The Value of Philosophy

In order to understand the value of philosophy, it is absolutely essential philosophical questions remain on an autonomous level. Consequently, it is argued here we create our own conclusions about the truth, and, as individuals, there is no one that can discover or impart the truth to us. To demonstrate: 1) I will illustrate what uncertainty means to the philosopher. 2) I will assert, through the use of Plato's Republic, human beings cannot be forced to philosophize. Finally, 3) I will end with the Apology to exemplify the fate that can befall a philosopher when she/he vainly attempts to challenge the way people think.

So, what does it mean to be uncertain? To demonstrate, physicists have described the relative universe we inhabit to behave in such a manner it cannot be escaped or transcended in a physical sense. In other words, light is the ultimate, measuring stick and nothing can travel beyond the speed of light. According to the scientific world, if one were to attach rockets to a tangible mass and propel it outward into space, the closer to light-speed the mass accelerated, the heavier it would get--therefore requiring more and more energy to move it forward. Finally, in the end, as the mass shot through space, faster and faster, it would eventually require an infinite amount of energy to move what would eventually become an infinite amount of mass. Alas, the poor mass would never reach light-speed. Nonetheless, from this observation, we can construe a conclusion about the universe we inhabit. Masses with rockets do not get to move more rapidly than 186,000 miles per second. Yet, what happens when one begins to examine this conclusion and decides to maintain a view light is not a limited substance, but it is a substance limited by how we think to perceive it? In better words, perhaps, one can transcend the speed of light physically, and it is simply a matter of figuring out how. In this endeavor, we find the meaning of uncertainty. It is the place where our conclusions are analyzed and questioning begins. Uncertainty starts when one begins to understand the possibility of something happening, or being realized, as feasible.

There is a problem with this, however. As greatly as we try to force light to possess certain properties, light will continue to be only light. It will travel as it will, despite our own personal perceptions of it or what we imagine it to be. For myself, I equate the 186,000 mile per second dilemma to be equivalent to the absurdity of a person striving to impart truth to humanity. In my eyes, this is an impossible and worthless endeavor. Moreover, an individual will only venture forward to seek the truth when they choose to, and no "Philosopher King" has a say in when or where this will happen. In the end, truth must be realized by the individual student--those who are willing to listen--for a union with genuine truth to occur. It can never be forced.

To illustrate this point, notice The Republic. Here, Plato wrote, in the physical world, our perception of "the truth is nothing other than the shadows" of it (110). He described humankind as a blind entity fastened down by the shackles of its own ignorance--eternally staring dumbly forward into the physical realm they inhabit. Specifically, he states the blind are those who are "lovers of sights and sounds like beautiful sounds, colors, shapes, and everything fashioned out of them" and whose "thought is unable to see and embrace the nature of the beautiful itself" (105). And it is here that they rest--from their births to their eventual deaths--in the shadows of truth and never in the truth itself. There is hope for them, however. Plato also conditions they can realize, through philosophy, that they can release themselves from these bonds that bind, and make a safe passage forward. With reason, one can see shadows are only shadows, and once realized, know a perfect form of truth.(1)

Nevertheless, observe Plato describes this experience of liberation as a feeling not unlike being forcibly "dragged" away from our illusions. Here, we must not forget a crucial fact of the human condition. No individual would allow such a hellish event to take place if she/he did not desire it. Certainly, it does appear on the surface a philosopher would be willing to allow the experience. After all, philosophers, being what they are, expose themselves to these types of things on a regular basis. Still, upon closer examination, who could accomplish this feat for them? What human being, alive or dead, can force the blind to contemplate shadows and to experience an ultimate form of truth? For those who choose to philosophize--and those who choose not to--there are no human teachers or gurus in this life. When all is said and done, the final decisions are made by us, the individuals, and until we resolve to journey forward and loosen the shackles, there will not be a journey. Again, uncertainty is undoubtedly the value of philosophy, but philosophy has no value for those who choose not to recognize its value. The journey illustrated in The Republic (which is not meant to be taken literally as a journey in a physical sense) hints at an introspective pilgrimage of the personal self, into the self. Nothing more.

