What Is Philosophy - Essay Example

?Philosophy - An Introduction The word 'philosophy' is one often heard in everyday life, at times misused or attributed to something else entirely. For instance, there are those who take it to refer to a way of life, while others understand it as a way to their own set of beliefs. The actual meaning of the word 'philosophy', however, is such that neither interpretation can truly be said to be wrong. On the other hand, neither interpretation is truly correct on its own, either. This being the case, the question of what philosophy is should first be answered. The word 'philosophy' actually derives its origins from the Greek words 'philo' and 'sophos', which respectively mean 'love' and 'wisdom' - thus, the word can be translated as 'love of wisdom' (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2012). Philosophers tend to concern themselves with problems, especially those with concepts such as existence, knowledge and values (Teichmann and Evans, 1999). They then proceed to try and answer these questions as logically, rationally and systematically as possible. One of the more notable things said of the field of philosophy is that it revolves around the creation of concepts. This is actually a rather accurate description; for instance, the subcategory of metaphysics concerns itself with explaining the nature not only of the world, but of the human existence (Geisler, 1999). Those who specialize in this branch of philosophy search for knowledge with the aim of helping others attain greater understanding of the world, as defined by its fundamental notions such as existence, causality, ontology and possibility. And as one delves into each of these fundamental notions, he in turn encounters an even greater volume of knowledge and information to analyze and then synthesize. Needless to say, the study of metaphysical concepts demands commitment over a lifetime. The reason for this is easy enough to understand, if not always easy to keep in mind. The attainment of full understanding of a given concept requires that one approach it from all possible angles, analyzing it from every possible perspective. From there, one is then expected to make sense of what he has learned and observed, and then come up with his own interpretation of the subject. And because no two interpretations of the same subject will ever be exactly alike, this entire process always results in someone's creation of a new concept. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though - as the legendary Bruce Lee once put it, all knowledge ultimately leads to self-knowledge (Little, 1996). Interpreting any given subject will inevitably require the use of one's logic - of one's rational capabilities to try and make sense of the subject at hand. And as Popkin and Stroll (1993) explain, this in turn requires that one is capable of reasoning things out in a valid manner, based on the body of knowledge involved. For instance, one need not be a lawyer or a law student to know the law. However, the only way to truly understand the intricacies of the law is to unlearn everything one has been taught to think of it, and to try and understand the law as lawyers do. Joe Hyams (1982) quotes no less than Bruce Lee himself when he emphasizes the need to let go of one's preconceived expectations and notions. For one to properly study a subject requires that he be willing to let go of everything he has been taught to think about that subject, and to approach it with a clean slate, as if for the first time. In connection with this, it has often been said that lawyers are not truly after the truth, but what can be proven. As most lawyers and law students know, this can and often is a problem. For one thing, evidence can, in fact, be fabricated, and besides that, even the evidence at hand can be misinterpreted such that it heavily favors a particular interpretation of events. This can be very frustrating, especially to those who took to heart the lawyer's oath to uphold justice and truth seriously Furthermore, evidence can be admitted or dismissed depending on the methods used to obtain it, with 'tainted', illegally evidence such as wiretapped conversations liable to dismissal as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' (Dressler, 2002). This means that, in an arguable case of miscarriage of justice, even a clearly guilty man can be let off on the technicality that the evidence against him was illegally obtained. This particular technicality is often one of the most frustrating ones aspiring lawyers have to deal with, not least because it puts them in a situation where they are often forced to compromise their morals. And because of this, there are those who feel forced to resort to vigilantism - having been denied justice by the legal system, they see no other choice but to take the law into their own hands. One of the more frustrating cases of this maddening doctrine at work is that of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, wherein the plaintiff tried to evade paying taxes. In response, federal agents illegally seized Silverthorne's tax books and created copies of them, the contents of which would have proven their guilt of tax evasion. However, Silverthorne managed to get off on a technicality; while the contents of the copies of the illegally obtained tax books would have had more than enough evidence to prove their guilt, it was ruled that derivatives of illegally obtained evidence were inadmissible in court. To rule otherwise, according to the US Supreme Court, would be tantamount to encouraging law enforcers to circumvent the Fourth Amendment at their convenience (Killian, 1982). Such a doctrine is undoubtedly annoying, the reason for which should be readily apparent. Because of these technicalities, the accused can be acquitted in spite of blatantly obvious guilt; conversely, even clearly innocent parties can end up wrongfully convicted. If nothing else, though, this doctrine has at least some rational basis. Because defendants in criminal cases have the right to the presumption of innocence, it stands to reason that their guilt must be established through lawful means as much as possible. This being the case, to utilize illegal means to expose their guilt would be seen as a way of circumventing that presumption. And while such an explanation does little to justify the inflexibility of this particular doctrine, it does at least explain why courts continue to uphold it today. Because philosophy does indeed involve the continuous creation of new concepts, it logically follows that the search for knowledge and wisdom can never really end. Just as case law is continually revised, rewritten and overturned, so too does it happen that what one learns today is outdated tomorrow. Thus, even when one may think he knows all there is to know about a particular topic, it would still be worth revisiting it from another perspective, letting go of preconceived notions while doing so, and then understanding it from that new point of view. References Dressler, Joshua. Understanding Criminal Procedure (3rd ed.). Newark, NJ, 2002. Print. Hyams, Joe. Zen in the Martial Arts. Bantam New Age Books, 1982. Print. Killian, B. J. "United States v. Crews: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree—A New Wrinkle?". Idaho Law Review 18 (1982): 151. Print. Little, John. The Warrior Within – The philosophies of Bruce Lee to better understand the world around you and achieve a rewarding life (illustrated ed.). McGraw-Hill, 1996. Print. Online Etymology Dictionary 4 Dec 12, Etymonline.com. Web. Dec 2012. Popkin, Richard Henry and Stroll, Avrum. Philosophy Made Simple. Random House, 1993, Print. Teichmann, Jenny and Evans, Katherine. Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide. Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Print. Read More