Is Philosophy a "Way" or a "Tool"?

Question for the Week:  Is Philosophy a 'way of life' or a 'tool of thought'?

Advanced question: How does the decision between either 'way' or 'tool' effect philosophy's relation to faith and church practice?

(Extra points for those who can ferret out the context of this question.)

(and super extra points for those who can explain which type of philosophy the previous post assumes.)

And lastly, check out 'Rebellion (Lies)' by Arcade Fire, first because it is a great song be a great band, but also because of what it might say to this question (and tips the hand of my answer):

Sleeping is giving in, no matter what the time is.
sleeping is giving in, so lift those heavy eyelids.

people say that you'll die faster than without water.
but we know it's just a lie, scare your son and scare your daughter.
 
people say that your dreams are the only things that save ya.
come on baby in our dreams, we can live our misbehaviour.

everytime you close your eyes lies, lies!
everytime you close your eyes lies, lies!

Comments

[James K.A. Smith]

A good question, Geoff. Much harder than it looks on first blush! I'd be most sympathetic to Hadot's line that philosophy is a way of life. That's certainly what it has meant before its professionalization over the past hundred years. However, that also means that there is no such thing as "philosophy," but only philosophies--competing visions of the Good Life.

For my intro students, I try to get them to also appreciate that philosophy is a stance of fundamental questioning. If the unexamined life is not worth living, then philosophy is that tradition/school/discipline that pushes generation after generation to ask the "big questions."

[Matt Wiebe]

My answer is yes, because every dichotomy must be smashed!

A (little) more seriously, I'd go with philosophy as a way of life; a Socratic examined life worth living. There are many tools that are served up to further this life, but I can't see philosophy as merely instrumental.

[[email protected]]

I remember being deeply changed when I first heard Marx's 11th Thesis on Feuerbach:

Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu verändern

(Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it)

So, I guess I go with the way-of-life. Like Jamie, that's a posture one takes in the world.

[Joel A. Eaton]

it's funny that this is what I'm writing on for a paper on Socrates this week. How bout philosophy being a love of the Good? Epistemology and Ethics then are not divided but unified as the soul loves and seeks to be like the Good. Or is that skirting the question?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Joel,
I'm not sure if you have skirted the issue or not.
Couldn't "the love of..." work for both conceptions of philosophy?

"the love of..." the Good is that which propels us on our WAY; or "the love of..." cause us to fashion (or recognize) the Good in the precise tools of thought.

Also, is the "Good" within philosophy or outside of it (beyond being)?

[James K.A. Smith]

Of course love has been at the heart of philosophy since antiquity--as the love (phileo) of wisdom (sophia)--though one of my more cynical colleagues in grad school thought it was better translated "friend of sophists!"

[Matt Wiebe]

love of sophists! ;)

[Joel A. Eaton]

love (phileo)is the difference between philosophy and sophistry linguistically.
And love is the difference between sophistry and philosophy in a deeper way. Love of the True and Beautiful leads to epistemological-ethical fusion such that Socrates both seeks to know Justice and be just both because He loves the Just.

I think for Socrates philosophy is a way of life--and Hadot makes that point well, but his ironic admission of ignorance doesn't prevent him from seeking out the tools of thought to know and argue soundly for what is true. His philosophy is a love and care for living-thinking because the Good is both the perfect episteme and ethic.

So, perhaps the unity of these two philosophical themes is found in his love for the True/Beautiful? Which in turn drives his inquiry and lifestyle.

as far as the Good goes, it has to be beyond being but is what all being participates in and thus perfection of the ethical, epistmelogical, and ontological. So, loving the good, the soul participates in the good and thereby grows (that might be the way I'd describe philosophy--which might just have been easier said by answering "way" and maybe that is what you mean by "way" I might have been reading in a different dichotomy than was presented--if so I apologize for the verbage)

What do you think?

[Eric Speece]

I agree with Hadot's understanding of spiritual exercises that make philosophy a way of life as well. But I'm wondering if your context has more to do with Steve Long's interpretation of Aquinas' "Five Ways" (in his forth-coming book Speaking of God)?? For Long, philosophy (metaphysics) opens itself up to that which is beyond itself and thus becomes a "way" which points to sacred doctrine and sacred doctrine completes metaphysics. More specifically, Aquinas' five ways all point to Jesus who is "the Way" (Jn 14:6).

[Geoff Holsclaw]

AH!!  Now Eric has brought theology into it.

And it seems that everyone drinks deeply of postmodernity because no one is claiming that philosophy is a 'tool' of clarification of concepts.

