Re: The Rise of Philosophy

[Paul Hubbard <curley_boy_99@yahoo.co.uk>]

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


I've always hoped that philosophy would be one of the subjects taught at 
GCSE level.  As I've said in a previous response to this board, 
philosophy is one of the only subjects that aids in the teaching of 
critical thought.  (The only possible exception, at GCSE level, being a 
well taught history course.)  Now that is not to give a answer to 
questions about what philosophy is (I tried to tackle that one in my 
introductory post); instead, it is to give one of the many reasons as to 
why the subject should be studied.

As for questions about whether or not President Bush is a good leader or 
not, I would agree with what others here have said (ie that, by itself, 
is not a philosophical question -- nor is it a particularly deep 
psychological or political one).  But we ought to remember that 
philosophy is never wholly 'theoretical', rather, it is an activity 
(like all forms of thinking) that arises out of our everyday tasks and 
preoccupations.  In other words, philosophical questions must have some 
definite starting point in the 'real' world.  Thus, to ask whether a 
president or prime minister is 'a good leader' or not is a small step 
away (in a chain of thought) from asking questions such as: "What makes 
a good leader?" or "What is the good?".  Therefore, the process of 
thinking progresses gradually: starting from rather trivial questions, 
before moving on towards deeper and more general /philosophical/ ones.

My first post to this board was entitled: 'What is philosophy?', in 
which I tried to get across the idea that philosophy is involved with 
/foundations/ (that is, taking an interest in fundamental questions that 
have been 'overlooked' by other disciplines).  In that post, I also gave 
some sample questions to illustrate my meaning (covering ontology, the 
nature of thought and morality, respectively).  Thus to ask a 
philosophical question, or to ask for a definition of philosophy, is to 
actually engage in a unique process of thinking.  We may judge James' 
previous response (when asked to give a definition of philosophy): "Um, 
I don't know," to be rather shallow and insufficient.  It is, however, 
the only /honest/ answer.  For surely it is better for one to admit 
ignorance, than reach for the dictionary?  I don't think that after 
three years of undergraduate study I am able to provide a good 
definition of philosophy off the top of my head (and nor do I think I 
would be able to after a lifetime's experience).  This is not because I 
am a poor philosopher (although I suppose there could be debate on 
that!), but because to do so would be to cease thinking and, by 
implication, cease to be a philosopher.



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