While I agree with the view expressed, I believe s/he is speaking about what is known in the common parlance as a "philosophy of life", a view of how we should act and what we should value. But not all philosophy is ethics, nor does all philosophy have direct, obvious, ethical implications, for example, much of philosophy of science and a lot of epistemology. I would even argue that the philosophical issues surrounding the relation between mind and brain need not be viewed as having ethical implications.
But I would modify the above by saying that in addition to internal coherence, a philosophy, in the sense I spell out on my Blog, must also be "externally consistent", viz., consistent with what we know about the world and about ourselves. Perhaps that is what is meant by "harmonious".
But, also, regarding Marti's observation about "practice what you preach" (Marti, are you thinking Heidegger and de Man, here?), even if all philosophy were to be "translatable into practice", which I question, that I cannot practice what I preach reflects negatively on me, not necessarily on what I "preach". My hypocrisy does not invalidate my philosophy.
that I cannot practice what I preach reflects negatively on me, not necessarily on what I "preach". My hypocrisy does not invalidate my philosophy.
Would you apply that same generosity to fundamentalist Christians who also do not practice what they preach?
prima facie, yes. There are two separate questions.
(1) Does the person "practice what they preach"?
(2) Is it possible for anyone to practice what is being preached.
So, I think, the real question about a "philosophy of life" is "Is it livable?" It may be livable even though those who one would expect to be living it, don't.
Apparently the word "philosophy" is ambiguous here. There's, "What is your philosophy?" There is the stuff of Plato, Descartes, and Wittgenstein. And then there is the psychology of knowledge. Is memorization knowledge? I have noticed that a person who is a good memorizer can hold two or more incomparable ideas in his head at one time. Then there is the drive to resolve cognitive dissonance. Since resolution of cognitive dissonance has the status of a basic drive one would assume the memorizer somehow doesn't understand what he "knows".
So the person preaching a philosophy may not actually understand what he is saying.
Also, if one practices 99% of what they preach, do they get an "A" for effort? If you get a "D-" for PWYP, do you lose your credentials as a preacher? How many preachers can be disrobed before the philosophy itself falls?
There have been a number of philosophies which have fallen because their preachers didn't have a coherent world view and couldn't practice what they preached.
Although, Marti, I would claim that they "have fallen" because of the flaws in the "philosophy", not in the practitioners.
A perfectly good philosophy can be faultily practiced by a faulty practictioner. And a very adept practitioner can make even a faulty philosophy look worthwhile, wouldn't you say?
Shakers preached AND practiced abstinence -all that remains is furniture.
Marti,
The problem is that almost everyone feels that his personal "philosophy" is coherent, cohesive, consistent, etc. It appears to be subjective/relative
