THE ENTHUSIASM AND PLIIGHT OF A BEGINER IN PHILOSOPY
INTRODUCTION
Philosophy is a
noble enterprise that makes a sincere effort to explain things in terms of
their first principles. Many a scholar see it as the love of wisdom; the making
friend with understanding. If this is the case, then everyone who is a
philosopher presumes a very high position of taking themselves to task on
giving at least satisfactory answers to questions that the human experience
generates. The philosopher then, apart from being seen as a problem-solver, or
problem-discoverer, is expected to do so much as not lead people astray. This
system of reasoning of been looked upon as a man who knows at least some
answers and who has to give the world answers that do not lead it to ruin
leaves in the philosopher and more so, the beginner in philosophy an extreme
persistent and untiring enthusiasm that is almost always tempered by attendant
plights. Thus, while they are enthused to help, they face serious plights.
The one is interested in the enthusiasm of a
beginner in philosophy. The other is concerned with the plight of this same
individual. These are the two questions we need to answer; it is to the task of
reflecting on these questions that the present discourse is concerned. In order
to systematize our approach, we shall proceed as follows: first, we shall
reflect on what the enthusiasm of a beginner in philosophy consist in. Then we
shall reflect on the definition of Philosophy itself. Then we shall also look
at the plight of a beginner in this noble discipline. But it might not be
inappropriate to, at the beginning of this work, attempt stating this system of
reasoning (dialectic).
DIALECTIC
STATEMENT ATTEMPTED
Again,
there is this urges that is present in the beginners of any endeavor. At times,
they cannot, just wait to start. For them, it should begin instantly. This is
also the case with those beginning in the study of philosophy. There was this
young lady who applied to study philosophy in National Open University of
Nigeria (NOUN). She could not persevere through the admission process, since
her name was not in the first list. She was so worried. She wanted to start immediately.
What really cause her to be in this state of excitement? There have been many
like her. What could be the source of them being delighted? In other words,
what is it that gets the beginner in philosophy so enthused in the study?
Now,
apart from the excitement of beginning to study philosophy, beginners soon find
out that there are things that are not what they seemed from afar; that there
are dangers to them as beginners; that there are perennial problems that this
noble course launches them into. They soon discover that their premature wings
cannot stand the high flying of this seemingly simple discipline. That good
friend of mine later got the opportunity to study philosophy and soon some
Old things started cooling her initial
zeal. She started asking questions that she, herself, could not answer. Whether
the beginner likes it or not, she makes a new discovery. She has started out on
a journey of discovering the real thing about being. A journey, that leaves her
vulnerable to anything. Thus, she is plighted with a myriad of things. The
question can then be asked: what is the plight of a beginner in Philosophy? Or
better, what are those things that constitute the plight of a beginner in
Philosophy? From the foregoing we can adduce that for beginners in the
enterprise of philosophy the enthusiasm and plight that they feel and
experience respectively, are not entirely separate from each other. We could
also say that the enthusiasm and plight of a beginner in philosophy both
constitute the faces of a coin. So, whenever we speak of the zeal a beginner,
especially in philosophy, has, it presupposes something else that tempers that
zeal. It might not be unfitting now to briefly consider the nature of
philosophy, the thing itself that causes so much excitement and constitute a
problem for its beginners.
WHAT IS
PHILOSOPHY?
AN
OVERVIEW
It has been said
that one answer cannot sufficiently satisfy the requirement of the question of
what Philosophy is. In fact, many agree that as many as there are philosophers
so are there definitions. Philosophers themselves agree that the definition of
Philosophy is itself a philosophical problem. Whatever way the debate goes, we
shall attempt the question. There are two senses from which we could consider
the nature of Philosophy. There is the strict sense, or what some have called
formal Philosophy and there is the loose sense. Looking at Philosophy from a
loose sense, one could say it is a way of approaching life and the human condition.