Now, with all this in mind, notice the Apology. The Apology demonstrates a perfect example of what happens to a person who challenges the way people think. It is a written record of a trial that eventually led to the death of Socrates. In the Apology, Socrates boldly proclaims to his fellow Athenians "you would sleep on for the reminder of your lives, unless God in his care of you gives you another gadfly" (Plato). In these words, Socrates is discussing the role he imagines himself to fill in Athens. This is a role not unlike the role of Jesus Christ--or any other philosophical martyr--and this "gadfly" character is meant to serve a philosophical function whose sole purpose is to sting the world awake. Philosophers, who admire Socrates, would state he was justified in this act. Some may assert he should receive some type of philosophical deification because of it and often act out upon the world with the same motivation themselves. However, as I have said before, there are no gurus. There are no guides. The self-proclaimed guru/guide is simply an individual who believes one can perish for the rest of the world's sins, and philosophical martyrdom can be a dangerous endeavor. Ultimately, some say Socrates gave his life for integrity, but I feel Socrates was put down because he could not find the wisdom in his heart to leave Athens--in a sense, leave behind his shadowy love for it. All the more, since the value of philosophical thought exists in uncertainty, it is logical to assume Socrates should have considered the outwardly expressive dialectic he prized so highly may have appeared like a hellish experience to others. In better words, he should not have been so certain they would be willing to accept it--much less be changed by it. In due course, he became conscious too late of the fact unrealized value has absolutely no value at all, and the citizens of Athens proved this.

Finally, it could be legitimately argued Socrates did change a few things. After all, we continue to read the Apology to this day. However, I challenge anyone to state outright that upon reading the Apology, they were suddenly catapulted into an introspective search for the truth. From experience, I know it is impossible for any human being to glean this kind of search from a book. If they say that they have, they are feeling the paralyzing strength of their own assumptions, and they are searching for something else. Further, they haven't the slightest idea how gut wrenching an honest search can be. Books are meaningless to it. Words are only words in it. And, here, I forthrightly declare that the truth, and the introspective dialectic necessary to know the truth, to be something far greater--more real. Still, through their exposure to philosophical writings, like the Apology, readers make the claim to understand...then they claim to know how to go about finding...and then, in turn, they create more untruths that may sound capable on the surface, but, in all actuality, would never survive the depths of true introspection. Where is the value in this? In the end, Socrates was martyred for nothing. Unfortunately, in my eyes, this is the lesson the Apology imparts to us.

To conclude, I must say there was a time I felt that first, we think, and then, in turn, think our way. It was a safe channel of intellectual introspection--moving gradually forward--and I used to know its value. However, with the passage of time, it is now terribly difficult for me to construct a reasonable, thought process. Quite frankly, I am not pure reason, nor do I care to be. Thus ends these torturous thoughts on the value of philosophy. Its doors won't remain open for these shadowy eyes. At any rate, perhaps, this is not a bad thing. Perhaps, I am learning there is a way humanity passively shares its search with one another. What I am attempting to say here is that in its simplest, most sacred sense, I think we discover it with thought and feeling. And, ultimately, if I can feel my way, I can sense the same way in all others. In this, there is peace and no reason for discord. As stillness and silence, we unwittingly become another casual reminder for the blind.

Notes
(1) To elaborate on shadows and truth, I have chosen to use a conglomerate of religious writings; Plato; and my own, inept realization: First, visualize a sun. This sun is the source of all things--all forms. It is the form of the birds, the trees, the rocks, and the sky. It is the form of all of Athens, Sparta--the world. During the Peloponnesian wars, it was eternally shining. Long after them, it continued to shine. It shines to this day--breathing form into everything. It is the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear--the source of all thought. Everything perceived, and everything envisioned, we are aware of because of it. Still, as great as it is, the blind unknowingly witness it. And for the love of opinion--for the love of shadows--they greedily seize tight a sound, a color, a shape...all the time convinced that they hold fast to something other than. Yet, is it not the shape that is the shape of shape itself? The color that is the color of color itself? The sound that is the sound of sound itself?

Works Cited
Abel, Donald C. Fifty Readings in Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Plato. "The Apology." 1994-2000. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.sum.html