The context of my question is the perennial dispute between analytic and continental philosophy, and theology's use of them, expressed in R.R. Reno's "Theology's Continental Captivity" in First Things.  His summary is:

In antiquity, philosophy was a form of theology, or, to use Pierre Hadot’s phrase, philosophy was a way of life, organized around doctrines about ultimate truth coordinated with moral and spiritual disciplines of the soul.

After the triumph of Christianity in late antiquity, the meaning of philosophy changed. The proclamation of Christ provided Christendom with “the Way.” The Church supplied the crucial doctrines about ultimate truth, as well as disciplines to cure the soul. In this context, philosophy took on a more modest role. It provided logical training and a conceptually precise vocabulary for Christian thought, expressed the perennial longing of the human heart for the infinite, and served as a clearinghouse for natural knowledge. This subordinate role is the essence of scholasticism.

Reno's contention is that philosophy should continue in this handmaiden role of conceptual clarification through the modern scholasticism of analytic philosophy, rather than compete with the 'way of life' philosophies of the continental variety. 

[Geoff Holsclaw]

So them my question becomes:

Does one's either commitment or rejection of Christendom inform one's view of philosophy (as being either a 'way' or a 'tool')?

[Trent]

I seem to be in way over my head, but it there may be something missing here.

I believe that philosophy must be a tool, primarily because regardless of my ability to understand or attain ultimate knowledge, that understanding of the divine nature is still my goal. In my view it is quite possible that I could come across some divide that logic, philosophy, deduction or whatever tool of understanding that I may have will not get me there.

If philosophy is my "way" then whatever may lie across the divide must be abandoned because it lies outside of my accepted boundaries for discovery.

That is a possibility that I cannot accept. I would appreciate your gentle critique, :)

[Jeremy Wiebe]

Perhaps a helpful distinction here is Aristotle's discussion of 'means' and 'ends' as developed in Nichomachean Ethics. Aristotle says that some things are: 1) means to ends 2) both means and ends 3) only ends and not means.

For example: exercise is generally conceived of as a means to an end (ie. better health, emotional well-being, better fitness level for competition, etc.). Aristotle would consider health, for example, both a means and an end - it is good in itself, yet can also become a means to another end such as one's overall quality of life. The greatest good which is an end alone is the broad and open-ended term "eudaimonia" translated as happiness, flourishing, or well-being.

Perhaps philosophy, and its intimate relationship(s) to theology, faith and practice, is best conceived of as a means and end. If one subscribes to a contemplative philosophy(as described by Joel Eaton above), loving and participating in the Good or God, one's philosophizing could both lead to the way and be the way. Philosophizing "well" might "embody" questioning, contemplating, reflecting, acting, and loving well.

[Jason Hesiak]

I think maybe there's something that might help clarify what's going on...

Trent said: I believe that philosophy must be a tool, primarily because regardless of my ability to understand or attain ultimate knowledge, that understanding of the divine nature is still my goal....If philosophy is my "way" then whatever may lie across the divide must be abandoned because it lies outside of my accepted boundaries for discovery.

Then I like Jeremey's helpful thoughts from Aristotle on means and ends. Which lead to: The greatest good which is an end alone is the broad and open-ended term "eudaimonia" translated as happiness, flourishing, or well-being.

It seems as though the parallel to "eudaimonia" in Hebrew would be Shalom, no? Which leads me to what I think might help clarify things a bit. Philosophy is self knowledge (rather than knowledge of God). Which is why for me it can't be central. Which is why it can't really be a "Way". Which is why I guess I would think of philosophy as more of a "tool".

The "practice" of "the Way" (those Hebrews were very action oriented) is itself a way of "knowing" God (intimately...you know ;) ...the way Adam "knew" Eve). So I'd prefer a proper marriage over something in the mirror. I was just reading last night in Malici where he denounces Isreal for violating the marriage covenant with God...

[Trent]

Thanks Jeremy,

It has been many years since I read Aristotle, but that does help to clarify my concern. I am interpreting "way" as an end, which to me is unacceptable. Perhaps it is just semantics.

[Christopher Roussel]

Hmm. I think I like the way Deleuze and Guatarri conceive of philosophy, which is based on Nietzsche's conception: philosophy is creation. Of what? Values, concepts, ethe, etc. It is something that is a tool/way to "life" as living, not a way of life or a simple tool; it is too nuanced.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

impleri,
Philosophy is not a "way of life" by a way to "life"...interesting.

Similarly, I was thinking that during modernity and beyond there is the conception of philosophy as "critique" or "critical". Critical philosophy is concerned with revealing the limits and problems of thought, rather than positive solutions. it comes with the belief that positive determinations in philosophy lead to violence.

[Trent]

I don't know enough about the part where positive determinations lead to violence, but I do believe that philosophy is like a flashlight in a fenced yard on a dark night. It can show you where the fence is, but it can not help you climb it.