Philosophy versus Philosophy

Have noticed that "philosophy" means different things to most people.

On the one hand, philosophy, as the word is used commonly, seems to mean "whatever one thinks about most anything: politics, how one should live one's life, etc.

On the other hand, "philosophy" is a college-level subject, and as "academics" would have it, serious and expressed thought has been given to it by various geniouses (Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, etc.) ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, right down the present day. Every college worthy of the name has its philosopher(s) and they give lectures, write essays, write books, and in general argue (often quite vociferously, and sometimes arrogantly it seems to me) with their like-minded brethren about the minutiae of the genre. Some of it is quite "transparent" and intuitively understandable, but often it is obtuse, and hard to follow -- especially if one is not familiar with the jargon that goes with it.

Philosophy in the latter sense means, of course, "love of learning." However, in practice this covers a lot of ground, and can get -- for most of us "unwashed" -- quite opaque. The various theories of the apprehension of human knowlege can be quite "difficult." These guys love to call each other "great thinkers," even when they disagree. And, somehow (I am not really sure how) academic "philosophers" are supposed to eventually make a diffence in the "real world." Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves talk, and write, especially when they have "tenure."

Anyway, most of this goes on over the head of the "man-in-the-street." Still, guys like Locke, Paine, and others, apparently did stimulate "Our Founders" to come up with -- among other things -- our "Declaration of Independence," and later on, in 1787, our Constitution of the U.S.

Problem is that, as one would expect, the Constitution was a compromise! You know, each black (regardless of gender) was 3/5ths of a "man," etc. And, even with the Bill of Rights (which, for just one example, Hamilton did not feel we needed), and subsequent "amendments," our government has gradually, and for the past 80 years or so not so gradually, become bigger and bigger until we have things we are calling "Tea Parties" that have erupted across the land. According to this common brand of "philosophy," we just can't afford the lengths to which our "entitlement society" has now gone. However, I suspect -- just suspect, I don't know for sure -- that most of these people involved in the "Tea Parties" would accept what DC is offering if we could afford it. I base this suspicion on the fact that, for just an example, Social Security is one of the most popular "products" of our government these days.

In any case, that's what I call trying to "treat the symptoms, not the disease."

Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.