For those of us pursuing an interest in Philosophy, it seems worthwhile to ask: Why are we doing this? What do we hope to gain?
Most of us might answer that we want to gain knowledge. This is the literal meaning of the word "philosophy." But what knowledge is it that we seek? Is it technical knowledge or is it knowledge about what to do with technical knowledge? We would probably say it is the latter because technical knowledge has, as is also stated in its name, the character of a tool. This seems to be the domain of the sciences that bring us technological insights and progress. Originally, all science was included in philosophy, but many "tool" disciplines have since split off as matters that required specialization to advance. Arguably, there are some technical sciences left in philosophy, and their sophistication might suggest that they ought to be split off as well. There are also structural and procedural areas that are so fundamental that they might best remain in philosophy as the mother science to the more specialized sciences. However, all these disciplines beg the question what we do with our technical insights.
Looking around, I think it is self-evident that most if not all of us could use some help in answering this question. Is that not ultimately why we are interested in philosophy?
Questions related to where it all came from and where it is going may play a big part in our orientation regarding purpose. Technical science is trying to find such answers. But when one looks at how such science tries to explain the ultimate questions of the universe, one finds a range of speculation fueled by an ardent desire to find out - proof that the mother science of philosophy is well and alive. It might only have moved to different protagonists.
Without knowledge about the general dimensions of purpose, we have to look for nearer, more solvable establishments of purpose. And even if we knew of a general plan, we might have to define subordinated purposes - or even assert purposes in an attempt to change or escape the generally ordained course.
So the question stands: To what purpose should we gain and apply technical knowledge?
The choices seem clear in principle. We do not want to apply technical knowledge to hurt ourselves. Rather, we want to use it to assist our well-being. We want to minimize pain and the states that cause it and maximize pleasure and the states that give rise to it. Hence, the purpose we pursue with our technical efforts - and our engagement of philosophy - seems to be happiness.
Understanding this has far-reaching consequences for us and for philosophy. I have dedicated over six years of intense work to this subject. The result is a recently published book called Philosophy of Happiness. It sets out to comprehensively address happiness. It radically challenges our notions about us, humanity, and the world beyond. It reexamines, redefines, and develops happiness as the underlying driving force in individuals, humanity, and nature and transcends previous thought regarding the organization of human existence and its context. The book is written for nonphilosophers and professional philosophers alike, a necessity, I believe, to advance the research, understanding, acceptance, and implementation of philosophical principles regarding happiness. You can obtain more information about the book and read or download close to 150 pages of it through my website http://www.philosophyofhappiness.com.
I am interested to know what you think about the subject and my treatment of it. - Martin Janello
Most of us might answer that we want to gain knowledge. This is the literal meaning of the word "philosophy." But what knowledge is it that we seek? Is it technical knowledge or is it knowledge about what to do with technical knowledge? We would probably say it is the latter because technical knowledge has, as is also stated in its name, the character of a tool. This seems to be the domain of the sciences that bring us technological insights and progress. Originally, all science was included in philosophy, but many "tool" disciplines have since split off as matters that required specialization to advance. Arguably, there are some technical sciences left in philosophy, and their sophistication might suggest that they ought to be split off as well. There are also structural and procedural areas that are so fundamental that they might best remain in philosophy as the mother science to the more specialized sciences. However, all these disciplines beg the question what we do with our technical insights.
Looking around, I think it is self-evident that most if not all of us could use some help in answering this question. Is that not ultimately why we are interested in philosophy?
Questions related to where it all came from and where it is going may play a big part in our orientation regarding purpose. Technical science is trying to find such answers. But when one looks at how such science tries to explain the ultimate questions of the universe, one finds a range of speculation fueled by an ardent desire to find out - proof that the mother science of philosophy is well and alive. It might only have moved to different protagonists.
Without knowledge about the general dimensions of purpose, we have to look for nearer, more solvable establishments of purpose. And even if we knew of a general plan, we might have to define subordinated purposes - or even assert purposes in an attempt to change or escape the generally ordained course.
So the question stands: To what purpose should we gain and apply technical knowledge?
The choices seem clear in principle. We do not want to apply technical knowledge to hurt ourselves. Rather, we want to use it to assist our well-being. We want to minimize pain and the states that cause it and maximize pleasure and the states that give rise to it. Hence, the purpose we pursue with our technical efforts - and our engagement of philosophy - seems to be happiness.
Understanding this has far-reaching consequences for us and for philosophy. I have dedicated over six years of intense work to this subject. The result is a recently published book called Philosophy of Happiness. It sets out to comprehensively address happiness. It radically challenges our notions about us, humanity, and the world beyond. It reexamines, redefines, and develops happiness as the underlying driving force in individuals, humanity, and nature and transcends previous thought regarding the organization of human existence and its context. The book is written for nonphilosophers and professional philosophers alike, a necessity, I believe, to advance the research, understanding, acceptance, and implementation of philosophical principles regarding happiness. You can obtain more information about the book and read or download close to 150 pages of it through my website http://www.philosophyofhappiness.com.
I am interested to know what you think about the subject and my treatment of it. - Martin Janello
Philosophy of Happiness