More about 'proper philosophy', human nature and egoism

Amy writes:

Of course I do not want anything changed in our lovely meetings at the cafe-philo. But having heard on three occasions different people commenting that these were not 'proper' philosophical discussions, I was curious to know what such a discussion would be. My proposal was for a unique experiment just as we have had philosophy students talking to us once a year.

Is curiosity a specific feature of human nature? No, my cat was curious. Same with egoism (which we discussed at the last session). Like apes nowadays some prehistoric men did happily lend their nut-crushing stone, some not. But only man could use words to tell his friend whether it was worth or not asking for the loan. As language got refined an abstract concept of selfishness /generosity emerged which became more and more complex and imprecise as time passed. Sometimes, we discuss our various ethical topics as if there existed up there, where God resides, a big dictionary in which there is the definite definition of these various concepts and as if the only reason we cannot consult this dictioinary is that we are human, with very limited faculties. I believe that the only dictionaries in existence are the little ones handed to us by our parents, masters and friends which are slightly amended by each generation and each of us to suit our needs. Though the dictionaries of a given culture are very similar there are no two identical ones. Hence our lively discussions.

Of course it may be said that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was such universal dictionary. But all Adam and Eve learned from eating its fruit was that it was shameful to be seen gallivanting in the nude in the Garden of Eden (a piece of information for which they payed an outrageous price and anyhow how is it that it was OK before they ate the fruit?). As for the ten commandments, they are exactly that: commandments: thou shall, thou shall not. The only commandment worth discussing at the cafe-philo is honouring father and mother. What does honouring consist of?

I wonder what Moses would think of our discussions on the percentage of selfishness entering the motives of a man jumping in the water to save a stranger's life. But then was Moses a philosopher?

What are 'proper' philosophical questions?

Amy has a proposition to make:

I have heard it said a number of times that our discussions at the cafe-philo are not proper philosophical discussions. So I ask myself what is a proper philosophical discussion. And I get an idea:

• First you would need to find out who are the 'proper' philosophers among the attendants of the cafe.  Would they have to declare themselves or be declared by Christian?
• The 'proper' philosophers would propose the topics in the ordinary way, the whole assembly choosing the one they prefer.
• The discussion would then be restricted to the 'proper' philosophers, except for the end of the session when the rest of us would discuss the propriety of the word 'proper' applied to philosophy as well as the topic itself.

That's my idea.

Amy

related posts:
Sommes-nous tous des philosophes?
Is philosophy dead?
What good is philosophy for?
Philosophy overview

Sommes-nous tous des philosophes?

Avant de tenter répondre à cette question, il est nécessaire de définir ce qu’est un philosophe. En effet, l’étymologie de ce mot grec signifie amour du savoir ou encore amour de la sagesse. Le philosophe est donc un amoureux en quête de connaissance.

Plus précisément, un philosophe pose des questions et essaie de chercher des vérités, mais souvent ces interrogations restent sans réponses. Nous pouvons ainsi dire que nous sommes tous philosophes puisque, enfants, nous posions des questions telles que « combien y-a-t-il d’étoiles dans le ciel ? ». Karl Jaspers n’affirmait-il pas que « faire de la philosophie, c’est être en route ; les questions en philosophie sont plus essentielles que les réponses » ? Peut-être le philosophe n’est-il pas intéressé par la réponse en elle-même, mais peut-être est-il plus intéressé par le cheminement qui conduit à la conclusion logique de sa question ?

