If I search for activities happening around me, I can trace roots of these activities. There are many institutions and professions whose function and emergence in social structure can be thought. I can think how engineering had evolved. I can trace how animal husbandry had evolved. I see evolution of medical sciences. I see emergence of chemists. And, then I wonder why philosophers got any place in social structure. I have very destructive hypothesis in mind. But before that let me put what I have in mind about emergence of streams of knowledge and professions.
If we see society or human groupings as self-evolving sphere, then it becomes easier to understand the emergence of institutions. I am using few words little carelessly here like institutions, professions and streams of knowledge. What I want to stress is emergence of these things and hence I am accepting little casual approach towards semantic specifications for the sake of simplicity. In this self-evolving sphere, there are always new extensions happening or new pressures are being applied. These outward extensions or inward pressures from environment generate needs for the emergence of ‘entities’ which I am discussing. Human group experiencing floods year after year either keeps shifting or invents mechanisms of prediction and water management. This need based explanation of emergence is extensive but not exhaustive. I cannot apply this explanation to situation of James Watt. It is clearly curiosity and creativity of human mind that made this invention possible. There is no point in making third category of ‘forced’ inventions which human got through nature like ‘fire’. If there is no curiosity or/and creativity in human understanding, we wouldn’t have learned to apply these automatically derived wonders. So I can explain any such emergence with either need-based approach or curiosity and creativity approach.
So let me put this on my question of emergence of philosophy. I see no need for philosophy in social dynamics. Human groups do not need to know roots of decisions they take or they are willing to take. What decision making needs is information on all possible outcomes, consequences and stake holding. Knowing ‘why’ of these decisions, which is not possible on social level, is not just unnecessary but it might serve as blockade in decision making. That leaves philosophy as product of human creativity and curiosity. It is easy to see how it is related to curiosity. It is inquisitiveness focused on self. How it is creative?
Let us compare ‘physics’ and ‘philosophy’. ‘Physics’ tries to explain matter while philosophy tries to explain man. I accept this is very general statement and there is certain overlap. But, still, I will use this extension to make my point clear. And, this distinction is not exactly false. When two people discuss about certain property of matter, let say velocity of a ball, a ball can be put before both of them. So they can necessarily talk about one and only one object and same characteristic of common object. When two people debate about ‘man’, actions of men or any possible scenario involving human beings, can they put such common, undisputed human being before them? No.
Arguments of two philosophers are not, never, about some common human being. So it is creation on each one’s behalf. One argues against other by constructing altogether or somewhat different prototype. So can this debate be ever like sciences?
Why such common description of human being is not taking place? I see it is impossible. My simple argument is if such common and undisputed description would have been possible, philosophy wouldn’t have emerged. It is incompleteness, incomprehension in our own self that give rise to philosophical enquiries. Emergence of such common and undisputed description is end of philosophy.
Nothing drastic in it! Why philosophy has so much aura of knowledge around itself when it is clearly set of personal expression and that too complex and boring ones. On social level, are not philosophers useless? There is no purpose they serve except muddling any clear decision and making life dull with some creative mechanisation of human spirit through universal laws. By showing personal creations and inquiries as socially relevant one, by speaking as they are speaking on behalf of larger humanity, are they not driving good minds to vicious circles of metaphysics? Is not waste of resources?
Philosophy is personal pleasure or sadistic activity. True philosophy, which is reasoning out human existence in all possibilities, cannot remain separate from science of human body and mind. It is common caricature of human being that philosophy badly needs. And, such common caricature can come only by observational inquiries which are different that what standard philosophy has been to date. I cannot examine only myself, even though that is the only thing I can examine, to analyse humanity. Then how?
There is something like collective mind of all of us. There is challenge lying before it to expand region of my own experience of myself to experience of others’ experiences. It is not putting me in other’s shoe but it is like being other’s legs. How we are going to do that or we are limited to take this question as limiting case and thirsty with all partial explanations?
If we see society or human groupings as self-evolving sphere, then it becomes easier to understand the emergence of institutions. I am using few words little carelessly here like institutions, professions and streams of knowledge. What I want to stress is emergence of these things and hence I am accepting little casual approach towards semantic specifications for the sake of simplicity. In this self-evolving sphere, there are always new extensions happening or new pressures are being applied. These outward extensions or inward pressures from environment generate needs for the emergence of ‘entities’ which I am discussing. Human group experiencing floods year after year either keeps shifting or invents mechanisms of prediction and water management. This need based explanation of emergence is extensive but not exhaustive. I cannot apply this explanation to situation of James Watt. It is clearly curiosity and creativity of human mind that made this invention possible. There is no point in making third category of ‘forced’ inventions which human got through nature like ‘fire’. If there is no curiosity or/and creativity in human understanding, we wouldn’t have learned to apply these automatically derived wonders. So I can explain any such emergence with either need-based approach or curiosity and creativity approach.
So let me put this on my question of emergence of philosophy. I see no need for philosophy in social dynamics. Human groups do not need to know roots of decisions they take or they are willing to take. What decision making needs is information on all possible outcomes, consequences and stake holding. Knowing ‘why’ of these decisions, which is not possible on social level, is not just unnecessary but it might serve as blockade in decision making. That leaves philosophy as product of human creativity and curiosity. It is easy to see how it is related to curiosity. It is inquisitiveness focused on self. How it is creative?
Let us compare ‘physics’ and ‘philosophy’. ‘Physics’ tries to explain matter while philosophy tries to explain man. I accept this is very general statement and there is certain overlap. But, still, I will use this extension to make my point clear. And, this distinction is not exactly false. When two people discuss about certain property of matter, let say velocity of a ball, a ball can be put before both of them. So they can necessarily talk about one and only one object and same characteristic of common object. When two people debate about ‘man’, actions of men or any possible scenario involving human beings, can they put such common, undisputed human being before them? No.
Arguments of two philosophers are not, never, about some common human being. So it is creation on each one’s behalf. One argues against other by constructing altogether or somewhat different prototype. So can this debate be ever like sciences?
Why such common description of human being is not taking place? I see it is impossible. My simple argument is if such common and undisputed description would have been possible, philosophy wouldn’t have emerged. It is incompleteness, incomprehension in our own self that give rise to philosophical enquiries. Emergence of such common and undisputed description is end of philosophy.
Nothing drastic in it! Why philosophy has so much aura of knowledge around itself when it is clearly set of personal expression and that too complex and boring ones. On social level, are not philosophers useless? There is no purpose they serve except muddling any clear decision and making life dull with some creative mechanisation of human spirit through universal laws. By showing personal creations and inquiries as socially relevant one, by speaking as they are speaking on behalf of larger humanity, are they not driving good minds to vicious circles of metaphysics? Is not waste of resources?
Philosophy is personal pleasure or sadistic activity. True philosophy, which is reasoning out human existence in all possibilities, cannot remain separate from science of human body and mind. It is common caricature of human being that philosophy badly needs. And, such common caricature can come only by observational inquiries which are different that what standard philosophy has been to date. I cannot examine only myself, even though that is the only thing I can examine, to analyse humanity. Then how?
There is something like collective mind of all of us. There is challenge lying before it to expand region of my own experience of myself to experience of others’ experiences. It is not putting me in other’s shoe but it is like being other’s legs. How we are going to do that or we are limited to take this question as limiting case and thirsty with all partial explanations?
Comments