Metaphilosophy, or time well spent...

[Peter Kropotkin]

In reading a biography of Richard Rorty, I came across a term,
metaphilosophy.... not knowing it, I looked it up... and here
is what my handy, dandy dictionary said...

Metaphilosophy: Sometimes called the ''philosophy of philosophy''
is the investigation of the nature of philosophy.. Its subject matter
includes the aim of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy,
and its method....

I see this definition as being very similar to the definition to
epistemology... and I see the word ''aim'' to be similar to the
word, goal.... what is the goal of philosophy? Why philosophy
and not theology? Which asks similar questions.... the why questions....
''why do we exist" What is the goal/point/meaning of existence?
''How do I find meaning in a meaningless universe?"

(and this is the real point to those who believe
in religion and theology... they are trying to find meaning..
and they find meaning in god, or heaven or hell or angels,
and they can even find meaning in the Buddhist search for
escaping death and returning to non-existence.. the point
of religion is to find meaning and purpose in existence,
and one could just as easily say, that the point of philosophy
is to find meaning and purpose without a metaphysical cause..
so theology and philosophy have the same point, trying to find
meaning/purpose in existence but finding it in different ways..
one with god, one without god)

So, anyway, back to metaphilosophy... in metaphilosophy,
we try to find meaning and purpose in philosophy, but while
asking such questions as, what is the exact goal/meaning
of my philosophical inquires? What am I trying to achieve/accomplish
with philosophy? and why is philosophy the best path to achieve knowledge
as oppose to theology or science?

So, instead of asking what is ethics or how does epistemology
inform my thoughts about the world, we ask questions about
philosophy itself..... why should we engage in philosophy
and what is the goals of philosophy?

talking about philosophy itself, and not asking the philosophical
questions... and in doing so, we discover that we run into the
exact same problems we do when discussing philosophical questions....
within philosophy itself, there are no timeless truths... the quest
of philosophy is to discover our own individual truths, not universal
or timeless truths...but our individual truths....
and philosophy becomes a method to work out what our individual
truths are...if, if we decide that we live in a no-god universe....
then philosophy becomes a path to work out our individual truths, in
a no-god universe.....in a no-god universe, ''What can I know?"
in a no-god universe, "What can I believe in?" in a no-god universe,
''What am I to do?" and we use philosophy to help us answer these
and other questions about existence.....

is there an answer to the question, what is the point/meaning of
existence, in a no-god universe?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

this question of exactly what we are supposed to spend our time
doing, is a good philosophical question...

Why should we spend our time in a no-god universe, making money
or seeking out fame or titles or buying material goods?
What is the payoff in securing the trinkets of existence?
the point, one of anyway, is to work out philosophically,
is what are we supposed to do, in a no-god universe?
and some might say, that is exactly why we have a god,
to give us meaning and purpose...

but for me anyway, the idea of a god-universe, takes away
the human element to existence... the focus becomes god,
not human beings... and I believe it takes away accountability
and responsibility from human beings.... to think of getting to heaven
or to escape hell, takes our focus away from what it means to
be human.... we shouldn't be focused on some possible future,
but focused on the here and now.... and to focus on the
trinkets of existence, means we are taking time away from
seeking out the true meaning of existence..... and one might
ask, what is this true meaning of existence? that is the point
of philosophy... theology hands us the point/meaning of
existence when we must work out for ourselves, what is
the point/meaning of our own individual existence.....

to allow the trinkets to work out what we should be doing,
when in fact, the trinkets blind us to our individual to
our own individual

but all of this also blinds us to this question of
seeking out our individual pursuits, vs our public,
collective engagement... we have two sides to us,
the individual side, and the public side....what is our
individual relationship to the state/to the society?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the next question we must face, is not an individual one,
but a collective one....we ask about ourselves and our
individual goal/purpose, but I ask, do we have a collective
social or political goal? so, we are not only failing in
terms of seeking our individual answers, but we are failing
in our social, political and economic answers to what is
the meaning and purpose of existence? for any question meant
for the one, individual person, can also be asked for us collectively...

