Is it possible to study philosophy without presenting certain ideas?
Friends, on the pages of Q found several questions from users trying to understand the meaning of the phrase "objective reality". The answers are diverse and original in their ideas. I registered to also give my answer to the question " what is objective reality?" Naturally, the answer was in line with my philosophical worldview. I was brought up on dialectical materialism and realized it. But I didn't like my answer, and I didn't get any views, and I got a "thumbs up". Well, what to do, perhaps in my modest knowledge of dialectical materialism is not convincing enough, or simply among the readers of Q, the philosophical concept of Marxism is simply not listed. But the point is not that, but that I was very surprised when my answer was followed by a post by an expert in the topic "Philosophy" Stanislav Panin, which began with the following phrase: "It is best to define philosophical terms, avoiding filling them with ideas of a particular direction. To say, for example, that" objective reality " is exclusively matter is to move from a general discussion to an exposition of a concrete (materialistic) philosophical concept. Thus, the study of philosophy is replaced by the presentation of ideas of a particular school." It turns out such a paradox. Twice in this fragment, the expert preaches his idea about the inexpediency of presenting other philosophical ideas. Is this a new non-ideological philosophy? How is this possible:1. Studying philosophy without presenting specific ideas?2. Define philosophical terms without filling them with specific ideas?
Philosophy is primarily about reflection. This means that when you take a position, you are aware of where it came from, how it is affected by various random and non-random factors, as well as its weaknesses, vulnerability to criticism, the availability of alternatives, and much more.
When you state a position [even if it is developed by philosophers] in a non-reflexive way, that is, as if it is the only possible one, it is not philosophy.
For example, many modern followers of diamat are not at all aware of the existence of other points of view on a number of important issues and can not even imagine that the categories of “reality”, “objectivity”, “subjectivity” and so on themselves. they are completely optional and can be rejected as such, and they can be rejected with good reason.
A lot of people take a certain position, not at all interested in any of the above. There's nothing wrong with that, because they're not professional philosophers. But in this case, they should not pretend to be experts and answer philosophical questions, especially with the expectation of recognition and praise.
Let's take another example.
Here is the concept of truth. There are several competing theories of truth. But they all talk about the truth, even if they are different. That is, there is something that they all talk about, something outside of these theories themselves, something that makes all these theories theories of truth, and not several completely different things accidentally named in one word.
This means that we can talk about the truth outside of a specific theory of truth. Another question is that these theories exist because the concept of truth beyond them raises some kind of problem, which these theories are trying to solve.
And so on for any fundamental concept. Philosophy would be impossible if concepts existed only within concrete ideas. We would simply have several hermetic structures that are fundamentally irreducible to each other, understandable from the inside, but unknowable from the outside. There would be nothing outside of them at all, and you would simply be inside one of these structures without access to the others. But you are here – it is our common being, in which we can say different things, realizing that we are talking about the same thing, whether it is ethics, truth, objectivity, universals, etc.
And if you study philosophy, and not Marxism, Platonism, Hegelianism, or anything else, you are not studying specific solutions, but the problem itself. That is, what is outside of decisions precedes them. Yes, if you don't want to reinvent the wheel, it's better to get acquainted with the existing solutions. But this should be done from the outside of these decisions, not from the inside.
Your question is not quite formulated correctly, because no one calls for “studying philosophy without presenting certain ideas”. In particular, I do not call for this. But I encourage you to separate these very “certain ideas” and facts, and I think this is important.
My colleagues have already written on the substance of your question, and I agree with their answers. So I'll try to say a few words about the specific example you refer to.
In the case of the concept of “objective reality”, the fact is that “objective reality” is a term used to indicate a reality that is external to and independent of a person.
It is also a fact that there are different philosophical models concerning the nature of this reality, from the Platonic world of ideas to the diamat, including the complete denial of its existence (solipsism) or the possibility of knowing it (agnosticism).
I think you can agree with this, regardless of the ideas of which direction you are close to. In other words, none of the specific models is necessary to define the very concept of “objective reality”, because this concept indicates a problem rather than a specific solution.
In modern philosophy, we define concepts in a neutral way, meaning that they are filled with specific content in specific philosophical schools. Polemics between different philosophical schools are possible precisely because they use common concepts, but offer different models, arguments in favor of their vision and criticism of the arguments of their opponents. If this were not the case, philosophy as a single discipline would be impossible.
The task of a philosopher is to be familiar with these schools, to be able to explain their views, arguments and related problems. And do not replace the question itself with such specific solutions. Because the essence of philosophy is to rise up a notch above the beliefs that you share, to recognize their problematic nature and the existence of other positions that also have a strong argument.
As long as someone says “A is B”, this is not a philosophy. Philosophy begins where we say something like this: “And maybe B, C, D. There are such and such arguments in favor of B, there are such and such arguments in favor of C, there are such and such arguments in favor of D. I am leaning towards the position B/C/D (or I suggest a new position, E, taking into account A, B, C), because argument-1 and argument-2”. It is with the realization of the problematicity of A, i.e., with the realization that A, theoretically, can be both B, C, and D, that philosophy begins.
Therefore, if someone says “objective reality is matter”, then this indicates that this person is not speaking from the position of philosophy as such, but from the position of a certain philosophical school, thereby closing the space for philosophical discussion. Those who speak in this way either do not notice or prefer to ignore many other reasoned positions on this issue.
No, it is impossible to study philosophy without presenting some fundamental principles (clarifying what is perceived philosophically). IDEAS, for it is not experience that knows, but theory that knows, that is, IDEAS are known. That is, without the preceding ideas, no knowledge is possible, much less philosophical Knowledge.