It is one’s outlook of life. Hence, an individual can speak of his/ her
Philosophy of life. However, we could also speak of Philosophy in its strict
sense. It has been said to be the love of wisdom, as derived from the
etymology: philos, a Greek word which
means “love”, and Sophia, another
Greek word which means “wisdom.” “Philosophy…is
the critical, normally systematic study of an unlimited range of ideas and
issues.”[1] A
lecture present by Jim Unah on Philosophy and Logic identifies a variety of predicates and attributes of Philosophy to
include: the love of wisdom; the search for reality; the search for truth; the
search for value or the search for the best form of life; the rational study of
Nature; the critical discussion of received ideas; and the concern with human
existence.[2] Thus,
we can say that Philosophy is wonder at and attention paid to the nature of
things.
The word
‘Philosophy’ means the study of wisdom and by ‘wisdom’ is meant not only
prudence in our everyday affairs but also a perfect knowledge of all things
mankind is capable of knowing, both for the conduct of life and for
preservation of health and the discovery of all manner of skills.[3]
Philosophy has also been defined as the
critical discussions of received ideas. Some even agree that it is the critical
discussion of all critical discussions. It can be said to be humanity’s attempt
to understand the mystery that seems to enshroud life. Furthermore, it can be
noticed that there are two things that cuts across virtually every definition
of Philosophy. These two things are: rationality and that element of
criticality. While the element of criticality is not always present when
Philosophy is spoken of in its loose sense, the strict sense of Philosophy
embodies the two basic elements for the definition of Philosophy. It is this
inclusion of criticality into the definition of Philosophy that makes it quite
a problem to accept some views concerning its nature. Again, it seems to be the
case that Philosophers define Philosophy according as cases present themselves
to them. But as aforementioned, there are a lot of debates and ours is not the
concern to look into these but to briefly note that while it is true that
Philosophers do not agree as to a universal definition of Philosophy, every
definition seems to contain elements which indicate that Philosophy is a
rational enterprise that involves critical analysis of received ideas.
It
has been divided into five core areas to include: metaphysics, logic,
epistemology, aesthetics/ axiology and ethics. This division is however, not
exhaustive. Like any other human endeavour, philosophy has a history.
Historically, there are four eras from which philosophy can be considered.
There is the ancient, the medieval, the modern and the contemporary era of
philosophy. Each of these eras had their own philosophical concern. Ours, in
this discourse, is to concern ourselves with how philosophy can and does excite
and become a matter of concern for its beginners. But, which philosophy has a
beginning? With this question, we now turn our attention to a different sense
of the term, philosophy.
PHILOSOPHY
AS A FIELD OF DISCIPLINE
Now, if our
discussion on the central topic of the enthusiasm and plight of a beginner in
Philosophy is going to be fruitful, we ought to make sure that justice is done
to certain concerns like: who is a beginner in philosophy? When and how does philosophy
start? In other words, does philosophy actually begin and if so, why so? What philosophy is this that has a beginning?
A close look at these questions apparently reveals a systemic hiatus in our
definitions so far. For if we are speaking of a beginner in philosophy, we have
to be able to establish what is meant by philosophy in that sense of being not
just a rational enterprise but one that has a specific time it begins. By and
large, it might be a blow on the innate rational ability of humans to assume
that there is a time when they “begin” to rationalize; to think, which
presupposes that there was a time this process was not carried out. Nevertheless,
the philosophy about which we speak as “beginning” is that course, which in
present day society is, taught in institutions of learning to enable students
have a wider outlook of life, to teach them how to live a life that is worth
living. In fact, Descartes would boast that “the greatest good that a state can
enjoy is to possess true philosophers.”[4]
So, we could say that it is a course introduced into the formal education of
individuals who would be furnished with the tools to make the world a better place.
Bertrand Russell would say that:
Philosophy,
like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at
is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the
sciences, and the kind which results from the critical examination of the
grounds of our convictions, prejudices and beliefs.[5]
Thus, in this sense, we speak of philosophy
as a subject of studies. Now, it is in this sense that we speak when, in this
discourse, we use the term, “beginner in philosophy.” A beginner in philosophy
is, therefore, one who begins or has begun the study of Philosophy as it is
taught in institutions of learning or dealt with within academic circles.