''What are we to do?" ''What can we believe in?" ''What can we know?"
and these questions also have resonance in a god-universe or a
no-god universe..... religion has been traditionally seen as a private,
one person working out what it means to be human....
but today, some have taken religion out of context and have
tried to make it into a universal theme... those Christian
nationalist, also known as ''Christian fascists''.... hold to
a universal idea that America was/is a Christian nation,
a theory debunked by the founding fathers in the ''Treaty of
Tripoli" in 1796...Article 11....

so, if we are to reject the theory behind ''Christain Nationalist''
as we must, then what other theories can we use to bring use to give
meaning and purpose into the political/social sphere of the State?

that is the political question facing us? What is the collective basis
for our united actions and theories? If we reject the religious,
again, as we must, then on what grounds do we act collectively?

Rights, views, freedoms, security, values, reasons for our united
cooperation and actions? I think we are so engaged in our
individual pursuits, that we forget that we are also part of a
collective pursuit of common goals and meaning.....

On what basis do we act collectively? is the point of the state to
pursue rights, or perhaps values such as freedom or justice?
I have held the viewpoint and have argued for such viewpoint,
that the crucial ideal that we in America should follow is
''justice'' equality for all, legally, politically and, AND economically....

and one of the major problems with our engagements is that
we are so focused on our individual goals and meaning,
that we forget that we are bound to each other, politically,
legally, socially and economically.... we are not and we
cannot be considered to be wholly individual people...
because we are, by every single known fact, we are bound together
collectively... and so, one may, as some have done so, have
accepted Jesus Crist as their savior, and that is great, but
how does that apply to us collectively? The fact is that every single
ism, has both an individual and a collective aspect to it...

and we need to see both in our reasoning and actions......

so, what is the collective goal and meaning of us, both individually
and of us, collectively?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

let us recast this idea of metaphilosophy as a story about
how and who we define ourselves as......

Socrates, and all philosophical stories must begin with him,
Socrates said that we must engage in two things, One: is to
''Know thyself'' and Two: is the unexamined life isn't worth living...

and think of all the philosophy done since then, and how many
philosophers have actually held to those two maxims?

More to the second proposition than the first... and much of our knowledge
about ourselves, the human being, has been done by non-philosophers...
Freud and Montaigne... for example... and Walter Kaufmann, in his
''Discovering the Mind" series, held that Goethe did more for discovering
who we are, then say, either Kant or Hegel....

So, in thinking about the story of Philosophy and who actually advanced
our idea of our understanding of who we are and what it means to be
human... and that Nietzsche advanced the idea of being human, much more
than another philosopher in the last century and a half.... which
includes Heidegger and Sartre....

and what has been the major advance of the last century and half?
that we human beings have an unconscious, we are not just about
what we superficially hold to, but we are about all that unconscious
material that exists within us, each and every single one of us.....
those psychological motivations that stir our beliefs and actions....
and of the bodily needs that often underpin our motivations
and actions...

and the problem, one of anyway, is that our motivations
and needs are often random and chaotic... which brings
us to another problem, how do we take into account in
our philosophical notions, the problem of randomness
and chaos and chance/probabilities?
these natural products of existence often end up deciding, for
good or bad, the very course of our lives... can philosophy
say anything at all about one of the fundamental problems of
our existence.. which is the random nature of existence?

Is that answer found in our examination of Metaphilosophy?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

one of the concepts that philosophy does, or ought to do,
is an engagement with real life problems....

How does philosophy engage with real life problems?

