Philosophy

6

LECTURE: What is philosophy?

Welcome! For many of you, this will be the first course in philosophy you’ve taken, and you’ll be reading philosophical books and articles for the first time. So before we begin our look at the philosophy of human nature, it will be helpful to start out the semester by asking: What is philosophy? The Greek word philosophia, from which the English word “philosophy” derives, means “love of wisdom.” But what does that amount to?

One way to approach this issue is to consider some stereotypical examples of philosophical questions, such as: What is the nature of reality? Does God exist? Is mind reducible to matter? Can we know anything for certain? Can we trust our senses? Do we have free will? Is there an objective standard of morality? What is a just society?

It might have occurred to you, though, that other fields of study deal with these questions too. For example, physics is concerned with the nature of reality. Theology is concerned with the existence of God. Psychology is concerned with the nature of mind and the reliability of the senses. Political science is concerned with what makes a society just. And so on. So, what makes the approach that philosophy takes to these questions unique? For example, how does it differ from science, or from religion?

Socrates, Einstein, and the pope walk into a bar…

Three defining characteristics

Following Roger Scruton in his useful book Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey, we can identity three characteristic features of philosophy: its focus on the most general or abstract questions; its quest for ultimate explanations; and its insistence on truth and argumentation. Let’s unpack each of these.

1. Philosophy deals with the most general or abstract questions about the nature of reality

Let’s start with a comparison to what the sciences are up to. All sciences are ultimately concerned with general or abstract patterns rather than with particular objects and events. For example, in astronomy, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are taken to govern all planets, not just the ones we’re familiar with. In biology, the principles of mutation and natural selection are taken to govern all living things, not just this particular dog or that particular fish. And so on.

Even when scientists are studying something very specific – for example, consider a biologist who spends years just studying the digestive systems of trout – they are still interested in general or abstract patterns. A pattern is abstract in the sense that it is abstracted from or stripped away from specific details of an individual thing and concerns features that that thing has in common with other things of the same general kind. For example, the biologist who studies the digestive systems of trout wants to know about what general or abstract patterns are true of the digestive systems of all trout, not just this or that particular trout.

Now, the sciences can be arranged in a kind of hierarchy, from more concrete or specific to more abstract or general. Ichthyology, the scientific study of fishes, is interested in all kinds of fishes, not just trout. Zoology, which studies all animals, is interested not just in fish, but also in birds, mammals, reptiles, etc. So it is more general or abstract than ichthyology. Biology, which is interested not only in animals but also in plants and bacteria and living things in general, is even more abstract. Chemistry, which studies the building blocks of living and non-living things alike, is yet more general or abstract still – covering patterns that apply to all those things. And so on.

We might picture the hierarchical relationship between the sciences as follows (the chart is not meant to be complete, but just to convey the basic idea):

PHYSICS

CHEMISTRY

ORGANIC INORGANIC

BIOLOGY

ZOOLOGY BOTANY

ICHTHYOLOGY ORNITHOLOGY

The higher up we go in the hierarchy, the more general are the patterns studied by the science in question. Biology studies patterns that apply to all living things, chemistry studies patterns that apply to living and non-living things, physics studies the building blocks of the chemical elements themselves as well as the space and time they occupy, and so on. And you might think of the sciences higher up in the hierarchy as studying what the ones below it take for granted. For example, zoology and botany take for granted that there are living things like plants and animals, and then go on to start classifying them; but biology wants to know what it is to be a living thing in the first place, and how such things differ from non-living things. Chemistry takes it for granted that there are micro-level particles that the elements are made out of; but physics wants to know what the ultimate particles are and the laws that govern them. And so forth.

Abstract patterns

Phylogeny of the Elopomorpha (Teleostei): Evidence from six ...

Now, where does philosophy come in? Philosophy deals with the most general or abstract questions of all, the ones that even physics and the other sciences take for granted. For example, all of the sciences are concerned with some aspect of the physical world. But suppose we ask: Is the physical world all there is? Or are there things that are real but not physical objects (as God and the soul are said to be non-physical, for example)? Does science alone give us knowledge? Or are there genuine sources of knowledge that fall outside science and use different methods?

