"(Laughs)"
(In his defense, that was quite a loaded question).
Aaron Ridley, Head of Research and Postgraduate Admissions Tutor of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Southampton. And he's British. I could Philosophize with him all day, if you know what I mean.
Just so we're clear, I'm kidding. But he is sorta attractive, in an old man sort of way. Anyway, moving on.
Ahem, now that I've gotten the formalities out of the way, you may actually be wondering about our group's spirited discussion on what we think Philosophy means. And the truth (haha, truth) that we arrived at is that it's what you make of it. It's something that you define and discover and build up on your own, and it's about using that awesome brain of yours to figure out the secrets about the state of the world. In a sense, it is the ultimate, never-ending quest for knowledge that you'll never find for a prize that you'll never know.
So, what's at the core of this quest for knoweldge? It is the truth, and by invoking the truth in such a outrageous manner we have possibly invoked the infinitude of infinitudes. Because you see, the reason we philosophize in the first place is because we quest for knowledge about the processes of our world that Science fails to explain. It's like Science and Philosophy are ill-fated lovers, and while Philosophy loves to flirt with Science ALL the time, Philosophy just doesn't quite fit Science's methods. While Science is something that is rooted in fact and in the eventual creation of tried-and-true scientific laws, it just can't weigh in on things like why people use performing-enhancing drugs to improve themselves at sports. The two...just aren't compatible, and like human nature in general, it is something that certainly can't be rooted down in fact.
Science is on the left. Philosophy is on the right. See that drink? It's going to be all over his shirt by the end of the night. And the stains that are going to be on that bad boy? It's going to be hideous.
So, while Philosophy CAN in fact be based on...well, facts, the conclusions that many theories or ideas come to just simply can't be ever proven scientifically to be a fact, or even tested in a scientific manner, for all it's worth. So, can philosophy ever discover the truth about anything? Or can philosophers ever claim to know the truth about anything? Probably not. But you can certainly believe that the the journey for the truth, the journey for any truth, can and will make you an exponentially better person, and at the very least, a person who is more enlightened about themselves and others in the wide, wide world around them. It's a personal struggle...but, I think you can do it. You never know what you may discover along the way.
My name is Morgan Hunlen. And for the next undetermined period of time, I would be happy to have you along with my yet-to-be-named group (Group 1 for now) and it's group mates Zachary Hutcherson, Quinlan Odom, Trevor Smith, and Logan Whiles on our own journeys to discover the truth. I hope you have as much fun as we do. :)
(EDIT: By the way, were in Honors Section 1, or H-01 for shorthand).
Extra Freebies (I'm already not getting paid for this, so yes, it's extra. But since you're my loyal fans, I can give a small discount).
Something to Chew On - A lot of people in our class brought up Jesus Christ as their favorite philosopher. But, going by the definition of philosophy and, by extension, a philosopher listed above, can Jesus Christ really be labeled as philosopher? Assuming you're a Christian, and you take His word to be truth for all of humanity, can he be a philosopher if He already has and is preaching the truth? We said he wasn't, but what do you guys think?
BONUS!!! - So, does that make leader figures, such as priests or pastors, the real philosophers since they're the one's interpreting God's and other deities' words? Don't talk to the screen, post your comments below!
Factoid Puzzler of the Day - True or False: There is always one true answer to all of life's question that philosophy can answer.
Answer: False!
What, Hungry for More Philosophy? - I have you covered today. Michael Rea of Notre Dame University reviews Jesus and Philosophy: New Essays by Paul Moser and discuss (at great length) what the book's contributors think about the topic. Check it out for yourselves, if you want to learn more on the topic.
Very entertaining post, Morgan, and parts of it may even be true!
ReplyDeleteMoser was a classmate of mine at Vandy, btw.
My 2 cents: Jesus was a philosopher, with a "divine" (but not a supernatural) message.
Taking Intro to Philosophy and Intro to Psychology at the same time leads to some interesting cross-overs. Your post made me think of what we learned yesterday in Pysch about Rationalism, the idea that you can find "truth" without actual data or experimentation, by simply reasoning it out. Although the scientific method and much of modern Science With A Capital S is based on the competing idea of Empiricism, that doesn't necessarily obviate the idea of philosophers simply being Rationalist scientists.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the way you made this so entertaining Morgan. I'm really glad you're our author. I really liked the extra tidbits of info you threw in there as well. They really built upon what we discussed.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, Morgan! In our short discussions yesterday, we very loosely defined philosophy as attempting to obtain Truth and wisdom through knowledge. I believe Jesus, the everlasting God and Creator of all, is not a philosopher because He who is Truth, who is wisdom, and who is knowledge, has no need to strive for it through the medium of philosophy; He already knows Himself. While we created humans can choose to have a relationship with our Creator and then be with Him for eternity, we will never reach that level of understanding of His greatness. Philosophy is one of many tools given to us by God to better understand Him - He has no need for it.
