How we think we live

What is practical philosophy?

The importance of practical philosophy stems from the fundamental fact that thought can directly influence action: either induce a person to action, or, on the contrary, slow down, stop action, turn away from it. The goal of practical philosophy: to induce with the help of thought to correct, good actions and to ward off wrong, bad actions.

It must be borne in mind that practical philosophy is not the same as the practical role of philosophy. Philosophy in general has some practical impact on people's lives. And mostly indirectly, through science, invention, politics, economics, art, literature. Practical philosophy is that part of philosophy that tries to directly influence the life of people, through philosophical texts and speeches, through live communication of philosophers with people, through philosophical conversations of people with each other.

Practical philosophy in the exact sense of the word was professionally engaged in by a few: some sophists in ancient Greece and some philosophers who used philosophical argumentation in their individual and collective conversations for various practical purposes.

In a broad sense, practical philosophy includes texts and speeches of various authors containing philosophical argumentation, thoughts about life, a person, about an attitude to the world, addressed to all people and prompting or repelling action. These texts and speeches, as a rule, do not have the character of research, but contain reasoning, individual thoughts and recommendations ... In this second meaning, practical philosophy has a rich history and traditions. Many philosophers of the past have left texts that have a practical philosophical meaning. And not only philosophers, but also other writers: poets, prose writers, scientists, historians, psychologists, politicians, etc.

Unfortunately, practical philosophy (in its basic meaning) is still in its infancy. Society is only now beginning to realize that philosophy can directly

(without intermediaries of various kinds) to influence the affairs and destinies of people, that philosophers can work with people - like psychologists, psychoanalysts, doctors, priests.

Practical philosophy is often understood as a section of philosophy devoted to human affairs aimed at achieving good. This is how many philosophers understood it, including Hegel. From my point of view, it is not entirely accurate to call the reflection of good, of practical action, practical philosophy. By and large, practical philosophy differs from philosophy in general not so much in its content-subject as in its “ability” to directly influence the thoughts and deeds of people. Of course, people (non-philosophers) most often turn to those sections of philosophy that are of interest to them in the everyday, utilitarian-narrow-practical terms. But this does not mean that they are not at all interested in other branches of philosophy. For example, are they not interested in worldview questions and don't these questions, or rather the answers to them, affect people's behavior? They do, and how! Do they care how they think? Of course not! Any philosophical question, even the most abstract (far from certain everyday affairs), can be of interest to a non-philosopher. As we have already said, in the exact sense, practical philosophy is a philosophy that realizes a direct connection between philosophy and life, with non-philosophy. A practical philosopher is a philosopher who is able and knows how to establish a connection with a non-philosopher who, through intelligent conversation, can influence his thoughts and deeds. Any philosopher can be in the role of a practical philosopher if he at least once productively and exactly as a philosopher talked with a non-philosopher. Practical philosophy can become the profession of a philosopher if the latter establishes constant live communication with non-philosophers and receives a reward for this ...
In the light of what has been said, it becomes clear that practical and everyday philosophy are not the same thing. The latter is only part of the first. Everyday philosophy is the philosophy of everyday, ordinary life of a person. And this is its limitation.

Sometimes, instead of the word "everyday" in relation to philosophy, the word "vital" is used. Life philosophy is the philosophy of life in general, of life as such. It can be very deep, affecting fundamental worldview and human history issues.

(More and more recently, the expression "applied philosophy" has been used. In the 1980s, the British Society for Applied Philosophy and its publication, The Journal of Applied Philosophy, were even established in England. Applied philosophy is usually contrasted with the fundamental problems of metaphysics as a reflection on problems of real life, as a philosophy that is directly related to life decisions, primarily in the field of morality and politics (see: D. Teichman, K. Evans. Philosophy for Beginners. - Transl. from English., M., 1997. 211. The authors of this book write in the chapter “The Impact of Philosophy on Life”: “Does philosophy have any relation to the problems of real life? The topics of applied philosophy include topics of public concern, such as: animal rights, lies and secrecy in public and privacy, euthanasia, the problem of sex, abortion, feminism, what is decent and what is obscene, etc. ")

How legitimate is the use of the expression "applied philosophy"? Are we trying to impose on philosophy a scheme for dividing some sciences into theoretical-pure and applied-technical-experimental, or a scheme for dividing the arts into pure and applied? After all, philosophy is a special type of culture, which is not reducible either to sciences or arts. I leave this question open. One thing is clear: the topic of the so-called applied philosophy is entirely within the mainstream of practical philosophy as its part-section).

