Modern Philosophy: Nihilism, Meaning, and Engagement
Modern philosophy often finds itself in a peculiar position, oscillating between the depths of nihilism and the shallow waters of self-indulgent beliefs. This article explores the pitfalls of contemporary philosophical thought and highlights the need for deeper engagement with the issues that matter.
Rejecting Nihilism: A Call for Meaning
There is a growing sentiment among some that life is inherently meaningless and devoid of purpose. Philosophers who espouse such views contribute little to society and often lead us nowhere. It is time to reject nihilism and instead embrace meaningful beliefs. Whether this involves turning to something as profound as religion or simply finding personal meaning through other beliefs, there is much to gain by rejecting the void of meaninglessness.
The Politics of Philosophy
Contemporary philosophy often clashes with political and social relevance, a challenge that must be met by practical philosophers. Philosophers like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker, while insightful, tend to present politically charged views in a way that simplifies complex issues. They often explain away the political significance of their findings, reducing thoughtful analysis to surface-level emotional appeals.
A deeper look into their works reveals that political and social issues are rarely decided by critical discussion and rational analysis. Instead, they often hinge on people's initial emotional reactions and instincts. Political debates are driven by the prevalence of these emotions, and ultimately, the most emotionally resonant views can emerge victorious. This is why the opinions of the majority tend to hold more sway than reasoned arguments.
The Need for Engagement in Modern Philosophy
Philosophers must move beyond mere theoretical discourse to engage in substantial ways with practical issues. As Mike Hulme's work on climate change demonstrates, the path to real change lies in careful thought and engagement, not in simplistic emotional appeals. Hulme's book, "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," provides a step-by-step guide on how to engage with the issue on a real level, through scientific discourse and policy.
Unfortunately, this pragmatic approach often gets overshadowed by the emo rhetorical tactics used by many modern philosophers. Instead of promoting deep engagement, they encourage a superficial joining of the activist pack, appealing to people's pre-existing beliefs rather than fostering genuine critical thought.
Engagement vs. Expertise
The tension between engaging the public and maintaining expertise is a crucial one. On one hand, we have the risk of diluting important issues into facile, emotionally charged rhetoric. On the other, we must ensure that these issues are approached with the rigor and depth that they deserve.
Modern philosophers must find a way to make complex issues accessible and understandable to a broader audience. Jordan Peterson, while often criticized, offers a pragmatic approach by engaging individuals in one-on-one sessions, which can sometimes provide valuable insights. However, he too often focuses on emotional appeals rather than reasoned argumentation.
The alternative is to make philosophical engagement part of the political process. This requires the active participation of thinkers and analysts who can shape public discourse with careful reasoning and evidence-based conclusions. By doing so, we can ensure that political decisions are informed by genuine intellectual exploration rather than emotional whims.
In summary, modern philosophy must reject nihilism and embrace meaningful engagement. The challenge lies in balancing theoretical rigor with practical application, ensuring that our philosophical and political discussions are grounded in reason and knowledge, not in populist sentiment. Only then can we hope to truly make a difference in the world.