- Tytuł:
- Nie warto żyć bezmyślnym życiem. Filozoficzne refleksje nad tym, co ważne
- Autorzy:
-
Sośnicka, Joanna
Soin, Maciej
Bernat, Paweł - Powiązania:
- https://bibliotekanauki.pl/books/2021076.pdf
- Data publikacji:
- 2016
- Wydawca:
- Politechnika Łódzka. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej
- Opis:
- The unexamined life is not worth living Philosophical reflections about this, what important It is difficult to speak of philosophy. It is even more difficult to teach philosophy. As is the case with every academic discipline, it can be said that philosophy is in its own way unique. This uniqueness is a result of a certain, as it is sometimes stated, self-evident nature of the subject. Obviously, everyone knows (even intuitively), what philosophy is about making use consciously or unconsciously of the terminology associated with some fields of philosophy: ethics, anthropology and epistemology. The obviousness of this concept (although perhaps not the academic discipline), which is connected with this universality of understanding could lead one to wonder that since this is the case, speaking of it is unnecessary. If something is self-explanatory, it can only be pointed out and cannot be put into words1 . However, if one speaks of obvious matters, it is most likely, because they are continually questioned. It seems that questions related to philosophy arise from this universal understanding, which in turn is possibly a result of a certain 1 R. Spaemann, Basic Moral Concepts, Routledge, Londyn 1990, s. VII. Summary 160 ambiguity in the understanding of the reality known as “philosophy.” It is also interesting that semantic misuse generally affects basic terms including important phenomena related to the essence of human life. But owing to the fact that “the highest does not stand without the lowest,” one should hope that all of these misuses have something in common, in the ambiguity of this word, in the dynamism of building other at times twisted meanings based on it, common points are found. As one of the greatest representatives of philosophical thought, Plato claims, philosophy begins in wonder of the world2 . It is the only type of intellectual activity where posing questions and searching for answers is more important than constructing theories and verifying them. Socrates is one of the most important people in the world of philosophy and he was the first to make moral problems the subject of dialogues and not of lectures, nor the topic of treaties or public addresses. It is worth emphasising that in Socrates’s dialogues, one cannot find any traces of pride, moralization, self-exultation, but rather we encounter curiosity, provocation to think, an escape from shallow thinking and a superficial view of the world. Socrates took what may seem as trivial and obvious issues for the topics of his dialogues (after all, who is not familiar with justice, honesty, law or piety) – however, throughout the dialogue it becomes apparent that the inquisitiveness of the philosopher was not limited to superficial intuitions and speculations. By means of forming appropriate questions, he attempted to reach the speaker’s most basic knowledge and then assist him to draw from it obvious conclusions. The essence of Socrates’s dialogue is based on provocation, stimulating thought (often critical thinking), a break from routine, pride and thoughtlessness, and reflection on what is important (although this would seem unquestionable), because a philosophical problem, as Plato states “does not admit exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps 2 “Wonder (thaumazein) is the attitude of someone who truly loves wisdom; yes there is no other beginning of philosophy than this.” Plato, Theaitetus, 155D. Summary 161 to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself ”3 . Discussions about matters simple and at the same time difficult, about known issues, but somehow unknown, and pointing out lack of knowledge did know finish well for Socrates. As a matter of fact, he was forced to drink hemlock, because he was accused of corrupting the morals of the youth, but still the Socratic message that “the unexamined life is not worth living”4 . did not fall in value. The need of reflection is still current, especially nowadays, in the time of fast life, relative values and fast decisions. To dwell on, for some time, the important, (philosophical, but not only) issues, should not be treated as a challenge. Giving it such non-committal reflection, consideration of the matters which are present in the life of every person, should be treated as an intellectual journey, confrontation with a philosophical understanding of such every-day and common phenomena. To discover a new meaning of such known issues should be an inspiration, refreshing, a kind of distraction from mundane thinking, should force to renewed reflection, should be a escape from evil (in Socratic understanding, evil actions are the result of ignorance) – maybe it will keep us in “a wind of thoughts.” The above mentioned reflection is presented in five chapters, i.e. analysis of five issues form the perspective of five philosophers. The choice of the guides in this reflection is intentional, because each of them is an expert in given area and has dedicated more than one book or article to this topic. The guide in the reflection about „human person” is prof. Mieczysław Albert Krąpiec. This distinguished Polish philosopher, is the long-standing Rector of the Catholic University of Lublin, and one of the main founders of the Lublin Philosophical School also known as the Polish School of Classical Philosophy. According to Krapiec, the starting point for philosophical anthropology is data which comes from the existential judgment “I exist.” In the scope of the basic 3 Plato, The Platonic Epistles 341 c, J. Harward (trans), Cambridge University Press 2014, s. 135. 