Why is there an aversion to philosophical discussion? It is most practical. Well here lies the problem most don't find it to be so. But why? Some may object and say, "it is pedantic and burdensome." Still, what inspires such a statement (although, I will admit there is distasteful intellectual conversation. This, however, is another essay)? A weight to carry which is unnecessary is what we call a burden, is philosophical discussion this? And people who have an excellent vocabulary but seem just to spew wind we call pedantic. This said one who speaks only to contribute a burden and wind is indeed impractical. This person we can safely say is not philosophical and when he speaks does not have a truly philosophical discussion. Well if one has a tasteful philosophical discussion how is it practical? Does it place food on the table, I will go further and ask, does it place the table under the eggs? I say it does and much more.
But perhaps the visceral inclination will be to answer no. Perhaps one will object, "The philosophical discussion is 'all talk'." It is a chasing of wind. Why chase wind when you could pursue a goal? We could build a house, or obtain the eggs, or a table, with the four hours that would otherwise be used for philosophical discussion. Indeed, less talking and more building is the right way.
To one poised on my side, the objection may seem shortsighted. One may say, "Thought precedes action, there is no exception. A philosophical discussion depending on the number of interlocutors will result in many thoughts put together and collective action. Of course, if they are all of one mind." Though this train of thought may seem obvious to one on my side, it seems not to be so obvious to many, so I invite the objection and welcome it into the discussion.
To answer our guest objection, I will have recourse to a story about monks in conversation. The topic is justice. Given that I have mentioned an egg, a table, and a house, you may think it is about the just exchange of these goods, however, these are out of the picture-- at least for now. These monks are considering God's justice for its own sake. Or, in other words, they are not concerned yet with the application of justice. I must also mention, they are not hasty either to get to the application. They will, of course, use the knowledge of quotidian things, the conversation is not entirely abstract but neither is it preoccupied with practical application.
These monks simply desire to know God's justice in order to admire it without expecting anything in return, it is a selfless ascent. Now, the consequence is eggs, tables, and houses but it is not the summit of their philosophical ascent-- it is admiration and knowledge. We admire God's justice for its own sake, and the consequence of this love is that "all things are added unto us." We do not, however, admire God for these things. If we did "all things" would not be added unto us.
It is worth elucidating further on how these things are exactly added. We naturally act upon what we admire and when this admiration evanesces so too does our flow of action. To illustrate, when we admire God's justice we seek to abide by it. When we do not we are reluctant to abide. And it is precisely through philosophical discussion that we cast off the reluctance and begin to court, in this case, God's justice. During this 'courting' we discern the nuances of His justice, wondering, marveling, and pondering. As a result, our knowledge grows, and with it our trust in God's justice until our hearts (meaning wills) become betrothed, and married to it, never to depart or betray it.
Now, we are going to add another detail to our story, overhearing the monk's philosophical conversation was a thief, inclining not only his ear but also his heart. Never had he heard justice elucidated in such a dazzling manner nor cherished for its own sake. His heart's weariness for justice evanesced and admiration began to materialize and with it knowledge-- the precursor of action. The object of this thief's heist, the eggs, table, and house these monks were planning to buy, ceased to be.
The monks bought the eggs, the table, and the house and made a new friend. The philosophical discussion indeed helped place eggs on the table and the table under the eggs. Not to mention, the house over the eggs and the table, much more than one could expect.
Now, imagine a society in which these conversations about justice are commonplace, the thieves would not be so common. This, however, is only about justice. Countless marvelous topics are waiting to be unraveled in philosophical discussion and countless people are waiting to join and receive its nourishing fruits.
Comments