Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
boyo1991
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:48 am

Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by boyo1991 »

Metaphilosophy, the use and application of philosophical techniques to the concept of philosophy itself. What is philosophy? What can philosophical viewpoints claim to know? Is philosophy any good, or is it actually bad? Most importantly, to me anyways, how ought one philosophize?

I find metaphilosophy so interesting for a couple reasons. First, if we are going to philosophize at all, shouldn't we know what it means to be doing such? What is our actual goal as philosophers? What are we trying to do? Its also interesting because I want to philosophize well. This is much tougher than it sounds. As an phil major, what I am taught in school is more akin to a scientific research paper, which is definitely fine, and interesting, and important, but it doesn't really hit the mark where I want it to. Not only am I a phil major, but my goal is to work in public philosophy as a writer (I know, everyone has that dream right?) Scientific research papers are not going to quite do it for the general public.

Recently, there was an article on Philosophy Now by Grahame Lockey titled "In Praise of Aphorisms," which was an attempt to point out how aphorisms can be implemented to really bring forth an entire idea. A summation of an argument missing its conclusion for the reader to conclude and think for themselves. This article brought to light an experience I have been having and why it has been a problem. You see, on social media, where I post, people will only spend a few seconds reading anything. Lets be fair, I am no great writer, what I have, though, is how to build an argument. Here, readers may give me more of their time, but where I normally am, I am mostly focused on writing an argument in its inferential form in an image. Or I am making a philosophically based meme. This focus on brevity has been successful for social media. But it doesn't bridge the gap to long-form writing. I have been meaning to write my first (technically second) book, and it has switched topics a few times, mainly because I don't find that I am going about it the best possible way. I am confused as to how to philosophize best.

My previous answer was to be brief, make it short enough to fit the attention span of the reader. Then it went to the hook, but that turned into the thought that it was a rhetorical trick, and leaves out emphasis on the argument. Through multiple incarnations of how to best philosophize, there has seemed to only be one real necessary condition to be considered philosophical: it must include an argument of some sort.

This, though, does not help me discover how to best philosophize on paper. There are a lot of great ideas around metaphilosophy. In particular, I like Karl Jaspers in "On My Philosophy," who points out that "only as an individual can man philosophize," and that ultimately, a philosopher is on a metaphorical road. They follow a map getting where they want to go, going down metaphysics road, epistemology highway, or ethics avenue. Then they turn off further at the normative ethics way, and further still at the utilitarian drive, and eventually, after going through many philosophers, they come to a place where there is no more road. However, the journey has prepared them well to start actually making a road themselves. This perspective is very interesting, and I find to be rather correct. There is another view I rather like, however. Namely of Roger Scruton in "A Short History of Modern Philosophy," Scruton points out that philosophy seems to sit somewhere between literature and science. There is an air of both an artistic styling and approach, while also having the aim and intent on rigorously ascertaining truth. The problem with this, though I agree with it, is that artistic fields can see philosophy as too dry and 'sciency,' while the science fields could see us as too underived.

Both Scruton and Jaspers views are awesome, but they still don't tell me how I ought to write philosophy for my goals. Though, I think this could be part of the art part of philosophy that Scruton is trying to suggest. The way we ought to philosophize is figured out as an artistic endeavor. To have a hard set in stone means of philosophizing would make philosophy dry and uniform. Maybe this is why some of my readers eyes glaze over when I present a manuscript that I post to PhilArchive.

Thanks for reading,
Dave
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Agent Smith »

The philosopher :? :shock: :cry:
The metaphilosopher :mrgreen: 8)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Skepdick »

boyo1991 wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:32 am Metaphilosophy, the use and application of philosophical techniques to the concept of philosophy itself. What is philosophy? What can philosophical viewpoints claim to know? Is philosophy any good, or is it actually bad? Most importantly, to me anyways, how ought one philosophize?
Is philosophising about philosophy itself philosophy? You only need the name "metaphilosophy" if the answer is "no".

The same goes for thinking about thinking.
Being scientific about science.
Mathematising about Mathematics.
Being logical about logic.
Being metaphysical about metaphysics.

etc. etc. etc.

It's all self-reflection.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Walker »

boyo1991 wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:32 am Most importantly, to me anyways, how ought one philosophize?
Start with a specific incident, preferably personal, then explain why this illustrates a more general principle, or principles.

For instance, it's rumoured that Nietzsche declared, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger," after a trip to the dentist. (Just kidding. Just had my teeth cleaned, and it wasn't bad at all, and I'm none the weaker. Mint flavour.)
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Harbal »

Walker wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:07 pm
For instance, it's rumoured that Nietzsche declared, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger," after a trip to the dentist. (Just kidding. Just had my teeth cleaned, and it wasn't bad at all, and I'm none the weaker. Mint flavour.)
What if you are hit by a bus and end up paralysed from the neck down? :?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:14 pm What if you are hit by a bus and end up paralysed from the neck down? :?
What doesn't kill you makes you a vegetable.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Walker »

Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:14 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:07 pm
For instance, it's rumoured that Nietzsche declared, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger," after a trip to the dentist. (Just kidding. Just had my teeth cleaned, and it wasn't bad at all, and I'm none the weaker. Mint flavour.)
What if you are hit by a bus and end up paralysed from the neck down? :?
Then you end up inferring the philosophy of Christy Brown's My Left Foot, as did Hawking, Pomus, et al, of course each with their own application of the principle, based on their individual capacities. The principle was also illustrated in the movie, The Champion, about a Polish boxer* in the death camp, although he wasn't paralyzed, nor was his mind.


* Tadeusz "Teddy" Pietrzykowski
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Harbal »

Walker wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:04 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:14 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:07 pm
For instance, it's rumoured that Nietzsche declared, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger," after a trip to the dentist. (Just kidding. Just had my teeth cleaned, and it wasn't bad at all, and I'm none the weaker. Mint flavour.)
What if you are hit by a bus and end up paralysed from the neck down? :?
Then you end up inferring the philosophy of Christy Brown's My Left Foot, as did Hawking, Pomus, et al, of course each with their own application of the principle, based on their individual capacities. The principle was also illustrated in the movie, The Champion, about a Polish boxer* in the death camp, although he wasn't paralyzed, nor was his mind.


* Tadeusz "Teddy" Pietrzykowski
Good answer, Walker.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?

Post by Impenitent »

"We" ought to philosophize individually...

-Imp
Post Reply