I was lying awake at 3am in the morning, and wondering, just where have all the philosophers gone?
I had a friend who was doing a degree in philosophy, and naturally, I scoffed at him. For perhaps different reasons, but then again, today, I wonder when was the last significant book on human thought actually published and read? I wonder how far we've gone from the ancient art of writing, to the modern life of not reading. And since we've come this far, all philosophical treatises must be considered archaic and dead for all purposes, simply because we do not read anymore.
But I guess I don't want to say much about the modern day lifestyle as there are many more before me who not just write about it, but portray it in some of the most artistic nature, through film, photos and music.
I turn my thoughts then to those of "philosophers of old," of Kant and Hume, of Dionyses and Plato, of Russell and Locke. A friend commented to me, "Why do these philosophers write such lengthy sentences that are utterly inaccessible to the human mind?" (Well, not in those words, but I have a penchant for refining the vulgar plebian tongue which I speak very well myself all the time.) I was always taught that these philosophers write such complex sentences of epic proportions that they want the reader to focus on their sentences, re-read these sentences, think through what the philosophers are saying and go through the entire mental process and thus become enlightened by the words of these philosophers.
Come to think of it, I've never
heard a bigger pile of horsesh*t in my life, well except maybe that the war on Iraq wasn't about oil.
Much of my philosophical thought doesn't come from these old dusty men who sit in the candlelight pondering their existence, but rather from more modern philosophers, of Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan. I suppose I must profess some biasness towards them, for they are physicists, and not just physicists, but outstanding scientists in their own field. Geniuses, we'd like to call them. And so they do their civic duty, not just to unearth the mysteries of the universe, but to ponder the course of humanity given the new knowledge bequeathed for all of humanity to utilise. After all, it must be somewhat of a sobering experience to deliver the power of the atomic bomb to the hands of men who knows nothing about how it works, much less the potential catastrophic possibilities that could happen.
But then again, Feynman did say something once that struck me as common sense. That if we cannot explain something we've learnt in our own words, without the use of complex specialised lingo, in effect we've learnt nothing. After all, why do objects fall to the ground? "Because of gravity." But within that answer lies no knowledge, because the word "gravity" is simply a label for the entire concept between how two objects attracts each other by a force, and we go on to talk about force, and so forth until it is easily understood and accessible. But wherein fact, we cannot give an answer that is forthright and simple that we do not know anything ourselves, hence coughing up the greatest pile of horsesh*t to hide our own ignorance, that maybe someone else might see some value in the words written, or intepret those words in some profound way that at least it might sound that it came from a guru who unraveled the mysteries of the universe.
Perhaps I ought to deal with the fact that the entire purpose of the complex language of old philosophical treatises is to encourage the reader to think. No, I'd prefer to use the word "force" or "exerting undue duress" or "subjugating" the reader to think. I find it ironic that while they can't make a horse drink, these philosophers think they can make a person think. After all, which is far likely, the person struggles through understanding the great mysteries of the Earth, or puts down the book in favor for more materialistic pursuits?
I suppose the greatest argument for their form is that there is so much complex thought within the similarly complex sentence, that to explain it in layman terms is to gloss over the fine-tuned nuances that correctly portray the entire idea that is being conveyed. I suppose that there is little justification to that, after all, the more rules there are, the less avenue for creative thought exists. Highly arguable of course. But I suppose that a similar richness of content exists just by the use of simple language. Jacob Bronowski said, "Science is only a Latin word for knowledge... Knowledge is our destiny." Simple enough that it reaches the mind easily, sufficient enough to provoke some thought, and bare enough to allow creative avenue in any possible direction left to the imagination.
Philosophy, I guess, isn't really about what other people thought way before our time anymore. After all, that would be utter horsesh*t, because that would just be regurgitating information. The human thought has stagnanted for quite a while, I think. No new revolutionary ideas since Marx. And the ultra-conservative Christians are poised to take us back into the Middle Ages. No, I think philosophy is about engaging new thoughts, exploring new ideas, and finding out new things about ourselves.
Perhaps this post in itself is somewhat of my philosophical take on philosophy, and it appears very much inaccessible to many because of it's length and the apparently short human attention span. So I'd like to end with a metaphor on what philosophy should be like:
Philosophy should be like lingerie, revealing so that people would take notice, but covers enough to leave a lot to the imagination, with an allure of seductive curiousity.