So, practical philosophy is a philosophy with the goal of influencing people with the power of thought through the medium of words, persuasion - in the process of live communication (consultations, conversations, interviews, discussions, analysis of a specific situation). A practical philosopher is a philosopher who organizes a counseling-interview-confession service. His task: consulting and interviewing on the main issues of life, development, love, creativity, health.
. The philosopher, in contrast to representatives of other professions (psychologists, doctors, lawyers, sexologists, priests, etc.), holistically considers a person in all his life manifestations. It is he who is able to talk with a person as with a person, take into account all aspects of human being-experience and, as it were, conduct all the instruments of influences on a person. A psychoanalyst psychologist is looking for a solution to human problems in the psyche, a doctor - in restoring health, a lawyer - in the effective use of legislation, etc. Only a philosopher can assess which means should be used in certain situations. And it is he who can offer the complex use of various means, that is, coordinate-conduct.

Many people talk and write about a person: writers, scientists of various specialties, religious leaders, philosophers ... Writers-artists depict a person exclusively from the subjective side. Scientists study it as an object. They are objectivists. Religious leaders speak and write about man only in connection with their belief in the supernatural; for them, man is a doer-subject insofar as he embodies, realizes the otherworldly, superhuman principle. These are all one-sided points of view.

Only a philosopher can handle an all-encompassing view of man. For him, man is both a subject and an object, and one, and not one, and “I”, and “we,” and the individual, and the human race. This view of a person is due to the specifics of the philosopher as a universal thinker.

Of course, philosophers can also specialize and be limited in their preferences. Nevertheless, in comparison with other “humanists”, they are more oriented towards universalism in their view of man. At least it is among them that there are thinkers who strive for this universalism. To paraphrase the well-known statement of Pico della Mirandola “who is not a philosopher, he is not a man”, let us say: it is a philosopher and only a philosopher who can fully answer the question “what is a man?”.

2. In addition, the philosopher has at his disposal such a means of solving human problems, which is not available professionally by any representative of any other human-oriented activity. This means is thought. A professional philosopher is a person who has made thinking (reasoning, argumentation, criticism) his profession. And it is he, only he, who can professionally use thought-thinking as a means of influencing a person to solve his problems.

3. It should be borne in mind that philosophy is invisibly present in the minds of people, whether they want it or not. People in one way or another discuss philosophical problems without calling them philosophical. These discussions are mostly unskilled and ignorant. A whole sea of ​​pseudo-philosophical reasoning can be found in television and radio broadcasts, in films, in books, newspapers and magazines. In addition, many specialists in human studies (psychologists, doctors, lawyers, priests, etc.), in addition to purely professional conversations and recommendations, conduct purely philosophical conversations with their clients and give advice of a philosophical nature. They work essentially in the field of practical philosophy. Naturally, all these discussions and recommendations leave much to be desired in most cases. Where are we, professional philosophers? - We either have a get-together (we revolve in a narrow circle of our colleagues), or we teach philosophy. The whole vast world of living, everyday, practical, natural philosophy remains outside our attention, understanding, and our interests. So let's turn this situation around, go to the people, we will directly work with people, together with them we will solve their fundamental questions of life. Not with the masses, not with the audience (as is the case with students or readers), but with everyone individually! The essence of practical philosophy is precisely this: in exclusivity, in targeting, in an individual approach. A. V. Sokolov wrote back in 1988: “In order to demonstrate practical usefulness, philosophy must provide a product that meets the needs of individual everyday practice. This product can be “practical philosophy”. Philosophy can be useful to a person as a life teaching, as wisdom. In this function, it is able to successfully compete with religion, which also acts in relation to the individual as a life study. Philosophy is able to give life wisdom, rationally substantiated, arising from a theoretical worldview, while religious life-teaching is based on an irrationally perceived anthropomorphic, mythological worldview.

A significant drawback of the modern stage of development of philosophy in the USSR is precisely the absence in it of such a “practical philosophy” that would correspond to the needs of everyday human practice. ” (See: AV Sokolov. Objective difficulties and limits of convergence of philosophy with life. - In: The nature and methods of connection between philosophy and life. (Abstracts for a scientific conference). M., 1988. S. 61-61). For a long time the USSR is gone, but the problem remains.
4. Some philosophers believe that philosophy should not condescend to the individual. Here is what, for example, O. G. Drobnitsky wrote: “Philosophy ... due to the extreme generality of the issues it resolves, cannot pretend to be a daily mentor of a person in private everyday situations. Consideration of the problems of being on the scale of humanity, history, which is part of the task of philosophy, should not be deduced to specific circumstances, deriving solutions for all occasions. In everyday situations, a person does not reason like a philosopher, and not only because it is impossible to raise everyone's worldly consciousness to the level of extreme abstractions, but because the individual's life position in the vicissitudes of personal experience cannot always be directly derived from his worldview. Attempts in all cases to establish such a strict dependence can only lead to pedantic doctrinairism, vulgarizing the very concept of philosophy. " (See: collection "Science and morality", M., 1971. S. 290-291).

