Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Class Forums - Summer 2010
 PHIL 100-971 - Introduction to Philosophy
 Are Philosophers in Touch with Reality?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin

1368 Posts

Posted - Jun 16 2010 :  8:54:14 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It's not that what we're dealing with here is the difference between two different ideas of reality, Aaron. What we're dealing with here is the difference between two different senses of the word "reality." Does this distinction make sense to you? Do you know what I'm talking about when I talk about various senses of a word?

Also, let me emphasize once more that what Sokrates calls the realities are not things in the sense of concrete particulars. They're the realities of such things. The reality of a concrete particular thing of some kind, in Sokrates' sense of the word "reality," is the thingness of that thing, its nature or essence, its being a thing of that kind.

The desk is a thing. Its reality is not -- it's not, at any rate, a concrete particular thing. Its reality is the deskhood of desks, and deskhood -- being a desk -- is not a concrete particular thing.

This distinction -- the distinction between things and their realities -- is a distinction people generally find they have to think about long and hard to understand, so keep on thinking about it. My prediction is that it will eventually come to make sense. You should feel free, of course, to ask whatever additional questions occur to you.
Go to Top of Page

Katie Contreras
Apprentice

29 Posts

Posted - Jun 17 2010 :  1:59:06 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK, I don't want to be bothersome, but I am lost. I have read and reread the lecture, and don't see what question you have posed for us. I have read all the posts, and am not sure where they are coming from in the lecture; as for the answer to the question you said would be clear, I have missed that question.

I do understand what you mean when you talk about what Socrates' definition of reality is, and I have noticed it in the readings and find it very interesting; but again, I don't really know what you are looking for. After reading the posts even, I am still lost. I feel as if I understand most of what is being discussed, but like Jenna, I don't see the relevance of some of what is being said.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin

1368 Posts

Posted - Jun 17 2010 :  3:51:17 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The question I've posed for you is this, Katie: are philosophers in touch with reality? I haven't said that the answer to this question or any other question would be clear.

The question about whether or not philosophers are in touch with reality is the question the precise sense of which I've tried to make clear in my lecture on "Philosophy and Reality" by distinguishing the ordinary sense of "reality" (which is irrelevant here) from the sense in which Sokrates uses the term. What I want you to talk about is whether or not philosophers are in touch with reality in Sokrates' sense of the word. Since you understand what he means by the word, you're all ready to go! What do you think? Are philosophers in touch with the being of beings (the reality of the real) or not?

If you're unsure of the relevance of some of what's been said so far in the discussion, then for goodness' sake, ask the folks whose comments strike you as irrelevant to explain the relevance of what they've said. We're not strangers here.
Go to Top of Page

Richard Mikel
Apprentice

32 Posts

Posted - Jun 17 2010 :  4:30:53 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Two quick points:

The idea that death is the privation of life actually makes more sense to me now that it's been mentioned that life has different degrees, whereas dead is just that: dead. Not living. There isn't a "kind of dead," but there is a "barely alive."

As for the rest of our conversation thus far, I'm matching some of this up with the Meno in order to understand it better although it is still proving to be difficult. There, Sokrates talks about about roundness's being a figure, not just figure. The roundness of something round would be a reality, but the roundness of shape would not, correct?

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin

1368 Posts

Posted - Jun 17 2010 :  7:27:09 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm with you right up to the last eight words in what you just posted, and then you lose me, Richard. The roundness of shape -- that wouldn't be one of the realities. I can agree with you about that, but I have no idea what the roundness of shape would be at all. I think the thing that Sokrates is actually on to here is that certain realities are parts of other realities. He doesn't put it this way, but it makes sense: being a figure is part of being round. One can easily think of many more examples: being an animal is part of being a horse. Being unmarried is part of being a bachelor. For a rather extended discussion of some relevant stuff that includes and makes use of the idea that being unmarried is part of being a bachelor, take a look at this response to a question of Katie's that I made at 12:58 PM today on her journal's discussion page.
Go to Top of Page

John Koban
Apprentice

40 Posts

Posted - Jun 18 2010 :  11:34:19 PM  Show Profile  Click to see John Koban's MSN Messenger address  Send John Koban a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
"Are philosophers in touch with the being of beings (the reality of the real) or not?"

I assume the term "philosophers" in this context means the discipline of philosophy in general -- is this a correct assumption? I hope not to sound too much like a smart Alec as I compose this response, as Ion and Menon are smart Alecs and they crash and burn. It may be bold of me to say I know whether philosophers are in touch with the being of beings, because mainly I do not know all the philosophers and where they stand in regard to reality in Socrates' sense of the term. Among the philosophers I do know (those of you in this class), I am not sure that all of you are in touch with the being of beings.

With all technicalities aside, and focusing entirely on the spirit of the question, it would seem that the question is this: "are philosophers more in touch with reality because philosophers really know what reality is? And are those who are not philosophers in fact blind to the whole question of reality?" So could one say that reality in Socrates' sense of the term is better than everyone else's understanding of reality? I think that the question "are philosophers in touch with reality" comes originally from a perception of non-philosophers' that philosophers are not in touch with reality because the questions philosophers ask usually do not yield economic benefit. The reason philosophers are thought of as non-productive members of society may have to do with some of the questions that philosophers ask--questions about beauty and goodness, for example-- that do not get anyone anywhere in the "real" world. Perhaps philosophers would be well advised to ask questions about economics and warfare instead of virtue and beauty if they want to seem useful to non-philosophers. I think it was Heidegger who said about the question concerning the thing that it is a question at which handmaidens laugh because of how ludicrous the question seems to non-philosophers. Whether or not it is fair, philosophers are perceived as not in touch with reality because of the apparent silliness of the questions that philosophers ask. Have any of you read Voltaire's Candide? Voltaire makes sport of philosophers throughout the entire novel. Check out this passage: "Total casualities might well amount to thirty thousand men or so. Candide, who was trembling like a philosopher, hid himself as best he could while this heroic butchery was going on [...] Candide undertook to do his reasoning of cause and effect somewhere else." I think that the question about reality, philosophers, and non-philosophers comes down to a competition concerning what the word "reality" really means. Those who are schooled in philosophical thought naturally will eventually come around to Socrates' thoughts on the matter, and then there will be everyone else. And if philosophers possess the true essence (Socrates' reality) of reality then I suppose philosophers would be in touch with reality, even if our reality does not put bread on the table.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin

1368 Posts

Posted - Jun 19 2010 :  08:17:39 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
John, perhaps you didn't write quite what you meant to write when you wrote: "So could one say that reality in Socrates' sense of the term is better than everyone else's understanding of reality?" It would make far more sense superficially, in any case, if you'd asked either "Could one say that Sokrates' understanding of reality is better than everyone else's understanding of reality?" or "Could one say that Socrates' sense of the term is better than everyone else's sense of the term?" But here's what really puzzles me about what you wrote. Whatever you meant to write there, exactly, I assume that it's another way of getting at what you're suggesting when you say: "I think that the question about reality, philosophers, and non-philosophers comes down to a competition concerning what the word 'reality' really means," and there just is no one thing that the word "reality" really means. The word "reality" has many senses, among them the two we've distinguished: the sense in which it means the being of beings and the sense in which it means what really exists and what really goes on in the real world. The word just plain old has both those senses, and neither of them can be said to be the words "real" meaning.

It seems to me that the question comes down to this: is the life that Sokrates characterizes, in the Apology (at 37e-38a, Rouse 526), as the only one that's fit -- suitable -- for a human being in fact the only one that is fit for a human being? Or to put the point another way: which is better and which is more ridiculous: the life of those who concern themselves first and foremost with the being of beings (and therefore with the thinghood of things) and who rank worries about concrete particulars as of decidedly secondary importance, or the life of those who concern themselves first and foremost with the things that exist and the things that go on in the real world -- i.e., all the concrete particulars -- and who either see the being of beings as something they can safely forget about or else as nothing at all.

