Stoic or Epicurean? Cartesian or Hobbesian? Existentialist or Logical Positivist?
Almost since the day it was created, philosophy has rivaled contemporary American politics in its partisan spirit. Many (though not all) philosophers have created their own all-inclusive “discourse” about God, Man and the Universe – about What We Can Know and How We Should Live – and have attracted disciples who vigorously promote those discourses…and just as vigorously try to knock down the discourses of rival thinkers.
If you ask me, though, this is the wrong approach to take to the whole philosophic enterprise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is and what it’s for. I agree with Pierre Hadot that what's really important in philosophy is not this composition of discourses but the living of a philosophical life – which means seeking to actively change one's character by pursuing wisdom and virtue. The discourse has only instrumental value - it can give content and focus to one philosophical life, but that's about it.
So the particular discourse that I find most appealing and helpful is Neoplatonism - the conviction that all Being emanates from God and seeks to return to God in contemplation. But that conviction is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end – the end of becoming a person who sees the divine shining through everything in the universe, and who sees himself as naturally oriented towards the Transcendent and the Eternal.
I certainly see no need to slavishly accept every dogma in the all the discourses produced by the wide variety of Neoplatonists.
Almost since the day it was created, philosophy has rivaled contemporary American politics in its partisan spirit. Many (though not all) philosophers have created their own all-inclusive “discourse” about God, Man and the Universe – about What We Can Know and How We Should Live – and have attracted disciples who vigorously promote those discourses…and just as vigorously try to knock down the discourses of rival thinkers.
If you ask me, though, this is the wrong approach to take to the whole philosophic enterprise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is and what it’s for. I agree with Pierre Hadot that what's really important in philosophy is not this composition of discourses but the living of a philosophical life – which means seeking to actively change one's character by pursuing wisdom and virtue. The discourse has only instrumental value - it can give content and focus to one philosophical life, but that's about it.
So the particular discourse that I find most appealing and helpful is Neoplatonism - the conviction that all Being emanates from God and seeks to return to God in contemplation. But that conviction is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end – the end of becoming a person who sees the divine shining through everything in the universe, and who sees himself as naturally oriented towards the Transcendent and the Eternal.
I certainly see no need to slavishly accept every dogma in the all the discourses produced by the wide variety of Neoplatonists.
No comments:
Post a Comment