Practicing Philosophy, and Relations Among Man

Question

Assuming relations the purpose of man, is it possible for one to practice philosophy in speech only, and not in deed? In other words, can one simply read and write alone ~~in a room~~ and be properly characterized as philosophizing?

score 3 · Answer 1 · answered Apr 06 '15 at 20:17

3

I would point to a specific example that says it is possible to be by one's self and practicing philosophy: consider the philosopher Boethius, who did his work in the early 6th century. His most famous work, Consolation of Philosophy, was likely written alone in a room while he waited his execution, yet few philosophers or historians of philosophy would consider the work to be anything other than "philosophy."

See also the History of Philosophy episode on Boethius.

answered Apr 06 '15 at 20:17

James Kingsbery

5,937
1
18
41

Maybe you can clarify more... is Boethius a bad example because there would still be some trace interaction with other people? Or because he would have had a large corpus of philosophical works memorized from which to cite? – James Kingsbery Apr 06 '15 at 21:08
You will be hard-pressed to find an example of a philosopher who was more isolated than Boethius because he (1) was in prison, (2) lived in a time when books were not readily available, and (3) lived in a time and place where there were few other philosophers available to either converse with or who would have bothered preserving his ideas and writings. If there was such a philosopher as you described, we would be unlikely to have heard of him. – James Kingsbery Apr 06 '15 at 21:09

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Apr 06 '15 at 19:22

0

I see what you're asking although it is horribly phrased.

Anyone can be a philosopher at any time, all it takes is the critical examination of arguments and a personal pursuit of truth.

If you want to be a professional, then you all but have to go through school. If you aren't a prodigy, and you want to teach, then school is necessary. If you don't want to self learn into a million mistakes and paradoxes, and wish to be somewhat certain that you are understanding the reading then peers are incredibly important.

But alas, there is nothing stopping you from pursuing it alone. And if you're critical with yourself and always try to find every flaw to every idea of your own.. Maybe you'll do OK. Though I recommend finding peers to talk with. New insight and intuitive leaps, seem to be much of the gain in philosophy.

Have fun on your journey!!

answered Apr 06 '15 at 19:22

user14226

1

Can you elaborate on how my question is horribly phrased. Just trying to learn. I would appreciate it. I began with an assumption then posed a question based on that assumption. Is the english poor, or is it the idea that is absurd, or what is horrible. Any help is greatly appreciated. – Ronnie Royston Apr 06 '15 at 20:50
It was kind of nonspecific. Such as, who are you writing for? If anyone else reads it, then it's communication. Then the question is of what do you mean by speech only and not by deed? Deed usually implies an action. – user14226 Apr 06 '15 at 21:58
So basically it was all pretty ambiguous. It might just be your English. – user14226 Apr 06 '15 at 22:00

Mozibur Ullah · Answer 3 · 2015-04-08T11:29:35.353

In a concrete situation: it appears like this, a man or a woman in a room contemplating and writing.

But they are debating with themselves and thinking through the ideas of others; in a sense they are already part of an invisible nexus of interlocutors.

Still one cannot button-hole Kant or Hume and ask him exactly what he means by such a phrase (I expect one day there will be simulcra that will allow one to pretend one is doing exactly that); but one can ask a Kant or Hume scholar whose business is to understand their corpus of works.

Deleuze remarked of his collaboration with Guattari, that each of us brought a crowd of others.

And also consider that Hume divided philosophy into two - the 'easy' philosophy which puts philosophy into practise, and the 'hard' philosophy which argues from first principles; both are actually difficult to do well, and with fluency; and they have different aims.

The poet Mahmoud Darwish also noted that as a young man flush with language and philosophy (Marxism) he thought he could change the hearts and minds of others; whereas as a much older man he thought he could only affect other poets; this I think a little churlish given that he was given a state funeral; one might say the same for philosophy.

Practicing Philosophy, and Relations Among Man

3 Answers3