Object and definition of Philosophy. Philosophy and public life

The question of the relationship between philosophy and social life has different views. Some consider philosophy to be abstract wisdom, separated from life, which not only has no practical application, but it is just harmful, deviating man from direct duties. Others say the opposite - life is something unworthy of studying for the serious person, because it is filled with contradictions, animal passions and bloody struggles. Along with these extreme one-sided views, there is also the third notion that human life and philosophy are indivisible, there is no true human society without philosophy, and no true philosophy, separated from society.

image source

Philosophy, as the supreme manifestation of human mental activity, arises and develops only in human society, therefore it depends on it and is a public function or manifestation in the true sense of that word. Philosophy needs a certain material welfare of philosophers. Only when the basic physical needs of man are attained, he can philosophize. In this respect, the ancient saying is "First, one must live and then philosophize". In this sense it can be argued that people should have to eat, have homes and clothes before fighting for domination, dealing with politics, religion, philosophy, and so on. Philosophy is related to the material needs, interests and aspirations of people, and in this sense that they are not only its condition or prerequisite, but also its constant object of study, since man naturally studies the most deep and fateful, and that is his own life. The philosophy itself, on the other hand, has a public function because it helps to recreate the public being. In this respect, it is very important to admit that philosophical revolutions precede and prepare political and economic revolutions.

Despite this connection between society and philosophy, we must say that there is no right proportion between material existence and philosophy, between public activity and philosophy. If such a proportion were to exist, we should expect that the richest in material terms will be the greatest philosophers, will be the most active and popular public figures. But the whole history of philosophy shows us that there is no such complete dependence. Well-being is by no means the only condition for philosophizing and even very often hinders philosophy. Also of practical public activity.. Every true science-philosophical theory has inevitably passed and is acceptable in life practice, and so serves to improve people's lives. But, on the other hand, he would not be a true philosopher who sets himself for the direct purpose of achieving property and social well-being. We therefore worship philosophers such as Anaksagor, Heraclitus, Bruno, Socrates, Spinoza, Epicurus, Kant, and others who have actually been in a life of asceticism, and in the interest of knowing the truth have even neglected their elementary bodily needs. The philosopher at first considers material conditions as an inevitable tool, but never sets them as the object and purpose of their pursuits. This is expressed in Plato's "Apocrypha of Sokrates". The philosopher knows that the philosopher is not only the question of living and living but the question of why he lives.

The philosopher is influenced by and influencing public life, but at the same time he considers everything from the point of view of eternity, from the point of view of the common world, and therefore very often refers critically and negatively to certain social manifestations of his time. A philosopher who does not retain critical independence and autonomy in terms of his contemporary reality and public life and spirit is no philosopher. Also, a society that does not tolerate the courageous and consistent but socially oriented and well-intentioned critique of philosophical thought-such a society is a killer of philosophy too often by the philosophers themselves: Socrates, Bruno, Hus, and others. And this is a killer of his own highest moral and spiritual values.