Finding the archetypal voice of philosophy

There have been numerous philosophers since the fifth century BC. They tried to interpret and define the meaning of life and various other issues connected with it. Some of their theories are not easy to understand. Most of the time there are many disagreements among them. To borrow a conceit from Soren Kierkegaard, there is no final conclusion about the nature of philosophy.

In the welter of eastern and western philosophy, philosophers have argued about particular issues and “meta-issues” without coming to any conclusion. As discussed in these columns, 20th century philosophers have begun to accuse others who lived in the past calling them non-philosophers. Although disagreements are common in any field of study, accusing each other of not being philosophers is mind boggling.

Today existentialists condemn idealists and post-modernists have no regard for the former. Analytical philosophers do not see eye to eye with Continental philosophers. It is strange but true that some philosophers have even questioned the very foundation of philosophy. In an address to the American Philosophy Association, Kai Nielsen said, “There is no defending the tradition. Systematic analytic philosophy and its Continental cousins along with their historical ancestors must be given up.”

Quest

Such extremist views may baffle even those who wish to study philosophy. For instance, Ven Baddegama Samitha Thera, an avid reader of philosophy, said nothing would stop him in his quest for truth, knowledge and meaning of life. For such people who are exploring the web of knowledge, most philosophers are of little help. Petty squabbling among philosophers has led to more confusion than harmony.

One reason for this uncertainty in philosophical views is the immense faith in science and technology. Human life has been reduced to biochemistry. Maybe some philosophers have been trying to define abstract issues scientifically. Specialised techniques used in science may not work properly in philosophy. How can anyone define the meaning of life or man’s place in the universe scientifically?

Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger were aware of the 20th century crisis in philosophy. In fact, they tried to save philosophy using prophetic and poetic words at times. Whether Wittgenstein or Heidegger would stand the test of time is another matter. But we should be thankful to them for their attempt to find the archetypal voice of philosophy. At times, even if they sound nonsensical, we must remember that they are telling us something important. If you care for such issues then you are on your way to become at least a wayside philosopher.

Myth

The myth that philosophy is only for brilliant and eccentric thinkers has been exploded. Most of us are potential thinkers in our own right. Haven’t we wondered what life and the universe mean to us? We are not sure whether there is life after death despite religious teachings. Although we are not philosophers per se, humans are inquisitive creatures. We are also intellectually equipped to reason why certain things occur. Although we do not realise it, most of the time we think philosophically.

Philosophy does not expect us to find answers to all the pressing problems in life. What matters is the process of finding the answers. Our method of approach may not be sophisticated. While philosophers discuss their theories, we share our views with friends and relatives. Great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle encouraged their students to disagree with what they taught. If we can do the same with our listeners and readers, we are on our way to become thinkers.

If anybody wishes to have a role model to be a thinker, the best archetypal philosopher is Socrates. He did not commit his philosophy to writing. He also did not come out with sophisticated ideas. He is perhaps the wisest man who ever lived on earth because he said that he did not know anything. If one philosopher disagrees with another, we should not think that philosophy has come to a dead end. On the contrary, such disagreements provoke more discussion and generate fresh ideas.