[Bups-dis] A problem with philosophy in sophie's world

[Sophie Erskine]

Luis:
 
I didn't in any way mean to criticise your position. You said that, for you,
philosophy is one of many potential means to self-improvement and helping
others, but that this means-end relationship is contingent - it's
philosophy's self-improving nature that enables you to do this, not the
particular nature of the study itself (at least, that's what I gathered). I
just thought it was ironic that, for example, on this view working in ethics
- the study of how to live well - would help you to improve yourself and
others, but purely because philosophy in a broad sense just happens to be
one way to do this, and not because it's the study of living well. 
 
For philosophy to make a difference, it doesn't have to be the case that one
person's views changes the lives of many. It can be the case that
individuals' views change individuals' lives - this would still bring it
about that philosophy is practically effective. However, despite this, you
seem to think that philosophy DOES remain in its ivory tower, and that it
DOESN'T have an effect on the things that matter (stopping suicide bombers,
draining floods, connecting ASDL lines). But is it not the case that suicide
bombers, plumbers and computer guys all work with their own philosophy in
mind? Every individual on the planet acts according to his own world-view -
his own structure of belief, formed according to certain principles (however
those principles may have been originally put in place). Everyone has a view
about the way things are; these views may be contrasting or even
contradictory, but they're world-views all the same. And the way individuals
go about their lives - the things they do and the way they think - is
directly determined by their world-view. It seems to me that when we do
philosophy we examine, question, evaluate and experiment with certain
sub-sections of a particular world-view; we test it for certain properties
(coherence with other views, correspondence with experience, simplicity,
neutrality, elegance, soundness, completeness, etc). And if a person changes
a certain chunk of perspective, if he re-evaluates the way he thinks things
are, his way of life will change as well. For example: if the suicide-bomber
decided after some ethical contemplation that killing himself and others in
terrorist attacks did in fact NOT constitute a part of the good life for an
individual, he would cease to be a suicide-bomber. If the plumber (or
whoever deals with domestic floods) could not get his head round the way in
which a term 'flood' refers to a certain entity in the world, perhaps he
would be very confused as to what he was meant to be doing in your house.
And if the computer man happened to be unconvinced that the external world
existed in any case, I guess he wouldn't succeed very well in fitting a new
ASDL line. Clearly, it is unlikely that any of these situations will occur;
but my point is to show how one's philosophy - one's way of interpreting the
world - directly determine's one's behaviour, and how even comparatively
small changes in one's world-view can change a situation or a life
completely. I think it is a mistake to deny philosophy's (potential)
influence in even day-to-day affairs. 
 
The problem I have with the way (analytical) philosophy has become is with
its confinement to a narrow and theoretical field of knowledge which is
ASSUMED to not have much influence on everyday happenings. Philosophers
often consider themselves to be working on a highly abstract subject which
is non-accessible to the average person, and so disappear up their own arses
in a veil of erudite language and terminological quibbles. As a result, the
man in the street thinks that philosophy is a difficult and useless pastime,
and doesn't recognize its potential capacity to change lives. If both could
realize the huge connection between studying philosophy - trying to work out
the best ways to see things - and living life, I think the world could be a
better place. It does require both groups (although dividing philosophers
and non-philosophers into 'groups' annoys me a hell of a lot) to be aware of
it, because for a person's beliefs to change they have to be open to
persuasion (in a non-naive sense). Duncan has given examples of how
(non-overly-analytic) ethical and metaphysical practice can influence
behaviour. The influence such awareness could have on politics, policy and
international relations I don't even want to go into. 
 
Just to say, the problem I have with the abstraction and detachment of such
philosophy leads me to also find repugnant the distinction between 'proper'
and 'pop' philosophy. If any piece of philosophical writing influences the
way people see things, then it is important and should be valued. It doesn't
matter if it's written by an academic or a layman, or whether the people it
influences are cambridge dons or 'common folk'. Does nobody else think this?
 
I liked David's contribution very much, and feel that it strikes a chord
with my own opinions. Very broadly, it's the 'atomism' and the 'logical
independence' of current (analytical) philosophical practice's view of the
relationship between philosophy and life that I'm objecting to, and the
potentially huge 'transformative' influence that I'm hoping philosophy could
have (although, for me, it would help to spell out that philosophy, by
changing the individual, changes the individual's influence on the world; it
is not, of course, that philosophy directly affects the world without being
applied by an individual). 
 
Duncan:
 
I suppose I can accept the importance of some fields of philosophical study
which are 'indirectly' practical - that is, if they contribute to a directly
practical field - but still think that the whole of philosophy should be
channelled to its application and influence in the world. And conceptual
disputes relating to empirical studies count as directly practical, in my
opinion. But could you explain more clearly how only less 'respectable'
disciplines follow the demand for direct practicality? Another thing: the
question 'why study music/english/history/philosophy? what use does such
knowledge have in our lives?' is itself a philosophical question - is that
not why such questions only arise in philosophy? 
 
Also - check out 'The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable' by
Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It's all about the role of unforeseen events in
different kinds of decision making.