Let us take a real life problem from the headlines....
homelessness and poverty.. which are tied together at the hip....

and in looking at the problem, superficially at least, that
the driver of homelessness is from poverty.... but most
politicians and problem solvers, seek answers to homelessness
and not poverty... why? the question of poverty is one that has
been on the plate of humanity since the dawn of time....
Homelessness has not, thus it looks like homelessness is an
easier problem to solve...

so, a politician might approach the problem of homelessness this way,
if there are homeless people, there must not be enough housing....
so, the solution to homelessness is building more housing....
and one might ask, how do we know, know that the problem
with the homeless, is a lack of housing? but that type of superficial
understanding leads us to failure....in understanding the homeless
problem, we actually have three problems... one is poverty,
however, the real problems lie in something that is equally ignored...
that of mental illness and addictions... so, we actually have three problems
in homelessness.... Poverty, mental illness and addictions...
but one might say, legitimately say, Kropotkin, how do you know
that homelessness has three problems? and here we hit a philosophical
problem, that of epistemology... the problem of knowledge... how do
we know what we know? what separates out, opinions from facts?

So, what is called for is knowledge/information about homelessness,
it's origins and continuing causes....so, we have to interview
practically everyone involved... the homeless, the advocates of
the homeless, the agencies involved with the homeless, the police,
mental health experts...a huge part of solving the homeless problem
is information about why and who is homeless....and I will be willing to
bet that over 25% of the homeless is the young who have either been
tossed out of the house or left on their own..... and that presents its
own problems... so, we have 4 such possibilities as to why people
are homeless... now, we return to solutions to homelessness...

we need knowledge, epistemological answers, we also need some sort
of goal that we are aiming for... is our attempt to end homelessness,
a permanent or a temporary fix? and this extends beyond just a political
or an economic problem....it is an aspect of the goal/purposes of
being human...if we attend to the homeless issue, that is a pretty
big commitment... and one that takes time away from what we
Americans feel is our biggest mission, which is to make money,
become famous, gain titles, buy material possession or gain power....
can we actually follow the American dream or do we have to
compromise the American dream with a goal of reducing or even
ending homelessness? What priority should we follow?
and this again, becomes a philosophical problem...
what values should we engage with?

for me anyway, working out the homeless problem, is not a
political or social or an economic problem....
it is a philosophical problem.... what values are we going to
follow? Are we going to embrace kindness, beauty, compassion,
community, fairness, justice, optimism, responsibility... to name
a few values that we can answer to in trying to solve the homeless
problem..... or do we continue to practice the values of capitalism
and seek out our own happiness?

are the questions we are faced with, really political or economic
or social questions, or are they really philosophical problems...
an answer to the question, what values do we hold and why
those values?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

one of the ideas insisted upon, that the idea/ problems of
Kant, or Descartes are still our problems, still have some meaning
in our times....and yet, I am hard press to know how the
question of knowledge, epistemology, that Descartes faced,
is still our question.....

The question that Descartes answered? worked for him and his times,
but I can't see how his question, (and answer) works for us today....

or to say this another way, philosophical questions are historical
bound... that is the problem each philosopher faced was ''caused''
by the times they lived in.... we certainly inherit their legacy,
but we don't inherit their problems....

we have vastly different problems today then faced by either Descartes or Kant..
one of our problems is the question of the two World Wars and the Holocaust....
of Man's inhumanity to man... How do we account for this or how do we,
can we even justify this inhumanity, philosophically?

for most around here, the Second World War is ancient history...
but for me, the Second World War ended 14 years before I was born...
that isn't ancient history.... that is modern history... and we have to
either explain it, account for it, or deny it....and denying history
never ends well....so, we are left with explaining it or accounting for it...

so, how do we account for mass murder and torture, in terms of
what it means to be human? that mass murder and torture can be
done by even ''ethical'' people cannot be denied...

and here is one, one possibility for this understanding of mass murder
and torture by everyday people....

that they held their accountability and responsibility to
isms and ideologies that allows them to, in the name of that ism,
to commit mass murder and torture... they held to isms of
nationalism and bigotry and hatred of others different then
themselves, to commit to mass murder and torture of others...

How else can we account for millions of Law-abiding Germans,
and others, to commit to the slaughter millions of people?

