Spontaneous philosophy is the belief system colloquially known as “folklore”, consisting of language, “common sense”, “good sense” and opinions and beliefs based on knowledge based on religion and superstition. Language in itself has strong cognitive potential, and carries semantic knowledge as well, as opposed to just being a system of grammar. Accordingly, spontaneous philosophy is carried out by everyone; it is not just the specialty of a specific group of scholars or intellectuals. “Common sense” refers to the assumptions and beliefs generally held by most people in any society. “Good sense” refers to experiential common sense.
The intellectual nature of philosophy is what primarily differentiates it from common sense or religion. Philosophy, as opposed to religion and common sense, can be decomposed and still stand to logic-without the need of centralized approval and regulation. The purpose of “spontaneous philosophy” is to attempt to destroy the misguided opinion that philosophy is a subject conducted only by a specialized group of intellectuals, academicians or professionals, which rests on a false conception of what philosophy really is. It is at once an attempt to show that philosophy is and can be done by anyone and also an attempt at correcting a widespread misconception of philosophy.
Philosophy has not been able to create unity between the more complex “academic” parts to the practical and simple parts that the general population could relate to. The intellectualistic nature of philosophy is partly to blame for the widespread misconception that it is something specialized and complex. It goes beyond the simple everyday problems to become something abstract and remote to the common folk. So-called the “philosophy of intellectuals”, it assumes the introduction of a scientific form of thought as opposed to refining and improving something that already exists.
A philosophy of praxis then, is a critique of the “philosophy of intellectuals”, based initially on common sense, that demonstrates the pre-existence of philosophical activity in every person, and proceeds to refine that activity into proper logic and reason. A philosophy of praxis should achieve this without divorcing itself from “common sense” entirely, and by building its principles from bottom up in a unified and accessible way.
The split from an ideology of the simple to an “upper-level” ideology, as seen in Catholicism, must not occur in philosophy of praxis. In Catholicism, “politics” maintains the link between the upper and lower split bounds of its ideology. It does this by imposing a strict discipline on the “upper” bounds in order to prevent it from becoming fully differentiated, thus irreconcilably breaking the link. In the past, such divisions were reconciled by mass movements, but recently the Counter-Reformation has made this impossible. “Jesuitism” has been created as a result of “modernism”. The philosophy of praxis does not abandon the simple to the simple parts of its conception, but raises them to higher conceptions. This has rendered the philosophy of praxis directly opposite Catholicism in principle. It ensures the intellectual progress of the mass not by restricting scientific activity at the bottom but by affirming the need of contact between the intellectuals and the mass.
The unity of theory and practice is important in the philosophy of praxis, as the philosophy of praxis is a socio-practical activity. Thought and action are symbiotically affected and related, as in Marxism. Theory should not be superior to practice, nor practice to theory. There need not be an element of “complementary” between theory and practice. Ideally there should not be a distinction between theory and practice. The distinction between theory and practice is one of the reasons that lead to the gap between the intellectuals and the masses.
The biggest difference between Jesuitism and Marxism is that Jesuitism is still mechanistic, whilst Marxism strives for practicability, equality and thinning the gap between theory and practice. Marxism does not have any elements of elitism. In Jesuitism principle is not determined by reason but by faith, as opposed to Marxism. Jesuitism, although it appeals to the masses and strives to reach for the masses and raise them like Marxism, is in the end purely an amorphous personality given to the masses.