[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

Re: What is Philosophy?

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Thank you all for your considered replies.  I thought
I would spend most of today re-drafting other
questions and thoughts I would like to post here in
the future.  Alas, it was not to be - I have spent the
past 7 hours cleaning out my bookshelves (10 minute
job I thought!) and I am now EXHAUSTED!  Anyhow, on to
my response:

Rather than post my reply in a general format to the
whole group, I will deal with each member's comments
and criticisms individually.  However, if this method
turns out to be overly long, then perhaps someone
would be kind enough to let me know and, in future, I
will post replies individually.

First off, Nick seeemed to interpret me as saying that
philosophy "appears to barely count as an academic
discipline".  This was not my meaning at all, although
many universities - mine included - unfortunately,
seem to view it in this way.  By claiming philosophy
was a discipline that examines 'left-overs' from other
subjects (in an academic context anyhow) I only
intended to give a description of what I considered
philosophy to be involved with at the most basic
level.  (I wasn't making a negative claim about the
value of the subject - as I hoped the concluding
paragraph would make clear.)  Of course I realise that
such a description is not particularly precise, but
sometimes basic descriptions can only start off as
generalisations.

I am interested to note that you say philosophy is NOT
the only subject that examines itself.  Could anyone
please give me some examples of other subjects that
are self-critical (as opposed to being critical merely
about their objects of study)?  True, there are
philosophies of X, Y and Z but such investigations
into the foundations of those subjects are undertaken
by philosophers.  I have never come across, for
example, a biologist who has undertaken a critical
examination of the underlying structure of values and
presumptions which supports their discipline. 
Philosophers, as far as I am aware, are the only
people to ask questions such as "What is X? [where 'X'
is their discipline]" and then actually attempt to
find an answer by engaging in critical process of
thought (as opposed to merely looking the answer up in
a dictionary).  The only other people I can think of,
off hand, that can sometimes be 'self-critical' in a
manner similar to philosophers - as you pointed out -
are those theologians who ask if God exists or what
the foundations and purpose of religions are.

(As for Mr Heidegger... I had originally typed out
what is (for want of a better description) a 'train'
of my thoughts on what Heidegger means by 'Being' for
a friend who wanted to try and get to grips with some
of the basics of his philosophy.  At present, this
'train of thought' is incomplete but I would be happy
to post it here, if there is enough interest. 
However, it is rather long (approximately 2000 words,
and growing by the day!).  I don't know what the
maximum acceptable length of posts is for this forum -
so I would appreciate some guidance before I post
anything too big!)

Moving on.

'pmaniati', begins with an etymological approach to
the question.  There is of course a great deal of
difference between etymology and simply 'looking the
word up', so I hope my comments above are not
misunderstood.  Studies into the development of a word
over time, when carried out with patience and
precision, can give us valuable insights into the
nature of the entity that is named by such a word. 
There is a great deal of 'feeling' attached to a
definition of philosophy as a 'love of wisdom' - for
to be a lover of anything surely requires a certain
degree of passion and emotion?  As 'lovers of wisdom'
then, philosophers ought never to be involved in cold
abstractions (or philosophy for the sake of itself). 
As you implied, philosophy brings pleasure in the form
of a heightened understand of one's self and the world
(indeed no subject in philosophy can be studied
properly in complete isolation from others). 
Philosophy is also a PRACTICAL subject - by that I
mean that it is intimately concerned with the problems
and values in the lives of those who study it. 
Philosophy is a means to some end, but never an end in
itself (as 'wisdom' can never be identified with idle
contemplation).  As a final point, here, you point out
that science has improved the material well-being of
people immesurably in the past 50 years or so, but
that it is the job of philosophy to cater for people's
'spiritual' wellbeing (I know that is not the term you
used, but it is hard to find a convienient short-hand
for what you were getting at).  I see the role of
philosophy, in this context, as providing an ethical
'framework' for scientific investigation.  'Progress'
must not come at any price (although to elaborate
further on this, here, would take us off topic). 
Additionally, philosophy ought to be able to aid
science by assisting in the debates about how best to
apply new technologies to the everyday problems of
living.  ('Philosophy of Science': Philosophy as the
'science' of living well, perhaps?)

Keith turns my definition around by saying that most
academic subjects began 'inside' philosophy and then
gradually developed their autonomy as time wore on. 
This is historically accurate, but my own definition
was not intended to be in any way 'historical'.  My
definition came both from what I have read, and from
how I see philosophy being practiced 'today'.  I see
my definition as a description of what philosophy is
doing NOW.  It may have been the case, once upon a
time, that other disciplines in academia (and the
wider world) looked up to philosophy, as one would
look up to a wise parent.  Today, from what I see
going on around me, philosophy has fallen on hard
times and is not taken seriously by people outside of
the discipline itself - or even some of those within
it (hence the reason why we have groups like these)! 
But I do not mean to imply, by my definition, that
philosophy is little more than a beggar that takes
scraps from other disciplines to sustain its own life.
 Rather, my definition, as I see it, reverses the
standard 'historical' definition.  Just as modern
academic subjects gained their direction and
independance from philosophy in the past, philosophy
today finds new directions for its investigations in
those areas which its 'offspring' have abandoned. 
What science, psychology, sociology, mathematics and
the rest have abandoned, in their persuit of 'more
practical ends', is not worthless - but overlooked. 
In seeking to understand the foundations of these
subjects philosophy finds its strength in "getting the
basics right", grasping them, and understanding them
fully.  Whereas, the other disciplines build in 'thin
air' if they do not first have a firm comprehension of
what makes the validity of their own investigations
possible - perhaps even where such investigations will
lead in the future?

You are right to say that philosophy is involved with
"hard problems", but this isn't because insufficiant
progress has been made to enable the sciences to
'dignify' such problems by showing an interest in
them.  It is precisely because so much progress is
considered to have been made (both on a practical and
theoretical level) that other subjects and disciplines
feel free to persue their studies without the need for
any introspection.

Can philosophy, as an investigator into "hard
problems" and foundations, be considered an
"Überscience"?  Depends how you define the suffix. 
'Science', as it is understood today, is perceieved to
have no limits or boundaries.  (Meaning that in theory
- or so we are told - a 'scientific' understanding of
the world would be one that knows all.  But, as such,
it would also be one that permits no alternative
interpretations, and would have to deny that it itself
was an interpretation.  In other words, it would
consider itself omniscient, with 'direct access' to
all the facts).  Philosophy must remain an essentially
- critical - discipline, both in relation to itself
and the world of its investigations.  Perhaps if it
considered itself a 'science' it would inherit some of
their arrogance.  How could 'wisdom' be reconciled
with such arrogance?

In conclusion, I hope to have made somewhat clearer
how the definition of philosophy that I gave in my
intial post does not trivialise the subject (dispite
my father's opinion).  Philosophy is fundementally
important because it asks fundemental questions about
what is important in our lives - when it is done
properly, that is.  By asking questions that other
disciplines have 'left behind', "what is truth?",
"what is reason?", "is total objectivity possible in
all areas of inquiry?", "are there any boundaries to
human knowledge?" (etc) philosophy offers us a unique
kind 'wisdom': the wisdom of the thinker who begins by
admitting that he knows nothing!


PS  "I suspect that the continental tradition may have
a broader and perhaps (dare I say it) more authentic
definition of what philosophy is about..."  Please, by
all means say it!  Philosophy would become a dull
subject without a concept of heresy.


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml