The basics of philosophy seem to reside in the Socratic method. It is the simple truths of life that drove Socrates into the marketplaces and streets to begin his famous interrogation of society at large; not in order to prove his superiority over it, but instead in an attempt to wake the average man from his slumber of loose assumption.
Socrates, although born and raised in the Athenian cradle of democracy (which was, in reality, quite a masochistic display of male dominance, and was more of a guised dictatorship much like the modern illusion) was vehemently opposed to the way in which his particular democracy functioned. He believed the 'will of the majority' was not necessarily the right road to follow, as it did not always seem to tread a well-considered path, and was more liable, instead, to simply follow lazy assumptions and the power of opinion.
He believed that the truth, whether it regarded politics, philosophy, or general well-being, resided exclusively in logic. I am unsure as to what his alternative to democracy might have been, but I found myself, while watching the video linked above, opposing both arguments; that of Socrates, and that of democracy, leaving me in an undefined outside-middle-somewhere-where-the-hell-am-I position that resounded with the thought that on each side of the philosophical firing lines, both the democratic and the Socratic interpretations were archaic and too steeped in logic to truly grasp the intangible essence which resides beyond 'all of the above' (and by beyond, I mean that it is right underneath your nose and therefore seems almost too easy to be true).
I both agree and, at the same time disagree with Socrates thoughts on thinking.
Thought, as is represented in Eastern (most notably Buddhistic) thinking, is the root of much suffering. I agree with this if one is to whole-heartedly accept Socrates faith in logic and believe it to be the be-all and end-all. Grasping such a stiff rod and refusing to ever let go because it is the one and only way to reach that loose term we call the 'truth' is the same sort of faith which Socrates looked to abolish in asking the population of Athens to let go of their faith in popular opinion and lazy assumption. It is, ironically, a lazy assumption to assume that Socrates was right.
Philosophy, in my mind, is a beautiful tool as well as an interesting game in which intelligence whirls into intelligence, and eventually flushes the thought toilet to the point that it returns to the intangible essence upon which life is built. To read any philosopher and feel elation or depression at the lazy assumption that they must be right because they gave such-and-such so much thought is a flaw within the philosophical paradigm itself, and is a stage that many of us much traverse in order to come out on the other side where we can read Socrates, Epicurus, Buddah, Alan Watts, Descartes and Sarte, yet still say, 'no, I somewhat disagree.'
No matter what philosophy I read, I do not feel depression or elation because I think so-and-so is right or wrong... I feel, a majority of the time, an elation at the very existence of such layered consideration readily available to me, and only ever really feel depressive if I think, in my own interpretation, that who I am reading missed a key point regarding a very simple truth. This is why I completely reject nihilism. Not because I disagree with some of its tenements.. such as most things being objectively meaningless.. but because its unappreciative, pretentious and destructive attitude towards life misses so many key points that it almost seems like idiots invented the idea in the first place. Most philosophers that follow nihilism simply do it out of being locked in a Western hubris that has yet to be cleansed from our society's thought paradigm, yet which Socrates himself embraced so whole-heartedly: "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." And that is the highest flight of human intelligence.. more accurately titled 'wisdom'.. which our Westernized thought process seems to ignore with a careless and ungrateful arrogance.
We have yet to fully transcend our ancient Roman roots.
I do not mean to say that Western thought is wrong and Eastern thought right; but I do think that the East/West divide is a hubris-driven abstraction which exists in a 'concrete' form only to the West, and exists to the East insofar as they wish to distance themselves from Western arrogance and capitalistic nihilism.
I suppose my point is.. any philosophy that takes itself very seriously is, at its very root, entirely incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment