In a previous post, I addressed the question of the value of philosophy. As one comment pointed out, even if it is granted that philosophy did many wonderful things in the past, there is still the obvious question: what has philosophy done for us lately?
Not surprisingly, I have to address this question when I teach my Introduction to Philosophy class. The students generally accept that philosophy has been of some service in the past, but they do want to know what the class has to offer them now (aside from the credit hours and knocking off a humanities requirement). Like most philosophy professors, I speak of the value of developing their intellectual abilities, of considering timeless problems, of becoming critical thinkers and of broadening their minds. Once in a while, a particularly clever student will ask the dreaded question: “can’t we get all that, plus some useful information and skills, from some other class?” Put in more general terms, the challenge is this: does philosophy have anything special to offer people today that they cannot get elsewhere?
Addressing this question first requires considering the nature of philosophy. Defining the word “philosophy” is easy enough. It means “the love of wisdom.” Of course, this does not say very much about what philosophy really is all about.
Plato offered a clear account of the nature of philosophy. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and are distinct from the lovers of sights and sounds. His metaphysics and epistemology provided a clear distinction between philosophy and other fields. They also made it clear why philosophy has value.
To be specific, philosophers are concerned with the pure, perfect, and eternal forms (such as justice). These forms are components of the true reality and all other things are but inferior copies. Hence, knowledge (as opposed to mere opinion) is based on the forms. Roughly put, philosophy has value because it deals with what is true and real. In stark contrast, the lovers of sights and sounds are concerned with the inferior objects of the physical world. Hence, they deal with mere opinion rather than knowledge.
So, on Plato’s view, scientists (such as Wolpert) who study physical phenomena are not advancing knowledge. Instead, they are merely playing with copies and developing opinions. Thus, they are the ones that have contributed nothing to knowledge. They have merely piled up opinions.
An obvious reply to this is that there are excellent arguments against Plato’s epistemology and metaphysics. Such arguments would undercut the sort of case for philosophy’s value. A second obvious reply is that it seems problematic and even question begging to base an entire discipline on the very specific views of one person. Surely one should be suspicious of defining all of philosophy on the basis of one person, even if that person is Plato.
What is needed, obviously enough, is a suitable definition of philosophy. This definition needs to meet the conditions of a good definition (avoiding circularity, avoiding being too narrow or too broad, and so on), of course. With such a definition in hand, one can start looking to see what philosophy has done for us lately.
It should not be expected that such a definition would include everything that now gets labeled as philosophy by professional philosophers. Further, the definition might very well allow in things that many professional philosophers would reject.
I must admit that I do not have such a definition. I obviously have beliefs about what counts as philosophy, but I do not have a list that provides the necessary and sufficient conditions. I can, of course, point to what philosophers have done and what we count as philosophy. But, such an approach is sorely lacking. That task must fall to another time and to other minds.
For now, perhaps the current rough view of philosophy can be used to see if philosophy has done anything useful lately.
From a pragmatic standpoint, philosophy does do useful things: people get paid to teach it, students get credit to take classes in it, books are sold about it and so on. Of course, that is not the sort of value that is of concern here.
One problem with discerning the value of philosophy is that much of what philosophy used to do has been taken over by others. As noted in the earlier blog, philosophy gave rise to science and logic, but these areas have been taken over (partially or completely) by others. This process is ongoing and not just something that happened with the rise of formal science.
To give two examples, consider critical thinking and ethics. Not so long ago, critical thinking was largely considered to “belong” to philosophers. However, in recent years “critical thinking” has become as buzz phrase and many want a slice of the critical thinking pie (in part because there is now money to be made as critical thinking consultants). My own university recently had sessions on critical thinking for the faculty. Interestingly, philosophers were not involved. Further, there is a university wide Quality Enhancement Program (yet another buzz phrase) that is now fixated on critical thinking. Oddly enough, though I have taught the critical thinking class on campus for fifteen years, I was never asked to participate. None of my colleagues were asked, either. Apparently, this is not uncommon and it seems likely that critical thinking will, perhaps in short order, no longer be consider part of philosophy. If so, this will make philosophy seem even less useful.
In regards to ethics, many schools offer specialty ethics classes that are not taught by philosophers. For example, the school of business at my university has a business ethics class that is taught by a business professor. Similarly, there are other professional ethics classes taught within specific deparments. On one hand, this does make sense: someone in the field would tend to know more about the specific ethical expectations in the field. This is one reason given for having specific ethics classes taken over by non-philosophy departments. On the other hand, since I would not be qualified to teach business classes or nursing classes, it seems that a business professor or nursing professor would not be qualified to teach ethics. Those more cynical than I might say that these departments created the ethics classes to boost their classes (department budgets and available faculty positions are often connected to the number of students enrolled). If ethics continues to be taken over by specific fields (analogous to how the sciences split off), then there will be less that philosophers can point to in terms of the value of their discipline.
Some people (including philosophers) have predicted the end of philosophy. Perhaps if philosophers are left with nothing useful to do, that will be the end of philosophy as an independent discipline. While parts of it will remain, they will be incorporated in other disciplines. Unless, of course, there is something philosophy does that is unique to philosophy and cannot be stolen away (then again, perhaps anything can be stolen).
One role that philosophers have long held and still hold is that of intellectual scouts. For example, in the case of the sciences, philosophers scouted out the intellectual territories that would eventually become the sciences. This scouting is, obviously enough, not physical scouting. Rather, philosophers explored possible methodology, questions, content and problems. From these explorations, philosophers developed rough maps. After the territory had been scouted, others came to these intellectual lands and began to colonize them. The initial crude villages grew into towns and then into cities. Naturally, those who work in these massive cities sometimes forget those early explorers who made the cities possible. However, the value of their efforts remain.
While some have claimed that there is nothing new under the sun, the scope of our ignorance seems to vastly exceed the scope of our knowledge. Literally and figuratively, there is at least one universe that we have but begun to explore. As such, intellectual scouts are still of great importance. While some of the scouting parties are launched from established cities (that is, scientists and such exploring their own fields) there are still undiscovered countries that belong to no other established discipline. Philosophy, I think, can and should stake her claim to these areas and set out once more in the spirit that got her started in the first place. Naturally, others will follow and build cities there. Some of them will remark about how useless philosophy has been and is, forgetting all the while the importance of scouts and explorers.
In an increasingly secular society, surely philosophy is of MORE relevance, not less? Philosophy deals with the big questions that are fundamental to our humanity. It helps us orient ourselves in the universe.
In economically rationalist times, it is easy to see how philosophy can be, and is, denigrated. Perhaps the failing of philosophy is that it hasn’t marketed itself to the general populace enough? I think humanity would be at a great loss to lose philosophy, so perhaps philosophers need to make philosophy more accessible, for the benefit of humanity as a whole. I for one would be devastated if philosophy became obsolete.
It baffles and depresses me to see how often so many people are left speechless wondering what has philosophy done lately. How often do ethical questions alone dominate conversations over airways, coffee shops, the internet, and beyond? Doesn’t that ‘count’ as philosophy and hasn’t philosophical thinking within the last hundred years aided not only our conception of the problems but our conclusions and views on them?
Are we forgetting our own accomplishments or simply not noticing what IS philosophical anymore?
See attached link for a person, who I think understands the value of philosophy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin
Surely philosophy will end the day humans have no more seemingly intractable problems they need to think really hard about?
When that far off day comes, I’ll be celebrating and I’m sure you will be too.
“How often do ethical questions alone dominate conversations over airways, coffee shops, the internet, and beyond? Doesn’t that ‘count’ as philosophy and hasn’t philosophical thinking within the last hundred years aided not only our conception of the problems but our conclusions and views on them?”
Unfortunately it’s not so simple. I think Mike made a really good point in that often, when a part of philosophy becomes ‘mainstream’ or organized enough, it seems to become a new field outside of philosophy. Such has been the way with science, logic/critical thinking, and even ethics. From what I’ve seen, ethics is in many areas being taken up with psychology (from the more theoretical view) and, as Mike says, with the fields themselves (in the ‘applied’ areas). It goes back to the comment I made in the last post like this, and the response: so philosophy has given us important things, but what does it do now? Sure it helped along ethics, but is ethics really just philosophy anymore? Just what is it that philosophy is doing, then? Personally, I’m not convinced that it has a need to justify itself, but there needs to be a more compelling argument that, ideally, convinces even those who seek to have nothing to do with philosophy (just like I have no interest in mathematics or carpentry, but have great respect for mathematicians and carpenters and what they do).
My 5 year old niece certainly understands the value of Philosophy, and I do think that part of the argument here is about what we call something rather than what we actually do. But areas such as what it means to be a conscious being and how we react to climate change are just two areas that Philosophy can and will influence.
I certainly get the sense that Philosophy is engaging with the world (and vice versa) in a far more effective manner than has recently been the case.
Who would have thought that Aristotle’s abstract discussions of dialogue games and reasoning patterns would both prove useful for the design of intelligent computer systems 2300 years later? Who would have thought that Boole’s formalization of logical reasoning would prove useful for the design of printed circuit boards 100 years later? Who would have thought that Hamilton’s theory of quaternions (multiple, distinct and imaginery square-roots of minus one) would prove useful for compactly representing 3-dimensional movements in computer animations 150 years later? Who would have thought that Lukasiewicz’s so-called “polish notation” for logical statements would prove crucial for the efficient design of the first computer programming languages 30 years later and the first widespread electronic calculators 40 years later? Who would have thought that Japanese origami would be applied in the design of satellite deployment space-craft?
I think anyone adopting an instrumentalist approach to human knowledge (asking philosophers, for example, to show the benefits of their discipline) first needs to show us exactly how we may identify — in advance — which human knowledge will be useful and which not. Without such guidance, instrumentalism remains mere theory, and can not be operationalized.
There are two questions: the value of philosophy and what is currently happening to professional philosophers. Philosophy has never been a mass sport, but non-philosophers like myself do read philosophy and talk about what have generally been considered philosophical issues: what is a good life; the existence of God; what constitutes quality in art, if anything; how a just society would be organized, etc. Not being a philosopher and not working in an academice setting, I cannot say why professional philosophers are not given the role that they merit in universities. However, from what little I know of the role of professional philosophers, I agree with Russell that professional philosophers are engaging with the world in a much more effective manner than they did, say, 45 years ago, when, as I recall, academic philosophy was very very technical and completely inaccessible to the lay-person. That was perhaps the principle reason that I did not study philosophy when I was a university student.
Mike,
You are of course talking about America where the idiotic distinction between Continental and Analytic philosophy has become credal. Elsewhere Philosophy is thriving and not in any danger of being sidelined or having Ethics wrested from its etiolate hand by that apparent contradiction in terms Business Ethics. In France Philosophers are household names and in Britain such programmes as Radio Four’s ‘In Our Time’ garner large audiences. The upsurge in publication of introductory philosophy seems to to have abated a little recently but I notice that Warburton’s ipod lecturettes are top of their category.
Critical Thinking: krites - judge - criterion - judgement - concept (capacity exercised in acts of judgment(Geach) etc, etc. How could there not be a philosopher involved? However once metaphysics is impugned as it is by sectarian analytics the sacred groves of the academy are seen as mere standing lumber.
It seems that peter said about the same thing that I came up with during the weekend when I pondered on this question.
That the actual effects/products of philosophy become relevant and/or observable years later than they were first thought up.
For example it took quite some time before the principles that John S. Mill put forth in his “On Liberty” became sort of platitudes of the modern society.
So the question, in my mind, does not have an answer since philosophy only does things at a distance in time.
even if you set aside computer, cognitive, neuro-/hodological sciences, set aside robotics and non-linear systems, if you set aside all aspects of semantics and signifying practices and media, if you some how only focused on the ’speculative’ philosophy that has no laboratory outside of the garrets of the ‘human sciences,’ then the very question “what has philosophy done for us lately” is not applicable. philosophy is not an observable. it observes. whenever you want philosophy–the kind this post is supposedly talking about is probably closest to “Thought or Thinking” in the Heiddeger-ian senses–to ‘do something’ or to make itself cull its fiscal quarter stats and appear before a supervisor as a supplicating employee or R & D department at its dreaded performance evaluation, you automatically suppose philosophy is something that it is not. As for the glacial pace of perspective shifts and productive modes, MCV nailed it above. Generations and centuries must pass before ‘results’ can be sussed. Even at our current speed.