Furthermore,
we might still want to ask questions like: when did philosophy begin to be
recognized as a subject of study? This question might lead us back to many
centuries ago to the origin of the word “philosophy”- φιλοσ (philos) and σοφία (Sophia), two
Greek words which combine to form the one word, philosophia – the love of wisdom. The introduction of this word has
been attributed to the ancient Greek thinker, Pythagoras. However, we could say
that after Socrates came some philosophers who organized a corpus of what they
thought and taught to be the truth. The Greek/ Western history of philosophy
bear witness that it was after Socrates that academies were founded and
interested individuals went to study philosophy. From this time forward,
probably excluding Plato, there was a shift from philosophy as a way of the
best life to philosophy as a subject of study. Of this position William Barrett
observes that:
The profession of
philosophy did not always have the narrow and specialized meaning it now has.
In ancient Greece it had the very opposite: instead of a specialized
theoretical discipline, philosophy was a concrete way of life, a total vision
of man and the cosmos in the light of which the individual's whole life was to
be lived. These earliest philosophers among the Greeks were seers, poets,
almost shamans -- as well as the first thinkers.[6]
Hence, we see that philosophy in the
Pre-Socratic and during the Socratic times was more of a vocation than a
profession, a way of life rather than a means of livelihood. The beginning of
philosophy to which we refer is therefore, this Post-Socratic epoch that has
spanned through centuries to date. It is philosophy in this sense that we speak
of as causing excitement in its beginners. This excitement is almost always
tempered by certain troubles they face in this noble study and after our
discussion so far, we now turn to a reflection of this enthusiasm and plight.
THE ENTHUSIASM AND PLIIGHT OF A BEGINER IN
PHILOSOPY
As
we have noted already, the enthusiasm and plight of a beginner in philosophy both
make up the two sides of a coin. They are two sides of one thing that affect
each other. We tried to establish this dialectic earlier on. Thus, we shall
consider these two, side by side. To begin with philosophy, even as a course of
study, promises to make the beginner a wise person. Someone, who is free
indeed, but, is this always the case? Its beginners almost often find that
there seems to be a lot to make them wise only to themselves and thus, make
them irrelevant to those around them. Rather than being truly free, some soon
discover that they are merely automatons with inbuilt dogmatic teachings of men
who seem to have a claim to what is. We could say that the problem herewith is
the case of some students having certain unqualified and nominal philosophers
give them what they think philosophy is. This is so because one can almost
always associate inordinate dogmatism with superficiality of knowledge. Hence,
one who does not know much about a given state of affairs tends to know enough
to make others believe that they do know what they actually do not know.
Besides, many a beginner in
philosophy thinks that they come to have some definitive answers to their deep
questionings. Thus, they accept the many opinions of the many philosophical
stalwarts. They even begin to consider that philosophy offers the best answers.
While this is not untrue, they soon realize that philosophy does not answer
their questions, the way they thought. There seems to be so many opinions to
the same questions, some contrary and others contradictory. Again, the many
answers leave them with an even bigger task of synthesizing these opinions. What
is more? Such a difficulty can launch them into the paralyzing province of unhealthy
skepticism.
The
beginner in philosophy also ventures into this noble endeavor with a view to
immediately be able to articulate their views whenever necessary. The claim is
that philosophy gives one a holistic view of reality. There is this curiosity
in the beginner to want to grasp without control every, and anything that
appears to fulfill this claim. The rather shocking thing is that they realize
with utter dismay that their opinions have to undergo serious scrutiny and, in
fact, meet certain standards, to pass as being philosophical. The beginner in
philosophy faces the constraints of learning how to write philosophical essays,
which often times take a rather different approach to the ones they are
conversant with. They become rather self-conscious of their speech to avoid
fallacies. They soon discover that to be philosophical they have to learn to be
critical. And where caution is not the watchword their criticisms become
destructive. Here also lies the danger of seeming to be judgmental and
notoriously cynical. Furthermore, there is the expectation that philosophy
makes one state their views more explicitly. The claim is that the philosopher
speaks unambiguously. Thus, the beginners commit themselves to learn to speak
without ambiguity. Yet, they discover, soon enough, that virtually every opinion
they put forward becomes a matter of serious argumentation. This might even
have to involve strong polemics. In fact, some have agreed that philosophy is
by itself polemical.
