What is philosophy for?

The idea of ​​a “political sense of philosophy” emerges clearly, suggesting that philosophers, while engaging in abstract and logical questions, cannot disconnect from the socio-political realities of their time. The discussion between Wittgenstein and Malcolm represents an emblematic example of how political beliefs can influence philosophical interactions and reflections, highlighting the tension between rationality and passion.

The conflict between Wittgenstein and Malcolm, which develops over a seemingly marginal issue, becomes a symbol of the broader challenge that philosophers face in trying to reconcile their theories with reality. Wittgenstein, with his emotional reaction, suggests that philosophy cannot be a mere exercise in logic, but must have a practical and political impact on the world. His dissatisfaction with thinking that ignores the crucial questions of everyday life reflects a broader concern about the relevance of philosophy.

Furthermore, the concept of epistheme, as a form of direct and personal knowledge, as opposed to doxa, invites us to reflect on how philosophers position themselves with respect to common opinions. The idea that philosophy should be a form of self-generated knowledge and not a mere repetition of other people's ideas is fundamental to understanding the role of the thinker in society. The distinction between the philosopher's knowledge and common opinion underlines the importance of a critical and personal approach to knowledge.

However, the history of philosophy is also full of examples of “clumsiness” and naivety, where philosophers, despite their aspirations, fell into political errors or showed a certain inability to orient themselves in the concrete problems of their time. The figure of Thales, who falls into the well while looking at the sky, becomes a symbol of this disconnection between theoretical thought and practical reality. Similarly, anecdotes concerning philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Plato highlight how their ideal aspirations often collide with the harsh political reality.

The theme of philosophical naivety is intertwined with that of the ethical and political responsibility of the philosopher. The passage in which the attitude of philosophers towards dominant ideologies, both those of the right and those of the left, is discussed highlights how, despite good intentions, many thinkers have struggled to maintain a critical and objective position. History offers numerous examples of philosophers who, for ideological or political reasons, have taken questionable positions, reflecting a lack of awareness regarding the consequences of their choices.

The challenge for philosophers is not only to address abstract questions, but also to actively engage in political and social dialogue, recognizing that true wisdom lies in the ability to combine thought and action. Philosophy, then, must be seen not only as an academic field of study, but as a living and dynamic endeavor, capable of addressing the complexities and challenges of the modern world.