Journeyman Philosopher

“Philosophy is just opinions, there are no answers.”

This is a common misconception that plagues all philosophy. As a matter of fact it may be the reason people don’t consider philosophy a serious intellectual enterprise. However luckily the misconception is no more than an overstated observation.

One thing that must be considered when looking at philosophy and philosophers in general, is that often they speak with very safe terms such as ‘opinion, belief, best of my knowledge’. This leads people to assume that philosophy is just opinion based.

The thing is truly philosophers are the only ones who acknowledge in such depth how much of life has a sense of unsureness to it, much more so than the average individual. This creates a problematic rift; on one side we have the doubtful philosopher, and on the other the confident idiot.

For example it was Descartes with his idea of the Evil Demon that brought to light the idea of skepticism. A concept so insanely ridden with doubt, yet at the same time such a logical possibility. When most look at the idea of being manipulated by an evil demon they consider it non-sensical, and it is really, but just because it may be non-sensical doesn’t mean it isn’t a possibility, just an unlikely one.

One of the reasons, I believe, philosophers stray away from over confident assertions is often those that use such assertions are incorrect. In fact most often the weight of those who make such assertions belief sits on their confidence. A philosopher that is over confident soon finds themselves head over heals in assumptions, and assumptions are what makes one a poor philosopher.

Think of the preacher that yells with assertion ‘You’re goin to hell cause…’ This assertion and confidence is over powering and convincing, but is it right? Hardly ever are such mannerisms correct. One who uses words in such a manner is literally a bully, with no reason or logic behind his base assumptions he has a tendency to spew overconfident nonsense.

Perhaps you want an example. If philosophy was all opinions and had no truth then you wouldn’t be able to isolate a truth within philosophy. For example you wouldn’t be able to say ‘A determinist is one who believes in the absence of true free-will, in light of there own actions stemming from wants and reasons.’ But I did just say it and that is true. My very basic point is there are definitions within philosophy at the very least that are truths, people may disagree in application if these are true but none will (sensibly) disagree with the definition of the belief.

But what of more meaningful truths with philosophical definitions aside? A good example would be ethical theory. Within certain mental frameworks certain ethical theories are right and wrong (this is with opinion aside). For example, if you value moral consistency ‘you can’t eat meat’! Yay for vegetarianism!!!

The problems originate I believe from very theoretical philosophies. In fields such as Epistemology, and Metaphysics. These philosophical fields are on the outskirts of what I would consider ‘practical philosophy’. Although truths reside in them, Im sure, I feel it is the most difficult to connect oneself to them. And often individuals who take a class or read a book get lost in the theoretical mumbo jumbo.

The fact is philosophy is of practical application to our lives and is a very useful tool. It simply needs to be used correctly. There are truths, fallacies, rights, and wrong that litter the philosophical community. It is just very important to be able to discern these for ourselves and be able to analyze them and understand them through their own standards.

What is true and what is false predominately is influenced by your assumptions, knowing your assumptions allows you to make true consistent decisions. This is what philosophy is to me, it is about applying your believes and values in a true way to life.