So there's a competition here all right, but it's not a competition as to what the word "reality" really means. It's a competition in excellence or virtue, a competition to decide which life is the better life -- the philosophic life or the non-philosophic life -- and which human beings are the better human beings.

Finally, I don't assume that the term "philosophers" means the discipline of philosophy in general -- not if what that means is the tribe of all those who have called themselves "philosophers" over the years or who call themselves "philosophers" today. I take it to mean the people who genuinely love -- that is, champion -- wisdom (or whatever it ought to be called) and its cause: the friends of sophia itself: the genuine mastery of the art of living. The whole question is, as it always is for Sokrates, the question of which life is the life of the genuinely free human being and which is the life of the servile human being: the slavish, contemptible existence.

Here's an excerpt from Plato's Theaetetus that's worth reading in this context. It's also the source of the story about the handmaid who had the laugh at the expense of the absent-minded philosopher who didn't seem to be at all "in touch with reality." The dialogue is about knowledge and just what it is, so it's most relevant to the things we're thinking about right now in connection with the Meno. For the most part, it's a conversation between Sokrates and a promising young mathematician named Theaitetos. Theodoros, Theaitetos' teacher, thinks of philosophy as a suitable exercise for youth, but not something a serious adult can afford to waste time on. He's the very embodiment of the view that you can't do anything with philosophy, and in this particular passage, Sokrates confronts his disdain for philosophy directly. Sokrates has been talking with Theodoros about the views of Theodoros' friend, Protagoras the sophist, and has tried, to no avail, to get Theodoros to see that Protagoras' view is self-refuting. He's just proposed that they take another tack and has observed that the two of them are now confronting one argument after another, each more complicated than the last. Theodoros, trying to put a good face on it, says: "Well, Socrates, we have plenty of leisure, have we not?" and here's what Sokrates says in reply:
quote:
[Excerpt from the Harold N. Fowler translation at the Perseus Project]

Socrates: Apparently we have. And that makes me think, my friend, as I have often done before, how natural it is that those who have spent a long time in the study of philosophy appear ridiculous when they enter the courts of law as speakers.

Theodorus: What do you mean?

Socrates: Those who have knocked about in courts and the like from their youth up seem to me, when compared with those who have been brought up in philosophy [172d] and similar pursuits, to be as slaves in breeding compared with freemen.

Theodorus: In what way is this the case?

Socrates: In this way: the latter always have that which you just spoke of, leisure, and they talk at their leisure in peace; just as we are now taking up argument after argument, already beginning a third, so can they, if as in our case, the new one pleases them better than that in which they are engaged; and they do not care at all whether their talk is long or short, if only they attain the truth. But the men of the other sort are always in a hurry -- for the water flowing through the water-clock urges them on -- [172e] and the other party in the suit does not permit them to talk about anything they please, but stands over them exercising the law's compulsion by reading the brief, from which no deviation is allowed (this is called the affidavit); and their discourse is always about a fellow slave and is addressed to a master who sits there holding some case or other in his hands; and the contests never run an indefinite course, but are always directed to the point at issue, and often the race is for the defendant's life. [173a] As a result of all this, the speakers become tense and shrewd; they know how to wheedle their master with words and gain his favor by acts; but in their souls they become small and warped. For they have been deprived of growth and straightforwardness and independence by the slavery they have endured from their youth up, for this forces them to do crooked acts by putting a great burden of fears and dangers upon their souls while these are still tender; and since they cannot bear this burden with uprightness and truth, they turn forthwith to deceit and to requiting wrong with wrong, so that they become greatly bent and stunted. [173b] Consequently they pass from youth to manhood with no soundness of mind in them, but they think they have become clever and wise. So much for them, Theodorus. Shall we describe those who belong to our band, or shall we let that go and return to the argument, in order to avoid abuse of that freedom and variety of discourse, of which we were speaking just now?

Theodorus: By all means, Socrates, describe them; [173c] for I like your saying that we who belong to this band are not the servants of our arguments, but the arguments are, as it were, our servants, and each of them must await our pleasure to be finished; for we have neither judge, nor, as the poets have, any spectator set over us to censure and rule us.

Socrates: Very well, that is quite appropriate, since it is your wish; and let us speak of the leaders; for why should anyone talk about the inferior philosophers? The leaders, in the first place, from their youth up, remain ignorant of the way to the agora, [173d] do not even know where the court-room is, or the senate-house, or any other public place of assembly; as for laws and decrees, they neither hear the debates upon them nor see them when they are published; and the strivings of political clubs after public offices, and meetings, and banquets, and revellings with chorus girls -- it never occurs to them even in their dreams to indulge in such things. And whether anyone in the city is of high or low birth, or what evil has been inherited by anyone from his ancestors, male or female, are matters to which they pay no more attention than to the number of pints in the sea, as the saying is. [173e] And all these things the philosopher does not even know that he does not know; for he does not keep aloof from them for the sake of gaining reputation, but really it is only his body that has its place and home in the city; his mind, considering all these things petty and of no account, disdains them and is borne in all directions, as Pindar says, "both below the earth," and measuring the surface of the earth, and "above the sky," studying the stars, and investigating the universal nature [174a] of every thing that is, each in its entirety, never lowering itself to anything close at hand.

Theodorus: What do you mean by this, Socrates?

Socrates: Why, take the case of Thales, Theodorus. While he was studying the stars and looking upwards, he fell into a pit, and a neat, witty Thracian servant girl jeered at him, they say, because he was so eager to know the things in the sky that he could not see what was there before him at his very feet. The same jest applies to all who pass their lives in philosophy. [174b] For really such a man pays no attention to his next door neighbor; he is not only ignorant of what he is doing, but he hardly knows whether he is a human being or some other kind of a creature; but what a human being is and what is proper for such a nature to do or bear different from any other, this he inquires and exerts himself to find out. Do you understand, Theodorus, or not?

Theodorus: Yes, I do; you are right.

Socrates: Hence it is, my friend, such a man, both in private, when he meets with individuals, and in public, as I said in the beginning, [174c] when he is obliged to speak in court or elsewhere about the things at his feet and before his eyes, is a laughing-stock not only to Thracian girls but to the multitude in general, for he falls into pits and all sorts of perplexities through inexperience, and his awkwardness is terrible, making him seem a fool; for when it comes to abusing people he has no personal abuse to offer against anyone, because he knows no evil of any man, never having cared for such things; so his perplexity makes him appear ridiculous; and as to laudatory speeches [174d] and the boastings of others, it becomes manifest that he is laughing at them -- not pretending to laugh, but really laughing -- and so he is thought to be a fool. When he hears a panegyric of a despot or a king he fancies he is listening to the praises of some herdsman -- a swineherd, a shepherd, or a neatherd, for instance -- who gets much milk from his beasts; but he thinks that the ruler tends and milks a more perverse and treacherous creature than the herdsmen, and that he must grow coarse and uncivilized, [174e] no less than they, for he has no leisure and lives surrounded by a wall, as the herdsmen live in their mountain pens. And when he hears that someone is amazingly rich, because he owns ten thousand acres of land or more, to him, accustomed as he is to think of the whole earth, this seems very little. And when people sing the praises of lineage and say someone is of noble birth, because he can show seven wealthy ancestors, he thinks that such praises betray an altogether dull and narrow vision on the part of those who utter them; [175a] because of lack of education they cannot keep their eyes fixed upon the whole and are unable to calculate that every man has had countless thousands of ancestors and progenitors, among whom have been in any instance rich and poor, kings and slaves, barbarians and Greeks. And when people pride themselves on a list of twenty-five ancestors and trace their pedigree back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, the pettiness of their ideas seems absurd to him; he laughs at them because they cannot free their silly minds of vanity by calculating that [175b] Amphitryon's twenty-fifth ancestor was such as fortune happened to make him, and the fiftieth for that matter. In all these cases the philosopher is derided by the common herd, partly because he seems to be contemptuous, partly because he is ignorant of common things and is always in perplexity.