This view of philosophy is conditioned, on the one hand, by its understanding as being very far from a particular person, and, on the other, by understanding the problems of a particular person as insignificant for philosophy. In both cases we are dealing with a kind of philosophical Platonism, i.e. with the absolutization of the general-universal and the underestimation of the individual, separate, specific. Indeed, philosophy is concerned with questions of ultimate generality. But after all, each individual person thinks about such questions. There is no common without the separate, the single, just as there is no single without the common. Any most fundamental question is peripetien, situational, depends on the specific life of a particular person, on his characteristics and the characteristics of his life. And, conversely, any specific vital problem is connected with thousands of threads to the solution of general issues. The task of a practical philosopher is to constantly highlight, to show this connection between the general and the individual, the connection between fundamental philosophical and specific life issues. A parallel can be drawn here between the practical philosopher and the judge. The judge is engaged in comparing specific data on the case with the norms of law and on the basis of this makes a decision. And the philosopher, consulting, leading the conversation, should not just sum up the particular under the general, but establish (find-consider-evaluate) the connection between the particular and the general. (Here Kantian “ability of judgment” comes to mind. Here is what A. V. Gulyga wrote about it: “If reason sets the rules, then the ability of judgment gives the ability to use these rules in each individual case; in fact, it is intelligence, ingenuity. , it is not enough to know the laws; if he applies them formally, then it can turn out “right, but bad,” you need to judge wisely, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. In folklore, the image of a simpleton is fixed, which acts in a standard way, and therefore constantly gets trapped. Kant would say that the simpleton lacks the determining ability of judgment, so he called the ability to apply the general to the particular. ”(A. Gulyga. Kant. M., 1977, p. 177).
Indeed, any thought, any idea can be compromised, discredited, if it is presented at the wrong time and out of place. The art of a practical philosopher should be that general ideas-thoughts find a response in the human soul and that when they are “grounded” there is no “short circuit”, but a current of a specific thought flows in the head of a specific person.

5. The contact of a professional philosopher with a non-philosopher is still limited either by teaching philosophy, or through philosophical texts, or oral presentations in front of a particular audience, or a few communications at various forums (conferences, seminars, symposia, etc.). In some cases, the contact is one-way, in others it is blurred in different collective communications. Truly communication between a philosopher and a non-philosopher is possible only in an individual live conversation, specially designed for this. Plato was certainly right when he pointed out the insufficiency of philosophical texts and the need for a living contact between a philosopher and a non-philosopher. In the dialogue “Phaedrus” he writes: “This, Phaedrus, is a bad feature of writing, truly similar to painting: its products stand as if they were alive, and if you ask them, they are dignified and proudly silent. It's the same with essays: you think they speak like intelligent beings, but if someone asks about something they say, wanting to internalize it, they always answer the same thing. Any work, once written down, is in circulation everywhere - both among people who understand, and, equally, among those who should not read at all, and they do not know with whom it should speak and with whom it should not. If he is neglected or unjustly scolded, it needs the help of its father, but itself is not able to defend itself, nor help itself ...

Well, shouldn't we take a look at how another work arises, the brother of the first, and how much better and more powerful he is by nature?

(...) This is the composition that, as knowledge is acquired, is written in the soul of the student; it is able to defend itself and at the same time knows how to talk to whom it should, and knows how to remain silent.

- Are you talking about the lively and animated speech of a knowledgeable person, the reflection of which can rightly be called written speech?

- Quite right.

(...) even better (writing texts - LB), in my opinion, such activities will become if you use the art of dialectics: taking a suitable soul, such a person competently implants and sows speeches in it that can help themselves to themselves and the sower, for they are not sterile, they have a seed that will give birth to new speeches in the souls of other people, capable of making this seed forever immortal, and its owner as happy as a person can be (italics mine - L.B.). " (274B-277A)

T. V. Vasilieva comments: “A literary work breaks away from its creator, it is left to everyone and everyone, it cannot defend itself against a bad reader and cannot add a word to what is written for a grateful but not far-off reader: he needs help to resolve the bewilderment that has arisen - but the text can only repeat over and over what has already been said. A live conversation is more perfect - the interlocutor is in front of you, you see him and you can adapt to him, all perplexities can be resolved in the course of the conversation - what is learned in the process of such independent work in a live interview is firmly embedded in the memory, and most importantly, begins to engender in the listener's soul the ability for an internal interview with oneself - this is the meaning of Socrates' speech ”(TV Vasilieva. Athenian school of philosophy. M., 1985. S. 109).

To what Vasilyeva said, I will add that a lively conversation is important not only for the interlocutor of the philosopher, but also for the philosopher himself (as Plato rightly points out). In it, the philosopher draws new information, new thoughts and ideas, is charged with creative energy, as is the case with an artist performing in front of a live audience.

6. The introduction of the institute of practical philosophers is reviving a good ancient tradition. In ancient times, there was already a similar institution of practical philosophers. These are sophists, teachers of wisdom, teachers of life. Among them, however, were those who taught false wisdom, idle talk, sophistry. Nevertheless, initially there was a grain of reason in the activities of the sophists. With their conversations, discussions and wise advice, they really helped people.