Philosophy is no longer the pillar of fire going before a few intrepid seekers after truth. It is rather an ambulance following in the wake of the struggle for existence and picking up the weak and wounded.
I think philosophy is, more so now than ever, a universally utilised channel through which the majority resort to in their pursuit for existential satisfaction. I think he was trying to indicate the distinctive switch from religion to philosophy in this afformentioned pursuit.
I think that both pure-philosophy and pure-religion have both always been similar strands of the same disease reserved exclusively for we the walking wounded. I say exclusively because perhaps it takes being wounded to realise we are flawed and empty. I so agree with you that the masses have embraced philosophy in pursuit of existential satisfaction and happiness. Perhaps this hungry pursuit is fuelled by an awareness of our emptiness... the desire to fill the emptiness is: 1/ sometimes narcissistic (which is the proud, vain quest for knowledge for knowledges sake that if attained still leaves us unsatisfied) or 2/ sometimes ingrained or God-given (which is the passionate but humble desire for meaning and sense to the madness).
Are both/any-of-these philosophy?? Perhaps. Are both for the weak?? I'm not sure... I think so, but I'm not sure...
I guess we are all weak, but any philosophical quest is spawned from not just weakness or strength but a recognition of some sort of inadequacy. If it wasn't recognised then the weakness would still be there, but the quest for truth would seem unnecessary as everything would appear fine.
what do you think?
I think I am agreeing with good old Bertie Russ but adding that even those "few intrepid seekers after truth" that he referred to were "the weak and wounded" as well... they just knew it before the rest of us.
??????????
sorry dude, I'm up late again and I like your blog because it makes me think
I think I'm trippin... your blog/thoughts are keeping me awake dude!!! :)
I have been mentally rehearsing an adequate rebuttal for the last half hour but, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. I wouldn’t go as far as saying philosophy and religion are similar but I do agree that they seem to be utilized by the same ‘wounded’ people. I think that philosophy has always attempted to refute mysticism on purely scientific bounds no matter how primitive. Religion on the other hand seems to embrace it, finding (empirically irrational) ways of accepting without fully comprehending. I see both religion and philosophy as polar extremes on the continuum of scientific progression. I think it takes a stronger (but not necessarily more intellectual) person to believe in mysticism than it does to accept science. Hence, the change from religion to philosophy as the ‘ambulance’ signifies a weaker wounded of the latter. I think the few intrepid seekers were precisely that. They were the brave few who in some cases died (Socrates) for their heretical ideas in the pursuit for truth. To say they were weak and wounded is…controversial…insulting even.
I think philosophy is purely knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Does that mean it is bad?
I think the inner drive for knowledge is God given, even if it is futile.
I think the key is to temper philosophy with religion. Both have their place...I think.
4 comments:
hmm, an articulate quote but do you agree... I would argue that it may have always been the latter
I think philosophy is, more so now than ever, a universally utilised channel through which the majority resort to in their pursuit for existential satisfaction. I think he was trying to indicate the distinctive switch from religion to philosophy in this afformentioned pursuit.
I think that both pure-philosophy and pure-religion have both always been similar strands of the same disease reserved exclusively for we the walking wounded. I say exclusively because perhaps it takes being wounded to realise we are flawed and empty. I so agree with you that the masses have embraced philosophy in pursuit of existential satisfaction and happiness. Perhaps this hungry pursuit is fuelled by an awareness of our emptiness... the desire to fill the emptiness is:
1/ sometimes narcissistic (which is the proud, vain quest for knowledge for knowledges sake that if attained still leaves us unsatisfied) or
2/ sometimes ingrained or God-given (which is the passionate but humble desire for meaning and sense to the madness).
Are both/any-of-these philosophy?? Perhaps. Are both for the weak?? I'm not sure... I think so, but I'm not sure...
I guess we are all weak, but any philosophical quest is spawned from not just weakness or strength but a recognition of some sort of inadequacy. If it wasn't recognised then the weakness would still be there, but the quest for truth would seem unnecessary as everything would appear fine.
what do you think?
I think I am agreeing with good old Bertie Russ but adding that even those "few intrepid seekers after truth" that he referred to were "the weak and wounded" as well... they just knew it before the rest of us.
??????????
sorry dude, I'm up late again and I like your blog because it makes me think
I think I'm trippin... your blog/thoughts are keeping me awake dude!!! :)
I have been mentally rehearsing an adequate rebuttal for the last half hour but, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. I wouldn’t go as far as saying philosophy and religion are similar but I do agree that they seem to be utilized by the same ‘wounded’ people. I think that philosophy has always attempted to refute mysticism on purely scientific bounds no matter how primitive. Religion on the other hand seems to embrace it, finding (empirically irrational) ways of accepting without fully comprehending. I see both religion and philosophy as polar extremes on the continuum of scientific progression. I think it takes a stronger (but not necessarily more intellectual) person to believe in mysticism than it does to accept science. Hence, the change from religion to philosophy as the ‘ambulance’ signifies a weaker wounded of the latter. I think the few intrepid seekers were precisely that. They were the brave few who in some cases died (Socrates) for their heretical ideas in the pursuit for truth. To say they were weak and wounded is…controversial…insulting even.
I think philosophy is purely knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Does that mean it is bad?
I think the inner drive for knowledge is God given, even if it is futile.
I think the key is to temper philosophy with religion. Both have their place...I think.
Post a Comment