4 Plato, Apology 38a Summary 162 data, subjectivity and agency of human being are included. Krapiec strongly underlines the uniqueness of a human being, as a one who is chosen among all nature, because of his peculiar structure of soul and body. The human being focuses on himself, like in a lens, all the essential features of living beings, but he also has unique characteristics such as: freedom, sovereignty and the possibility of improvement. Reflection on the relation between body and soul, the problem of freedom, human dignity, are aspects which Krapiec fully explains and clarifies. There are also other very important aspects, in order to understand different spheres of human activity: love, self-knowledge, civilizations or the aim of communities: the common good. The reflection on the human being, is important also because of the other reason, as Krapiec underlines – each of us should know, who he is as a human in order to live humanely. Analysis of human being, undoubtedly, is connected with the problem of self-cognition – who I am as a human being? In such analysis, we will follow the conception of Saint Thomas Aquinas. According to Saint Thomas, self-cognition is a final stage of cognition as such, kind of a “return,” because only then a human being actualizes himself as a free and rational being. The dependency of self-cognition and cognition of the world is natural and necessary for it is the reason of self-knowledge. One can compare this process to looking at photos, which he has taken of himself. Cognition of something, which has been cognized before, is a totally different cognition, and the perception of the subject is also different. When person cognizes “our mind through its considering successively one thing after another: because never “does our intellect understand so many things, that it cannot understand more”5 . Aquinas analyses the problem of cognition in different places of his works, but especially in The Summa Theologiae, The Summa Philosophica, Disputed Questions on Truth (Quaestiones disputatae de Veritate), Disputed Questions on the Soul 5 Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vol. 1, part 1, q. 86, art.1, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trans.), Cosimo, Inc., New York 2007, s. 441. Summary 163 (Quaestiones disputatae de Anima) or the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Scriptum super libros Sententiarum). “Love” is the third stop – undoubtedly closely connected with the earlier analyzed issues. The master of the phenomenological description of love is German philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, for whom the problem of “love” is, in a sense, the central point of his philosophical system. Von Hildebrand proposes a short and simple definition of love, which will be the guide for the analyses conducted in this chapter: “love as a value response” introduces vast range philosophical explanations. Apparently, this simple definition implicates, however, a number of problems connected with the definition of person, her value, possibility and ways of how to respond to it. Love has an influence on the development of the person, it should be pure and a complete realization of humanity, and as von Hildebrand underlines, it is a gift and giving, conscious dedication from one person to other, it is happiness and should give happiness. Love is everything that is precious and its absence can only be compare to hell. As Dostoevsky’s Russian monk says, love really does not exists in hell, but its absence is precisely what makes up the essence of hell. In Michael Novak’s conception of “the common good” the fundamental thesis based on the fact that in order to fulfill his own perfection human being should have proper conditions. Novak points out economy as the best field where important human attributes appear: intellectual, moral and creative ones. In his analysis concerning “the common good,” he uses theological, political and economical threads and in spite of this diversity he tries to show some universal rules. Novak underlines the rank and subjective character of the human person. Man in Novak’s conception is not a “wolf ” (as Hobbes described him), but a brother. Awareness of the common good allows people to discover their interdependence with each other them and will to strive for good. To build a good community is to protect and assist the development of free human beings. Novak then underlines, that “The common good is the inner dynamo of human progress, rooted in the human’s capacity to reflect upon his or her own actions, to grasp their deficiencies and incompletenesses, and Summary 164 to choose to press onward toward the full development of the entire range of human possibilities”6 . The final meeting will be with Professor Feliks Koneczny when analyzing the notion of “civilization.” Koneczny’s theory is based on convictions about the social character of human person. This conviction comes from facts, assembled through commonsensical cognition and inductive method. The splendor of every kind of method of system of communal life always depended on man, who by his own acts of intellect and free will, organizes himself in communities. Since man in society realizes his own subjectivity, actualizes the potentiality written in his nature and develops it; and as a result, he has the chance to find fulfillment. From man depends a faith of civilization. Koneczny saw in community the power of creating civilizations. The social form develops from the kin, which by differentiation created higher social structure. Society is a part of human beings, so strongly, that the need of interaction with people resulted in the continued, unifying and dynamic development of humanity. Thus, human communities were formed naturally and not by order, persons united in order to develop, improve. Personal being has an open structure; therefore, he is not formed at once, but he needs other people to live a full life. Today’s civilisation is characterised by the trend of socialisation, because social and economic processes demand the inclusions of small communities into the greater ones. Teilhard de Chardin wrote about the phenomenon of ‘planetisation’ Popes have spoken about the “human family,” and politicians about globalisation. The process of creating larger communities, which exceed-families, tribes and even states, which were opposed by Rousseau and the Romantics, is not an illusion. However, the issue of social life widens more and more. It is an irreversible process. The civilization, which is focused just on consumption, leads to the depersonalization of mankind. In this great disorientation, the sense of great notions and great words, is lost. They become unclear, unrealized and suppressed. In such 6 M. Novak, Free persons and common good, Medison Books, Lanham MD 1989, s. 187. Summary 165 a situation, it is quite easy, to indicate their mendacity, banality and falseness. Rousseau explains: “I would not take it upon myself to try to teach people, if others did not keep on delude them.” Following a text about human beings, self-cognition, love, the common good and civilization is not at all an instruction, but it more likely has to move closer to the this “much converse about the matter itself ” from Plato and which result one can just indirectly predict.
- Dostawca treści:
- Biblioteka Nauki
Książka