This is a thread about the end(s) of philosophy; not necessarily in general but just any philosophy whatsoever.
Some examples:
Marx’s philosophy can reasonably be interpreted to have the endgoal of communism.
Aristotle’s philosophy can reasonably be interpreted to have the endgoals of the Athenian state.
Kate Millet’s philosophy can reasonably be interpreted to have the endgoal of more freedom for women.
This skips over, or at least so I hope, teleology. I want to hear what others see the purposes of philosophy are, the attraction, what they put it to use for, and such. I’d reserve talks about teleology for another discussion even though this is clearly related to such thoughts.
For Aristotle there is no single end goal. There is a tension between the philosopher’s goal and that of the city. This was evident with the conflict between Socrates and the city of Athens. Aristotle addressed the just concerns of both.
The best life is contemplative (Nicomachean Ethics 10, 7-8). The problem is, it is not a life that is well suited to most human beings.
The city requires a ruler. The philosopher is self-ruling. The city requires laws. The philosopher is the law-giver.
As to the purposes of philosophy:
It’s root meaning, love of wisdom, guides my own inquiry. What this means is itself a fundamental part of that inquiry. The desire to be wise is a recognition that I am not wise. A guiding question is, how best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best.
Wouldn’t any philosophy whatsoever, just be philosophy in general?
But anyway…….
“…..Until now**, however, the concept of philosophy has been only a scholastic concept, namely that of a system of cognition that is sought only as a science without having as its end anything more than the systematic unity of this knowledge, thus the logical perfection of cognition. But there is also a cosmopolitan concept (conceptus cosmicus) that has always grounded this term, especially when it is, as it were, personified and represented as an archetype in the ideal of the philosopher.
From this point of view philosophy is the science of the relation of all cognition to the essential ends of human reason (teleologia rationis humanae), and the philosopher is not an artist of reason but the legislator. It would be very boastful to call oneself a philosopher in this sense and to pretend to have equaled the archetype, which lies only in the idea….”
** 1787
So it appears for philosophy in general its end is a system of logically perfect cognition. Yet it is found, upon construction of such a system, the possessor of it may not even be qualified to use it.
Perhaps not what you had in mind, but I daresay philosophy in general doesn’t necessarily have an end, although any rational agent can readily select whatever topic he likes, subsume a manifold of objects under it, and philosophize the bejesus out of it, end up either nowhere, or right back where he started.
Still fun to think about though, gotta admit that.
The value of philosophy for me is as an intellectual, perceptual practice like meditation, contemplation, or studying. It is the examination Socrates said we need to have a life worth living.
As for a goal, for me, philosophy doesn’t have one. What matters is the path, not the destination.
To provide flies with tools and methods they can use (a) to figure out if they’re in a fly-bottle; (b) to figure out how to get out; and (c) once out, to spot fly-bottles and avoid entering them. These are distinct challenges. It is possible to manage (a) but not (b), (a) and (b) but not (c), perhaps even (c) without the trouble of (a) and (b). Most of the information and technique will necessarily come from flies with experience of fly-bottles.
Some flies may choose to stay put, especially if it’s a nice fly-bottle and they’ve been there a while.
The end goal of philosophy is the never ending pursuit of better definitions. Always more precise, always closer to the territory rather than the map, never finished because the resolution can always increase.
An interesting OP. It’s hard to imagine philosophy coming to an end while there’s disagreement about values, meaning, and what ultimately matters, since philosophy seems to arise from those tensions. Even when the West was predominantly Christian, there were numerous schisms and ongoing disagreements between sects, so it seems unlikely that any overarching narrative could ever exist without being subject to philosophical contestation and deconstruction from within.
A number of our friends here would argue that modernity took a wrong turn by severing philosophy from a robust metaphysics, leaving much of it preoccupied with linguistic or procedural games or scientism rather than more profound questions of being and meaning. There remains a lively nostalgic subculture of Thomists, Neoplatonists, and assorted mystics seeking to recover more ancient and to them more significant conceptual frameworks. What would it look like if we were all Neoplatonists? No doubt there would still be acrimonious splinter groups and factions debating competing accounts of meaning.
