Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1456430080098.jpg (167KB, 600x3031px) Image search:
[Google]
167KB, 600x3031px
So, I was listening to a book about stoicism and the author pointed out that after Socrates' death, philosophy sort of fractured into two branches, with Plato and his forebearers focusing more on logic and more abstract questions and Zeno and other philosophers like Epicurus focusing on more practical advice like how 'to be happy,' ethical codes, and rules for living a good life (I understand this is a vast oversimplification, but it was still an interesting point.)
My question is, why the hell did the former branch of philosophy end up being the one that survived. If you go to an analytic philosopher and ask him 'how do I live a good life?' he will probably ask you to define your terms, point out that 'good' is a social construct with different cultural interpretations and no objective existence, and so on. Great, I'm not saying there's no place for that kind of philosophy, but why is it that the other kind ended up dying out? It's such a bummer that when people take philosophy classes in college, they're not approching it as a way of life like a Stoic or Cynic might approach it, but basically as just a cool way to expand your mind (which is fine, but not as powerful.) Even professional philosophers are often just milquetoast yuppies who for the most part adhere to the cultural norms of their times and class.
Because of this, most people never develop a coherent philosopher of life beyond enlightened hedonism: trying to maximize long-term comfort. This works out OK for most people but if people had a coherent philosophy of life they would probably live more fulfilled lives because they wouldn't get sidetracked as much by superficial baubles. How do we bring practical philosophy back?
>>
because it's already been done
>>
Do it yourself really.
>>
>>2518707
I don't understand? Are you saying that there's nothing to do because, for example, stoic philosophers eventually created a fairly exhaustive list of tips, so later writers such as Marcus Aurelius were just repeating the same principles? Yeah, well obviously if you just focus on life tips and principles, you have more limited territory than the whole rest of philosophy, but why is it that writing books on philosophies of life isn't more popular? Why aren't people as serious about following life philosophies? In the days of Greek philosophical schools, the cynics would become homeless and dress in rags because they were so dedicated to their philosophy, and people from different schools would get into heated debates and cultivate long-standing feuds over which philosophy of life was the best. Nowadays, people only focus on politics and religion, but while those things have a strong moral component, adherents mostly neglect the finer details of how to think properly, how to spend your time on Earth, which things are important and which things are less important, like money or sex, and other such details. Why is that?
>>
>with Plato and his forebearers focusing more on logic and more abstract questions
Not sure where you read this. Plato's works is mostly 'practical', e.g. his most seminal work The Republic is basically politics. He also talks a lot about how to live life, love, happiness etc.
But ignoring this point...
>why the hell did the former branch of philosophy end up being the one that survived
I don't see how it did. The two biggest names in in philosophy, Kant and Nietzche, present many thoughts for answering the question "how do I live the good life?" We then have Rousseau and Hobbes who were responsible, through their ideas of human nature, for actual changes in societies.
I understand there is a lot of stuff like metaphysics and epistemology in academia today, but that's because anything that is considered 'practical' is usually classed as self-help. Meanwhile Descartes is still studied extensively...
>How do we bring practical philosophy back?
Stoicism is already making a comeback, which is probably why you've heard about it in the first place.
>>
>>2518694
Thanks for the image OP, I needed that.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1