Skip to main content

Philosophy : Who needs it?

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. – Karl Marx

A friend once commented that reading philosophy is waste of time. Most of the things are absurd and are of absolutely no relevance to daily life. One doesn’t need philosophy to be happy in life!

Infact I agree with him. I think what man primarily needs to be happy is power. For example if you lose your cellphone and if you have the power (wealth here) to buy another without least hesitation that you don’t need to bother about it at all! On the other hand if you can’t buy another straight away and have to settle with another of lesser price you would philosophize that the principal use of cellphone is to communicate and other features are quite unnecessary. And if it’s not possible to buy another right away, one will say that hardly 10 years back none had these devices and yet all were quite content!!

Philosophy is thus the rationalization of human weakness which makes allowance of the fact that we’re not all-powerful and its okay to err sometimes. A Superman doesn’t need philosophy because he can do whatever he wishes to without any hesitation.

But power in this modern democratic society comes from understanding how the world works! This understanding comes from a philosophical insight on how things happen around from which arises our own perspective towards things. To gain power, we must understand how our system works and how we can influence it to our favour.

Thus, philosophy is relevant precisely because we’re bound by limitations and we don’t possess the power to do anything under sun. But to a very large extent, philosophy informs us on why it’s unrealistic to aim super-high and how that is to be rightly called insanity.

Is it possible to conquer the whole world for every Tom, Dick and Harry? Even Alexander the Great conquered only half of the known world back then. Hence, man can’t live with unsatisfied desires with his limited power. Thus, philosophy informs us that true conquest is that of self thus making man sane and logical at the same time.

Philosophy is making man adaptable to the largely perplexing order of the world. It gives him unity and order amidst chaos and confusion. It de-programs us from the chains of prejudiced-mind and frees us from the bondage that keeps get firmer by unquestioningly absorbing all since birth.

For example, we keep preaching that altruistic love and sacrifice is the aim of life while we are intensely practical and selfish people overwhelming concerned only with ourselves. Nobody ever questions on how such a deep disconnect can be there between what religions seem to preach and what men continue to practise. A little philosophy helps here. It has to be known that man IS a selfish animal, and yet his activities must never overlap or infringe upon another man’s rational selfishness.  His selfishness is okay with the boundaries of society’s overall harmony.

Science appears to progress rapidly whereas philosophy’s influence is not so directly perceived by many commoners. But it is mistake to consider philosophy an idle man’s pastime. Questions such as what is evil and good are not yet open to science. It is philosophy’s domain. Historically, philosophy has been the force that “moves the movers” of civilization. (moves the great people who changed mankind)

That the philosophy of Karl Marx moved the whole of 20th century with the splendid rise of communism is testimonial to the fact that philosophy is the undercurrent of all activities on earth. Such is its power that even those with unabashedly evil motives such as Nazi Germany found it worthy to cover their inhuman acts through philosophy of Frederich Nietzsche.

So on second thoughts, I explained my friend, he is wrong and philosophy is indeed needed for happiness because only that gives us real power.

Comments

  1. “When he who hears does not know what he who speaks means, and when he who speaks does not know what he himself means, that is philosophy”
    - Volataire
    Hehehe!!! Jokes apart, I too do believe that philosophy is needed because it gives us the wisdom of knowing that happiness shall depend as little as possible upon the external things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Philosophical thought is very momentary. Philosophy and Philosophical thought is ingrained in every human. It is one of the most distinguishing features of humans as living beings.
    But what makes a philosopher is not his philosophical thought but the ability to tunnel his thoughts in the direction of purposeful reasoning. A reasoning suitably digressed to understand subtle but agonizing truth- to arrive at a reasoning with one's self at the level of consicience and their social exposition.
    The stand alone philosopher is thus misunderstood as idle thinker by those who do not flex to think beyond the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Sowjee:
    The power of philosophy extends well beyond that. Generally philosophy is considered absurd because it is not so easily understandable to many. Since, it is hard to accept that one can't comprehend it, they safely blame the object which makes them feel easy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Sravan:

    Brilliantly said. Philosophy is synthetic interpretation. It resolves to look into all human affairs from mountain-top....ie from a total perspective..

    This perspective of looking at things makes a philosopher maladapted to practical living. But humanity owes a lot to those few.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …