the this and that of my ideas. My name is Jason McLaughlin. I'm currently 26 years old and I live in Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. In college, I majored in literature and philosophy. This qualifies me to write a blog on my thoughts and ideas. The diploma certifies me to do little else (like make millions of dollars), I've found. I'm not explaining my education to give you a reason to trust everything I say, but just so that you can feel a bit more comfortable lending me your brain if you haven't pursued a similar course of study. After college, my senioritis continued for a year or two. I've picked philosophy back up in the past couple of years, and found some amazing new ideas that we didn't seem to touch on in enough (or any) detail while I was in college. It turned out to be exactly the sort of stuff I was trying to study, but was discouraged from pursuing by my professors. Hm...weird! But more on that later.

I try my best to work with logic and evidence of my senses to understand the world around me. In philosophy, this is traditionally called rational empiricism. This means I use logic and the scientific method to determine what is true. This way, I can be more sure that what I say is actually objectively true, and not simply a projections of my opinions as "truth." If you ever have any disagreement with my ideas, I'm perfectly willing to correct myself as long as I'm wrong in my understanding of the empirical facts or have made a misstep in logic. Thinking like this has led me to some interesting conclusions about life. I hope you stay along for the ride.

Any discussion of my understanding of philosophy would be lacking if I didn't mention Freedomain Radio. This is a podcast/vidcast/online discussion hosted by Stefan Molyneux. It's the most exciting discussion I've ever come across, and it's not only limited to philosophy! It's about philosophy, psychology, relationships, governments, religion, literature, human interaction, family...basically everything core to life. It's a lovely community of thoughts, and just so happens to be the best use of my time I've ever come across. Wow. What a ringing endorsement.

I have an interest in movies, television, video games, technology, and music which I'll bring my philosophy to bear on. And in a way more interesting way than in this first post. Post number ones are never interesting...