People use so many terms in various imprecise ways and so casually yet while at the same time thinking they are using that term and it’s meaning as though It is a common understanding.
For example, the term “existential”. Even in philosophical circles this word is used in so many different ways that even the attempt to define how I am using it can lead to philosophical confusion at every corner. That’s just an example; I’m not going to make an argument right here about what I mean by “existential”. You can sort through my blog posts of the past five or whatever years if you want to find out what I mean by that.😁
I think this is hilarious and actually does philosophy a disservice. And yet, I don’t really mean that we need to come up with more precise definitions across-the-board necessarily; I think that is just an invitation to confusion and actually an effort of futility even as the activity does accomplish real work.
However; it already goes so much as we have all these little enclaves of philosophical discourse that each gets to define what they mean by various terms and then within their own circles they discuss things. But then they step across the hall to a person that is perhaps thinking philosophically about something different and that person and that person’s cohort or circle of thinkers have or are using the same term in a slightly different way to mean something slightly different or even a slightly different application. That’s career life!
So I guess right here I’m kind of stepping back from that festival of confusion and egos.
Despite all the philosophical designations I am thinking that there are only three kinds or types of philosophy. Perhaps if everyone could agree with me, could concur on these three types of philosophy, maybe that would go more towards helping clearing up the radical confusion that occurs at all levels in philosophical coordination.
And keep in mind I am not putting this forward any differently than I already discuss with my other ideas so far as I am not attempting to say that any of the following categories of philosophy is any more or less correct in their way of doing things than any of the others .
1. Philosophy of…
This is the category where everyone gets to think whatever the hell they want as long as they take the apparent ability for thinking as a sacrosanct institution of being human and use this holy ability to apply them selves to various real acts, then they are involved with the category “philosophy of…”. It is generally fun and a recreational activity which people also are able to make a living out of.
The example is, the philosophy of cooking. The philosophy of art. The philosophy of computer programming. The philosophy of good and evil. The philosophy of Being. The philosophy of flying.
Basically any sort of cogent or sensible idea of anything that you would find yourself having to preface or qualify with “the philosophy of…” falls in this category.
Of course, as I’m putting forth these categories there’s going to be all sorts of discussion about the various strengths and weaknesses of them. Ttherefore even as I’m putting forth these various categories we should also realize that these identify a dynamic situation; for example, as people might go about discussing these categories, it would not be wrong nor a difficult task to say that we have all of a sudden established a “philosophy of philosophical categories”. So, these categories can overlap.
This category is what in my work I would call conventional philosophy. As Cedric Nathaniel discusses in his books, and as I put forward in my various posts in this blog, The mode of conventional philosophy is the ontological argument.
Now, here is an example of the reason why I think we should come up with a different way to understand what philosophy is; which is to say, through these categories. Because when I say the term “the ontological argument” i’m sure what comes to mind For many people is Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God in particular, but in general people understand the term “ontological argument” as an argument that concerns the existence of God.
And again, as I discuss throughout my work, conventional philosophy, this second category, operates fundamentally as an ontological argument. The mode of this kind of method is to prove what is for any other term the existence of “God”, which is to say, the “true being” of any particular thing.
But I’m not talking about this right here to try and put forward my argument about this topic as much as I am just giving a reason, giving an example, of why we should discern what we are doing exactly when we say that we are doing philosophy. I am not sure the old traditional categories such as ontology and epistemology are really sufficient anymore for us to really be able to understand what I am talking about or what I am really doing when I say “philosophy” which is then followed up by some words and sentences and pages of words and sentences.
This category of philosophy is involved with people attempting to prove the true existence of things.
First: lol! this third category is what I associate with True Philosophy —which then is very philosophical!
But again, the reason why I say this third category is more significant and more true to the idea of philosophy is because these other two categories are involved with something else: namely, the first category is just involved with everyone who does whatever they want thinking about things coming up with theories and methods. I am not saying that it is incorrect or wrong or in anyway am I invalidating that indeed people do this all the time whether it is someone who mows lawns or whether it is someone who is employed in a academic institution under the name of philosopher.
I suppose what I’m getting at with these categories is a sort of measure of whether or not people are able to be honest about their existence and about what they’re doing. Yet, I am not condemning people if they are unable to be honest in this way; rather I am just talking about the fact of whether people can be honest about what they do. There is no judgment or condemnation involved in there and, in fact, there is no argument as to whether or not they are being honest because they are being entirely honest so far as their ability to understand themselves in the world. Hence ! the discernment that I am making.
This third category does not propose to suggest that I am able, or that we as a group to collectively and through philosophical discussion find the absolute truth things under all the appearances in the world. And if people are so keen they might see that I am definitely on the side of Graham Harman and his object oriented philosophy in this point. This third category is concerned — contra Harman though — with understanding what is occurring, and therefore the true nature of existence, an effort towards a scientific view of all existence, as opposed to the science against which subjective opinions are also valid, which then only contains speculations about the truth of Being.
This third category posits that we already know what Being is, contra metaphysics.
I think through this categorization we can get a better understanding of what is actually occurring in philosophy as a common activity. For if we understand the inter-relationship and dynamic aspect of these three categories then I’m not sure that there is very much to argue against with them. I could be wrong, but I feel that any argument that would challenge these three categories would most likely be viewing the effort through one of those three categories to the exclusion of the other two, and with that be involved in a conventional philosophical negotiation.
So this just came to mind when I was driving down the road and realizing how many people would want to argue with me about the bare fact of that light pole in front of me and the bare fact that if I turned my car just slightly and crashed into it, there would be so much bullshit that happened and it would really suck.
And it crossed my mind how so many philosophers would want to debate with me about the actual fact or about what the truth of that situation is or whether or not that light post and my car exist in them selves and all this kind of speculative idea about the metaphysical truth underlying all existence.
And so I am led to again repeat: I am not saying that such philosophical speculations are incorrect or wrong or don’t achieve anything; but I am saying that perhaps we might want to realize, perhaps we might want to take a position of honesty about what is actually occurring when people take that particular route upon real events. Maybe then we could see what use that kind of Philosophical approach has for us, rather than understanding that that philosophical approach encompasses every type of thinking and possibility of existence that can occur for the idealized human being.
Note that I think epistemology is but a theological apologetics for metaphysics, an arm of establishing the subject within a real ideological world.
i am coining a term:
Essay on academia.edu.