Can we say every single person who participated in the Second World War
and the Holocaust, every single one, to be a bad person or an evil person?
I simply can't make that leap... so, how could decent, honest people
become mass murderers and participate in torture of others?

if one could point to the commonality of these people, one could,
most likely hold to the idea that most of them, most, held
to the idea of "Deutschland ueber alles".. Germany before others....
and the second communality was the belief in the superiority of
the Aryan person.....does this sound familiar to anyone who lives
in America today? America first and the superiority of whites above
minorities.... isms that dominates the GOP/MAGA party today....
which allows one, in the name of nation or race, to destroy
those who do not match that ism..... the only thing, so far,
preventing those who hold to those isms, from engaging in
mass murder and torture and the instigation of concentration
camps like Auschwitz... has been the lack of power.... and opportunity....

and why would decent honest people in America want to dehumanize
people enough to allow for concentration camps to open up?
before one gets work up about no one has called for a concentration camps
to open up in modern day America....and no one in Germany called for
concentration camps before they opened up either....

the terminology used today is very similar to the terminology used
back then... minorities are subhuman, they are trying to destroy the
American/German way of life....and today, we see much of the same
language from the Nazi's to Modern day America... many have
called for the death of liberals, the death of gays, the death of
trans people, as they are a threat to modern America... or so goes
the arguments...

and so on... and some will ask/declare that this has nothing to do
with philosophy.... but I say unto you, if philosophy doesn't have
any real-world applications, then what is the point of philosophy?

if we can't see the world in its modern operating principles,
then what is the point? if we hold to isms, no matter what the costs,
as the Nazi's did, then we face the same crisis they encountered....

and here is where philosophy excels... in the comparison
and contrast of beliefs and values... we need to bring philosophy
back into the real world, with real world problems and situations....

to examine the real world in terms of its values and beliefs and ism's
and see if those values/beliefs/ism's are worth holding....

not in some abstract wondering about say, epistemology or
if Kant was right or was Hegel was right.... or to say in other way,
bring philosophy back to earth to deal with questions about the
here and now... and some might say, comparing Nazi Germany
with modern day America is history.... NO, it is philosophy
and very important philosophy at that....bring philosophy back into
your life in asking the questions of existence... not history or
poli-sci, or economics, but philosophy...''What am I to do?''
is not a question of deciding on an job or career.. no, it
is a philosophical question...and it needs to be answered as
such....and not in reaffirming your ism's but in an examination
of your values/and beliefs...why this ism and why not another?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

as an historical person, I was born into a set/certain time period...
I cannot hope to escape my time...the problem of the times,
historically, economically and especially philosophically.. I cannot
escape nor, nor can run from them....but with that said, I don't
have to engage in the problems that faced philosophers like Kant
or Descartes... There are not my problems because I didn't live
in those times, I live in today time period and thus my attention
is focused on the philosophically problems of today....

and what are the philosophical problems of 2024...
(and in no particular order)

we lack a functional understanding of what human beings are....
what does it mean to be human? who knows, no seems to wonder
about that....

we, philosophically anyway have lost track of what is important...
we are essentially counting angels on a pinhead these days...
there is little connection to real life issues...

we engage in language games theories instead of wondering
about important questions like what the question of the "Holocaust''
mean to us as what it says about human beings...

how do we prevent another Holocaust? is that a political, social,
economic or a philosophical issue?

we try to end/stop violence with more violence...
if one wants peace, it seems to me that seeking peace
is the answer.... not violence....or is that naivete?
if one wants money, we don't seek out violence or agony
or hate... we seek out money.... and if one wants fame,
he doesn't hide in his bedroom, or read books about philosophy....
if one wants something, then that something should/ought to be part
of the agenda to seek...so, if we want peace, why would we engage
in acts of violence with violent weapons and goals?
if peace is the goal, then peace needs to be part of the answer/solution....
so, what are our goals and possibilities and how do we achieve them?
and what should our goals be in light of philosophy?

how do we get the ''common'' human being engaged into philosophy
again? How do we expand philosophy to include the average person?