Theodorus: That all happens just as you say, Socrates.

Socrates: But when, my friend, [175c] he draws a man upwards and the other is willing to rise with him above the level of "What wrong have I done you or you me?" to the investigation of abstract right and wrong, to inquire what each of them is and wherein they differ from each other and from all other things, or above the level of "Is a king happy?" or, on the other hand, "Has he great wealth?" to the investigation of royalty and of human happiness and wretchedness in general, to see what the nature of each is and in what way man is naturally fitted to gain the one and escape the other -- [175d] when that man of small and sharp and pettifogging mind is compelled in his turn to give an account of all these things, then the tables are turned; dizzied by the new experience of hanging at such a height, he gazes downward from the air in dismay and perplexity; he stammers and becomes ridiculous, not in the eyes of Thracian girls or other uneducated persons, for they have no perception of it, but in those of all men who have been brought up as free men, not as slaves. Such is the character of each of the two classes, Theodorus, of the man who has truly been brought up in freedom [175e] and leisure, whom you call a philosopher -- who may without censure appear foolish and good for nothing when he is involved in menial services, if, for instance, he does not know how to pack up his bedding, much less to put the proper sweetening into a sauce or a fawning speech -- and of the other, who can perform all such services smartly and quickly, but does not know how to wear his cloak as a freeman should, properly draped, still less to acquire the true harmony of speech [176a] and hymn aright the praises of the true life of gods and blessed men.

Theodorus: If, Socrates, you could persuade all men of the truth of what you say as you do me, there would be more peace and fewer evils among mankind.

Socrates: But it is impossible that evils should be done away with, Theodorus, for there must always be something opposed to the good; and they cannot have their place among the gods, but must inevitably hover about mortal nature and this earth. Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; [176b] and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise. But, indeed, my good friend, it is not at all easy to persuade people that the reason generally advanced for the pursuit of virtue and the avoidance of vice -- namely, in order that a man may not seem bad and may seem good -- is not the reason why the one should be practiced and the other not; that, I think, is merely old wives' chatter, as the saying is. [176c] Let us give the true reason. God is in no wise and in no manner unrighteous, but utterly and perfectly righteous, and there is nothing so like him as that one of us who in turn becomes most nearly perfect in righteousness. It is herein that the true cleverness of a man is found and also his worthlessness and cowardice; for the knowledge of this is wisdom or true virtue, and ignorance of it is folly or manifest wickedness; and all the other kinds of seeming cleverness and wisdom are paltry when they appear in public affairs and vulgar in the arts. Therefore by far the best thing for the unrighteous man [176d] and the man whose words or deeds are impious is not to grant that he is clever through knavery; for such men glory in that reproach, and think it means that they are not triflers, "useless burdens upon the earth," but such as men should be who are to live safely in a state. So we must tell them the truth -- that just because they do not think they are such as they are, they are so all the more truly; for they do not know the penalty of unrighteousness, which is the thing they most ought to know. For it is not what they think it is -- scourgings and death, which they sometimes escape entirely when they have done wrong -- but a penalty which it is impossible [176e] to escape.

Theodorus: What penalty do you mean?

Socrates: Two patterns, my friend, are set up in the world, the divine, which is most blessed, and the godless, which is most wretched. But these men do not see that this is the case, and their silliness and extreme foolishness blind them to the fact that [177a] through their unrighteous acts they are made like the one and unlike the other. They therefore pay the penalty for this by living a life that conforms to the pattern they resemble; and if we tell them that, unless they depart from their "cleverness," the blessed place that is pure of all things evil will not receive them after death, and here on earth they will always live the life like themselves -- evil men associating with evil -- when they hear this, they will be so confident in their unscrupulous cleverness that they will think our words the talk of fools.

Theodorus: Very true, Socrates. [177b]

Socrates: Yes, my friend, I know. However, there is one thing that has happened to them: whenever they have to carry on a personal argument about the doctrines to which they object, if they are willing to stand their ground for a while like men and do not run away like cowards, then, my friend, they at last become strangely dissatisfied with themselves and their arguments; their brilliant rhetoric withers away, so that they seem no better than children. But this is a digression. Let us turn away from these matters -- if we do not, [177c] they will come on like an ever-rising flood and bury in silt our original argument -- and let us, if you please, proceed.

Theodorus: To me, Socrates, such digressions are quite as agreeable as the argument; for they are easier for a man of my age to follow. However, if you prefer, let us return to our argument.
Even if Theodoros doesn't entirely get the point, there's no reason why we should have any difficulty understanding it. The life of the "hard-headed realist" is vastly inferior to that of the philosopher. So now we know who, in Sokrates' view, comes out the victor in this competition.

An interesting footnote: the word translated as "leisure" in the translation of the question put to Sokrates by Theodoros that occasions this digression is "skholę," the Greek word that gives us our word "school." It's the word for the genuinely free time that a genuinely free man has at his disposal. Ironically, the English word "leisure" itself comes from a Latin word that means "a slave's 'free' time: the time off the slave is given by the master."
Go to Top of Page

Eliott Dimond
Fledgling

19 Posts

Posted - Jun 19 2010 :  10:32:04 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
First of all, Tom, it really helped when you posed the question "Is this plant completely dead?" and explained that "Is this plant completely alive?" would not make sense.

"What would it even be to be in touch with death?" I'm not sure, I don't even know where I was headed with that thought.

As for the excerpt you posted from the Theaetetus, I think I disagree with Sokrates. I've only read it through once as of now, so I could be missing what is being said, but I think it is hard to say "The life of the 'hard-headed realist' is vastly inferior to that of the philosopher." I doubt the life of the philosopher could exist without the hard-headed realists' doing what they do. I like what John said about philosophy's not putting bread on the table. Philosophy does not seem to get much done, and while it may make the philosophers' life fuller, their life would not be possible without the soldiers, farmers, and bakers to provide for them. It's like saying apples are so much better than apple trees. While people like apples better than apple trees, you can't have the apple without the trees' support. (Not a perfect metaphor because the apple contains the seeds to grow new trees, and I do not feel the same can be said about philosophers.)

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

John Koban
Apprentice

40 Posts

Posted - Jun 19 2010 :  10:39:41 PM  Show Profile  Click to see John Koban's MSN Messenger address  Send John Koban a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Okay, this seems to address the question about why philosophers are better than non-philosophers in general, but I am still wondering whether this means that philosophers are in touch with reality. I am having a difficult time moving forward with the question -- maybe because I am oversimplifying. It seems to me that when one asks whether philosophers are in touch with reality using Socrates' meaning of the word "reality," well then of course philosophers are in touch with reality because Socrates definition of reality is one that no one but a philosopher would use. As I write, I find myself sounding like a "hard-headed realist," so as I sleep tonight, hopefully the philosopher in my dreams will tell me where I need to go with this question.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Jenna Stimac
Apprentice

28 Posts

Posted - Jun 19 2010 :  11:38:43 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I guess I think the answer of the question "Are philosophers in touch with reality?" is most likely "No." I think this because I doubt every philosopher would be on the same page as Sokrates and that all philosophers could agree as to Sokrates' definition of reality and if all of them would even agree that there is any such thing as the reality that Sokrates sees. If the question is, "Are all philosophers in touch with reality?" my answer is going to be "no." However, if it's "are most philosophers in touch with reality," I don't know what to say about the answer to that.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice

34 Posts

Posted - Jun 20 2010 :  11:45:39 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Jenna, just for the sake of the argument, couldn't you can say that philosophers are in touch with reality in their sense of the word? Here is a proof. Sokrates is a philosopher, correct? Sokrates is in touch with reality in his sense of the word because he studies the "livingness of living" and other such things as this. Thus philosophers are in touch with reality. That is a sound argument, correct?

However, I agree: it depends on what reality we are talking about. But if we are talking about Sokrates' definition, then if we suppose that all philosophers have the same definition (which they probably do not as we can see from previous posts), I would say all philosophers are in touch with reality.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Christine Gylling
Fledgling

18 Posts

Posted - Jun 20 2010 :  5:31:17 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Are philosophers in touch with reality?"

I think it's interesting the way John put it on his post June 18: "the reason philosophers are thought of as non-productive members of society may have to do with some of the questions that philosophers ask...." Are philosophers really non-productive members of society? That's the question I asked myself. Tom said the philosophers are the people who love wisdom. I take that to mean that philosophers are people who love truth and spend their entire lives searching for truth. Philosophers are more concerned with the soul than the body. If I recall correctly, in the Phaedo, Socrates says that the body has nothing to do with acquiring knowledge, and that the soul can do this on its own. Tom also defined reality, saying that it is being of beings, what really exists and what really goes on in the real world. If that definition is right, then isn't it correct to say that reality is also illusion and conscious awareness of physical experience? That the real world is devoid of philosophers and full of non-philosophers who do not waste time on asking questions that do not have some form of economical benefits, and that the people who inhabit it will never challenge the universal doctrine of the key concepts governing human life. The philosophical way of thinking is far beyond being in touch with reality, far beyond being in touch with the senses. In the competition to decide which life is better -- the philosophical life or the non-philosophical life -- I would say that its far from clear who's the winner. We can't rely merely on our senses if we want to be in touch with reality. We have to be consciously aware of our senses and we also have to think logically. But philosophers are not in touch with reality because reality is always changing. The way philosophers think, wisdom and knowledge are the things that are real, and if things are constantly changing, how can they get what they want?

[Edited fairly extensively to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Jenna Stimac
Apprentice

28 Posts

Posted - Jun 20 2010 :  7:30:29 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Christine, in response to your post, I think you started out with the right definition of reality but changed your definition as you went. In the beginning you were talking about the "being of beings," but by the end of your post, you were talking about how "philosophers are not in touch with reality because reality is always changing. The way philosophers think, wisdom and knowledge are the things that are real, and if things are constantly changing, how can they get what they want?" I have taken it that you have changed the meaning of the word "reality" from your first part of your response where you are talking about the definition we are using here to the second part where you are using the definition most of us would use today. I don't see how reality in the sense of "the being of beings" could change. That seems pretty constant to me.

[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Eliott Dimond
Fledgling

19 Posts

Posted - Jun 20 2010 :  7:31:10 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Andrew, I like your idea of using a proof to show that philosophers are in touch with reality. However, I think your second stated premise is false. You claim Sokrates is in touch with reality because he understands the "livingness of living" and I am sure there are other reasons. I think I would argue with you about this though. I feel Sokrates uses only the definitions that work for him and leads conversations on narrow paths, keeping them away from the realities of the rest of the world. I do not think that "Sokrates is in touch with reality" is a sound premise to go with.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Joseph Haag
Moderator

172 Posts

Posted - Jun 21 2010 :  11:28:21 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Elliot, I think you're right to catch onto the fact that Socrates often uses his conception of reality to his advantage in arguments. This even leads you to say that he's not in touch with reality, which may very well be true.

Here's what strikes me about your comment: you seem to be saying that because reality is something abstract, Socrates can be so clever as to use that abstraction to his advantage to win arguments and embarrass others.

The abstract nature of reality may be the problem in all of this. An abstraction is, according to Husserl, a quality which cannot exist on its own but is considered in isolation. So the color red can only exist as an attribute of a real concrete particular; but one can still think about the color red in isolation from any particular. So does this mean that the reality of redness is something that just exists in our heads?

