Philosophies are subjective. More often it helps exhibit a sense of supremeness in people that tries to embrace it.
A simple question answered with a complex philosophy is a matter of pride. There are few celebrities that does that.
A few years back, I had put a status on social media as follows
Do the Gods protect us, or do we them?
This was blurted out, in response to the increasing religious oprressions in India. One of my friends ended up commenting the Hindhu philosophy of “One is god to his own” and other sanathana principles.
Let’s assume someone oppressed blurted out the above sentence out of despair, then to him my friend’s philosophical comment would have clearly looked a sophisticated rant from a priviliged position.
This led me to find answers to ‘What philosophy is, and who does it helps?’.
What would a philosophy of philosophy would look like?
Somehow the world look so polarised now, than it was 10 years. May be I am wrong/was too young to understand, or there was no internet/social media to show either the amplified version or the reality.
In lieu of protecting the philosophy or to be more clearer, in lieu of institutionalise one’s philosophy, we forget what people go through.
When the poor suffers from being homless, or without food, or the inability to offord a decent life, the rich and affluent neglects it by projecting how they too lead a life of simplicity, how they live in tents and how they take minimal food. What they forget is the their simplicity is not because of their inability, it simply their preference. When we think about it, having able to prefer something is how huge a privilege. If somehow the rich could strip all of his privilege and ofcourse the wealth, would the response be the same?
And thinking of many more such instances, it feels as if the philosophy has always been sophisticated. Who does philosophies serve?
Could the act of rich man standing in the shoes of poor be a philosophy in itself? If so, could it be the gel that could make the philosophies co-exist?