It is often said that it is not always easy to speak of the important functions that philosophy can perform. The great success of applied science and the pressing demands of a highly competitive contemporary society have given the man of science a significant advantage over others. This has made the person whose interest is focused merely on contemplation and thought seem like a dreamer or perhaps a parasite. Philosophy is not capable of teaching anyone how to bake better bread by applying atomic energy, nor can it help them pay off their debts. If these matters were as important as they seem, there would be sufficient reason to shy away from any subject where definitive conclusions cannot be reached and which does not increase human control over the forces of nature.

If the philosopher could offer certain solutions to human religious and moral problems, he would render a great service to humanity. However, even in these matters, he has nothing tangible to offer. Therefore, it is easy to realize that when we read philosophy, we are faced with an endless debate, perhaps among people who lack the methods to ensure agreement on anything, and who may not even be keen on this matter. Thus, the philosopher appears as someone who lives in isolation from people, not participating in the game of life, but content to watch it.

Philosophy has thus appeared—in the eyes of many—as a subject whose problems are far from reality. Philosophers seemed like a people isolated by their thoughts, or whose thoughts isolated them, from life as others live it. They built for themselves ivory towers from which they look down with pride on the actual world, passing lofty judgments on it, and explaining it with interpretations that are hardly understandable to anyone but themselves, using strange, uncommon words except in their conversations and writings. When placed among familiar words, these terms seem like meaningless symbols and foreign phrases from which the (ordinary) person gains nothing understandable.

Furthermore, the philosopher seems to be a strange person, asserting things that no one else finds necessary, and being troubled by problems that do not seem to be problems at all to anyone else. When a philosopher, for instance, concerns himself with moral ideas, he is not content with clarifying how to do the right thing; he must also ask whether doing the right thing is the best action. When he addresses issues related to the theory of knowledge, he does not want to be satisfied with knowing what others do; he also wants to know how to speak to others when he has knowledge and when he does not. Thus, philosophy has been associated in many minds with complexity, in addition to its distance from the reality people live and the life others lead. This judgment on philosophy reflects the misunderstanding surrounding its nature, subject matter, method, and the kind of results it seeks, but it is a judgment not without justification.

Let's start with the characteristic of complexity often associated with philosophy. We must admit from the outset that philosophy, like various sciences, is not an easy subject that everyone can understand with ease and simplicity. It is a subject that requires a degree of intellectual effort and mental exertion, much like the arts and sciences. Every science and art has its own language and special terminology that the student must learn and master from the beginning. Without this, they cannot make any progress in knowing that science or art. Music has technical terms that music students must know. If these terms were said to someone with no knowledge of this art, it would seem very complex to them, and music would appear to be far from understandable. Chemistry has its terminology and language, physics has its technical language, and so do the rest of the natural and human sciences. There is no doubt that mastering the knowledge of these terms and using them correctly requires great effort that must be present for anyone who seeks such knowledge or specialization in one of these sciences or arts.

The same can be said of philosophy; it certainly has its terminologies and subjects that require a degree of effort and struggle to acquire. However, it seems that the trait of complexity has arisen because the reader of philosophy usually expects to grasp the subject as they would the content of a literary story or a familiar news item. But they are soon surprised that the subject of philosophy is broader and more precise than they expected, involving many special terms whose understanding requires an intellectual effort they may not be prepared to exert, thus accusing philosophy of being complex and exceedingly difficult.

It also appears that some philosophers themselves have contributed to reinforcing this description. Some have, intentionally or not, presented their views in a way that involves a great deal of ambiguity, making the understanding of these views extremely difficult. Examples include the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the German philosopher Hegel, the existentialist philosopher Heidegger, and the analytical philosopher Wittgenstein, who wrote in the preface to his book "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus": "This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already had the thoughts that are expressed in it—or at least similar thoughts. —So it is not a textbook. —Its purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it." Of course, this is not the philosophical style followed by all philosophers; most of them wrote in a beautiful, smooth, and often elegant style, which made some of them worthy of the Nobel Prize in Literature, such as the contemporary English philosopher Bertrand Russell.

• Number of Pages: 278
• Year of Publication: 2012
• Binding Type: Hardcover
• Edition Number: 1
• Printing Color: Black
• Size (cm): 17x24
• Weight (kg): 0.600
• Barcode: 9789957068301