double arrow

In philosophical practice

There are no precise rules to guide us in philosophical practice. Philosophizing is, to a large extent, an art. Nevertheless, several important questions can help us in the process:

First, it is important to ask ourselves: What are the main concepts in the person’s perimeter? These concepts can be seen as the building blocks from which the perimeter is constructed, or as the vocabulary with which it can be described.

A vocabulary is only an unorganized list of concepts. Therefore, a second important question is: What is the structure of these concepts? To answer this question we need to do a philosophical analysis: to determine which concepts are central and which are peripheral, how the different concepts are related to each other, and what is the exact meaning of each of them. Often such an analysis reveals that the apparent surface hides a very different network of ideas.

The result of this analysis is a map of concepts, which shows how the main concepts are organized in the person’s perimeter. The map represents, in other words, the structure of the person’s world.

A third question to ask is: What are the hidden assumptions and implications in the person’s perimeter? For example, if for Jim it is important to be a unique and special person, then this seems to have an interesting implication: in his world one should compare oneself to others (in order to avoid being similar to them). Or, if in Jessica’s perimeter you can’t trust what others tell you, then this seems to rest on the assumption that people are motivated by hidden motivations.

A fourth important question is: How tenable is the person’s perimeter as a theory? Is it coherent? Are its assumptions reasonable and consistent? Are its conceptual connections valid?

These four questions are obviously not the only ones we can ask, but they are especially helpful. Needless to say, they are only heuristic “rules of thumb” and are by no means a strict method.

Example

Liz is an argumentative person. She likes to declare her opinions on every topic, and she starts many of her sentences with “I disagree”—and sometimes “I agree.” When others complain about her attitude, she replies that she is “authentic” and simply says what she thinks.

Liz embarks on a philosophical self-investigation. She observes that a major pattern in her behavior is that she antagonizes people by declaring her opinions. Indeed, she often can’t resist the urge to declare agreement or disagreement. She concludes that this behavioral pattern expresses the conception: I must have a clear opinion on any issue. At this point she is stuck, not knowing how to proceed.

David offers to be her philosophical companion. Liz agrees, because she knows that people are often unaware of their own attitudes, and they need a “mirror.” The two companions discuss her argumentative attitude.

“It seems,” David suggests in their second meeting, “that it is not enough for you to have an opinion. You also want to express it.”

“Of course. How else would I be authentic if I don’t declare my opinions?”

Later, David notes: “You know, Liz, several words appeared again and again in our conversations: ‘agree,’ ‘disagree,’ ‘opinion,’ ‘declare,’”

“Is there anything wrong with that?”

“No, of course not. I am only pointing out that these are important concepts in your world. They are part of the vocabulary of your behavior.”

“Interesting, David. I think you are right. And another word is ‘authenticity.”

When the conversation turns to David’s life, the two companions realize how different her world is from his. In his world the concept of ‘opinion’ or ‘agreement’ is unimportant. David spends a lot of energy nurturing his relationships with a small group of selected friends, and his central concepts are those of intimacy, trust, and betrayal.

In their third meeting, David suggests that they look more deeply into the vocabularies of their perimeters and try to organize them. They discover that in Liz’s world, the concept of opinion is only the surface of something deeper. For her, declaring an opinion does not mean defending the truth, but primarily declaring independence. “That’s what I think!” for her means: “I am deciding what I think!” That is why, Liz now realizes, she sometimes argues for the sake of arguing, even if the topic doesn’t interest her. That is also why she feels so powerful after an argument.

In a later meeting they analyze Liz’s concepts of independence and of authenticity. In order to do so they examine various personal experiences, and discover that in her perimeter being authentic means “I am true to my opinions. Only my opinions guide my behavior.” This analysis clarifies the connection between disagreeing/agreeing, declaring opinions, independence, and authenticity. Soon Liz and David have a map of concepts. The map is not written on paper but in their minds, and it helps Liz understand the structure of her perimeter.

They now continue to examine the hidden implications and assumptions in her approach to others. First they note a central assumption in her perimeter: that authenticity is a cognitive state of mind—having opinions—as opposed to authenticity as spontaneity, or authenticity as expressing emotions. They also note that her approach implies that other people are a danger to her authenticity—this is why she needs to declare her opinions as if to raise a wall against their influence. This opens the door to a discussion about Liz’s concept of the Other.

In a later meeting, when the companions start evaluating Liz’s world, she realizes that some of her assumptions are questionable. “Being authentic is being true not just to your opinions,” she says, “but also to your feelings!”

Eventually Liz and David feel that they have a clear idea of Liz’s perimeter, its main concepts, inner structure, implication, assumptions, advantages and weaknesses. Now they are ready to move on to the next stage of the philosophical process: transcending the boundaries of their perimeters.

Exercise

Choose one of the concepts discussed in the section “Voices of Human Reality” (the Other, authenticity, freedom, meaning, the right and the wrong, and transcendence). Then analyze the concept as it appears in your own perimeter. This task will become easier if you compare your attitude to the philosophical approaches mentioned in the text.

Remember, the issue is not what you think about that concept, but how the concept is expressed in your everyday attitudes—in your emotions, behavior, and everyday thoughts. Remember also that there may be two or more contradictory conceptions in your perimeter, and that different analyses would be appropriate for different situations (for example, your concept of freedom when you are with friends may be different from your concept of freedom when you are with authority figures).

Lesson 8


Понравилась статья? Добавь ее в закладку (CTRL+D) и не забудь поделиться с друзьями:  



Сейчас читают про: