How does philosophy differ from other disciplines, especially with respect its aims and methods? How do philosophical questions differ from questions
... [Show More] asked in other disciplines? What is Philosophy?
exists when and where definite knowledge does not.
Philosophy doesn't rely on experiments or observations, and it doesn't have a formal method of proof
Even field of scholarship has its own methodologies, its own method of 'proof', and its own method of asking the right question that leads to further understanding. The difference between philosophy and social science is no exception.
In particular, philosophy concerns a great many things that social science does not. And the methodology is very different, too. The best social science relies on statistics to apply the scientific method to the science. Philosophy does not.
On the use of statistics, Fisher may have been overly optimistic, but I still think a lot of what he said in R A Fisher: Statistical Methods Introduction still holds true, at least for the best social science.
Philosophers differ from other disciplines seeking knowledge in that they seek to understand knowledge in general: they seek to understand what knowledge itself is.
Philosophy is the critical, analytical, and purely theoretical study of man, his environment, cosmos, religion. It is also the love of wisdom. It is different from the studies of other subjects because:
1) It studies every other subject. Philosophy, does not have a specialised or cut out subject matter like other subjects. there is philosophy of law, philosophy of biological science, philosophy of cosmos, philosophy of religion, philosophy of morals, philosophy of science and many others.
2) Philosophy has many schools of thought compared to other subjects. Ranging from empiricism,rationalism, relativism, objectivism, functionalism, pragmatism and even behaviourism,just to name a few.
3) Philosophy makes you question all your basic assumption. it invites you to think rationally and critically on any and all subject matter, be it material or immaterial. Hence why it is sometimes called an abstract science. It raises the bar of the kinds of question society demands to be asked.
4) Philosophy also studies the basic and underlining principles guiding the other subjects and it does not just accept anything for the sake of accepting.
What is the relationship of philosophy and science? Philosophy and religious faith? Philosophy and history, art, psychology, anthropology, politics, and literature? Is philosophy a single path and all other paths are different?
Let's look at science for example,
Science is using experimental or mathematical proofs to try and determine the nature of the universe, It uses facts and data to prove something.
Then we have Philosophy,
In Philosophy, we use rational thinking, logic and thought experiments to try and argue for a specific case, as there really is no right and wrong answer, since it is impossible to find one in the first place. For example, using mathematical reasoning to find the meaning of life. It's impossible.
This is why age old philosophical questions such as "Do we have freewill" or "Does God Exist" have been debated for hundreds if not thousands of years, there is no way to prove something in Philosophy, only argue for it.
Actually, historically, 'philosophy' (which means the Greek 'love of wisdom') was first used of Pythagoras, 6th century BCE) was the term used for many forms of inquiry we would (today) call geometry, mathematics, cosmology (the origin and nature of the cosmos), the history of ideas, politics, ethics, our relationship with the good, the true and the beautiful, the sacred (including the existence of God or gods), the significance of birth, aging, death, and the possibility of life after life, and more. The widespread, comprehensive nature of philosophy is reflected today in the fact that any person who receives a "Ph.D." is technically receiving a doctorate in philosophy (Ph.D. stands for doctor philosophiae in Latin).
Philosophy, today, may be practiced in a way that links and is in partnership with multiple other disciplines.
The different fields of inquiry (law, medicine, logic, theology, mathematics, the natural sciences, psychology, etc.) came to form their own disciplines over time as they emerged as distinctive forms of inquiry with their own philosophical presuppositions. So, in the practice of law, one assumes the existence of persons in society who are capable of rational disputes over responsibility and the importance of comparing the cogency of different models of governance. If, rather than assume such a 'common sense' perspective, one wants to question whether any of our perceptions and beliefs about reality are reliable this would not be a question for lawyers, but a question that would be addressed in what is often called epistemology (or the theory of knowledge). You will find below some observations on the relationship of philosophy to:
Science
Religious faith
History
Art
Psychology
Literature
Though many other areas are equally significant.
Philosophy and science: the term "science" emerged in English in the 19th century. Earlier, someone we called a scientist would be called a natural philosopher. In fact, Darwin thought of himself as a natural historian. The sciences themselves may be thought of as based on a philosophy of nature and inquiry, an account of observations and hypotheses, confirmation and falsification, reason and reliability. The history of science was, from the beginning in Ancient Greece, virtually inseparable, but today the sciences are often thought of as providing an increasing body of evidence and theories that are vital for philosophical reflection. For example, is biological evolution (and chemistry and physics) able to account for ethics and religion? Moreover, the value of science is frequently a topic for philosophical inquiry. In the history of science one may also see the influence and study of human life, animal consciousness, space and time that have important implications for our values and the meaning of life.
A good philosophy department, in our view, is one that takes seriously both the intrinsic value of philosophy as a field, while also appreciating how bc1e50abb0875b616b9fe46ddbc92227philosophy plays a role in all other disciplines -for example, physics rests on or involves a worldview or philosophy of the physical and methods- and how students with non-philosophy majors can benefit from taking one or more courses in philosophy. Science majors may particularly be drawn to courses in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of space and time, the Making of the Modern Mind, for example. An art major may benefit from the course Aesthetics, offered by the Philosophy Department, which focuses on the philosophy of art.
THE ART OF WONDERING
James Christian, PhD
The following pages may cause you to wonder
That's what philosophy is.
Wondering.
To philosophize is to wonder about life---
about right and wrong,
love and loneliness,
war and death,
about freedom, truth, beauty, time...
and a thousand other things.
To philosophize is to explore life.
It means breaking free to ask questions.
It means resisting easy answers.
To philosophize is to seek in oneself the courage to ask painful questions.
But if, by chance, you have already asked all your questions,
and found all the answers---
if you're sure you know right from wrong,
and whether God exists,
and what justice means,
and why men fear and hate and pray---
if indeed you have done your wondering
about freedom and love and loneliness
and those thousand other things,
then the following pages will waste your time.
Philosophy is for those who are willing to be disturbed
with a creative disturbance.
Philosophy is for those who still have the capacity for
Wonder!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Philosophy
Lou Reich, PhD
"Philosophy" is a highly personal undertaking. It is possible to come to answers that actually work, for you. It is possible to have well thought through positions that recognize the existence of contrary views.
You can "cut your teeth," so to speak, on having well thought through views by critiquing other people's well thought through views. It is, of course, easier to sit back and "criticize" another's views rather than to offer a reasoned critique of one's own. But in trying to do that we can develop our own views with the input of thinkers concerned with the same kinds of issues that we are concerned with, and whose thought can be food for our thought.
There must be an element of judgment involved in the undertaking. I cannot make yours, and you cannot make mine. But we can reason with each other ( offer reasons for our conclusions ), and even if we disagree on certain things we can come away respecting each other as reasonable people.
As I said at the beginning of the Course, it is not as if one could say that, " Philosophy says this about that." As an exploration of life, philosophy is ongoing as long as we live and breathe. Exploring life's "nooks and crannies" along the way is not a bad way of being human.
Trying to understand; seeking good reasons to answer our questions one way or the other, and not accepting "easy answers" to our deepest questions merely or solely on the basis of emotional satisfaction---these things constitute a part of both the challenge and the dignity of being human!
[Philosophical Questions]
This is, however, only a part of the truth concerning the uncertainty of philosophy. There are many questions—and among them those that are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life— which, so far as we can see, must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers become of quite a different order from what they are now. Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is conscious- ness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man? Such questions are asked by philosophy, and var- iously answered by various philosophers. But it would seem that, whether answers be otherwise discoverable or not, the answers suggested by phi- losophy are none of them demonstrably true. Yet, however slight may be the hope of discovering an answer, it is part of the business of philosophy to continue the consideration of such questions, to make us aware of their importance, to examine all the approaches to them, and to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe which is apt to be killed by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge.
Many philosophers, it is true, have held that philosophy could establish the truth of certain answers to such fundamental questions. They have sup- posed that what is of most importance in religious beliefs could be proved by strict demonstration to be true. In order to judge of such attempts, it is necessary to take a survey of human knowledge, and to form an opinion as to its methods and its limitations. On such a subject it would be unwise to pronounce dogmatically; but if the investigations of our previous chap- ters have not led us astray, we shall be compelled to renounce the hope of finding philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, include as part of the value of philosophy any definite set of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the value of philosophy must not de- pend upon any supposed body of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who study it.
