Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When does philosophy stop being an important tool to understand life and when does it become so much navel gazing?
I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you are getting at, but perhaps this will help: Philosophy, as such, never stops being an important mode of inquiry. What can happen, however, is that people attempting to think philosophically can fail to do so. The lines are not clear or sharp (there are grey areas), but the distinction between philosophical thinking and other forms of thinking is, nevertheless, significant. To think philosophically, you need to be sincerely seeking wisdom. Wisdom is more than a purely cognitive/intellectual state of mind; wisdom is a holistic integration of many forms of intelligence, including emotional intelligence. Everyone likes to point out that the word ‘philosophy’ literally mean ‘love of wisdom’, but notice the word ‘love’. To love something is to strive for it, to nurture it, to protect it, to cherish it – all of which boils down to value. A philosopher places high emotional/spiritual/cognitive value on the quest to achieve a way-of-being that integrates intellectual and emotional intelligence. It is not about just knowing X; it’s about experiencing the full value of knowing X.
Merely expressing an opinion is not philosophy, even if by some chance the opinion happens to be correct. Philosophy begins in wonder, but merely wondering about something does not make someone a philosopher. For philosophical thinking to happen, the thinking must be part of a journey – a quest for wisdom. Expressing an opinion can be a philosophical act, if the motivation for expression the opinion stems from the love of wisdom, both wisdom for oneself, and wisdom for the world at large. To love wisdom is to want to nurture wisdom whenever and wherever there is a chance for it to grow.
In bookstores and discussion groups, philosophy is often lumped together with religion. This is unfortunate. Certainly some religious thought can be philosophical, but the mere fact that a thought is religious does not make it philosophical. All too often, someone expressing a religious opinion is not, in fact, cognitively and emotionally open to the quest for wisdom. The significance of a quest is in the journey itself, and the outcome cannot be known in advance. If one starts on a quest already confident that “God” is the answer (or already confident that God cannot be the answer), then one is not thinking philosophically. The belief that one already knows the destination prior to the quest turns the exercise into an empty formality. The point of a quest is to learn, not to preach.
Thinking ceases to be philosophical when one’s imagination fails to grasp any credible alternatives to what one thinks must be the truth. This is not to say that a feeling of certainty is necessarily bad or wrong; it is just to say that such thoughts are no longer philosophical. They might be logical, scientific, religious, or purely practical, but they are not philosophical. Philosophy begins in wonder, and ceases when wonder comes to an end. Feelings of certainty (stemming from logic, science, spiritual intuition, or practical considerations) can be essential tools in philosophical thinking but, like any tool, their value is in their usefulness for a higher cause.
“Navel gazing” is typically associated with meditation. Meditation can be a form of philosophical inquiry – a form that generally focuses on the intuitive/emotional aspects of wisdom. If it fails to eventually incorporate cognitive/intellectual intelligence, then it fails to be philosophical, but here, again, this does not make it wrong or valueless. It can be an important tool for the philosopher.
I remember sitting with a couple of friends in college (all Philosophy majors) and we were just going off on unsolvable dilemmas and just things that couldn't be solved. That was one of the first times I remember my mind being physically drained from thinking too hard. I think it had to do with being unable to rectify Altruism or something. In any case we all agreed just to shut up and eat our lunch; to talk about girls or just something else.
Although I wouldn't call that really "navel gazing" I think there are definitely times and places and hierarchies as a more correct approach to certain problems.
I agree with a lot of what Galenwoof has to say. I think there is a lot of posturing and fluff out there, but most of academic philosophy and religious philosophy is pretty good at being rigorous, challenging and applicable to real life.
There is, in short, a lot of pretentiousness. Due in part to a lack of "formal" training. You have to be a genius (IMO) to self study in Philosophy or Religion. To start, I think we need great teachers to lead us, then we can follow our own path. Otherwise we'd be reading Nietzsche and thinking, "Yeah, God is Dead, man, right on..." Instead of really understanding what he meant or could have meant.
One I guess could argue in the opposite direction and state that the "microphilosophies" or studies in branches of certain fields in philosophy tend to be reductionist to the point of absurdity. But when you're talking to academics, that same form of argumentation; to whittle down challenge and rebuild arguments, over and over until the "best" one remains unchallenged is the point. And that fundamental belief, can still help us in everyday life by (hopefully) allowing us to make the right choices when it comes to buying groceries or picking the right car seat for our children.
Suppose each individual draws line somewhere different, insofar as finding their own balance of thought vs. action, preparation & rehearsal vs. leaping in and doing something, anything, just to do something.
It's not an answer that can be prescribed in a "one-size-fits-all" sense (how much & what sort of philosophizing to do), and the same can be said for philosophy (as a set of frameworks for interpretation) overall.
At least in how I consider & cogitate (be it via philosophy, psychology, behavioral economics, personal priorities/preferences/tolerances/aversions & attractions), it's fluid & dynamic, ever-shifting as the moment demands.
For me, it's not a question that lends itself to a static, concrete, tangible answer-it eludes assessment, along the lines of the Observer Effect/Uncertainty Principle.
When does philosophy stop being an important tool to understand life and when does it become so much navel gazing?
The line tends to blur. Especially if you actually understand what is being said. Which is to say that what you assume to be navel gazing might require a reassessment
When does philosophy stop being an important tool to understand life and when does it become so much navel gazing?
I think it depends on who you ask and what part of philosophy you are talking about. If it's politics you could say that it will never stop being important. Same if it's ethics. If you're talking about philosophy outside of government, law or business, there might be a problem. Finding out who we are and where we came from doesn't really seem profitable from a business standpoint. Maybe spiritual but not much else. You can't patent something like "I think therefore I am". You might be able to copyright it but still. these days it seems like people are only worried about what happened on The Real Housewives or some other show or pop culture icon and not where humanity will be going in the next thousand years. Of course philosophy might have a place in movies and TV if the creators are smart enough to put it into the plot in some way so I'm not sure.
When does philosophy stop being an important tool to understand life and when does it become so much navel gazing?
Perhaps it stops when knowledge and/or wisdom occurs. When one knows something, one stops thinking much about it. It just is. Then one retires to navel gazing to consider other subjects which are not known. In the process of gazing is a process about starting a new line of philosophizing - about what? how to begin? what stances are possible? which one is most interesting? Then gazing can stop and philosophy begins again. A third activity can be neither philosophy nor navel gazing, but still related - the act of appreciation. I apprehend this or that. No real thinking about it, just apprehending and appreciating - an outward gazing.
A related question might be "is contemplation philosophy or gazing?". How about when a mind contemplates itself?
Last edited by highplainsrus; 04-05-2013 at 04:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
