Nature, Language, and Supernature

I asked  Robert J Wizard,  our Dark Overlord, his opinion on this question, which I would like to throw open to any other reader who cares to comment: “what is it about Socratic philosophy (or about all philosophy) that makes it start with pragmatic questions and end with mythical visions?”

His comment:

As far as Socratic/Platonic philosophy goes I would say, tentatively, that it is because of his epistemology, his Forms and the Form of the Good. It lent a general direction to how he tackled all problems. And, practically, Plato was reacting against the materialists of his time.

That is an answer off the top of my head.

Now as far as philosophy in general. I would say with a good degree of certainty that they follow a historical pattern. And it is somewhat contained in my initial comment. First they try to ground everything naturalistically. Then they shoot each others theories full of the holes they do contain, and then the next wave of philosophers comes in and states it is all arbitrary, there is no grounding for knowledge for reality and therefore none for ethics. Then the field dissolves itself into babbling.

After some time of this after the destruction and dust settles people go back to the myths or whatever you choose to call them. Christianity certainly worked better (speaking pragmatically) than what was running the Greco-Roman world that caused it to die. They work better (speaking pragmatically) than what passes for “philosophy” these days. One exception IMHO – like I needed to point that out.”

Your answer off the top of your head is as good as answers I have heard in school.

As for me, I wonder if it is because of the nature of the subject matter, or, if you will, the nature of reality.

Things that we can define closely and deal with daily are based on and rooted in (and take life from) things we cannot define well, and have a more abstract, perhaps even eternal character.

Philosophy is like a ladder leading from earth to higher realms. Most people can agree what distinguishes a good hamburger from a bad one: the bad one is rotten, smelly, unsightly, no good to eat, not appealing to the taste, no contributing to the health and nutrition of the body. Pretty clear, no? It only gets less clear when we start looking at the difference between taste and health, and contemplate things that taste good but are not good for us, and then we start contemplating health in the abstract, and to answer questions about that, we have to talk about the good of man, body and soul, and suddenly or slowly we find ourselves in realms where metaphors and myths are actually clearer and better than definitions and propositions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.