So in a certain sense it tells you correctlyStanislav Panin believes that ” It is best to define philosophical terms, avoiding filling them with ideas of a particular direction. To say, for example, that” objective reality ” is exclusively matter is to move from a general discussion to an exposition of a concrete (materialistic) philosophical concept. Thus, the study of philosophy is replaced by the presentation of ideas of a particular school.”
This is how we can avoid reducing philosophy to demagoguery, because it is precisely philosophy that makes reality clear to us, as Louis Helmslev (in his Glossematics) defines itCONCEPTS (Concept)—as a decidable syncretism between things, and the concept of TEXT – – – asSyntagmatics, the chains of which, extended to infinity, are manifested by any material. Here is full compliance with (Braithwaite) — Ramsey's thesis-Theoretical concepts, according to Braithwaite, are not derived from observed facts; they receive implicit definitions due to the fact that they are included in the initial and proven propositions of the corresponding theory, as the framework and framework for clarifying reality based on these theoretical concepts. And the most predictive power of theories is precisely determined by the quantity and quality of their theoretical concepts, and it decreases with the construction of explicit definitions of these concepts (the Braithwaite — Ramsey thesis), as the loss of their universal formalizing basis. But it is simply impossible to completely abandon any ideas in terms of any cognitive system (especially philosophy).
No philosophy is impossible outside of ideas, because in the presentation of philosophy we can never abandon the Idea of Logic, the idea of correct logical inference, the idea of consistency, sufficient reason, Possibility, Necessity, etc., etc., which, although not related to a specific philosophical teaching, are universal, generally acceptable ideas of all correct philosophical systems and cognitively competent theories, teachings, and worldviews, without exception.
As the great one saidEdging: “Kant said that ideas without things are empty, and things without ideas are dark.” And if the goal is to Enlighten (enlightening from the darkness of ignorance), then the lack of ideas is just the same, this function is completely unable to perform, and therefore without specifying the scope of its statement, Stanislav Panin simply lied, because it turned out to be elementary to point out the NON-universality (and therefore NON-philosophic) of his statement. , Etc.!!!
As V. I. Lenin wrote: In essence… materialism and idealism are the fighting parties.”
In philosophy, there is an important unifying principle: any philosophical reasoning is built rationally in accordance with logic and critical analysis.
Therefore, the expert corrected you that the Objective Reality for you personally is the Physical (Material, that is, Natural) Reality of the planet Earth.
You throw a cry: Who is for the fact that everything is Material? Let's discuss it. So you will find like-minded people, maybe.
After all, for someone, the basis of Objective Reality is ENERGY, because the atom in this Reality is Energy. By the way, scientists now adhere to this very Concept of the Existence of Reality. For these scientists, Matter is a Fog (Thickening) Energy consumption.
And for some, Physical Reality itself is a figment of the individual's fantasies.
Also, after the movie “The Matrix”, many people already live in this Matrix and are looking for ways to get out of it somehow. Therefore, this is your Marxism, which is not a Philosophy, but a Teaching. Neither something else is interesting – not relevant.
You will determine for yourself: why do you need to discuss something with someone? Just for a chat or something?
Usually a philosopher doesn't care what someone thinks. It is important for a philosopher to understand the Picture of the World for himself. And only then, if someone is interested in your World-Building Logic, they get carried away with it.
Since the connection between philosophy and ideas is assumed – why aren't definitions provided-what exactly is “philosophy” and what are “ideas”?
Here in my view
philosophy is the production of wisdom, namely, those actions that unite and make sapiens related in understanding and realizing each of their involvement in the production of opportunities for the harmonious cooperation of beings who have somehow formed in the universe…
and an idea is nothing more than a certain person's idea of something that is not here and now, ” … and it would be nice – if it still existed…”
thus, the various philodoxies that seem like “philosophy” to the profane for more than two thousand years are the work of demagogues, and philosophy itself, as I understand it, in the most general expression is the ability to distinguish the real from the apparent and imagined, that is, to separate reality from ideas…
@ Viktor Zozulya, yes, it was the idealism of Stanislav Panin that I had in mind. Idealism, subjectivism, runs through the philosophical pages of Q. The younger generation does not have systematic knowledge,the current education is without ideas and does not form a coherent worldview in all the diversity of life. And uneducated people are not able to integrate their feelings and thoughts harmoniously into the surrounding objective reality, so they turn to Q psychologists (philosophers) for help. And there are a dime a dozen of them here, and each of them is d'Artagnan : “Any Gascon from childhood is an academician (Ed Kew)”
For some reason, my profile does not send comments to the answers, so thank you all for the answers. I think Sergey Sharkov's answer is the best. His ironic worldview is close and clear to me. I also use this method to protect my consciousness from certain moments of modern objective reality, so as not to clog it with newfangled popular statements and stereotypes of modern science. And I asked my question to the community using the philosophical reasoning of expert Stanislav Panin solely in order to show the contradiction in his answer about “objective reality”. He gives a reference to the concept of “reality” from the Electronic Library of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences : “a philosophical term used in different meanings: everything that exists in general; the objective world; reality…“. At the same time, forgetting that in the first sentence he called for avoiding filling terms with specific ideas, he himself claims that the word “reality” in the concept of “objective reality” means exactly only the first, that is, “everything that exists in general.” Well, then there is a discussion about objective reality, which “is divided into what exists objectively and what exists subjectively.” So these are the ideas of a certain philosophical school. For others, the expert recommends that their philosophical definitions “avoid filling them with ideas of a particular direction.” When I was a student, it was usually objected to: “Each individual, from the point of view of his banal erudition, can ignore the criteria of vulgar voluntarism”