WHAT IS A PHILOSOPHY?

A QuietJohn consideration

The most dangerous of concepts.

Having a "philosophy of" some subject is to hold an encompassing world-view that you accept and adhere to. A view that is personal to you as an individual, something you may not want to openly discuss with others but nevertheless is a formative part of your life.

Everyone has a philosophy. Many don't realise it or accept it, but it is inevitably there.

Honestly recognising your personal "philosophy" is to accept the thoughts that pass through your head. The word philosophy alludes to a search for truth, an idea easy to speak of but one that becomes ever more difficult the more it is persued.

The idea of accepting the thoughts that pass through your head is fine if you like those thoughts, but if things arise which leave you with a sense that sharing those visions with others is just not going to happen, that things are going on inside you that are not for sharing... what then?

It is not difficult to become aware that you are not alone. Except that the realisation that almost everyone you come to know is in the same situation emphasises just how alone you really are.

If the things going on inside you are not for sharing... what then? Do you just live with the fact? Get a therapist? Turn to pornography?

These three alternatives, whilst not the only options, are the primary actions that lead to the world being in the state that it is today.
That, you may think is a grand claim, but read on to see how your philosophy shapes the world.

Live with it - Get help - or Distraction.

In practice these three options blend, with varying degrees of failure, to improve life until a sense of comfortable acceptance sets in.

These three alternatives:-

• Living with the fact you are fearful of sharing your thoughts.
• Seeking "professional" help.
• Turning to psychological distractions.

Most people do not appear to even recognise that they have a "philosophical world view", but asked the right questions, their responses clearly show they have, though even then it may not be recognised for what it is.

For example, ask the question "What do you consider the word 'obscene' to mean?" will bring forth a host of answers that may be accompanied by varying degrees of confidence or discomfort.
There are many reasons for the question not leading to a confident reply which we can come on to later. First consider how the question relates to the three points listed above.

It is asking for the sharing of ideas you may instantly feel reluctant to discuss, because you have never considered the topic before and associate the word with sexual matters that you don't feel confident to speak openly about, particularly if the question has come to you without an appropriate context.
Context is everything.

What goes on in our head rarely induces the need to seek therapy or any form of professional help until it dramatically affects our outer life. You may feel the need to disagree with that comment, thinking that psychological problems are internal struggles, but very little that occurs 'inside' doesn't have ramifications on 'outside' life. See discussion *******.
But this point is linked to the third alternative, turning to psychological distractions. The distraction referenced above is pornography, not for any reason other than there is a substantial essay on the subject 'The Philosophy of Pornography' on my associated site, tearmaster.net, to which this discussion links.
There are many other forms of distraction I may discuss elsewhere.

For now note that pornography is intimately related to the word 'obscene'. A term I would now like to attempt to provide a definition for.

Defining the obscene.

Highly trained legal minds have attempted this task on numerous occasions across the world. For the past two hundred years there has been no concensus on their pronouncements.

The British parliament laid down the Obscene Publications Act in 1857. Unfortunately, in that Act of Parliament they failed to define the word (Obscene) at the heart of their publication. It took another eleven years for a legal definition to emerge from Regina v.Hicklin (1868) and offer this comment:-

...the court held that obscene material is marked by a tendancy - "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall."

Looking deeper into this judgement leaves me considering the futility of attempting to define the obscene. Let's take a more detailed look at what lead up to this statement and its value, if any, to stand as a "definition".

(Elsewhere I have listed the principle of legal precedence as an obscenity)

In the Regina v. Hicklin case Benjamin Hicklin was a court official acting on behalf of Henry Scott, whose alleged crime was possession and the re-sale of pamphlets he had purchased from the Central Office, in London, of a society named The Protestant Electoral Union. He purchased then for 1s (one Shilling) each and re-sold them without profit, for one Shilling each. The pamphlets being deemed obscene, the courts on learning of their existence ordered their seizure and destruction.

The pamphlets were titled:-

"The Confessional Unmasked; shewing the depravity of the Romish priesthood, the iniquity of the Confessional, and the questions put to females in confession;"

Hicklin, the court Recorder, argued that Scott was motivated to sell the pamphlets to highlight the unacceptable actions of the Roman Catholic Church and the behaviour of its priesthood. He accepted the publication was considered obscene, but Scott had sold them with justifiable intentions.

The attempt to quash judgement of the Justices of Wolverhampton was taken to the Court of the Queen's Bench under the guidance of Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn.

Cockburn, refered to as Cockburn, C.J. in the report of the court's findings that can be read here.

Cockburn's adjudication in this case became a landmark definition for the notion of obscenity:-

"...this work must have the tendency which, in point of law, makes it an obscene publication, namely, the tendency to corrupt the minds and morals of those into whose hands it might come. The mischief of it, I think, cannot be exaggerated".

He continued:-

"...I am of opinion, as the learned recorder has found, that this is an obscene publication. I hold that, where a man publishes a work manifestly obscene, he must be taken to have had the intention which is implied from that act; and that, as soon as you have an illegal act thus established, quoad the intention and quoad the act, it does not lie in the mouth of the man who does it to say, "Well, I was breaking the law, but I was breaking it for some wholesome and salutary purpose." The law does not allow that; you must abide by the law, and if yon would accomplish your object, you must do it in a legal manner, or let it alone; you must not do it in a manner which is illegal. I think, therefore, that the recorder's judgment must be reversed, and the order must stand.

(quoad - regarding, with respect to)

So, there we have it. In the eyes of the Law, for 60 years the obscene was "that which has the tendency to corrupt the minds and morals of those into whose hands it might come."

My dictionary defines obscene as "offensive to the senses or sensibility" and continues with other comments until it gives a suggested legal definition as "a tendancy to deprave or corrupt.(law)"

"Offensive to the senses" is potentially contentious but reasonably clear in its intent, "a tendancy to deprave or corrupt" is pathetic for something to be used in a court of law.
The legal take on the obscene is a Philosophical World-View.