Durant notre café philo nous avons discerné 3 types de philosophes : Ceux qui cherchent la vérité dans la nature, ceux qui cherchent à raisonner (ou à induire une moralité) dans les phénomènes sociaux et dans nos vies quotidiennes, ou encore ceux qui prennent les choses de manière philosophique, en d’autres mots, qui, blasés du tohu-bohu des trivialités mondaines, cherchent refuge dans la spiritualité (« La philosophie sert d’antidote à la tristesse. […] », Emil Michel Cioran)

Peut-on dire alors que le prêtre est-il un philosophe ? La réponse semble être négative parce qu’il a déjà les réponses à chacune de ses questions : c’est la bible ou les écritures saintes qui apportent les solutions a toutes ses interrogations ; il n’a pas besoin de chercher la vérité ailleurs. Et le politicien ? Chaque parti se base toujours sur une philosophie pour justifier ses actions. Le banquier ? La « philosophie » des bonus auto-générés comme motivation afin de créer encore plus de richesse pour la société lui permet de s’enrichir encore plus. Quant à l’artiste, alors que le philosophe cherche des réponses rationnelles à ses questions, lui crée des œuvres imaginaires en explorant la partie irrationnelle de son psyché. Pierre Baillargeon renchéri sur cette opinion en ajoutant que « le philosophe recherche la vérité, l’artiste, la beauté ». Cependant, dans l’art moderne ou post-moderne, l’art qualifié de « conceptuel », vise à faire de l’art une déclaration philosophique dénuée d’éléments émotionnels et irrationnels souvent présents dans l’art romantique. L’art moderne représente une cassure délibérée avec le romantisme et l’impressionnisme. Très philosophiquement, nous pouvons conclure notre réflexion par cette pensée d’Aristote qui déclare que « Le philosophe est celui qui possède la totalité du savoir dans la mesure du possible. »

An 18th-century Paris Café-philo

We have approached the topic of Atheism numerous times in our previous discussions, coinciding with the rise of the celebrity writers and scientists the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, to Steven Hawking...

Just discovered a delightful new publication, Wicked Company: Freethinkers and Friendship in Pre-Revolutionary Paris by Philipp Blom (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2010), tracing the story behind a scandalous Paris salon – our earliest model of Café-philo, where philosophers met to eat and drink and deny the existence of God and the soul – run by Baron Paul Thierry d’Holbach. Its members included Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their contemporaries.

See review from The Economist, 28 October 2010

Is philosophy dead?

(This debate was conducted in French: 'La philosophie, est-elle morte?')

Apparently the renowned physicist Steven Hawking recently made a remark that “philosophy is dead.” He claims that philosophy has failed to explain the creation of the Universe; only the laws of natural science have so far made some successful attempts in finding logical conclusions, mainly by using the disciplines of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology. In a similar vein, another celebrated scientist, Richard Dawkins recently declared that the world was not created by God. Interestingly, the claim that God never existed gains more traction than any apparently very popular conspiracy theory.

It is understandable that as a scientist, Hawking, like his contemporary Dawkins, would automatically reject the theory of God’s creation of the Universe as there is no scientific proof to support this religious hypothesis. However when he crosses the boundary of natural science and ventures into the realm of philosophy, we cannot help wondering if Hawking is fully qualified to proffer a plausible argument. In his rejection of the validity of this independent discipline, Hawking does not seem to distinguish philosophy from religion. In his opinion, philosophy, with its fuzzy logic, is unable to find answers to the mysteries of the world in the same way as religion cannot provide any valid proof of the existence of God. It appears that Hawking had made an equation between philosophy and the existence of God. Shall we quote this as a classic example of fallacy – a valid but unsound deductive argument? (see Critical Thinking 1, 3 September 2010)

In this day and age, some scientists have to resort to the marketing tactics and self-promotion style of pop stars and post-modern artists in order to gain public recognition. No offence intended, Hawking and Dawkins enjoy practically the same degree of fame as their counterparts in arts and entertainment business. Making seemingly provocative anti-establishment statements is an effective and sure way of elevating a scientist’s status to the level of a celebrity. I dare say that the only difference between the two learned gentlemen and Michael Jackson is that the formers deliberately show their contempt of our presumed Divine Creator while the latter considered himself the reincarnation of the son of God. Hawking said: “Philosophy is dead.” Dawkins said: “There is no God.” Michal Jackson said: “I will never stop helping and loving people the way Jesus said to.” Carrying that cross must have been a burden for him during his short life on earth.