[Philosophy and Science]
Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowl- edge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical ex- amination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If
Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction 3
"Enlargement of Self" by Bertrand Russell
you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes pos- sible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astron- omy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called "the mathematical principles of natural philosophy". Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been sepa- rated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.
According to Russell, what is the common misconception about philosophy, and how does that misconception arise?
That philosophy is useless because of its focus on questions that have no answers is a common misconception about the study of philosophy.
-Misconception of the kinds of goods phil. aims to attain.
This chapter is an eloquent vindication for the practice of philosophy. Russell explicitly addresses the "practical man" who only recognizes philosophy as a pursuit of "hair-splitting distinctions" and irrelevant trifling. Viewing philosophy thus is a result of having a "wrong conception of the ends of life" and "the kinds of goods which philosophy strives to achieve." Russell contrasts the utility of philosophy with that of the physical sciences. Scientific study has far-reaching effects on mankind, through inventions, while philosophic study primarily affects the lives of those who study it, and only indirectly affects others through them. The principal value of philosophy is thus to be found in its disciples. Russell would have his reader free her mind of practical prejudices. Whereas the practical man would only attend to food for the body and material needs, the philosophic attitude also recognizes the need for food for the mind.
The aim of philosophy is the achievement of knowledge through criticism, "which gives unity and system to the body of sciences." However, philosophy does not maintain a substantial body of definite knowledge in the sense that history, mathematics, or the physical sciences do. Part of the reason why philosophy does not bear such a body of evidence is because when definite knowledge on a subject becomes possible, it splits off forming another discipline. Study of the heavens, of natural sciences, and the human mind originated in philosophic investigation and now assume the figures of astronomy, physics, and psychology. Thus, with respect to definite answers, "the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real."
Yet, part of the uncertainty in philosophy derives from the very nature of the questions that it undertakes to answer. These questions address most profound human interests: "Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good an evil of importance to the universe or only to man?" Besides the magnitude of these questions, the various answers which philosophy suggests are usually not "demonstrably true." Still, the pursuit of philosophy is not merely to suggest answers to these questions but to make us sensitive to their importance and to keep us conscious of a "speculative interest in the universe," which we might otherwise forget.
Even though some philosophers have developed programs of thought that do offer a definite set of conclusions about religious belief, human knowledge, and other issues, Russell urges that such attempts are usually unwise dogmatic declarations. Consistent with the thought of his other chapters, he claims that we cannot hope for definite answers or even high degrees of certainty.
In fact, he theorizes, the value of philosophy appears in its very uncertainty. He persuasively writes, "the man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation of consent of his deliberate reason." This way of thinking is closed to speculation or theory about possibility. Philosophizing, on the other hand, allows us to see even the most ordinary things in unfamiliar light. Though such consideration diminishes our faulty certainty about the world, it suggest numerous possibilities "which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom." Though we lose a little of our confidence as to what things are, we gain knowledge of what they may be. Philosophy banishes "arrogant dogmatism" and liberates "our sense of wonder."
Philosophic thought also has a value by virtue of the things it contemplates and the distinctness of those things from "personal aims" and "private interests." Philosophy lets in the outside world and enlarges out interest. Russell writes, "in one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison" of our private world. Russell's belief is that everything that depends on the private world "distorts the object" of contemplation and prevents the union of the object and the intellect. Philosophic contemplation sponsors this escape by enlarging the Self. Russell holds that the primary value of philosophy is not in any kind of definite answer, but exists in the questions themselves. He concludes that, "through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great."
Explain Russell's characterization of the 'practical' man and its relevance to understanding the value of philosophy.
He/she recognizes only material needs, realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious to the necessity of providing food for the mind. Basically, man is choosing to be ignorant
Basically, without this freedom, we cannot see the significance of abstractions and ideas. We are limited only to basic knowledge of the world and thus we cannot explore the unknown world around us.
(a) A Philistine: a person deficient in liberal culture; one whose interests are material and commonplace.
(b) The instinctive man is practical as is the man of self-assertion described later. He is not interested in providing for society and not interested in "goods for the mind."
(1) His friendships are "friendships of utility," not Aristotle's "friendships of the good." He is interested in people for what they can do for him.
