Okay. I am open to agreeing to disagree. I still see “What can I hope?” as a way to answer “How should I live?” It feels like it is stating “you should live with this perspective about what can happen in your life and the prospects of an afterlife. You should live with this POV about Hope.”
I am sorry if I am missing some key layer(s).
But he’s not saying that. He (or my caricature of him) is saying ‘live according to reason’. And that’s it; that’s the ‘how to’ part done for, packed up, and shipped. So he’s not saying ‘you should live with said hope’, which is a normative statement; he’s saying, you may have that hope (i.e. you may justifiably have such an expectation). Where the former tells you what ought, or should, be, the latter provides something optional.
But we’re not done yet. We can further ask, given that I live my life in this way, given that I follow this ‘how to’, what am I justified to expect? Because this question isn’t settled. And it’s not the question of how to live your life; again, that’s settled, ticked off, asked and answered. Indeed, we’re presupposing that answer. Suppose the answer to ‘how to’ were ‘blow it all away on wine, women, and song’, then the answer to ‘what may I hope for’ in all likelihood would be ‘cirrhosis of the liver and possibly an STD or two’. But that’s not part of the ‘how to’; it merely originates from there.
But yeah, I’ve made these points several times now, so it doesn’t seem very likely that we’ll make progress here. At the moment, I can’t think of another way to explain it, I’m sorry to say.
Okay, it sounds like I need to read about “What can I hope?” and Kant. I have my next topic to dig into. I have a Philosophy book I’m I’m reading, and another on the pike about ethics, but will figure out what to read next.
Coming in a bit late, but may I recommend Primary Philosophy by Michael Scriven? It’s sort of an introductory book on the subject.
In my opinion there is a “Philosophic Method,” comparable to the “Scientific Method.” The Scientific Method is “Test it and find out.” The Philosophic Method is, “Compare it to something else.”
Seriously. For instance, when someone says that human civilization is like a Bee Hive, that’s an instance. Renaissance philosophers argued that there could only be seven planets, because there are seven metals and seven sensory apertures in the human skull. Philosophical reasoning often compares “the part to the whole” and “as above, so below.” Philosophy seeks to cast light using metaphors as a primary technique.
I will check out that book.
I would argue that Philosophy has the two Fundamental Questions. It seeks to answer them by deciding how to regard the Physical, Subjective, and Collective dimensions of Reality we experience. It applies the set of Philosophical Inquiries we use - what can exist, what can be known, how should purpose be considered - to deciding how to regard the Dimensions, which we then use to answer our Questions.
Use of metaphor/analogy is a method within that context, sure, but not the only one.
But what the heck do I know? I am just trying to noodle out what I am reading.
I will say this: I see value in drawing Maps. Maps leave off huge swaths of information, in order to focus and clarify the few things the mapmaker chooses to include.
While Philosophy has all the richness and detail of actual terrain, I believe that a simplified map or two are possible and could convey information, just like a map of territory conveys some basic info. But, again, it is not like a bunch of this type of Philosophy maps already exist to choose from, so I have to stop and think hard about that.
Fair enough. It’s a big part of the process, Plato’s Cave and all. But, yeah, it ain’t all-in-that-all. Logic is also a part of it, writing down definitions and then manipulating them to see what consequences might be implied.
Nice metaphor! 
And, yeah, there’s certainly a measure of independent opinion. Democritus (and Locke) depicted the roads; Heraclitus (and Hobbes) focused more on obstructions and obstacles.
One of the very most primary questions in philosophy is whether the nature of reality is unity or multiplicity. Is reality “one” or “many” in its most elementary (and elemental) basis? There are superb arguments for both views, leaving the matter unsettled and unsolved.
This, possibly, is one of the biggest frustrations of philosophy: it can’t really give ultimate answers, even to the simplest questions. We don’t know what “the good” is; we don’t know what is “real.” It’s highly likely we never will, in which case philosophy is like a genteel debate society, where you take turns arguing “for” and “against” propositions, judged only on the clarity of your discourse, not on the actual answers.
