What Is Philosophy? Essay Example

To define philosophy is to define, or try to define, inquiry itself.  That is, the process is inherently self-defeating in a sense.  Philosophy is an approach of thought, certainly, and is an academic pursuit or discipline.  It exists to understand the fundamental natures of all things, from human drives and reasons for being, to the essence of reality itself. It explores the processes of natural laws, human relationships of power and intimacy, the actual existence of virtue, and the core value of the human being.  This is so wide a field, then, that the subject defies definition by virtue of its being concerned with all elements known to humanity.  This being the case, humanity has long divided the subject into various fields, as great philosophers have made their marks through developing ideas within these arenas.  Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the great classicists of the Western world, largely focused on explaining the human state of virtue and the human’s role within the society and the state.  Ethics, law, politics, and divine imperatives are all then incorporated in their philosophies, just as Aristotle also emphasizes the need to comprehend reality itself.  Other philosophers like Descartes concern themselves with existential issues of being, while a wide range of thinkers focuses more on political philosophy.  In short, philosophy is in place to allow for, and generate, ideas relevant to every facet of existence, human and otherwise.

It is then all the more interesting how philosophy so consistently seeks to validate itself as precise.  This is seen returning to Descartes and the legendary, Cogito, ergo sum; a fat is offered in a basic equation and a reality is determined from it.  Philosophy in general is in fact very partial to equations, and the closed and open systems of inquiry and resolution.  Aristotle’s Cave is also evidence of these approaches, as he systematically follows a progression of realities leading to his conclusion regarding the nature of reality.  It is about logic, and validating concepts otherwise unable to be proven through logic.  The open equation exists to provide only the equation itself, and support any number or type of variables, while the closed provides a specific instance of the equation’s value.  To assert that a thing necessarily creates its antithesis is an open equation; the claim that virtue inevitable creates vice is the closed.  When any number of philosophers are examined, it is seen that there is a powerful attraction to this form of logic, if only because it adds a pragmatic weight to ideas defying any other kind of measurement.

On a personal level, I can certainly appreciate the emphasis in philosophy on logic, symbols, equations, and mathematical progressions.  It is only reasonable to seek to frame concepts in terms grounded in rationality, and validate them through the processes.  At the same time, I am often uncomfortable with philosophical logic because I feel it still operates on assumptions, rather than fact.  To begin with, a great deal of political philosophy rests on taking for granted characteristics of mankind as fixed realities.  In Marxism, for example, there is the core assumption that humanity will embrace socialism because socialism accommodates the needs of all, and this then satisfies both individual wants and the individual’s desire to contribute to a working society.  This is not unreasonable, but it is also not fact.  It ignores, in my thinking, the equally likely reality of the individual as being more concerned with their own wants than with the welfare of all, which would explain why capitalism remains so widely in place.  Similarly, Platonic or Socratic examinations of virtue presuppose realities to the same extent, holding that an impulse to achieve virtue is a natural mechanism in human beings.  Even the Descartes declaration is questionable to me as logic, simply because the philosopher is unable to explain how and why thinking must translate to being.  If, as Descartes claims, he is real because he thinks, it is equally plausible that he is not real because his thinking is a process a part of unreality, and simply not recognized by him as such.  Ultimately, then, I would say that I value philosophy because it allows us to expand our thinking and consider new concepts regarding life and nature.  At the same time, I find it frustrating that so much of it insists on being “factual” when it is inherently not so.  It is excellent and valuable, but it undermines itself when it is presented as unquestionable.