Is Philosophy really boring and irrelevant?

Is Philosophy really boring and irrelevant?

One does not just one day decide to be interested in philosophy. There has to be an impulse, a drive to know if life is worth living. In other words, there must be a struggle to find real meaning and purpose of living once we realize we must die one day anyway. Once a person starts really meditating on death, on his finite existence, on the brevity of his life, he is stepping into a journey that leads to understanding, to facts, to reasoning, and to truths. And hopefully he finds some peace and happiness while being on that journey. Every one of us has a philosophy, a system of beliefs of how to conduct oneself while being alive. Some have their own philosophies without experiencing a need to know philosophy as a subject of study; others are more curious and want to know what great minds have thought and are willing to learn from what others could offer. What one knows about himself can be gleaned from comparing himself with others. Consciousness is a two-way street, consciousness of oneself and others. We are a collection of islands that are grouped closely together. Each one of us is an island, but we know we are not the only island in this sea of life. We can see other islands nearby. A quality is never absolute by itself. It is only known in its comparison/relationship with others. He is tall and smart and handsome because there are other men who are shorter, less smart, and less attractive than he is. 

Reading about philosophers sharpens our understanding of several issues that we think we know or have our own ideas/philosophies about. Take John Stuart Mill, a not so famous philosopher, but some of his ideas are worth knowing about because they have a direct bearing on how we think we should live. In other words, once we digest his few key ideas, we realize that philosophy as a subject of study is not boring, but enormously interesting and exceedingly useful. 

JSM is best known for his contributions to Bentham's utilitarianism and his defense of individual liberty. Let's discuss utilitarianism first. Bentham had posited that ethics should be grounded on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, rather than on such abstractions as Kant's duty or conscience. Accordingly, Bentham developed a "hedonistic calculus," a mathematical method of determining which actions would most likely produce a greater quanity of pleasure over pain and hence yield happiness. While the system might seem egoistic and individualistic, Bentham claimed that it would be to each individual's advantage to seek the "greatest happiness of the greatest number."

JSM accepted Bentham's hedonism principle, but he came to believe that the quality of a given pleasure or pain had to be considered as well. While a pig might gain a great quantity of pleasure wallowing in the mud, it would be a low quality pleasure, and in JSM's famous words, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." According to JSM, the person best able to make a qualitative determination between rival pleasures is the one who has experienced both. Presumably anyone who has both wallowed in the mud and studied philosophy would prefer the difficult but fulfilling pleasures of the latter.

I am such a person. I have wallowed in the squalor yet seeming splendor of selfishness and I have swum in the sea of altruism. Let me tell you something: altruism is far more satisfying and pleasurable.

I have had sex without love and sex with love. And I have to say sex with love is far better. I don't feel like an animal, but as human when I have sex with love. 

So, there you have it, JSM's views regarding hedonism and the alleged superiority of mental and emotional pleasures over sensual delights. With regard to individual liberty, JSM asserts that society should maximize it! He claims that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." What an individual does in private does not concern society, even if such actions are not to that individual's best interests. "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign," and society should make no paternalistic rules. JSM argues that the "free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being." He further claims that contrary to the Calvinists, self-will is fundamentally good and "He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties." JSM's views about individual liberty echo in the hallowed hallways and dark corners of the households of the followers of American Republican Party, especially among the noisy, racist, xenophobic elements who call themselves the adherents of the off-shoot Tea Party, unless of course, when these elements find themselves in financial distress, they will scream for government help. There is always a tension between individual liberty and the needs of a collective called society where rulers govern allegedly in the interests of everybody concerned, and not necessarily for their own selfish interests. Even in democratic societies where individual liberties are respected, there are laws (e.g., seat belts, recreational drugs) set up to protect the individuals at the expense of his liberties. Also, governance is about power, and power tends to go to those who have the most resources. The laws are set up to protect the interests of those people. Individual liberty is just a smokescreen, tolerated up to a point as long as the interests of the power elites are not negatively affected. Man is not an animal which can be trusted to have unrestricted, uncurbed, unlimited liberty. There will be chaos if such condition is allowed. There has to be some restriction on liberty to ensure the strong and overly aggressive individuals not to inflict harm on the weak and the meek. Liberty is meaningless if not accompanied by responsibility. Ditto for power. Unrestricted power leads to abuse and corruption. It has to be accompanied by responsibility also.

Power is tied up with leadership. A good leader/ruler recognizes all the pitfalls and limitations of power. He must make himself respected and loved, not despised and hated. Arrogant, impolite language of a leader indicates both a lack of respect for the group/organization/society and the individual members within such entity, and a lack of grace on the part of the leader. If he does not amend his shortcomings, he will find himself isolated and abandoned.