But…why not? That’s fun, too, and promotes clear thinking. Everyone should play the game a little. College sophomores get into it in a big way…and so do Straight Dopers!
Yep - and any map is a form of metaphor/simplification. Your characterizations above suggest that you know of a map, and that each Philosopher is choosing his/her battle site on (or, arguing over the definition of) the map. Where is that map?
Yep - that is one of the core inquiries into Why is there Something. Your position on “All is One” vs. “All is “Atoms”” is how you view the Material World and how our Consciousness perceives it. All of that fits.
Let’s be clear: sure, there is a bit of a college sophomore going Whoa! at the world in all Philosophy. I just see value in a map, to keep working that analogy (thanks Trinopus). Laying out a Framework:
Once the Questions, Rules of Reality and Inquiries feel like they Align - by that Philosopher’s definition of Alignment - they can assert their answers to the Questions.
Most of the big players in Philosophy have been focused on either defining some version of that entire Framework, or fighting battles on specific parts of the terrain within it.
Whoa.
Bumping this thread to say that I picked up these two books. They’re both incredibly engaging. I’ve passed on 2 game night invitations to keep reading The Dream of Reason. Absolutely fascinating soundbites into the growth of philosophy.
For what (little) it’s worth, I was a Philosophy major as an undergraduate and I would not consider “Why is there Something instead of Nothing?” to be one of the fundamental questions of Philosophy. I’m not sure it’s even a very good philosophical question, although perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by it.
I think a better question would be something like “What is the truth?” I mean that not only in the sense of “What are the facts about X, Y, and Z?” but also “What do we mean by ‘the truth’ and how can we tell what is or isn’t true?” I would place questions about whether “something” exists in the first place and, if so, why, under this broader question about the truth.
Yay! Yeah, it sucked me right in. It’s follow up The Dream of Enlightenment delivers too. I never fully got Hume until I read Gottlieb on him.
ETA: How was the comic book?
Thanks for commenting. Two points:
Totally cool. My main point is that we can break “Standard Western Philosophy” into a few categories of inquiry, and benefit by doing so. One of those categories is Fundamental Questions. If you have your 2 or 4 that work for you, great. The point is that you ask your FQ, but then realize you can’t answer it until you define the Reality that the FQ’s exist in. So the category of How Do I Define Reality? is different and complementary to the FQ category, yes? Why isn’t there a map showing those two categories (amongst a couple of others) with, I dunno, arrows pointing back and forth. Frikkin maps!
To me, Why is there Something is the root question that leads to God or Allah or other religions, just like it leads to quantum physics, relativity and the Big Bang. It’s a powerful question. I would point you to **Jim Holt’s **brilliant book Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story. He makes a strong case for its importance and traces the history of Humans’ attempts at religious, philosophical and scientific answers. Can’t recommend it strongly enough. https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595
Oh, and Inner Stickler? You should really read How to Live as well. If you’re digging the others books, I suspect you’d love it.
I’m afraid this is going to sound more condescending than I mean for it to be, but it sounds like you may have been overly influenced by this one book. I haven’t read it and I’ll take your word for it that it’s very good, but that doesn’t mean the author is right about everything.
Since I have not read the book then perhaps I am badly missing Holt’s point, but I have read a lot of other books about philosophy and I don’t agree that “Why is there Something instead of Nothing?” is the question at the heart of all philosophy. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Holt is wrong, but my own study of philosophy leads me to believe that many people with better credentials than I possess would define philosophy differently.
It’s good. Feels kind of weird to say this about what is nominally a comic book but I think I need to re-read it at least once, now that I have the general layout it gives. My grasp of philosophical topics is rudimentary at best and by the time I got to the 1800s, I just got more and more confused about what each philosopher was arguing for and against.
It reminds me a lot of the sob now-defunct PBS Idea Channel which I watched religiously and never understood a blessed thing Mike Rugnetta said.
It’s on the list! I have to pace myself for the sake of my wallet when it comes to buying books. I also have a copy of Montaigne’s essays on my tablet but I’ve started it probably 3 or 4 times now and had a hard time getting into it.