What is the use of philosophy is a false question
What is the use of philosophy? It's a very practical question and one of the most popular questions I ask when I'm in class.
Our time is an era of philosophical decline, and I often say that there is a lack of real philosophy in our time, and we are unfortunate to live in such an era without philosophy. But from another point of view, we are also fortunate, because an era without philosophy is an era of ease, an era in which one can follow sensations like animals, and this era is characterized not by the sublime but by pleasure.
Regardless of whether everyone's value judgment of this era is positive or negative, there is one thing that everyone must admit, that is, our era is an era of marketization, an era of impetuosity, and an era of quick success. In this day and age, when people learn anything, they first have to ask, "What is its use?" "For example, if you go to college and your parents choose a major for you, they will consider what is the use of studying this major after graduation in the future." Because of this, no one wants to study philosophy. Everyone understands that philosophy is of no use in our time.
If a classmate wants to ask me, what is the use of philosophy? I have to ask you, what do you mean by "use"? If it refers to practical uses, utilitarian uses, that is, what practical benefits philosophy can bring you, then I will answer you flatly: philosophy has no practical use! If a teacher who teaches philosophy tells you that if you study philosophy well, you will certainly be a good businessman and a good official in the future, and you will be superior in practical work. I think that if this teacher is not lying to you, he must be lying to himself. I have never felt that there is any direct causal relationship between studying philosophy and doing business well and being a good official, and philosophy does not have such a great ability to make you prosperous in the market and soar in the official arena.
Lectures on the History of Western Philosophy, by Zhao Lin, Ideal Republic | Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore, January 2022
There is an American philosopher James who once said: "Philosophy cannot bake bread!" What he meant was that philosophy didn't bring you any practical benefit. In fact, this was already predestined from the beginning of philosophy.
So how did philosophy come about? This question was actually considered in ancient Greece. Aristotle, the master of ancient Greek philosophy, once analyzed the reasons for the emergence of philosophy.
In Metaphysics, Aristotle explores the preconditions on which philosophy arises, explaining why we have philosophy. In Aristotle's view, all other disciplines are associated with some practical use, for example, we study physics because we want to understand the laws of nature; we study logic because we think rationally; we study linguistics and rhetoric because we want to make language very powerful and beautiful, and these are of course very practical uses. But philosophy arises for a different reason, it goes beyond practical use altogether. So how did philosophy come about? Aristotle believed that philosophy must have two conditions, one is surprise and the other is leisure.
Aristotle
Surprise is that when we face nature and the phenomena of human society, we tend to be amazed at the thousands of weather in the world. Surprise is a very good quality of our human beings, animals rarely have a sense of surprise, animals only have feelings of fear, alertness and the like, it will not produce a sense of surprise when there is nothing or no threat. Only people will be amazed in the face of incomprehensible phenomena, and will ask various questions in the face of nature and human society. This sense of problems arising from surprise constitutes the beginning of our philosophical thought, and it is from surprise that philosophy gradually arises.
But Aristotle also believed that it is not enough to be surprised, but also to have leisure. We always remember only the previous sentence and forget the last sentence. What does leisure mean, simply put, that there is nothing to do when you have eaten a full meal. As we all know, ancient Greek society was a slave society, and there was a group of people who had eaten enough to eat and had nothing to do, and who had no worries about food and clothing, and this leisure allowed them to think wildly and consider those illusory problems. Therefore, in Aristotle's view, if you have no leisure and are busy every day for five buckets of rice, you certainly cannot have the heart to think about philosophy. In other words, this leisure means that when you have no worries in life, you will think about philosophical problems.
In the West, since Aristotle put forward this view, for quite some time the study of philosophy has been the business of the spiritual aristocrats, who have nothing to do, who do not need to work for sorghum, who do not need to make money to make a living, and who will choose philosophy without worries. Because they feel that philosophy is very sublime, a purely speculative science, a metaphysical science, not stained with the slightest dust. Philosophers of the past did have such an attitude towards philosophy, so we have always agreed with Aristotle that philosophy arises because of surprise and leisure. In ancient Greece, almost all of the first philosophers were freedmen, and these freemen could be called slave owners in a sense, because the free people of ancient Greece had slaves. But among the slaves there were no philosophers, because the slaves were not concerned with thinking about philosophical questions, they had to work for their livelihood.
As it stands today, when we demand that philosophy must be associated with activities such as earning a living, seeking a job, doing business, and advancing to a higher rank, we are no longer worthy to talk about philosophy when we think that the study of philosophy can be useful in these practical aspects. If Aristotle had been resurrected, he would have thought that this attitude towards philosophy shows that we have placed ourselves in the position of a slave, and that it is impossible for a slave to engage in true philosophical thinking; he considers first and foremost the question of real livelihood. In his discussion of the reasons for the emergence of philosophy, Aristotle once made it clear that all other learning is aimed at mastering one skill after another and using it for a practical purpose in life; only philosophy itself has no practical purpose, and philosophy is beyond practical purposes and is a "useless" science. If you ask what the purpose of studying philosophy is, then Aristotle will tell you that there is no practical purpose in learning philosophy, it goes beyond practical purpose, because learning philosophy and mastering wisdom is itself the highest purpose of life.
Before Aristotle, there was a group of philosophers called wise men, who taught people a set of debate techniques and the wisdom of thinking. As we all know, the English word "philosophy" is phosophy, the original meaning of the word in Greek is "love wisdom", the meaning of the word "philo" is love, and "sophia" is wisdom. The wise men, on the other hand, consider themselves to be the ones who master and impart wisdom, so they call themselves "sophists," "wise men" or "wise men." From this title, it can be seen that the wise men are arrogant. Wise people believe that wisdom is something that can be used to make money, and I teach you wisdom, and after you have mastered wisdom, you can use it to fight lawsuits, engage in political debates, etc., so as to bring you practical benefits. Therefore, the wise men taught people the art of debate to collect money.
Later, another great philosopher, Socrates, a little later than the wise, despised the wise so much that he referred to them as "those who wholesale and retail the food of the soul." Plato, a student of Socrates, and Aristotle, a student of Plato, are all in the same way of dealing with the wise, and they both look down on the wise. In Aristotle's view, the wise man is the man who makes money by a specious wisdom, and this practice of teaching people a set of sophistry techniques and making a living and making money out of it is precisely contrary to the original intention of philosophy.
So, in ancient Greece there was this view that if you think of philosophy as a skill that can make a living, teach it to others, and use it to make money for a living, it is a very despicable act in itself. According to Aristotle, since philosophy arises from leisure, of course there are surprises, so philosophy has never had a practical purpose, and its objects of concern are the highest things beyond the practical purpose, in fact, what I have just said metaphysics, or "tao", is what philosophy is concerned with. Philosophy should focus on this thing, and this thing really has no practical use, no practical purpose.
Therefore, in ancient Greek philosophy, at least among mainstream philosophers, there is a popular view that knowledge is knowledge for knowledge's sake, and scholarship is for academics' sake. That is to say, I studied the science of philosophy only to cultivate my disposition, to experience a kind of happiness in it, to grasp a kind of wisdom, and thus to enhance my own spiritual realm. You ask me what is the use of philosophy, and this question itself is a false question, a nonsense, because philosophy, wisdom and these things are themselves ends, and what use will the ends themselves be? In another sense, philosophy is useless. When you really enter the realm of philosophical thinking, you will feel a kind of thorough open-mindedness and pleasure, and when you face the wisdom that philosophers talk about, you will have a pleasing and pleasant feeling. That's the great use of philosophy, it allows you to experience a kind of spiritual happiness.
If you were to ask again: What is the use of this spiritual happiness? So I can only ask you: What is the use of listening to a Beethoven music? Does it fill your stomach? Can it bring you glory and wealth? If the usefulness you understand is only to refer to the material or physical aspect, then I can answer you categorically that philosophy is of no use! But if you realize that you are a being with a soul and a spiritual pursuit, then the wisdom and knowledge that philosophy brings is in itself enough to make the spirit feel at ease, and what use is it to ask it again, wouldn't it belittle it? Therefore, in the West, from a very early age, philosophers have expressed a basic attitude towards philosophy, that is, the attitude of learning to know--the purpose of learning philosophy is only to seek knowledge, not to apply.
