Let us try to understand the difference between philosophy as a quest for wisdom and knowledge from philosophy as a profession, as an academic subject. Can they co-exist? More than that, what does it mean to have a quest? A reader of ours asked me if one can be led astray in his enterprise, and then go with the wind. And there is no other answer than, Yes!, one can in fact get lost and lose view of what one aimed. As to the attitude, I am forced to think of it not in terms of progress, but as existing or not. Yet the course of action is clearly submitted to progress, and progress just means that there is a beggining and an end. A process is much like progress, although sometimes progress is not said as a course of action but as little achievements in this course, and then we can say that someone is making progress, or advancing, or still getting better (like in the Beatles song).
There are, then, two ways we can say what a quest is. As an attitude or as a course of action. Attitudes are the way in which people pose themselves towards situations or how they face their problems. Living each second as it goes by can be an ideal in a Buddhist’s life. And that can also be said a quest, if we think a person trying to act accordingly must make constant effort to concentrate herself in the here and now. However, there is not much to accomplish in this quest, unless the Buddhist replies to us saying that having self-control is much already. What is perhaps left to object is that his quest is not extrinsic to him. On the contrary, it is intrinsic. Even our quest being born out of ourselves, its object lies outside us. And this is not that interesting to the Buddhist who tries to avoid the content of his senses.
How then can a search for knowledge be better or worse if it is an attitude? In our definition, we can only say that an attitude is or is not. But if we are talking about a course of action, then it surely has degrees and one can undoubtly evaluate if he is making progress towards his goal or not. More than that, if that which the quest aims lies outside itself, then the distance one is from his quest has to be said shorter or longer.
As we talk of philosophy, however, I cannot think of a single case in which the final aim has been achieved completely. And that not even in the case of one of the most complete philosophers, Aristotle. Actually, not even the great Aquinas or the great Kant have achieved the final goal of “knowing it all”, which is in fact very unrealistic.
3 Comments
Hi.
As much as I like this discussion, I wouldn’t want to hijack your blog, or monopolize your attention. On the other hand, you were kind enough to write a post in response to me, so I feel that I shouldn’t abandon discussion now.
I must say that I’m not sure I have fully understood your new suggestion, though. Maybe you can help me (but, again, I don’t want to inconvenience you…). For you talk about philosophy as an attitude, and I’m not sure I understand what kind of attitude philosophy would be.
Your comparison with Buddhism does not really help me, for this reason: Buddhists are tempted to describe their quest as an attitude because (to put it paradoxically) their goal is to have no goal. That is, since they want to interrupt the cycle of rebirth, and since desire is what maintains it, they must divest themselves of all desires - even of the desire of not having a desire. That is, if their quest were not only an attitude, that would imply they do have a goal, which would imply they have some desire, which would, then, defeat the whole purpose… But philosophy does not seem to be like that!
Put more clearly, this is my worry: having a philosophical attitude may be necessary, but does not seem sufficient to actually do philosophy. It would be strange, I think, to say that somebody is a philosopher only because she has a philosophical attitude (and, really, how are we supposed to know that?).
(It now occurs to me, maybe the point of comparing philosophy with Buddhism was to say that philosophy is a kind of worldview, a subjective experience, or way-of-perceiving-the-world. But then I would ask what is distinctive of the *philosophical* way-of-perceiving-the-world, as opposed to the religious, scientific, or the layman’s.)
But, even if you’re right about philosophy being an attitude, it does not automatically follow it’s an on-and-off thing, which could not, then, be compared. Arguably, love is an attitude - but of a kind that admits of more and less; and different loves can be compared. But, if philosophy is love of wisdom, then it would seem that different people’s attitudes *could*, at least in principle, be compared…
Finally, just a quick remark about your last paragraph: it is true, of course, that knowing everything is extremely difficult (I’m not convinced, however, it is impossible); and, to the extent philosophers wanted to know *everything*, it is clear they failed (what it isn’t clear, however, is that they did want to know *everything*; arguably, they didn’t). But that doesn’t mean that comparing their efforts and results is, for that reason, hopeless. (I’m not saying you said that; but I’m not sure if that’s what you implied…)
Once again, thank you for your time, and for the interesting discussion.
Y.
The problem is I am not quite sure I understood your reply. But perhaps that is not a problem since you are not sure, either, if you understood what I said.
This leaves me with the singular option of not answering. Instead, I may only further some remarks about the subject here. What is certain to me is that philosophy is a quest, and it is a loving one; and also that there is not a quest if a corresponding attitude is not found.
I even agree with you when you say philosophy being an attitude is not quite a qualification. Said that, I think this attitude is the starting point of a long journey in which it must be put in command.
All the arguments I used and the purpose of the texts I wrote can, perhaps, be summarized in a simple distinction: the academical attitude is opposed to the philosophical one in a big way.
When I mentioned the Buddhist efforts to turn his senses off I was trying to differentiate the quest and the attitude necessary in philosophy from common clichés immanent to the way “intellectual masses” often see philosophy. Wise men are not philosophers, for the latter seek wisdom when the former are supposed to have already achieved it.
Yet, I shall say I have much difficulty answering to your main objection, that is, the one that says an attitude is not enough. You are right. Now I see all I have to say to you is simply (and disappointedly) that the persevering attitude might be my only reply to you.
I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear; however, I do think you grasped the gist of what I was saying, and your reply was fair. I’m not sure whether we should carry on our back-and-forth, or if it’s better to leave it as it is. For I bet you have different interest you’d like to pursue - and I’d surely be interested to read about other stuff you have to say.
For the time being, I’d like to thank you for your time and for the discussion; and I’d like to wish you good luck on your philosophy quest and on your Philosophy Quest.
Till next time,
Y.