Even
when philosophy promises clarity of opinions regarding reality, young
philosophers become increasingly aware that they have to belong to a certain
school of thought. Why is a school of thought necessary, when we know that what
it proposes is only a tip of the iceberg as far as reality is concerned? This
is more disheartening especially when they know that the many opinions are not
completely at variance with one another- they are different sides to the same
story; they are different ways of looking at the same thing. Oftentimes too,
the beginner has so much to say. They have so many ideas. They even feel they
are aware of what the ancients have observed. But they are foreclosed and/or
discouraged by their deficiency in philosophy registers and the constant
reminder that they are just beginning.
Philosophy
like many other human endeavors has many ancestors. There is this excitement
that can come from a certain familiarity with these ancestors through their
works. They are especially useful as authorities. Their contributions have gone
a long way to make philosophy what it is today. The mere mention of the names
of men like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes,
Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell and Husserl, to mention a few, in academic
circles, carries much weight than can be said or written in encyclopedias. However,
their works might pose some constraint on the beginners in Philosophy to begin
to familiarize themselves with the works of these men. There is the constraint
of language, as most of their works were written in languages alien to
beginners. And even where there are translations, there might remain something
of the original idea not completely stated in the translation. The ideas of
these men might sometimes seem too deep for beginners, yet Russell would
recommend that:
The student who
wishes to acquire an elementary knowledge of philosophy will find it both
easier and more profitable to read some of the works of the great philosophers
than to attempt to derive an all-round view from hand books.[7]
And Descartes would proclaim loudly that:
Those
who have absorbed my opinions find it much easier to understand and recognize
the true value of other people’s writings than those who have not absorbed my
views.[8]
WHY THE
EXUBERANCE?
But
what could be the cause of the excitement of beginners in philosophy? From what
has been said so far, there seems to be points of weaknesses that constitute
the mirage of immediate fulfillment with
its consequent disappointment for the young philosopher. Philosophy is a
noble discipline and one that ought to be well represented. It is a culture; a
way of life; a vocation. It is an active and rational endeavour that ought to
offer its practitioners some concrete directions for life. The dimension we
took in our discussion on the enthusiasm and plight of beginners in this
discourse is one that is characterized by a myopic view of the value of
philosophy. It seems almost indubitable that beginners in philosophy do not
really comprehend the value of philosophy and this can become the basis for
their myopia and shallow expectations. Thus, it appears to be the case that
they oftentimes get excited, because they are not patient enough to accept
philosophy as a way of life; an attitude to living, even though it is taught in
school. They come into it expecting fast results. It is puerile to behave as
such and one could say that it is little wonder one finds such attitudes among
“young” philosophers.
Furthermore,
there might be another side to the story. It might be the case that there is a
poor representation of what philosophy is. In which case there are little or no
witnesses. In other words, there are many who claim to be philosophers and
rather a few who are really philosophers.
Hence, we can say that the beginners in philosophy get excited at times
because there are not enough credible witness to the truth that philosophy is,
that is, there are not many true philosophers. Here, we can say, lies a serious
homework for philosophers.
CONCLUSION
The study of philosophy
has always been looked with so many feelings. In fact, in some administrative
districts, it is verboten. Yet, we need to agree that it is a course to opine
with. However, there is a certain kind of elation accompanied with some compels
it puts in its beginners. In this discourse, we have tried to reflect on these
and have come to see that it is most probably a case of occurence of myopia, on
the part of beginners and not living up to their calling, on the part of some philosophers,
that is at the heart of the so much excitement of beginners in philosophy. We
have also noted that some constraints also emerge from this convergence as well
as from philosophy itself. And the battleground for this duel is the innocence
of the beginner in philosophy. This has been the subject of our discourse so
far.
[1] R. Audi, “Philosophy”, Encyclopedia of Philosophy vol. 9 ed. R.
Borchert, 2006 ed., p.325
[2] Cf. Jim Unah, Lectures on Philosophy and Logic (Lagos:
Fadec Publisher, 2010), p.4
[3] J. Cottingham et al, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985), p.179
[4] J. Cottingham et al, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes,
p.180
[6] William Barrett (1958), “Irrational Man”, Philosophical Society.com, http://philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Philosophers'%20Role%20In%20Society.htm, (1 Jan. 2014). Here is a
serious inquiry into the relevance of present-day philosophers. It seems to be
that the more they are cloistered by the classroom, the less they are able to
witness to the ideal of philosophy qua philosophy.
Comments
Post a Comment