"Learning to Know" and "Applying What You Have Learned"
Mr. Miao Litian, a deceased old gentleman of Chinese Min University, was a titan figure in the Western philosophical circles of the mainland, who studied Western philosophy all his life and learned about Chinese philosophy and Chinese culture in his later years. When he was in his 80s, he made a concluding speech at an academic conference at Southwest Normal University. Mr. Miao said: "I studied Western philosophy all my life, and in my later years I learned about Chinese philosophy, and finally came to a comparative conclusion, which can be summarized in two sentences. I believe that the characteristics of Chinese philosophy and Chinese culture are 'reproducing the world, still doing meritorious deeds, and applying what they have learned', while the characteristics of Western philosophy and Western culture are just the opposite, which is 'emphasis on transcendence, still speculative, and learning to know'. The salient feature of Western philosophy is that it indulges in pure speculation, likes to ask about the essence behind things, and the purpose of learning is to acquire knowledge, not to care about function. Mr. Miao particularly stressed that this is the conclusion he came to after a lifetime of studying Chinese and Western philosophy.
Miao Litian
I very much agree with and respect this view, and I think that Mr. Miao can really be described in a word, incisively illustrating the fundamental differences between Chinese and Western philosophy and even culture. Chinese philosophy also talks about the Dao, but also talks about a kind of inner transcendence, but in fact, it pays more attention to the care of life and the ethics of the present world, so many of the things that our Chinese philosophy emphasizes are related to the application of the world, if a science is not conducive to moral enlightenment, it is not conducive to meritorious service, then this knowledge is useless, that is, the so-called art of slaying dragons. We have a parable in ancient China, saying that a person spent thousands of dollars, studied for three years, learned to slay dragons, and ended up with nothing. Because there is no dragon for you to slaughter. Therefore, learning useless things in China is usually called "the art of slaying dragons".
According to this view, philosophy in today's era of quick success is the "art of slaying dragons" for you and your parents. Because of this, few people in the college entrance examination will apply for the philosophy department first.) Most of the students in our philosophy department had no way and did not have enough test scores, so they had to transfer from other majors to the philosophy department. Some students may become interested in philosophy later on, and some students may not be interested in philosophy for the rest of their lives. This matter is no wonder to the students, because the era we live in is an era of pragmatic and functional, so the "useless learning" of philosophy is as tiresome as a monster, and few people will be interested in philosophy, so that those of us who teach philosophy are chatting with others outside, and others ask what we are studying, and we can only say that we are studying philosophy, but we always have to add that we are not engaged in politics, but we are studying Western philosophy. Why? Because in the eyes of ordinary people, a person who studies philosophy is like a very strange monster.
So in this sense, philosophy is the "art of slaying dragons" and has no practical use. Since we grew up in the environment and atmosphere of Chinese culture, there is a huge inertia in our cultural tradition, coupled with the characteristics of our time, philosophy has become a cold science, which is completely understandable. It seems to me that the most terrible thing is not that no one likes to study philosophy, but that it is even worse to insist that the "useless science" of philosophy be assigned all practical uses.
Zhao Lin is a professor at the School of Philosophy of Wuhan University
Dealing with philosophy in terms of modern Chinese values may lead to two opposite tendencies: one tendency, as we see today, that philosophy is useless and that no one should study it; and another tendency, which the students present have not experienced, when everyone is scrambling to learn philosophy, there is philosophy in the fields, there is philosophy in steelmaking, and everything is linked to philosophy, and even the peasants who do not know a few words can talk about philosophy in a big way. When people meet and talk about philosophy, it is like pulling a family routine, and the newspapers are full of articles about the experience of workers, peasants, and soldiers talking about philosophy. Reflecting on it today, this kind of philosophical upsurge is precisely the shame of philosophy, and if philosophy is turned into a kind of "learning to use" and "immediate results" type of thing, learning philosophy can produce more grain and refine more steel, is this not a kind of blasphemy against philosophy?