I journaled recently about Wallace Stevens and one critic's claim that one day Stevens realized that "his imagination is his reality." This is almost the case here with Socrates. The reality of this or that is an abstraction that can only exist in his head. In other words, the reality really is just his imagination.
Go to Top of Page

Aaron Mund
Apprentice

37 Posts

Posted - Jun 21 2010 :  12:01:18 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Christine, interesting thoughts on philosophers and non-philosophers! I would have to say there are lots of levels of philosophers, and the world is not full of non-philosophers. There are people like Socrates who devote their lives to philosophy. Then there are people who think about philosophical ideas, but not in the same way Tom does. There are religious people who devote their lives to religious principles that can be thought of as philosophical. Also, people wonder about questions like this: how do we know we are not in a computer program like the one in The Matrix and this reality is just a program? I know this was a thought that was discussed all over during the time that The Matrix and the other films in that series were showing. This is similar to the discussion on were the soul goes.

Along these lines of philosophers and non-philosophers and who is in touch with reality. I have some more questions or thoughts. Let me set out my own ideas -- I'm not completely committed to these, but I'm wondering if they're not true -- in the form of a set of theses.
  1. Philosophers are in touch with reality.
  2. Non-philosophers are not in touch with reality.
  3. If philosophers are not in touch with reality, then no one is in touch with reality.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice

34 Posts

Posted - Jun 21 2010 :  5:06:55 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Aaron, I really enjoy your thoughts on this and I like how you presented them as a set of theses. However, when you say "If philosophers are not in touch with reality, then no one is in touch with reality," are you saying that if philosophers are not in touch with reality, then no one can be? Or vice versa? Perhaps you intended this merely as an example. I was curious if you actually thought this way. By the way I enjoyed your thoughts on The Matrix. I'll have to think about this more!

[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Aaron Mund
Apprentice

37 Posts

Posted - Jun 22 2010 :  12:55:36 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Laying out my thoughts in the form of numbered theses just seemed like the easiest way to present them so that they can be easily understood. I have also been thinking about this for a bit. I am wondering whether, if philosophers are not in touch with reality, anyone is or can be in touch with reality. Philosophers strive to reach reality and answer life's questions while most others strive to make money. I think that if anyone could be in touch with reality it would be devoted philosophers. It is like a runner training and training to run a marathon in 10 minutes. If this runner cannot do it, can any non-runner do it?

[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice

34 Posts

Posted - Jun 22 2010 :  4:56:55 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Aaron, that is a very interesting way to think about it! I am not saying I disagree with your thinking at all, but can someone be in touch with reality even if he or she doesn't know it? Regarding the example you used, if a runner is training to run a marathon in ten minutes and cannot do it, maybe a swimmer could or another athlete could Do you understand my point? Again, I am not disagreeing with you. This is just what popped in my head. I do like that you said that "philosophers strive to reach reality and answer life's questions while most others strive to make money," but maybe someone else who is an engineer or accountant is in touch with reality. Just an idea.

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page

Katie Contreras
Apprentice

29 Posts

Posted - Jun 22 2010 :  5:06:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't feel that philosophers are in touch with reality, if you are using Socrates' definition. I feel that it is impossible to be in touch with the thingness of a thing. For example, I don't feel that you can be in touch with the goodness of the good. The essence of the good. I don't see how anyone can be in touch with that. But then again, when I wrote that it made me think of a question. When you say, Tom, "in touch" what exactly do you want us all to think of that as meaning? Do you want us to take it as a metaphorical being in touch, like being in touch with, say, our soul? Or, do you talking about being literally in touch? I think you must want us to use the expression metaphorically, but I thought I'd ask anyway, just in case it's neither one of these. But anyway, I still wouldn't think that philosophers are in touch with reality. I don't think anyone can grasp the being of beings. Not with any subject, or object, or whatever it may be.

Also, Aaron, I have to disagree with you as well. I don't think if philosophers can't be in touch with reality, then nobody can. A philosopher may be someone who is devoted to finding truth and reality, or whatever it may be; but I still feel like an average person could be in touch with reality even if he is not a philosopher. I think that an average person can be devoted to finding reality in things, and not be a philosopher, or not classify himself as a philosopher, and, if this is possible at all, be able to be in touch with reality.

[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado © 2004 tkt Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.36 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000