Mr. LaBossiere,
I appreciate your observations and thoughts about philosophy in the modern world. Unfortunately I am not an academic and can not vouch for any similar situations. I have observed a general attitude of bewilderment from my fellow Americans when speaking of philosophy and the hopes to pursue an undergraduate degree in it. Of course the question that always follows is “what would you do with that?” and I often reply “whatever I want.” I recently graduated with an engineering degree but thoroughly enjoy philosophy.
I think that in the U.S. it would be beneficial to teach philosophy in our high schools for a myriad of reasons such as ethics, critical thinking, writing abilities, etc… During my undergraduate work I interacted with students that could not think in abstract terms, construct ideas logically, thoroughly examine ideas intellectually and write well. I am not always perfect in thinking through an idea or clearly writing, but it was at times frustrating to explain to other group members that simply stating “because the professor likes this” is not a logical justification for an engineering design (not for our criteria anyhow).
There are excellent comments on here and many great ideas about the role of philosophy in past, present and future. I think that philosophy in all forms continues to add value to society by what it has always done, simply asking questions and framing thoughts. Perhaps your response to the question “what has philosophy done for us lately?” should be “what hasn’t it done for us lately?”. Follow this up not by defining the value of philosophy for them but ask them at the end of the semester to define it for you.
My philosophy 101 professor did this by basically asking “how has your philosophical experience changed your way of thinking?” I could not answer him because I was still sorting out the questions I had about life and the world around me. The best part is that I still do not have definite answers and continually questions and think about everything I come in contact with. I understand what Socrates meant when he said “the only thing I know is that I know nothing”.
Thanks again for your thoughts and all the ideas on here!
Hahaha
What a giant belly laugh I had reading this tongue-in-cheek article. At least I pray it is tongue-in-cheek and not serious.
But knowing the depravity of the professional philosophers, and their lack of insight and dull mental faculties which are concerned largely with details and tiny nuances and not with the wholes, I think I should answer what is the value of philosophy.
Philosophy is a lot like lifting weights. What is the value of lifting weights? Quickly we can say that there is some intrinsic beauty in lifting weights. So it is for philosophy. Simply thinking deeply with the admiration for the profound is rewarding, beautiful, satisfying and finally, liberating (but by no means have I exhausted a list of qualities here).
Ok fine, but what is the pragmatic purpose of lifting weights? How useful is it to pickup a useless object and put it back down and then do it over again, without actually moving the object even an inch by the end of the work out? Clearly this is useless. A naive person might conclude that a person lifting weights is simply wasting time since: a) the weights themselves have no interesting use besides being designed for easy or difficult handling and b) by the end of the workout there is no noticeable change in the weight room. The problem with this view is that it values only external. Externally nothing has changed. The weights and the weight room do not change. But internally the person has become strong, more enduring, and more skillful — because there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of handling and relating to weights. This internal skill can then be applied to more “useful” processes such as unloading packages from a truck.
Can we then say that weight lifting is now built into unloading trucks and that the warehouse professionals have stolen weight lifting and strength development from pure strength athletes? What NONSENSE! People people shifting packages focus on only one type of movement and only a particular goal, they can achieve only a mediocre level of strength, at best. Even people such as coal miners cannot achieve peak strength without further specialized training. Package movers and strength athletes have things to talk about and both occupations should respect each other. A package mover is not expected to perfect the strength aspect or endurance aspect. And so it happens that vast majority of scientists (and I would say, all of them without exception, necessarily) make only mediocre philosophers, and a philosopher would be a mediocre scientist.
A philosophical paper has no value in itself. It’s mental masturbation. However, the process of writing that paper, thinking, analyzing, FEELING, LIVING, participating, relating, and many ineffable qualities — THAT has value. That value is hard to judge by non-initiated, because the paper itself is not that valuable. The paper itself is a byproduct. It’s like you eat food and you poop. The poop is not the end result of eating. The end result of eating is maintaining a certain level of body function, but it’s not obvious and there is no obvious “product” that can be examined. Yet no one would dream of stopping eating just because poop has no value.
Philosophical papers, doctrines and speeches are the poop of philosophy. But something precious and ineffable is gained. This “something precious and ineffable” can then easily be used in a very practical manner in a way that’s later visible in more pragmatic venues. So a scientists who puts down the science and delves into philosophy with more passion than a passing curiosity can expect to become a better, more productive and finally happier scientists. And philosophers can reflect on the output of science as food for thought.
Logic itself is sterile. Logic is simply a conventionally valid way to transform a valid statement, or a set of statements. It’s a pipe. The output is only as good as the input. The input is assumptions. Assumptions. They are based on nothing. Philosophers are the only people that can remind us that we stand on nothing and yet we are not nothing. Scientists are lost to physicalist materialism and their minds and hearts are largely atrophied. Scientists believe so much that the world is a fact, they can’t even consider an alternative proposition. A philosopher is one type of person that has enough mental flexibility to at least be able to briefly entertain an alternative proposition. Scientists are far too vested into their beliefs to detach themselves from the so-called “facts” of life.
Regards, and don’t be sad! Be happy! Philosophy is the king of science, just like mathematics. Every science uses maths these days and yet we don’t say they stole maths. No scientists is as good in maths as a mathematician. Everything has its place.
This deserves a second answer.
Philosophers should play a role as auditors of scientific reasoning. I see scientists making logical faux pas all the time. All the time scientists make elementary mistakes in reasoning that are taught in Philo 101. I’m talking about fallacies. Unfortunately scientists cannot be trusted with their mental faculties. They are not very serious about logic. They just want results and peer recognition and much can be lost with that type of motivation.
A theoretical physicist would invite a mathematician to check maths. Of course, because physicists are not as good in maths as mathematicians. In the same way they should invite philosophers to check their reasoning and conclusions. Unfortunately they don’t do that, do they?
Or else we’d not have such absurd theories as the “Big Bang Theory”, which is a huge joke, philosophically speaking. Philosophy is the parent of science. And it has a duty to audit science and to keep rascally scientists honest. Scientists are not mature enough to do so themselves. They are having too much fun in the lab to worry about thinking straight.
And a definition of philosphy:
Philosophy is both a discipline and an art the primary purpose of which is to sharpens individual (as opposed to societal) mental faculties in the quickest, most direct manner. Philosophy thrives not on agreement. (some level of) Agreement is necessary for convention and for society. However, explicit and tacit agreements dull the mind.
To put in other words, it is the job of philosophy to focus on challenging assumptions. Science not only is ill-suited to challenge assumptions, but in fact, it cannot function without them. Assumptions in science are replaced or dismantled only grudgingly, only when they fail in some demonstrably obvious way. A philosopher on the other hand should challenge assumptions on principle, without waiting for an obvious failure. Because assumptions do fail us in subtle and non-obvious ways, if we wait for science to pick up on it, we’ll be waiting a long time, because scientists are weighed down by convention and by the fact that challenging assumptions is secondary (necessarily so) to the scientific method.
A good philosopher is the one that will challenge any and all assumptions, even the most obviously “factually” correct ones, the self-evident truth, something that no sane person would challenge. In a sense, a philosopher is insane, or above sanity. A true philosopher is not afraid to depart from sanity in pursuit of reason and truth.
A philosophy’s direct beneficiary is the person studying it. This is not true for science. For example, it is of no benefit to know the equations necessary to build a nuclear reactor unless you have thousands of other people help you dig up Uranium ore, pour the concrete to make buildings, staff them, clean them, operate them, blah blah blah. Philosophy gives direct and instant benefit to the individual. And the beauty of it is that the mind is the lab. You always have your lab with you. A scientist does not always have one’s lab available. Even a theoretical physicist has to check in with an experimentalist. But a philosopher’s labor is useful in any environment. If we lost all our technology, a philosopher would still make perfectly good use of philosophy. But a physicist would be limited to classic physics for a long, long time before getting to a point where facilities are available that can take advantage of quantum mechanics (such as chip making clean room facilities).
http://www.unige.ch/lettres/philo/enseignants/km/doc/WWCP.pdf
is an account of the AP/CP impasse and what it is doing to philosophy.