In any case, if philosophy has indeed been taken over by natural science, why are we still carrying on debating endlessly questions after questions in our Café-philo drowning ourselves in cups after cups of coffee? Well, our discussion last Saturday has drawn some unanimously agreed conclusions to justify the absolute necessity of Café-philo:

1. Natural science cannot explain ethical questions: when Dr. Oppenheimer invented the Atom Bomb in New Mexico, maybe he was unaware of, or simply ignored the moral consequences of his invention because he was not a “Philosopher”. Owing to his invention, the extinction of mankind has now become possible; if not inevitable. Shall we allow this kind of Frankensteinesque scientific experiment to go on without any philosophical intervention?

2. Natural science cannot find answers to artistic flairs: can we use math, chemistry, or physics to explain the inspirations that a composer, or an artist, or a poet received during the creation of music, art, literature? Obviously not! That’s where the philosophy of art (aesthetics) comes in.

3. Natural science does not teach us how to drink a delicious cup of coffee, or how to appreciate the finer points of life: For philosophy let us watch the world go by, ask questions about ourselves and about others, and try to find answers to these deeper questions, even though there may never be any final answers to all the questions we asked. If all questions can be solved by using fixed mathematical formulae, then philosophy shall indeed be pronounced dead on arrival and we shall all pack up and leave our Café-philo in search of the miraculous.

What good is philosophy for?

A summery morning in the sumptuous V&A café. Aroma of freshly brewed coffee wafting in the air. Topic chosen for the day: “what good is philosophy for?”

In the past few years, the “cafe-philosophers” probed into the mysteries of the universe, exploring the conscious mind of Mankind, above and beyond the mind of other animals, debating the existence of God, and asking the eternally unanswerable questions about life and death, seeking the moral justification of crime and punishment, war and peace, or even contemplating on decadent questions about art, beauty, luxury, the sexual revolution or eroticism. It makes one wonder if philosophy is indeed a leisurely activity only enjoyed by the rich and idle class.

After introduction by Robert who proposed the question, Alfred gave his idea about the educational value of Philosophy by explaining the different branches of this discipline. Michael added his opinion: “Philosophy is the Queen of sciences. Our world is full of mysteries. In philosophy we ask questions about problems that other branches of science cannot explain. It is therapeutic for the mind.”

Jerry joined in: “Why do you want to ask questions that you will never find answers, or find answers that always disappoint you and make your life even more miserable than before?”

Sherry added her point of view: “in my opinion, philosophy is like art, which has no practical use. Art is there to inspire us. You cannot make money from fine art or philosophy...”

Jerry interrupted: “Some art makes lots of money.”

Sherry: “Art that makes money is not fine art. It is what I call Con, a form of charlatanism. Same for philosophy, which has no practical use and it is not something you can make money from. Unlike biology, chemistry, mathematics or physics, philosophy cannot be used to diagnose or cure diseases, or to calculate the distance between planets or make space rockets. Philosophy is an exercise of the mind. Like what we are doing now, a group of high-minded intellectuals gather together, we ask questions and try to find answers and we refute our answers and debate with others. Philosophy is about abstract thinking, not about doing things or making things.”

Christian: “But philosophy CAN be put to practical use. Look at the question about the Clash of Civilizations, it is about one group of people formed their own philosophy and the other group of people follow another school of ideology and they disagree with each other and this disagreement eventually leads to violent act like wars.”

Sherry: “Yes, but in the theory of so-called Clash of civilizations, we wonder if Huntington was referring to the ideological conflict or the geo-political conflict.”

Christian: “Political science is part of the philosophy. In philosophy we often ask moral questions, such as slavery, capital punishment, human right and so on. Politicians’ actions are usually dictated by their specific school of philosophy.”

Someone began to make a point about the differences of psychological state between a slave and a free labourer. The topic veered off the original question: the purpose of philosophy to the question of slavery. Paul asked whether a free man, who owns his own body, can sell himself off as a voluntary slave, surrendering his soul and his sanity.
...