The Neglected Philosophies: An Enagagement with Philosophy


Today I won’t really cover a philosophy, but rather an approach to philosophy. This approach treats philosophy not as something to be studied, but something to be done. But how does one do philosophy? What does it even mean to do philosophy?

Well, there are actually multiple answers to that question. For philosophies that claim to be ways of life, the answer is obvious and they present it. But what about other types of philosophies?

A very clear, elegant answer is given by Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell was a mathematician who wrote on a wide variety of subjects, including philosophy. The last chapter of his Problems of Philosophy provides a perspective on why and how to study philosophy.

Russell treats Philosophy as a set of questions to contemplate and not a set of propositions to believe or memorize. The questions are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves. It isn’t about finding answers (if any can be found), but the growth that comes from approaching these questions in the right frame of mind.

His is a very readable chapter, and I can add little to it.  Therefore, most of this article consists of excerpts from that chapter, which are italicized, like this. My additions are minor and are mostly structural. They consist of:

  1. Section headings in bold
  2. In-text summaries, cuts and “sics” [in italic brackets]
  3. The occasional comment underlined

The links above point to his text in its entirety, and I recommend you read his original, unabridged work in case I introduce any distortions or over-zealous interpretations by ommission.

His essay was written quite a while ago, so he doesn’t use gender neutral terms. I hope you can look past this; naturally, this essay applies to women and men!

Before studying philosophy, we must…

[…] first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called ‘practical’ men. The ‘practical’ man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind. […] in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

What’s Philosophy’s Value?

[…] 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 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 beleagured [sic] fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant 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. One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation.

How do we Contemplate Philosophy?

Philosophic contemplation 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 acquisition 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 advance that its objects should have this or that character, but adapts the Self to the characters which it finds in its objects.

COMMENT: Many schools of thought hold that reducing one’s self(-image) increases happiness, and I have stated that a Universal Self-image is equivalent to no Self-image. Therefore, I think Russell’s Self-enlargement is compatible with these views. The key here is conflict. As long as one’s enlargement takes in opposites, all is well. It’s when one enlarges the self by only taking in part of an area that one’s self-image can come into conflict with the other parts that were not identified with, and this can lead to trouble. Put another way, it’s not self, but self-boundaries that are the problem.

The desire to prove [a priori claims] is a form of self-assertion and, like all self-assertion, it is an obstacle to the growth of Self […]. Self-assertion, in philosophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends […]. In contemplation, on the contrary, 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.

The true philosophic contemplation, on the contrary, finds its satisfaction in every enlargement of the not-Self, in everything that magnifies the objects 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 intellect. 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. […]

The Benefits Do Not End There

The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom 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 insistence 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 useful 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 [sic] of narrow hopes and fears.

Concluding Thoughts

This approach to philosophy is fascinating, and turns philosophy into a practice. Russell was not alone in advocating Philosophy as practice — and some argue this was Philosophy’s original aim — but his presentation is the clearest and most concise I’ve read.

If you’re interested in exploring this further, you may find the following useful:

Do-it-yourself philosophical experiments from this book.

Pierre Hadot’s Philosophy as a Way of Life.  Hadot goes in a slightly different direction, exploring specific philosophies as ways of life, but the general approach is similar enough to warrant inclusion here.

There is also an exploration of Hadot’s theme with case studies here.


6 thoughts on “The Neglected Philosophies: An Enagagement with Philosophy

  1. “To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.” Bertrand Russell

      1. Thank you! The books you recommended are very worthwhile.

        For relative beginners in the field of philosophical inquiry and how it relates to everyday life, I can also recommend Alain de Botton’s “The Consolations of Philosophy.”

  2. I really liked this post. I am very much an amateur philosopher, if even that, and I find it difficult sometimes to get into discussions with people with more of an academic background in philosophy. Without specific passages to quote or names to drop, my statements are often ignored. I feel excluded from the conversation even if my ideas have some merit to them. I understand the importance of such a background, and wish I had one, but sometimes it feels like they are merely memorizing and repeating mantras that were driven into them by books they didn’t write and thoughts they didn’t have. Viewing philosophy in the way you have presented above, allows for a much more meaningful and encompassing investigation. One where the questions and the search are weighted above all else. It is easy to find philosophies and “answers,” so to speak, if what you are looking for is merely established perspectives. What is hard is finding questions, real questions, and pursuing them whole-heartedly. This is a skill to develop. This is what separates true philosophy from “philosophology” (the study of philosophies and philosophers, to invent a term).

    1. Thank you. Bertrand Russell has written some great stuff.

      You make some great points; in fact you remind me of something…

      I used to meet with friends at a coffee shop to talk philosophy. On occasion, random people or other friends would join in. Some of them would apologize for not having any formal philosophical training, or not having read up on any of the subjects. Interestingly enough, these same people were the ones who often brought up the best points!

      I can definitely believe that many people with training in philosophy name drop, and treat philosophical subjects like dates in a history books: facts to simply repeat. Sometimes, the problem is deeper, as formal training can keep them from asking the fundamental questions that are the hallmark of philosophy. Maybe they think they know, or are embarrassed to ask because they think those questions are for rank amateurs.

      I think anyone who is really into philosophy would welcome you and your views, and would engage in them on their own merit.

      Having said that, sometimes knowing the field can help you articulate your points and even give you food for thought. Two philosophers I kept encountering and quoting were Kant and Hume. Kant for instance, asked about what really existed and formulated his infamous Categorical Imperative for morality. Hume… well, he did a bunch of stuff, from self to perception to free will to… Even if you vehemently disagree with them, they can help you focus on why you disagree and hence to better formulate your own position.

      Philosophology! I love it! I have to remember to cram it into a conversation.

      On a final note, have you heard of “Socrates Cafe”? It’s both a book and an open philosophical meeting. I haven’t attended any of the meetings, but know what they’re supposed to be like (on paper at least). Maybe you’d be interested in checking one of those out if they have them in your area?

  3. Johannes Nelson, I understand your frustration. As I mentioned in one of the posts on my blog, even if “mentally inferior” to some professional thinkers or folks with an academic background, relevant and constructive criticism by laymen is not only permitted, but quite legitimate and helpful. You are as entitled to your philosophical opinions and ideas as anyone else with an IQ above that of a fruit fly. Don’t give up: One can easily tell a rotten egg without necessarily being able to lay a fresh one…

    bloggingisaresponsibility’s suggestion of getting to know about “Socrates Cafe” is a very good one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s