To Experience Why Philosophy Has A Role…
…just assume good intention, good motivation, accuracy in appearance - or don't and never worry about thinking.
Imagine that you are watching two loved ones fight. There are two options: first, assume they are mean or foolish. At this point, there is nothing else to think about: they are mean and foolish, and they need to stop acting that way. But let’s consider the second option: assume they have good intentions and that they love one another. Oh, well that changes things. How is it that people who love one another can fight? How is it that people can come to believe conflict and disagreement is “good for them?” Notice how with this second options we have a lot of thinking to do…(For more, see “Assuming the Best” by O.G. Rose.)
Imagine we are looking at a bookcase. There are two options: first, assume our idea of the bookcase has nothing to do with the actual bookcase. At this point, there’s nothing else to think: we cannot access “the thing-in-itself.” But let’s consider the second option: assume that the appearance of the object and phenomenon have something to do with one another. Well, now we have to ask how the appearance and the actuality interrelate, at what point the appearance intersects with the actuality, and how reliable our “assessment” of that relation is — a whole world of questions opens up…(For more, see The Absolute Choice by O.G. Rose.)
There are certain assumptions that we can hold (perhaps without realizing it) that changes the likelihood that we realize philosophy has a role to play, and if we don’t want to worry about philosophy (as our frenemy brains might not), then there might be an incentive to make those assumptions. But for me, assuming that people have good intentions (even when they act wrongly), and assuming that my experience of the world has something to do with it, are two examples of changes in thinking that totally transform how the world presents itself to me. I suddenly have a lot more thinking to do, thinking which might only be possible in philosophy.
Whenever we do philosophy though, we are always at risk of falling into what Wittgenstein called “a language game,” so it’s very important we stay phenomenological and base our philosophy on “things we witness” versus technical systems we create. Sure, technical systems can add value, but the likelihood they add value is lower, precisely because there is a higher probability that our philosophical language only refers to itself. Of this mistake, we must be careful.
When we write a paper that makes a distinction between “hope” and “expectation” (for example), if the reason we are writing this paper is because we have experienced where expectation causes people drama, then there is a higher chance that this distinction is actually needed and will add value in people’s lives. There is a better chance that we are not playing “a language game”; there is a good chance we are in business of doing something that needs to be done. Also, if we experience drama between people who care about one another, there is a good chance that “bad hermeneutics” and/or “bad ideas” are the cause of the mistake, and hence a good chance that philosophy could add value.
For more on the role of philosophy in life, check out this Voiecraft Session!
While doing this work though, to help us avoid just entertaining a language game, there is a problem we should keep in mind. If we tried to call a “bookcase” a “pageholder” (for example), the social order will not readily let us do this, and it would feel strange to do. But if we misnamed “hope” as “expectation,” nothing would feel “off.” This is the danger of metaphysical entities: while physical objects are located in a social order that can help correct our error, metaphysical entities are not so “socially supported.” If we thus make the mistake of conflating “hope” and “expectation,” nothing will stop us, and so we must be “active thinkers” to make sure we are not making that mistake.
More could said, but the hope here is to quickly highlight a way we can make it clear to us that philosophy has a role to play, as well as some of the mistakes we could avoid to avoid engaging in a mere “language game.” This knowledge in mind, we might have a better chance against our “frenemy brains” (not that the battle ever ends).
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.