What's this dying for?

I officially hate philosophy.  And while those of you who know me think about that for a minute, let me take this moment to recommend the new album from TV On the Radio entitled, Dear Science.  Please don't read this post until you've purchased and listened to this album.  ...  ...  See what I mean?  Ok moving on.

Now you might say, "wait a minute Mark, you LOVE philosophy."  It's hard to dispute that I've led many of you to believe this is the case (probably the most incriminating evidence against me is the fact that 1) I have held numerous discussions of a philosophical nature with many of you at some point, 2) I generally take an interest in those aspects of art, literature, culture, film, music, religion etc. that raise thought provoking queries into the nature of man and his relationship to a meaningful life (both objectively if that's possible and subjectively), 3) I am very much against living an unexamined life, 4) I don't tolerate stupidity well (though I think I have gotten a little better... sometimes), 5) (and these last three premises if we can call them that are perhaps the most empirically incriminating) I majored in philosophy at the U, during which time I 6) presented a paper at the Intermountain West Philosophy Conference before 7) moving my entire life to London to get a master's degree in philosophy from an elite school... this costs a lot of money, I don't have this money, etc. etc.), so when you say, "wait a minute Mark, you LOVE philosophy," I guess I sorta kinda have to concede that your inductive reasoning is not altogether invalid.  

I feel that my disdainful declaration is a bit misleading, so let me explain more clearly what I mean.  Philosophy seems to have lost its way.  Those who pursue it have become increasingly interested in their own "brilliant" argumentation while truth has been left out to dry.  They scoff at the philosophical giants for their apparent lack of reason and argument, while toasting one another to their own perspicacity.  I can hardly get through a course without a cacophony of  "tinks" coming from the champagne glasses.  If they can argue a position to the point where their logic becomes "unassailable," they undoubtedly will.  And for the sake of what?  

For the true philosopher observing this, the whole pursuit seems pointless.  Suppose you were in class discussing the concept of happiness as it pertains to pursuing a conception of "the good life."  During this discussion, it seems prudent to come to some definition of happiness.  Now suppose someone brings up the point that the person leading the happy life is the one who is in a perpetual psychological state of feeling happy.  From this, our hero asserts that any activity that enables this happy psychological state inside of him, is happiness.  To illustrate, suppose someone derives happiness from snorting cocaine, drinking alcohol and watching pornography.  Now let's suppose this person can sustain this behavior leading to his happiness with no negative effects for the duration of his life.  Who is to say that this person isn't happy, and hasn't lived out his conception of "the good life?"  (tink... tink... nod, smile)  The class ends.  "So brave soldiers of the mind, what have we learned about happiness?"  Answer, "why the hell did I take this class?"  It appears as though the morass of unassailable subjective relativity, once again appears to be supreme truth.  Welp, guess I'll pack up my things, I now know how to achieve the good.  Thanks philosophy.

I'm not saying that arguing for the subjective is always wrong, in fact, I am a strong proponent of subjectivity in most cases within reason, but if philosophy leads us to the conclusion that drugs, porn, and alcoholism lead to a happy life, then we're off the rails.  This is but one example of where philosophy in the academic arena has gone wrong (I've chosen an almost hyperbolic example to prove a point... in other examples, it's much more difficult to demarcate the ridiculous from the fruitful - I won't look at these as I've made my point).  So what is it philosophers should be doing?  The word "philosopher" of course means "lover of wisdom."  Would you call the argument outlined above "wisdom?"  We philosophers have failed.  We have neglected a pursuit for Truth, favoring logic and argument instead.  Truth is bigger than this, and we should be ashamed that our pride has blinded us.  As Socrates taught, the first step towards becoming a philosopher is to recognize one's own ignorance.  These "philosophers" seem only to recognize their own brilliance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should throw philosophical argument and reasoning out the window.  These are crucially important tools.  They help us carve a path through unfounded opinions, and are allergic to mindless dogma and rhetoric.  But Truth is not a syllogism.  It is not formulaic.  The format of "Premise 1 + Premise 2 + Premise 3 = Conclusion," may give us validity of an instance of truth as it pertains to the structure of language.  Truth however, is something of a different animal.  In our example of happiness, it is difficult to refute that, given the premises, the drugaholic porn freak has achieved it.  There comes a point where we must get away from this way of thinking.  The virtues Aristotle taught don't apply just to some guy who happened to value them.  They are relevant to a deeper happiness for every person in an objective sense.  (As an aside for you etymologists out there (Tom) the Greek word eudaimonia Aristotle used, does not translate into English very well.  It is less, "happiness" and more, "joy and satisfaction in fulfilling your ultimate potential as a human being.")  While it may be difficult to prove objectivity deductively, we have justified reasons to believe (justified true belief?) in some objectivity.  Aristotle's means for achieving eudiamonia came through the virtues.  Rather than understand Aristotle's practical wisdom, the modern day philosopher finds something logically inconsistent and then proceeds to throw his entire book out the window.  Thus, they hide in language and reasoning, and it makes them feel better about themselves.  Aristotle had something to say about these people (from the Nicomachean Ethics), "they take refuge in argument, thinking that they are being philosophers and that this is the way to be good.  They are rather like patients who listen carefully to their doctors, but do not do what they are told.  Just as such treatment will not make patients healthy in body, so being this kind of philosopher will not make the masses healthy in soul."  

So if truth isn't what the logical positivists believed it to be (although I think they were correct in some ways), then what is truth?  I side with Heidegger and the greeks about the notion of truth as alethia.  This word means that truth is revelation, not in the prophetic sense, but in the sense of unconcealment.  We uncover truth, or rather, truth makes itself known.  Think about it, truth is not simply a correlation of statements, but it is a process of revealing.  Our very lives are processes of change.  We live out of the past, through the present and into the future.  We are not static as human beings, we interact with the world.  We work, we plant, we build, we grow, we reflect, we interpret, and make judgments about the world.  In this process, truths are revealed to us.  Many times, we don't have a way to explain how these truths are uncovered.  We can't say how it is, we can only say that it is.  This process isn't reserved for the philosopher who is versed in deductive logic - for truth is something to each of us.  The process is almost so basic that we can't even talk about it - yet it is of fundamental and crucial importance.  

This leads me to aesthetic experiences.  Through aesthetics, truths are revealed.  Kant said that an aesthetic experience is the only place where a person truly ceases from all desire.  Truths are revealed through these experiences.  We can't say how, but we can say that something has been communicated.  Try to describe your aesthetic experience to someone else.  I think you'll find it extremely difficult.  Again, we don't know what it is, we only know that it is.  Could this truth be ripped apart by throwing it to the wolves of philosophy?  Absolutely.  Yet it isn't some abstraction or correlation of sentences and premises... it is relevant.  In this sense, it seems that there is some objectivity at work.  Something from without being communicated within.   

So do I hate philosophy?  I think I've made it clear that yes I do, and no I don't.  Am I particularly enjoying my academic experience in London thus far?  I would say, no not really.  I can see why Kierkegaard scoffed at the stuffy academic philosopher who revels in abstraction and is devoid of passion.  However, I am coming to conclusions about my life and the role philosophy will play in it.