Tealeaf:
Don’t you know that everything must pay its way and philosophy has to do some moving as well as well as being expert at lifting as such. Utilitarian ethics is a symptom of this. So don’t just sit there, make a cup of tea.
“In an increasingly secular society, surely philosophy is of MORE relevance” - A Keen Undergraduate
To stray away from the stream of the responses, I would like to return for a second to a comment made towards the top of the page. It seems that the youth IS growing increasingly secular, and, to me, that is a result of some sort of “critical thinking” (whatever that means anymore). People everywhere seem to be breaking the bonds of untested belief, and how can that be without the philosophical process?
An answer could be science, and that the growing scientific “knowledge” is drawing people from religion. However, science alone can not be credited with this sort of separation from faith. Even if the existence of a creator has been pondered throughout the whole history of philosophy, it will continue to be there, and there does seem to be a growing interest in it (not to mention a growing wager against a creator’s existence). This, I believe, must come from a philosophical process, and a resurgence of it.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, and maybe I am tricking myself into thinking this because I am just beginning my undergraduate career majoring in philosophy. I was excited and scared when I came about this article. I was scared to find that others were contemplating the same question that the confused and slightly disenfranchised eighteen-year-old was contemplating.
Michael, that link isn’t working. Is there another source, or could you give a summary? I would be very interested.
I must agree with ‘tealeaf’ on this one. The tendency is to think only in terms of instrumental value - ‘what use is this to me’ but the true value of philosophy lies in the thing itself not for what else it might also achieve. Unfortunately, even academic philosophers have bought into the instrumental (usually economic) value and have consequently been debasing the actual value of philosophy. This becomes very clear when one considers the actual content of many applied ethics courses particularly in the managment area. Often what counts as ‘ethics’ in these courses is no more than knowing what restrictive legislation applies or worse, what buzz words to use.
But before we all go and slit our wrists, it might be wise to remember that philosophy has been through difficult periods before - rumors of its demise are I think premature.
Derek:
Google Peter Simons philosophy to find it 4th down under the title ‘What’s wrong with modern philosophy’. I
“Philosophers should play a role as auditors of scientific reasoning. I see scientists making logical faux pas all the time. All the time scientists make elementary mistakes in reasoning that are taught in Philo 101. I’m talking about fallacies. Unfortunately scientists cannot be trusted with their mental faculties. They are not very serious about logic. They just want results and peer recognition and much can be lost with that type of motivation.”
While I agree that scientists can be guilty of some terrible failures of logic and reasoning - I’m not convinced that philosophy does better. How can a discipline that encompases both Patricia Churchland, Peter Hacker and Alvin Plantinga pretend that it is the product of pure logic and reason? At least science tends towards an agreed position over time.
pj:
Surely a convergence over time towards an agreed consensus in a research community is not necessarily evidence that the community is immune from logical fallacy, even in the long run. (En passant, you appear to have committed a logical fallacy yourself — inferring truth as a consequence of a consensus.)
Indeed, so often do convergent positions NOT result in accurate representations of reality that social scientists have a name for the phenomenon: group think.
Further to my last comment: As an example of convergence of opinion not eliminating logical fallacy or error one only has to consider mainstream economic theory, which rests of demonstrably false (and, indeed, actually falsified) assumptions about human behaviour, and yet the theory persists with neither abandonment nor modification.
Moreover, even when there appears to be a consensus in an academic displine, this may be due to the suppression of alternative viewpoints, rather than true agreement. Since the 1660s, for instance, probability theory has been the consensually-agreed method for representing uncertainty. Yet, there has been a consistent minority of critics, dissenting from the consensus in favour of probability theory: Leibniz in the 17th century, von Kries in the 19th, Shackle in the 20th, and, since the 1970s, many people in AI. Despite the existence of this minority, one can still do a PhD in statistics without learning anything about these alternative approaches.
Au contraire peter - no logical fallacy for me (and perhaps one for you) - I have pointed out that philosophers cannot (as a field) be reaching the truth because they hold contradictory positions (and thus have no consensus we can look to for the conclusions of philosophy) - scientists may or may not be reaching the truth in their consensus (and I’m afraid you need a rather better example of the falsity of ’science’ than economics) - that doesn’t affect my claim that:
“While I agree that scientists can be guilty of some terrible failures of logic and reasoning - I’m not convinced that philosophy does better.”
Although I’d be impressed if you thought you could flesh out your claim that science is not converging on ‘truth’ or defend tealeaf’s claim that:
“Unfortunately scientists cannot be trusted with their mental faculties. They are not very serious about logic….they should invite philosophers to check their reasoning and conclusions….Philosophy is the parent of science. And it has a duty to audit science and to keep rascally scientists honest. Scientists are not mature enough to do so themselves. They are having too much fun in the lab to worry about thinking straight.”
I think people in glass houses ought to think twice about lobbing around rhetorical stones.
Precisely what truth is philosophy not reaching, pj? Philosophy is not a field researching a specific subject; it move across many different areas and uses many different approaches. In fact, finding the right approach is one of the most important issues to be solved. Science may have a more consistent approach, but that alone does not give it the keys to truth, especially in areas beyond its own presuppositions. Its method is inductively powerful and pragmatic, true, but once again that is not equivalent with ‘truth’ and it is not what philosophy is after.
In philosophy’s case, the mere fact of variety does not count against it; in a sense it helps to define it. One should not define philosophy in terms of a science or a simple body of knowledge or facts; philosophy is much more than that, not to mention different in its general approach. To define philosophy as such would be to miss out on what it is in the first place.
Snurp - I am unclear as to what this ‘right approach’ is that ultimately results in contradictory conclusions, and therefore why exactly one would want to adopt it?
My point is not to criticise philosophy per se, which I think is fun and interesting and worth doing for its own sake. Rather I’m challenging the pretty unconvincing consequentialist arguments in favour of philosophy and the amusingly naive view of philosophy as the arbiter of rationality.
I am a student of philosophy. I’m an undergraduate in the UK and I am struggling with this fact that philosophers with apparently valid, reasonable and interesting arguments can oppose each other.
It makes me wonder if there are such things as universal truths. This being the ultimate goal of science, being to be able to predict the outcome of everything by some universal set of rules that are totally infalable. I thought that in attempting to answer “Big Questions” philosophers where trying to achieve the same thing.
Where did that idea come from? Why do I believe that there is a rule for everything?
If there are any more seasond philosophers who can help steady the nerves of a young man, sick to the back teeth with confusion it would be much appreciated.
As a student of philosophy, Rob, never underestimate the importance of the differences there are (whether it be among philosophers or anyone else) between the premises being used by each of the parties to the dispute. Assuming both sides present logically consistent arguments (which is usually, although not always the case) the dispute tends to arise primarily from their choice of premisses.
Don’t worry about finding ultimate truths. Science is best seen as merely a matter of providing guidelines for what is believed (currently) to be the most appropriate method available to us, for getting ever closer to truths we don’t expect to fully understand.
You ask, “ Why do I believe that there is a rule for everything?” Why wouldn’t you? Nowadays it’s generally accepted that we appear (on the best evidence available to us) to live in a universe governed by natural laws. We’re nowhere near being able to explain everything, but the way our world appears to operate does seem compatible with the sort of causal laws assumed by science. We can’t prove the world works under these causal laws, but it does seem more likely than the alternative notion that we’re living in a chaotic world in which effects don’t follow a particular cause in a consistent manner.
Just remember that there’s no philosophical Holy Grail out there, and there are only four things to keep in mind:
1. First improve your language skills.
2. Then develop your analytical skills.
3. Next learn to question your own beliefs as thoroughly as you do those you don’t support.
4. After that, endure the frustration of constantly dealing with persons who haven’t bothered to tackle the first three items.
If you’re really serious, there’s a wide range of interesting material available on philosophy of science, and philosophy of social science; but don’t assume your courses will automatically introduce you to it.