Philosophy As "Basic" -- How It can Touch the Heart
Updated: Nov 8
Philosophy isn't regarded as something popular or mainstream, and due to the influence of academics, some people may associate it with higher education.
However, they fail to realize that this field, starting with Socrates, was supposed to be a public feature and not necessarily the sole property of an intellectual elite.
That is, because everyone intelligent enough is capable of philosophizing, or simply contemplating, on the worth of life and other subjects of depth, through logical reasoning and skepticism.
My former "master", AKA, the one who introduced me to this field, works as a philosophy professor. I asked him once to share his articles here as well, so more people will read his material.
However, he replied to me with "My articles don't need to be reproduced" and simply said that anonymity gives him comfort.
I think that philosophy is in a sad state nowadays, and people who see themselves as philosophers, could easily be seen as pseudo-intellectuals, while all they want is to practice contemplation and attempt to gain insights on their own or through debate.
The association of the self with philosophy is also associated with narcissism, with the belief that one is so in love with themselves that they are full of themselves, as well.
Should you be as naïve as I was at the beginning of my "career" as a philosopher, the world at large would see you as a pretentious, condescending man, all because I wanted to give my two cents, too.
For some reason, the branding of someone with philosophizing, might create a bit of resentment from others because, as long as you don't have official credentials, you can easily be suspected of either deception or self-delusion.
That is the problem of philosophizing without credentials: The fact that academics are so overrated that you are frequently required to have some qualification or certificate in order for your voice to be heard in a field that anyone can easily fill! How come? Isn't philosophy the field of the genius?
You see, I believe that philosophy is more than an ability than a profession, just like the ability to walk, to talk, and so on. While it might not be as basic as what I presented, deep contemplations via logic are something that shouldn't require a degree in order to be taken seriously.
After all, it doesn't matter WHO someone said but WHAT they said.
Philosophers shouldn't regard themselves as better than anyone else, and no one else should just assume that they do just because of their love of contemplation and wisdom.
A philosophical article doesn't need to have a specific, orderly structure, as long as it is understood and grounded in either good logic, good evidence, or both.
After all, philosophy is the mother of all sciences not the other way around (source for that below). It didn't start with a prestigious professor who spoke to you earlier and gave you homework.
It started with people who simply wanted to ask essential questions about existence: why am I here, what do I have to live for, what might happen after I die, and so on and on.
It is a naïve, yet honest, thing to ask: Why should philosophy be rendered irrelevant in this day and age when it can speak to so many people' hearts? Have you ever worked in a job you didn't like, and asked yourself, "What in the world am I doing here?"
What am I doing here, beyond getting paid? What is my life beyond work, family, and friends? These are essential questions, and likewise, they are philosophical questions, as they are rooted in the need of many of us, to continue living on in a world that doesn't necessarily care about you or acknowledge your existence.
By creating this site, I wanted to do something greater than simply write my articles: I wanted them to touch the human heart, not just the heart of an academic or an intellectual.
It doesn't come from a need to boast my ego or "help" those whom I believe to be "needy" or "desperate" -- I simply want to make philosophy relevant. Not only my philosophy about stuff, but philosophy in general. I want to help make the field more accessible, as it deserves.
The problem with religion, with love, with entertainment, and so on, comes from the fact that they don't always satisfy the human heart. More specifically, the problem arises when we may think they do. This is a delusion of endless desire.
You can be a zealot of a certain religion, have a happy family, enjoy material wealth and technology, and still find yourself at night questioning why you even do the things you do.
Do you see now, how basic philosophy is? Not necessarily in complexity, but in its ultimate functionality, it can fulfill the basic need for purpose.
Actual science does not provide us with answers to existential questions, but philosophizing can. Science doesn't necessarily have a purpose beyond explaining the technicalities of things. However, as humans, technicalities do not suffice.
After all, what is the point in them when they don't fulfil our hearts with the joy of insight and the possibility of discovering new things about life that can be used to "justify" our existence?
The need for contemplation comes from the fact that we have life-and-existence-related problems. If we didn't have these problems in life, we wouldn't need to philosophize. It is important to have a drive to contemplate, so we would be likelier to handle said problems.
The easiest way to escape our problems, of course, is through distractions, through things that keep us away from the potential of the abyss; to make us forget, for a while at least, that our existence is a "problem."
The "problem" stems from the fact that, we were never asked to be here, and yes, we can be punished by the world for the possibility of ending the supposed absurdity of existence.
A philosopher is simply a seeker of knowledge related to the deeper aspects of existence, and they won't necessarily be satisfied by looking things up online or through other means of external research. Sometimes, the research can be done within. Within the mind. Combine both and you can write great pieces, but I digress.
The need for philosophy stems from a possible lack of satisfaction from life. And from a lack of satisfaction from the things that are commonly accepted as true, as well.
Research isn't necessarily required, as philosophizing is this: the need to keep one away from the knife, the gun, the top of a building, and the need to genuinely smile. They don't necessarily have the answers to what they seek, because otherwise, they wouldn't need to seek them in the first place.
But unlike many others, they at least bother solving their existential problems. Some of them, like myself, help others as well by doing so (like in the form of this site).
They're not necessarily full of themselves, because they simply want to expand their knowledge through logic. Finally, they're not necessarily arrogant narcissists, because seeing one as a philosopher, doesn't mean that you love yourself, or even want to be who you are currently.
For now, think of the following: We were all born once, through a simple process: escaping our mother's birth canal. It isn't that we necessarily wanted to be in this world, when we came here.
We didn't come as babies with a smile, but with a cry of suffering, as we were naked and covered in blood, into a world we were never asked to be in and with a life we never asked for. Existence, you see, is forced upon us, and philosophy can be utilized to change this status, as it's, as said, forced upon.
Through philosophizing, life can be not only a bother, but an unreluctant choice.
My former "master" called my articles "poor". What he failed to realize is that the worth of an article doesn't come from how it is built, at least not exclusively, but ultimately, in how it can influence the hearts and minds of people, as is expected when doing anything in the first place.
Thus, a proper philosopher, in my eyes, is not someone who serves their words to the exclusive audience of a select elite, but to all humans, across the Earth.
My quest for relevance is thus not only for my own sake, but also for the sake of my occupation: to make people see this existence as voluntary, thereby ending its status as forced upon in the eyes of many people.
That's how philosophy can touch people's hearts, whether they are rich CEOs or factory workers, men and women; it should appeal to anyone, AS IT CAN BE.
Source from ResearchGate:
Dierks, Nicolas. (2014). Re: Is science a part of or separate from philosophy?. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-science-a-part-of-or-separate-from-philosophy/52e11a1cd685cc0b208b4621/citation/download .