On the surface, this attitude seems to be a passion for philosophy, but in fact it is a persecution of philosophy, turning philosophy into a kind of utilitarian and snobbish science, stripping away the noble spiritual qualities of philosophy and turning it into a dog skin plaster that cures all diseases. Therefore, philosophical fanaticism is even more expressed than philosophical indifference, and if everyone in a society talks about philosophy, then it must be a crazy society.
Philosophy is essentially a kind of learning, and it is impossible to make all people interested in philosophy. The basic problems that philosophy is concerned with are always beyond the practical level, and it is impossible to "use them when they are learned." So I just said that if a teacher who teaches philosophy tells you that if he can become a better official and get richer by studying philosophy, he must be lying to you or joking with you.
Which is more important, changing the environment or changing oneself?
So I remind everyone not to expect philosophy to have any practical use, philosophy is really useless. But at the same time, I would like to make it clear that the so-called "use" has two meanings, one is the practical or utilitarian sense of "use", that is, the use of directly bringing you material benefits; the other is the spiritual or psychological "use". For example, if you study law and economic management, they can bring you practical benefits, make you a lawyer, a president, and then do big things and make a lot of money. Studying computer science, studying bioengineering, and so on, and the same is true, they can bring you practical benefits. After you learn that set of knowledge, you will resell it to your boss and your boss in the future work, so that you can exchange it for money, status, reputation, etc., and you can use these things to improve your living conditions and thus change your living environment.
Therefore, "use" in this sense is, in the final analysis, the use of changing the environment. People live in a certain environment, the environment is very important to us, a practical knowledge or knowledge, such as law, economics, computers, etc., their main use is to improve our material conditions, change our living environment. For example, if you are studying accounting, you are faced with a set of accounting theories, and you don't actually like them, you just use them as a means of making a living.
After graduating from college, you become an accountant and apply these theories you have learned to your job. If you use it well, you can get a certain status, become a senior accountant, and make a lot of money. Then you use money to improve your living environment, live in a good house, buy designer clothes, and everyone envies you. So you will feel very happy, very happy, mentally, and you will say that it is really useful to study accounting.
But when you feel this way, do you realize that this sense of happiness and well-being is achieved by going around in a big circle? You first have to turn what you've learned into money and status, and then use them to improve your living situation, and finally you can feel joy and happiness from your own enjoyment and the envy of others. But let us not forget that in addition to facing the environment, we must also face ourselves. Our sense of happiness and well-being can be achieved both by changing the environment and by changing ourselves.
In a sense, changing oneself may be more important than changing one's environment, because one can always live only in one's own feelings and thoughts, only in oneself, and the environment must be felt through oneself. The world is the world in your eyes, and what kind of vision you have, you can see what kind of world. So change your vision, and you actually change the world. In everyone's opinion, this view may be idealistic. But I want to emphasize that the greatest use of philosophy is to change your own mental state and psychological quality, if your mental state and psychological quality change and improve, then your view of the world is certainly different from others, you will see a broader field, a deeper mystery. This is the second meaning of "use", that is, spiritual or psychological use.
This use allows you to maintain a high-minded posture mentally, so that you can directly experience spiritual and psychological pleasure without going around in a big circle. In fact, when we make money to buy good food, good clothes, etc., and then use these things to satisfy our desires, we eventually produce a sense of happiness and happiness psychologically; this is just the same as enjoying a wonderful and beautiful concert, reading a beautiful and touching prose poem, and conducting a philosophical speculation that enlightens wisdom, so as to directly experience psychological happiness and spiritual pleasure from it.