Philosophy has a hard time explaining itself because philosophy
itself, is confused on what it is and what is its purpose is......
so, what is the value of philosophy and how do we explain that
to the average person?
why philosophy instead of history or economics or underwater basket weaving?
if I were to consider myself, defender of the faith (philosophy)
then how do I defend philosophy?

all of these questions and more, are part and parcel of
what it means to be a part of philosophy today........

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, what exactly do philosophers do?

Are they like scientists that go out and collect data and then in
support of that data, they make some conclusions? No, not at all...

What exact data does Kant or Hegel depend on? well, earlier philosophers...
Plato said this or Descartes said that.. and what data does Plato bring
to the table to support his contentions? Philosophy in a very real sense,
is data free... fact free.... so, on what basis do we then trust or believe
in Philosophy? Think about Nietzsche for example, what was he most proud
of? His idea of eternal reoccurrence.... and what data or facts does he
bring to bear on eternal reoccurrence? Just that there are only so many,
a finite number of atoms and so, after a while, the whole thing will repeat...
based on an unprovable idea that there are only so many atoms?

let us take a look at Spinoza... his big idea was that nature and
god are the same thing.... and what data does he bring to bear on this
idea? None that I can tell....

and what about general concepts like morality or ethics?
what facts or evidence can we bring to bear on what is or isn't
moral or ethical? I can knock down an old woman and why or why
isn't that moral? what facts are we bringing to bear on that bit
of action? In the end, morals and ethics are really nothing more
than values... and what facts can we bring to light based on values?

take a value like Justice... the value justice, is that a moral
or ethical value, and how exactly do we know? what facts
can we bring to light any suggestion that justice is a value worth
having, worth living our lives by? we can certainly suggest that a
society/state without justice, will be hard pressed to succeed, but
that is not a fact or evidence.. it is really nothing more than
an opinion...

and in the end, what can philosophy really offer us?

why.... why should we be moral... why should we engage in justice?
why are usually fact free, without much evidence, but they are important....
we spend a good deal of our lives, philosophically or not, engage
in this question of why....... religion, science, history, philosophy
all have their why's........ why is there something instead of nothing?

Why is Napolean important? Why the earth going around the sun at 93
million away, important? What is the importance, the value, they why of Kant's
moral theory, of duty, so important? Of the six questions, which one is
the most important? Who, what, when, where, how and why?

Did you see that Joe Blow was on TV today.... No, why was he on TV?

and we come to the real value of philosophy.. it is the discipline that
consistently asks the important question, why...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Philosophy in a very real sense,
is data free... fact free

Total bullshit.

There is no philosophy that is "fact free". All philosophy is based on some observations of the world.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Philosophy in a very real sense,
is data free... fact free

Total bullshit.

There is no philosophy that is "fact free". All philosophy is based on some observations of the world.

K: upon which facts did Spinoza use to equate nature with god?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Philosophy in a very real sense,
is data free... fact free

Total bullshit.

There is no philosophy that is "fact free". All philosophy is based on some observations of the world.

K: let us try this... that philosophy is based some ''observations of the world''
but I hold that most people observations are skewered because they hold
to ism and ideologies that have been indoctrinated into them....

if you have been indoctrinated by the state/family, into believing in
god, then when you observe the world, you don't see the world objectively,
you see the world in terms of your indoctrinations.... you see god everywhere,
not because god is there but because you have been indoctrinated/educated into thinking
there is a god... not that there is a god, but indoctrinated into thinking there is one...
and that is what you see... someone indoctrinated into thinking the last election
was stolen, that is all they will see, regardless of any evidence showing otherwise....
many people believe in fact free beliefs... that the Jews run the world,
that the Luminati run the world, That IQ45 is really a lizard disguised as a
human being.. OK, that one is true...

We get indoctrinated into all kinds of faiths and beliefs, and then we
see the world as confirmation of those faiths and beliefs... so, yes,
philosophy is really fact free....because of the indoctrinations one
receives that changes or skewers what we see....our observations change
as our faith and beliefs change...

Kropotkin