Thoughts on Philosophy

I'm taking a philosophy course this semester. Today's reading was Existenzphilosophie by Jaspers (German, 1883-1969).

While reading, I was struck with the thought that maybe philosophers are limited in their scope and viewpoint. Everything is looked at from a philosophical view, an attempt to tell the whole world they are doing things wrong. They assume flaw, then search until they find that which strikes them as flawed. The whole system, so far as I can tell, has a negative turn and bias (maybe this is the fault of my professor and my past experience with philosophy?). In their quest for truth, have they ever found people to be doing something right? We must be right in some things, because not only do they work, but they make us happy (in my opinion, that's the point: to be happy).

That's not to say philosophy is a waste -- I just think it is voluntarily blind to some things. Why try to define everything in philosophical terms, why bind it down in the philosophical world? I see this only making sense if one's religion is philosophy itself.

Philosophy is meant to be a means to the end, not the end itself. That's the thesis of this post, you could say.

This is the book I was reading from,
if you want to read Jaspers (and others)
for yourself.

One thing I liked was Jasper's line, "The real import of history is the Great, the Unique, the Irreplaceable." I have always felt something to be missing from the commonly taught explanation that history is taught so we don't repeat our mistakes. Again a negative aspect of the thing. Jaspers made me realize we teach and learn history so we can learn to be great and also come to understand the present. We are characters in a story -- how are we to understand our place in it if we don't know what came before, and how are we supposed to be heroes in any sense if we don't have examples to look to? I like this reasoning much better. All three are correct, I feel, but these two new reasons are what I would prefer to be biased toward in my view of the whole.

But should I have any bias? I think it impossible to not, since I am biased by my viewpoint. My experiences and sphere of current understanding necessitate bias. My viewpoint -- the wording itself acknowledges bias.

That is something Jaspers recognizes, actually, while discussing Kierkegaard and Nietzche: "... Authentic knowing is ... nothing but interpretation. They ... understood their own thought as interpretation." He goes on to say, "... Temporal life can therefore never be correctly understood by men." It is nice to see philosophy acknowledge its limitations -- I guess the problem, for me, is that it pretends to have no limitations and assumes it is the road to real truth for any question. Okay, and if you define "philosophy" as deep thought in general, then I'd agree. But how has philosophy come to be defined, as a study? One cannot study "deep thought." That is an individual practice augmented with communication (another Jaspers concept), communication providing outside stimulus and viewpoints (in a limited fashion). I mean to ask how the field of study is defined.

In that sense, what is philosophy? Am I being taught how to think, as is alleged, or what to think, and what to think about? I feel as if philosophers are paving roads of thought I am told to walk down in pursuance of truth. Did they find it, by forging their trail and paving that road? Some, but not all. So why must I follow it, to find only old truth that I already know (or can easily read) or come to their same dead-end conclusions? That makes no sense.

Would it not be best for me to forge my own trail (I cannot completely follow/understand other trails, anyway, as both Jaspers and Nietzche pointed out), then look to philosophers for help through those areas already plowed, as I plow them anew, for myself, coming to my own understanding? My own philosophy is more important than others', as it is the only one that will affect my actions (I could explain the reasoning here, but I'll skip it). This places my thoughts above any philosopher's, and I can (and should) look to them when I am pursuing a question they addressed (see my plowing metaphor).

Here's a truth: The more I care about a question, the more I will pursue its corresponding truth. That truth, once found, will mean more to me than if I had cared less. The search would have also added understanding to it -- and understanding no philosophic text can impart, because it will have its roots in my own being. It cannot be transplanted, only shown. And no one else will have that same understanding, for no one else is me.

Conclusion: Fiction is really the best thing ever. I'll have to talk about this more later, but fiction is a way for someone to find their own answers to their own questions and come to understand them, all without having to experience it firsthand. Philosophy thinks and then tries to give direct answers, but that is not the best method to convey truth, since it isn't the best way to learn.


P.S. - My philosophy professor today defined philosophy as a way of life that consists of one trying to figure out how to live the best life (by thinking and looking at past ideas and practices) and following one's theories to that end.