Critical And Relevant Element in Philosophy

What makes great philosopher? Actually there are many answer we can give to this. But for my own perspectives, the great philosopher is a philosopher who dare to questions and trial the common answer to the current problem of society, and then give a bold answer the questions that has been raised by civilizations. In other words, becoming philosopher is to be critical and also relevant at the same time. Many ivory tower academic philosopher but not as famous as the great thinker like, Kant, Marx, and Artur Schopenhauer and many more. Once again, the question is why? I venture to say that those great thinkers try to tackle the questions of the ages, not in academical way but in philosophical way, what I mean is this, they offer a thought or even system of though to see the problem or at least answer the problem of the culture partially (not the irrelevant questions that no-one ever asked), so that the other people after them can join the conversation, the "everlasting Conversation" (G.K Chesterton use the term, "The everlasting-Picnic.").

In his famous work, Irrational Man, William Barret show how for instance existentialism arose as the result of the anguish after world war II. He said, "Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche was an academic philosopher...their central subject is the unique experience of the single one, the individual, who chooses to place himself on trial before the gravest question of his civilization." Base on this, we can know know that why both philosophers are really famous even until know compare to many academician at their time. Once again, these two elements are inestimably precious.

Critical means that philosopher need to study the life and the world they are situated in and then give their view and also comment which focus not mere description but forming even a greater theory (Moving from particular to Universal). And the other value is relevant is also really requisite for essentially, there no such thing as relevant philosophy for philosophy is already assuming a relevancy as its nature. It boils down into two, a good philosophy or bad philosophy. A good philosophy is a critical and relevant philosophy. A bad philosophy is uncritical and irrelevant philosophy. 

There is a thinker by the name of Ulrich de Balbian wrote a very interesting book entitled, Irrelevant Philosophy. On the preface he wrote something like this about philosophy, "The tools employed might appear appropriate, the reasoning sound and argumentation valid, but the subject-matter, well one wonders what that has to do with philosophy, if anything at all? Viewing some of the topics one really wonders of the notion of philosophy is not stretched too far? So much that is passed off as philosophy itself or some kind of so-called interdisciplinary issues really appear as irrelevant." He also further goes into saying, "Just because someone with qualifications in philo-sophy or is labelled with the role of philosopher, thinks, writes, talks about is associated with some-thing, some issue or (‘philosophical ’ notion or is-sue) does not automatically transform those things into philosophy." 

In a similar tone, some also critique that because of departing tendency of philosophy of common sense thus, doing philosophy is kind of "waste of time" for the wild and speculative activity and impracticality of it are dominating. One of the author summarized Hegel's practical philosophy with this comment, "The defining function of Hegel's practical philosophy is the function of raising relevant questions under specific historical conditions and asking them in a theoretically relevant way." Likewise, talking about Christian Philosophy, Craig Bartholomew argue "Because God is the Creator and because his order is comprehensive in that it relates to all of life, there is not an area of practical human life for which a Christian philosophy will not provide helpful insight."

Once, again the key is relevant, relevance is the norm. Well, at this moment I understand, some philosopher believe that philosophy need to be done for the sake of philosophy itself. To answer irrelevant questions or to push the limit of intellectuality. However, they are more into what I call wonderer than philosopher, especially in today context. Philosopher might be a wonderer but wonderer not always a philosopher, and it is depending on relevancy. 

Apparently, we cannot deny that philosophy nowadays are turned more into cerebral things and have reach to a certain state whereby only selected view of people can understand what's going on in the field. It is become a very exclusive kind of knowledge and wisdom, gnostic and mystical to its core. Philosophy become a subject just for few intellectual elites. But bringing the urgency of the existential questions, It is wise to rethink the approach of doing philosophy in general. Yet, despite of that, the global Pandemic is slowly helping to bring philosophy to its basic natures, critical and relevant. 

Today many people are questioning again the meaning of life, the meaning of their existence and how to cope with this terrible and sudden change. Thus, the therapeutic philosophy and existential philosophy or even anthropological philosophy are forced to be shone bright again. And it is not bizarre to then say that the philosophical theme of therapy or self liberation through the means of rationalization could help people more, especially, for those who suffer from the troubling stress and depression rather than bringing the theory of gravity or extended substance.  The philosophical discussion on happiness and the destiny of human being are also need to be discussed in today world because of the radical adjustment of living in the new normal society, compare to the discussion on the issue of categorism and dispotionalism of the law of nature. 

Let take this daily case example, so that we can understand the very important of relevant philosophy a bit further. As philosopher, when we see the troubling people in our community, who ask some wisdom and advice in the midst of calamity, what answer we can give as philosopher? Is it critical and relevant to their needs? Or we just ignoring their inner angsts and say boldly to the troubled person, "It seems you have a problem, but let me teach tell you about emotivism, perspectivism, eternalism, maybe it will help you to gain some insights to deal with your trouble. And if you have some time, read more and reflect more on those things, hopefully it will help you to cope with the situation, as it will expand your intellectuality!" Having say this, can we say that Philosophy is by nature pragmatic? Of course, but the pragmatic here need to be clarified a bit further. It is not a pragmatic in whatsoever meaning of the term but pragmatic that has been through a process of thorough and critical thinking, for the sake of helping and cultivating others, and not for own ego or own gain. Once again both elements need to be embraced together when we are doing philosophy, Critical and Relevant are the essential elements in philosophy!