Today, philosophy is often faced with questions of its own purpose and meaning.
Often perceived as unnecessary pondering, detached from everyday life, without concrete practical and material benefit, philosophy becomes alienated even from its etymological meaning.
Is this really the case, or does the meaning of philosophy not exhaust itself in the commonly accepted notion of sterile pondering?
Pierre Hadot was a French philosopher and historian of philosophy, a professor at the prestigious Collège de France, who gained worldwide fame by returning philosophy to its original meaning and practical role, presenting it as a manière de vivre – a way of life.
Here we present a selection from two of his essays: Is philosophy a luxury? and What is ethics?
Is philosophy a luxury?
We will dwell on the problem of the usefulness of philosophy.
Then it will become apparent that the question posed requires us to necessarily inquire about the very definition of philosophy.
Non-philosophers generally perceive philosophy as a luxury.
is a convoluted language, abstract discourse, endlessly developed by a narrow group of experts who are the only ones capable of understanding it, discussing incomprehensible and insignificant matters, as an occupation reserved for a privileged few who, thanks to their money or fortunate circumstances, can indulge in it out of leisure, therefore, it is a luxury.
In our modern world dominated by scientific and industrial technology, where everything is evaluated in terms of profitability and commercial gain, what use is there in discussing the relationship between truth and subjectivity, the mediate and immediate, contingency and necessity, or Descartes’ methodical doubt?
The glory of philosophy, some philosophers will argue, lies precisely in being a luxury and unnecessary discourse. Firstly, if the world consisted only of usefulness, it would be unbearable. Poetry, music, painting are also unnecessary. They do not improve productivity. However, they are essential for life. They free us from utilitarian irresponsibility. The same applies to philosophy. In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates reminds his interlocutors that they have all the time in the world to discuss, that nothing is rushing them. And it is indeed true that leisure is required for this, just as leisure is necessary for painting, composing music, and writing poetry.
The role of philosophy is precisely to reveal to people what is useful from what is useless or, if you will, to teach them to distinguish between two senses of the word “useful”. There is what is useful for a particular purpose: heating or lighting, or transportation, and there is what is useful to a person as a human being, as a thinking being. Philosophical discourse is “useful” in the latter sense, and luxury is useful if we consider as useful only what serves specific and material goals. (…)
If most people consider philosophy a luxury, it is particularly because it seems infinitely far removed from the content of their lives: their worries, suffering, anxiety, the impending death that awaits them and that awaits those whom they love. In relation to this In the face of the burdensome realities of life, philosophical discourse can appear as empty chatter and pitiful luxury. (…) “Words, words, words,” said Hamlet. What is ultimately most useful for a person as a person? Should we discuss language or the essence and non-essence? Isn’t it more important to learn to live a human life.
Earlier, we mentioned Socrates’ speeches, the speeches about the speech of others.
However, they were not intended to build a conceptual structure, purely theoretical discourse, but were a living conversation between people, which was not disconnected from everyday life. Socrates is a man of the street. He speaks to everyone, visits markets, gyms, workshops, and merchants’ shops. He observes and discusses. He does not claim to know something. He only examines, and those whom he examines then question themselves. They question themselves, their own behavior.
In this perspective, philosophical discourse is not an end in itself, but is in the service of philosophical life. The essence of philosophy is no longer mere speech, but action. The entire ancient world recognized that Socrates was a philosopher, more through his life and death than through his speeches. Ancient philosophy was always Socratic in the sense that it presented itself as a way of life, rather than theoretical discourse. A philosopher is not exclusively a professor or a writer, but a person who has chosen a certain way of life, adopting a certain lifestyle, such as Epicurean or Stoic, for example.
We can glimpse a kind of philosophy that somehow identifies with human life, the life of a self-aware individual who constantly corrects their thoughts and actions, aware of their belonging to humanity and the world.
Such a philosophy evidently cannot be a luxury, as it is connected to life itself. It would rather be a basic need for a person. This is why philosophies like Epicureanism or Stoicism aimed to be universal. By proposing the art of human living, they appealed to people’s fundamental needs. to je bio njihov način suprotstavljanja autoritetima. Bili su priče koje su pokušavale privući mase.
What is ethics? Conversation with Pierre Hadot
At the end of Timaeus, Plato speaks of the most excellent part of ourselves that we need to align with the harmony of everything. I was impressed, in addition, while explaining Epictetus’ Manual, to see how the concept of moving towards the best, turning towards the best, which is repeated several times, was almost synonymous with the concept of philosophy, both for Epictetus himself and for the Cynics of Lucian’s time. It is about the Cynic of whom the famous satirist of the 2nd century AD, Lucian, precisely says that “Demonax turned towards the best,” which means that he turned to philosophy. This coincides very well with the idea from the end of Plato’s Timaeus: the best part comes from harmony with everything, with the world.
This brings us to the question of ethics and its definition (…), it could be said that it is the pursuit of a higher state or level of self. So, it is not just a moral question. In antiquity – as I was encouraged I don’t want to specifically talk about stoics, but I believe that in the end, this can be said about philosophy as a whole – there are three parts of philosophy: logic, physics, and ethics. Basically, there is theoretical logic, theoretical physics, and theoretical ethics, and then there is lived logic, lived physics, and lived ethics. Lived logic consists of criticizing assumptions, that is, simply not allowing ourselves to be misled by false judgments in everyday life, especially regarding value judgments. The entirety of Epictetus’ work is precisely an attempt to lead the student to realize that above all, it is important to remain true to things as they are, that is, to objective perceptions, thus avoiding immediately assigning value judgments to events, no matter how serious they may be. This is what lived logic consists of. With Marcus Aurelius, but also with Epictetus, we often find lived physics. For stoic philosophers, this is about the understanding of fate or the comprehension of physical reality for Epicureans.
I believe that this corresponds quite well to Cavello’s understanding: there is no division between the everyday and philosophy. Philosophy is not an activity reserved for the contemplative person locked in their study, which would cease as soon as they step out of it or finish their lecture, but rather it is more about an activity that is completely everyday.