3 ms·
We must distinguish between theoria, praxis, and poiesis. Praxis, or the practical, has as its end action, something other than itself. When I clean my house, I
by lo_zamoyski 3y ago
We must distinguish between theoria, praxis, and poiesis. Praxis, or the practical, has as its end action, something other than itself. When I clean my house, I don't do this for its own sake, I do this for the sake of having a clean house to live in. Similarly, poiesis, or production, also has something other than itself as an end, some thing. When I cook dinner, I don't cook it for its own sake, I cook it to feed myself and others. On the other hand, theoria, or theory, has as its end truth. The truth has practical consequences, of course, but there are truths that are valuable knowing for their own sake.
Ends, of course, need a terminus. While a practical or productive act terminates in something other than itself, you must now ask what the end itself is for. Is it for itself, or something else further still? When we follow practical and productive ends, they must ultimately terminate at something that is not for the sake of anything else, but is valuable in itself. Indeed, when I said the truth has practical consequences, it was an understatement; the entire regime of practical and productive activity presupposes an ultimate end for the sake of which it exists, that justifies it, that it is in service of.
I will omit discussion of the ultimate here intentionally, because my purpose here is to frame the problem first and predispose the mind toward the answer; giving the answer straight away, or an answer, is more likely to trigger reflexive prejudices here, I think. Once framed this way, people are liberated to ask "whom or what do I ultimately serve? why do I live? why do I act?". The vista of ends and order is thrown open for examination. This clarity enables one to leave Plato's "cave" and makes it difficult to obfuscate and settle for cheap answers as it can corner the conscience into pestering us to reject dishonest rationalizations. Of course, people will often try to do so, but doing so is more likely to gnaw at the soul, something that can prompt people to keep searching instead of holing up in an intellectual ghetto and persist in mediocrity.
Now you can approach the original question.
- haswell 3y ago> We must distinguish between theoria, praxis, and poiesis. Must we? > When I clean my house, I don't do this for its own sake, I do this for the sake of having a clean house to live in. Why not both? A clean house isn’t necessary for survival. Why do you enjoy a clean house? For its own sake perhaps? Many would argue that we do these things for the sake of them as much as we do these things out of necessity. Reframed slightly, we do many things for the sake of doing them, and we seem to enjoy bringing this mindset to the necessities of life. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explores this extensively in Flow, and it’s a recurrent theme in many contemplative traditions. > When I cook dinner, I don't cook it for its own sake, I cook it to feed myself and others. Again, why not both? If the only value gained from cooking is sustenance, why do we enjoy dessert? Why do we enjoy it more when other people are with us? I’m not saying we don’t do things for reasons or that it’s uninteresting to assign labels to those reasons and explore them, but such intellectual/philosophical framings are ultimately just reductions of unfolding experience into a low resolution explanation of reality relative to our immersion in it. Should we explore these ideas? Yes. Must they be the foundation from which we explore other ideas? I don’t think so. Sometimes, sure.