ReplyDeleteH1 Group 4
Firstly, awesome job, Morgan. We definitely picked the right man for the author's position. I'm pretty pleased with the fact that we've already had some great discussion so early in the semester. I think it's really interesting that Christians have been known to refer to Jesus as their favorite philosopher, when He actually can't really be labeled as one if that Christian truly believes in His word. I'm right on board with you, though, Keaton. I think the whole thing is a really cool and humbling concept. Once again, great job, Morgan.
ReplyDeleteH1 Group 1
Excellent work Morgan! You are setting the bar here for the H1 authors. One question that arises when I read the section
ReplyDelete"So, can philosophy ever discover the truth about anything? Or can philosophers ever claim to know the truth about anything? Probably not. But you can certainly believe that the the journey for the truth, the journey for any truth, can and will make you an exponentially better person, and at the very least, a person who is more enlightened about themselves and others in the wide, wide world around them."
How do we know we are "better people" if we can't measure up to anything? Also followup, Enlightenment refers to discovering truth, but how can we know what is definitely "true" when exploring philosophy?
Just some quick questions I wanted to ask everyone.
@MyboiLinton: The answer is no....but how can I know that? and...we can't know we are better people.......... but how can I know that? I can't...... but how can I know that? I can't.......but how can I know that? I can't......etc.
DeleteLoving Philosophy.
First of all I’d like to say wow and I mean wow. Morgan, that was an amazing summary! So glad that you are the author!
ReplyDeleteNow I can go onto my “floater” tale. Well it began by getting beat by Trevor and Logan in rock, paper, scissors as we all know. However, I didn’t let my loss hinder the experience. As my group continually reminded me, it was a way for me to meet new people (I don’t know if you all have noticed but you all know each other already). With that nod of encouragement from my group I floated on to Group Two.
I really enjoyed Group Two. Keaton brought up a very interesting notion that got me thinking. In philosophy, can a person believe in two ideas which are polar opposites? Would that mean, to be a true philosopher, you could believe one thing but not the other? I don’t believe so. I think you can choose which to believe or, simply, you can believe both. For example, believing in God and believing in Science. There is, at times, a war raging between the two. That doesn’t mean a Christian can’t believe in Evolution though. What it means is that a person has to open-minded to the margining and creation of beliefs. The idea of being open to change was one that popped up in each group I floated to.
Group Three was very talkative! When I got there they had been discussing whether or not everyone uses philosophy whether or not they realize it. In a sense, everyone does use philosophy. Every person questions at least one of their beliefs at one point, whether or not they realize it (not to say this is a universal truth, which we also discussed). To question anything, really, is to begin to try and discover its truth. Which brings me to the subject of universal truth, is there one/any? What was concluded (with the help of Dr. Oliver) was that there is no universally acknowledged truth.
Ahh Group Four, the group where I found someone I actually knew! This is the group where the topic of open-mindedness really came into play. Is being too open-minded (if that exists) a good or bad thing? Does that lead to always “flip-flopping” around on your beliefs? Well, I don’t believe in the possibility of being too open-minded. Looking at scenarios from every different angle you can find is a great skill, one to practice often. If re-examining your belief changes it then so be it. One person argued that to constantly be “flip-flopping” was to have no passion for the subject. I strongly disagree. If you are always considering an issue or belief, always analyzing it, and always find its “truth” then you are more passionate about that subject than just accepting one stance. This brought up what Philosophy is between two people. Can you philosophize with a close-minded person who is unwilling to even listen to your views? As Dr. Oliver said: “Philosophy is an equal exchange between equal partners.” How can an equal exchange occur when someone else believes their beliefs and themselves above you and yours?
Again, as Dr. Oliver said: “But I could be wrong.”
H1 Group 1
Great post. I am reminded of a sentence in The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milam Kundera: "We can never know what to want, because, living only one life, we can neither compare it with our previous lives nor perfect it in our lives to come." I think the same can be applied to truth. We will never know what truth really is, having nothing against which to measure it. However, rather than identifying between a dichotomy of what is true and what is not—as if everything was either one or the other—philosophy explores what we mean when we say "truth." Simply, we could say that what is real is true. But if only life were that simple. As you have written, we probably won't ever know what truth really means, let alone capture it. Socrates found it hard to believe that he was the wisest man in Athens, for he claimed he knew nothing. But isn't that what precisely made him the wisest—the acknowledgement of all that he did not know? So it seems that truth can neither be applied to the presence or the absence of our understanding. What we are searching for isn't the truth versus the untruth, for then we would have to know what constituted the two. It is not a case of black and white. The most we know for sure is that truth has weight only when it is recognized.
ReplyDelete(I'm sorry in advance for the incoherence of this post. I've been awake for a long time and will probably regret it tomorrow.)
DeleteGreat Post Morgan! I thought this accurately captured our conversations, and then expanded upon it even further. I think the entire questions of what or who we are measuring up to is important in the sense that it is independent of others. As a society, we can have a social norm or a figure head, but in actuality, we compare ourselves to what we personally believe to be the higher truth or enlightened state. I believe as a human population, we are striving for understanding and direction in our lives, but truthfully, we are trying to amount to something that is defined within ourselves. Long story short, we are who we want ourselves to be, and just because society compares itself to one standard, each person measures his or herself up to their own personal idol. My two cents.
ReplyDelete