The biggest problem in philosophy and any academic field is students who don't have the necessary background information and concepts formed in their mind, but also the lack of clarity from lecturers and professors with this problem. Let me start by stating the problem: to understand a complex text is not about knowing the meaning of the words and concepts, but understanding how they fit into the greater schema of the particular problem. The best example (in my mind) is giving a class on deconstruction and deconstructive theory without the contrast of structuralism. Structuralism in itself then needs to be contrasted against post-structuralism. You get the idea: context is necessary but with context, there are more contexts, ad infinitum. This leads to a big problem in especially philosophy: the abuse of philosophers by philosophers.

The Problem

Information is key, knowledge is power, but this leads to a problem: pseudo-intellectuals. The easiest way to sound informed and win your argument is by stating some sentence or idea/argument that a philosopher made without any of the context given. This is simply the abuse of philosophers, you can take any argument that some philosopher made, put it in a new context and make it sound enticing. There are countless books written in this field, but the most recent that I have read is Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax. In the book, he discusses his famous "fake" article that got published by a kind of postmodern article. The article is completely fabricated out of postmodern jargon with no true content. This according to Sokal is the time in what we live in: a time where truth and (scientific) realism is disregarded to fit a narrative. (The interesting thing about the last two sentences is that if you are not familiar with the debate by Sokal, you won't fully understand it. This notion only strengthens my argument.) So in one sentence, what is the problem? People (including philosophers) use out of context arguments to further there own arguments and this is due to the problem that we don't know how to read anymore.

(My Artwork)

How To Read

There is a lot of articles about how to read (philosophy). There is no one method, some people prefer one method, some people prefer another method. The tricky part is to actually read. There is a tendency to read (a work of philosophy) and read the parts that resonate with you as person. What I mean with this is that when someone reads a text and there are one or two paragraphs in the text they feel connected towards, they quote only these sentences. Probably the most famous of examples is Nietzsche's "God is dead" quote. Firstly, the quote is more something like "God is dead, because we killed Him," secondly, the more extensive quote is something like: "“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" etc., and lastly, this is more of a metaphor than an actual killing or a prophesying of atheism. Once again the context of the quote is important, but people don't care about the context. The quote in a way resonates with them, they feel that the quote will help their argument, and this the quote (of for example Nietzsche) is abused up to such a point that the original meaning does not make sense anymore.

We lost the ability to read comprehensively, and to claim that I know how to read is anything but the truth. I am myself caught up in the fallacy of appeal to authority. (This simply means, for those who do not know, is the use of some authority figure to further and strengthen my argument.) It is an easy mistake to make. In some cases, I think, it is a valid argument to make: some people's arguments are just really good; why reinvent the wheel? But this can so easily fall into the trap of abusing a philosopher's work, like poor Nietzsche (and Derrida to a sense).

An Argument

We lost the ability to read (properly). Due to this fact, we abused concepts and arguments up to the point where the current argument is so far away from the original that it could have been two different arguments. This is due to the fact that we want to push our own narratives and we do not have the power (or knowledge) to make our own arguments. This is a serious problem in our current times because people are influenced by people with these "abused" arguments. It is up to a certain point where people don't know how to think for themselves. Or in other words, and little less harsh, we struggle to distinguish between something valuable and something of no value. Why does this matter? This is in a way the question of all of philosophy. Why does philosophy matter? Why does anything from Plato to Derrida to Stephen Hawking matter?

Why Does It Matter? Because...

Why does philosophy matter and why does it matter to not to abuse philosophy (and philosophers)? There is only one answer that comes to my mind: happiness. From before Plato, the search for happiness was the primary influence of most thinkers. (One can counter argue this point, but if the reader and fellow steemian accept my hasty conclusion, it would be appreciated.) I have countless books which cover the topic of happiness, how to achieve happiness, or why we aren't happy anymore. It is hard to look away from the fact that people today are not happy anymore. Happiness is something we want, but most people do not know what it is. This is the problem: we search for happiness, but we do not know what it is, so we construct a false happiness. When we come into contact with this false happiness we created, depression follows. The search for happiness killed countless innocent souls. So why does philosophy matter? I think philosophy can help with the search for happiness. Philosophy cannot bring happiness. This is very important. Philosophy, if used to obtain happiness, will only bring depression. Philosophy is merely a tool. I will give, as my conclusion, a quick summary of Pyrrhonian scepticism, and why this can help lead to happiness.

The Beginning of a Conclusion

(This is some technical philosophy, skip if you'd like to the last paragraph.) When Arcesilaus become the head of Plato’s academy the notion of epoché entered; this is an ancient Greek concept that simply means a state where all judgments about non-evident matters are suspended in order to enter a state of ataraxia. Ataraxia is a state of freedom from worry and anxiety). So what is Pyrrhonian Scepticism? It was a way of living where via the epoché the mind is brought to a state of ataraxia. This is a capability, thus something you can learn to do. In an interesting article, the author (Heaton) states that “The sceptic is [also] an enquirer or seeker of truth who becomes disturbed by the contradictions and discrepancies he meets in the world.” (I hope this makes sense. Please comment if it does not!)

So what does this mean? I am still working on this. More of my recent posts are all part of a larger topic, that of how we need to restructure our ways of thinking about the world. Let me try and conclude. Today we are living in some of the most technologically advanced times ever. This in a way brings upon us a new kind of anxiety. We don't know how to live anymore. No one taught us how to live, our parents cannot because they grew up in different times. It is up to us to figure out how to live in this new world. Philosophy can be a tool to use to cope with life and search for happiness. This will have to do.