(2) He is interested in "the answer" rather than how one gets the answer.
Why not live one's life as a practical person?
The practical person recognizes material needs; he is less aware of goods of the mind. For example, philosophy can give a different kind of value to life—not something superadded to material value, but a value intrinsically different. Consider what Socrates said about "tending your soul." as a means to a life of excellence.
The philosophical mind has an awareness that goes beyond the daily round to an understanding of life and the world.
Generally the practical person does not recognize basic truths about everyday life such as...
In general, choices cannot justified by their consequences.
Perception is not reality. How things appear to be is less important than how they are.
The excuse that "things turned out all right" is not always sufficient. Often, the practical person is unaware of true consequences.
You can be right for the world, even though the world is not right for you.
The practical person often does not notice the world and the people in it because of his own worries that tend to feed upon themselves.
Explain Russell's account of the progress of philosophy and the value of philosophy in relation to uncertainty.
Philosophy creates other disciplines such as Astronomy which at one time was thought to be "Gods" in the Sky" Or take into account Neuroscience which at one time was thought to be something else at the time. Once a question has been answered it ceases to be philosophy and becomes another subject.
The value of philosophy in relation to uncertainty is Because studying philosophy helps us realize that the world is puzzling. We are not trapped in a box in which only common thought thrives but where wonder and new understandings come about.
[The Values of Philosophy]
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very un- certainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the ha- bitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his delib- erate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many pos- sibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
Apart from its utility in showing unsuspected possibilities, philosophy has a value—perhaps its chief value—through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: family and friends may be in- cluded, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philo- sophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that
Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction
"Enlargement of Self" by Bertrand Russell
ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a con- stant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.
Explain Russell's distinction between the 'instinctive' person and the life of the 'instinctive person', and contrast them with the 'philosophic' person and the life of the 'philosophic' person.
In your explanation, you should also include a discussion of the two different ways that one can approach the world and enlarge the sense of self (i.e. through self-assertion vs. philosophic contemplation).
(c) Enlargement of self takes an objective view to escape from the instinctive circle of the daily round. When you see yourself as a process, you see yourself developing as you will be. (E.g., why are beginners afraid to make mistakes? After all, if one did not make mistakes, one would not be a beginner.)
(d) Do not define yourself in reaction to what others say you must do: self-reliance
(1) Pursue an interest for its own sake--not what it can do for you.
(2) Recognize that there are many possibilities for solutions--not just the pragmatic, dogmatic "right or wrong" opposites.
(3) Being motivated for a desire for knowledge lead to a richer view of the world.
(e) By way of contrast, the way of self-assertion views the world as a means to its own end and sees the world in terms of itself: pragmatic, dogmatic, instinctive, and direct.
(1) On this view, getting results or getting the right answer is more important that understanding how such things are accomplished.
(2) This view leads to a limited and impoverished view of the world--there is a lack of creativity and a lack of play with things.
(3) If one is self-assertive, then even minor slights are taken personally. There might be other reasons for an individual's behavior that do not involve you.
(4) Enlargement of self does not shape such dualisms as the "them against us" mentality."
Describe the instinctive person.
(a) The instinctive person lives in a prison of his own making--much like an animal.
(b) The instinctive person tends not to look beyond what is before him at the moment.
(c) Being unaware of the larger world can put our private world in ruins.
Self Assertion
me is blocked off from world of ideas
Philosophic contemplation
me and world of ideas are together
enlargment of self
does not divide universe into two hostile camps (no good v bad, friend v foes)
What is the life of the "Instinctive" man?
- Concerned only with private interests
- Feverish and confined
- At odds with the outside world
What is the life of philosophic contemplation?
- Calm and Free
- Views the whole world impartially
- Is an enlargement of the self through the understanding of the world
Russell warns against self-assertion with respect to philosophic contemplation. Any study that presupposes the objects or character of the knowledge that it seeks sets obstacles in its own path, because such study is self-defeating in its obstinate desire for a certain kind of knowledge. Rather, one must start from the "not-Self" and through "the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity." The union of Self and not- Self constitutes knowledge, not an "attempt to force the universe into conformity with what we find in ourselves."