In this way, the usefulness of philosophy is precisely to make us feel a kind of pleasant happiness and happiness directly, both spiritually and psychologically. When others are distressed by the limitations of the environment, you will feel open-minded and happy because of the improvement of your own quality. Although you have not changed the environment itself, you have changed yourself, and thus changed the environment and the world in your eyes. What is the world? A real, objective world is nothing more than the world you see in your eyes, the world you think about in your mind. Without your feelings, your thoughts, what is the point of the so-called objectivity of the world itself?
Although we cannot think that "existence is to be perceived" as the 18th-century British philosopher Bakeley did, we can at least say that the meaning of existence is inseparable from our feelings and thoughts. The existence of the world is objective, but its meaning is subjective and varies from person to person. The existence of the world is meaningful only in your feelings, in your thoughts.
Berkeley
What does a stone mean to us? But for a geologist, it makes sense. This is not because there is any change in the stone itself, but because people are different, the subject is different. Different people tend to have different feelings when they face the same thing, and this different subjective feeling may have a greater impact on our lives than the so-called objective existence itself. Because we live in our feelings, not in a purely objective world. This is a very simple truth, precisely because it is so simple that we can't even notice it. Our eyes often fail to see what is closest to us, and likewise some of the most profound truths are often left unnoticed by human reason, for they are in fact the simplest and simplest truths.
Have a philosophical quality,
It means detachment and deep wisdom
I often say to students who ask me what philosophy is for: "Actually, if you think about it, the world is nothing more than the world in your eyes, and if your vision changes, of course, the world in your eyes will change." "Philosophy is the knowledge that helps you to condition, improve, and improve your vision, the knowledge that changes yourself rather than your environment. In this way, the usefulness of philosophy is fully revealed. If you have such a deep reflection, you will not go with the flow, you will not care what others think of you, you will be like Dante said: "Go your own way, let people say go!" ”
Then you can experience the freedom of the mind, and the joy and happiness that accompanies this freedom. Only when you have reached this spiritual state will you know what philosophy is really useful. Philosophy makes man learn to think in empathy, to learn to constantly "turn" in the process of knowing, as Plato said, so as to get rid of paranoia and move toward detachment, to get rid of vulgarity and to be wise. In addition, philosophy also has a useful point, that is, this kind of relaxed spiritual state is often conducive to prolonging life. If you look at the history of Greek philosophy, most of the wise philosophers are long-lived, which may also be one of the important uses of philosophy!
Thus, the greatest difference between philosophy and other practical disciplines is that the knowledge of other disciplines is used to change the environment, while the wisdom of philosophy is used to change itself. Personally, I think it's more important to change myself than to change the environment. This view may lead you to see me as an idealist. In fact, I am neither an idealist nor a materialist, but a skeptic. Of course, this is a kind of "cultured" doubt, and I am always in a consciousness of doubt and criticism, whether it is idealism or materialism, for me, it needs to be doubted and criticized. However, I think that a person's emphasis on his own inner cultivation and on improving his subjective qualities may be more important than changing his objective environment.
I usually like to talk about tragedy, and philosophy is a noble tragedy. There are tragedies everywhere in our lives, and the existence of tragedies is an objective fact. It is impossible for a person not to experience tragedy in his lifetime, unless the person has not lived at all. As long as you live, you will encounter tragedy, and a life that has not experienced tragedy is a truly tragic life. But the question is not whether there is a tragedy or not, but how you deal with it. If you just think of tragedy as a tragic thing, you yourself become a very miserable person.
But if you have a philosophical quality, a detached posture and a profound wisdom, and you see tragedy as some inevitable interlude in life, which sometimes has a sublime color, which will bring us some profound enlightenment, then you will adopt a romantic transcendent attitude towards the tragedy of life. This attitude, in a pejorative sense, can be called the "Q spirit"; but in a positive sense, it is a very high philosophical literacy. This is the so-called "great wisdom is foolishness". This kind of philosophical literacy, which grows in an atmosphere of skepticism and criticism, is exactly what I have cultivated for you by teaching courses on the history of Western philosophy.
Original author | Zhao Lin
Excerpts | Xu Yuedong
Editors | walk away
Introduction Proofreader | Lucy