If the act of raising the threshold of thinking through philosophy to address ignorance of what humans are born with and do not know is limited to their primal instincts, doesn't that mean that absolute rational and philosophical thinking does not exist in the end? Or is it one thing to approach philosophy only through an instinctive attraction to philosophy and another to do philosophy through absolute reason?

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

If we acknowledge the act of raising the threshold of thinking through philosophy to address the ignorance of what humans are born with and do not know, it becomes apparent that such an endeavor is limited by our primal instincts. These instincts, which are deeply rooted in our nature, shape the very foundation of our understanding and reasoning. However, if we were to conclude that absolute rational and philosophical thinking does not exist, we must delve deeper into the nature of philosophy itself. Is it not one thing to approach philosophy solely through an instinctive attraction, and another to engage in philosophy through absolute reason?

To answer this question, we must first consider the essence of philosophy. Are we to understand philosophy merely as an intellectual pursuit driven by innate instincts, or is it something more? Descartes himself, in his Meditations on First Philosophy, seeks to discover undeniable truths through the rigorous application of reason. He endeavors to doubt all his former beliefs, questioning their foundations and searching for indubitable knowledge. This pursuit of certainty, grounded in rationality, sets Descartes on a path distinct from the influence of primal instincts.

However, we must not dismiss the role that instinctive attraction plays in our approach to philosophy. It is through these instincts that we are drawn to inquire, to question the world around us, and to seek answers to profound existential questions. Our innate curiosity drives us to explore the realm of philosophy, inspiring us to embark on a journey of intellectual discovery.

Yet, the very act of engaging in philosophy inevitably leads us to confront the limitations of our instincts. While they provide us with a starting point, they do not offer the ultimate answer. Here lies the importance of reason and critical thinking. Through the exercise of absolute reason, we can transcend the constraints of our instinctual inclinations and delve into a deeper understanding of the world.

Therefore, it is not accurate to claim that absolute rational and philosophical thinking does not exist. It is, in fact, the combination of instinct and reason that allows us to approach philosophy from a comprehensive perspective. Our instinctive attraction serves as a catalyst, propelling us toward the pursuit of knowledge, while absolute reason permits us to apprehend the true nature of reality. As such, the engagement with philosophy requires both an instinctive pull and a disciplined application of reason.

In the end, philosophy encompasses both the nuances of instinctive attraction and the rigorous exploration of absolute reason. An individual who solely relies on their primal instincts may come close to understanding certain aspects of philosophy, but they will inevitably be constrained by their limitations. Conversely, one who approaches philosophy purely through absolute reason may lack the depth and curiosity that instinctive attraction brings. It is only by embracing both aspects that we can engage philosophy in its truest and most meaningful sense.