Analysis
In his last words of this book, Russell once again discusses the impairing influence of the idealist position. He writes of the "widespread tendency towards the view which tells us that Man is the measure of all things, that truth is man-made, that space and time and the world of universals are properties of the mind, and that, if there be anything not created by the mind it is unknowable." This position robs philosophy of its value, "since it fetters contemplation to the Self." This view puts an "impenetrable veil between us and the world beyond."
As we have seen, Russell has analyzed away the idealist veil, which took the form of a denial that the physical world existed independent of a mind. In the process, Russell constructed his own veil. Opposing the idealists in The Problems of Philosophy, Russell believed that material objects were real and independent of a mind. He just didn't think that we were acquainted with any of them. Thus, a veil remains intact.
[Enlargement of Self]
One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation. Philosophic contem- plation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps—friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad—it views the whole impartially. Philosophic contemplation, when it is unalloyed, does not aim at proving that the rest of the universe is akin to man. All acqui- sition of knowledge is an enlargement of the Self, but this enlargement is best attained when it is not directly sought. It is obtained when the desire for knowledge is alone operative, by a study which does not wish in ad- vance that its objects should have this or that character, but adapts the Self to the characters which it finds in its objects. This enlargement of Self is not obtained when, taking the Self as it is, we try to show that the world is so similar to this Self that knowledge of it is possible without any admis- sion of what seems alien. The desire to prove this is a form of self-assertion and, like all self-assertion, it is an obstacle to the growth of Self which it desires, and of which the Self knows that it is capable. Self-assertion, in philosophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends; thus it makes the world of less account than Self, and the Self sets bounds to the greatness of its goods. In contemplation, on the con- trary, we start from the not-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity.
For this reason greatness of soul is not fostered by those philosophies which assimilate the universe to Man. Knowledge is a form of union of Self and not-Self; like all union, it is impaired by dominion, and therefore by any attempt to force the universe into conformity with what we find in ourselves. There is a widespread philosophical tendency towards the view which tells us that Man is the measure of all things, that truth is man-made, that space and time and the world of universals are properties of the mind, and that, if there be anything not created by the mind, it is unknowable and of no account for us. This view, if our previous discussions were cor- rect, is untrue; but in addition to being untrue, it has the effect of robbing philosophic contemplation of all that gives it value, since it fetters contem-
Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction 7
"Enlargement of Self" by Bertrand Russell
plation to Self. What it calls knowledge is not a union with the not-Self, but a set of prejudices, habits, and desires, making an impenetrable veil between us and the world beyond. The man who finds pleasure in such a theory of knowledge is like the man who never leaves the domestic circle for fear his word might not be law.
8
Trinity College, Cambridge, Russell, after being home schooled, a very high Wrangler, and a First Class with distinction in philosophy, took up residence and was later elected a fellow to Trinity College in 1895. Library of Congress
The true philosophic contemplation, on the contrary, finds its satisfaction in every enlargement of the not-Self, in everything that magnifies the ob- jects contemplated, and thereby the subject contemplating. Everything, in contemplation, that is personal or private, everything that depends upon habit, self-interest, or desire, distorts the object, and hence impairs the union which the intellect seeks. By thus making a barrier between subject and object, such personal and private things become a prison to the intel- lect. The free intellect will see as God might see, without a here and now, without hopes and fears, without the trammels of customary beliefs and traditional prejudices, calmly, dispassionately, in the sole and exclusive desire of knowledge—knowledge as impersonal, as purely contemplative, as it is possible for man to attain. Hence also the free intellect will value more the abstract and universal knowledge into which the accidents of pri- vate history do not enter, than the knowledge brought by the senses, and dependent, as such knowledge must be, upon an exclusive and personal point of view and a body whose sense-organs distort as much as they re- veal.
Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction
"Enlargement of Self" by Bertrand Russell
[Freedom of Contemplation]
The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same free- dom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion. It will view its purposes and desires as parts of the whole, with the absence of insis- tence that results from seeing them as infinitesimal fragments in a world of which all the rest is unaffected by any one man's deeds. The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged use- ful or admirable. Thus contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections: it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man's true freedom, and his liberation from the thraldom of narrow hopes and fears.
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and di- minish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philos- ophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
From the reading. . .
"All acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of self, but this enlargement of self is best obtained when it is not directly sought." [Show Less]