However we answer questions like that, we are asking and answering philosophical questions rather than scientific ones. Science can’t tell you one way or the other whether there are non-physical realities, because its methods are geared toward what is physical. If there is a non-physical world, science couldn’t tell you about it any more than eyeglasses could help you hear music. And for the same reason, if there isn’t anything non-physical, science can’t tell you that either.

Is this all there is?

Nor can science tell you whether science alone gives you knowledge. In order to settle that question, you have to mentally “stand outside” science, as it were, and compare it to reality, and then judge either that science captures all there is to reality or that it does not. And either way, precisely because you’d be making this judgment from a position outside of science, you’d be proving even by merely raising the question that there’s more to knowledge than just what science provides.

Or consider fundamental scientific concepts like the concept of a “law of nature” – such as a law of physics, a law of chemistry, or what have you. Science simply takes it for granted that there are such things, and explains phenomena by taking them down to more and more basic laws, until it hits bottom with the fundamental laws of physics, whatever those turn out to be.

But suppose we ask: What is a law of nature in the first place? Is it like a law passed by Congress? Obviously not, but what, then? Some hold that laws of nature are basically divine commands, ways that God established that the universe would operate. For example, some of the founders of modern science, like Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes, took that view. Later scientists instead thought of laws of nature as just regular patterns that the universe happens to follow, for whatever reason. Yet other thinkers have thought of laws as useful fictions, ways of organizing experience that are helpful for various purposes, but not literally true. And there are other views.

The point is that while science takes for granted the idea of a law of nature and finds it a useful tool of analysis, it doesn’t itself tell you what a law of nature ultimately is. That’s where philosophy comes in. Or suppose we ask: Why do the fundamental laws operate? Why isn’t the universe governed by different fundamental laws, or no laws at all? Here too, even physics can’t answer that question. Physics explains things by taking things down to deeper and deeper levels of physical law – for example, by explaining Kepler’s laws of planetary motion in terms of Newton’s more general laws of motion, then explaining Newton’s laws in terms of Einstein’s laws of general relativity, and so on until we get to some bottom level.

But if we ask “Why are those bottom level physical laws the way they are? Why not some other laws instead, or no laws at all but just chaos?,” even physics can’t answer that. Physics is “out of ammunition” once it reaches the bottom level of laws. So, if we are going to answer that question – or even if we decide that it is unanswerable – we will, either way, be taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

You mean, like a law of physics?

More examples could be given, but that makes the point. So, one way that philosophy differs from the sciences is that it deals with the most general or abstract questions about reality that there are, the ones even the sciences take for granted. It is this abstract or general character that we see exemplified in philosophical questions like: Is matter all that is real? Does God exist? What are the ultimate sources of knowledge? What is a law of nature?

2. Philosophy searches for the most ultimate explanations

Here too it is useful to compare and contrast philosophy with science. Science is concerned with two basic tasks: describing the world, and explaining it. For example, one of the things biology does is describe what kinds of living things there are, by organizing them into species, genus, families, orders, etc. Then it goes on to explain where these living things come from, in terms of evolution by natural selection. Or consider how chemistry describes the different elements there are by locating them in the Periodic Table. Then physics and chemistry try to explain where these elements came from by identifying the particles out of which they are made and how those particles formed into elements during the early history of the universe. And so on.

Now, when I said that philosophy deals with the most general or abstract questions, you can take that as making the point that philosophy aims at the most general description of reality, the most general classification of what there is. But, like science, philosophy is also concerned with explanation. The difference is that philosophy is concerned with the most ultimate possible explanations.

So, for example, suppose we ask: “Why is there anything at all in the first place? Why is there something rather than nothing?” That is a request for an explanation of about as fundamental a fact or phenomenon as there could be.

Or suppose we ask, not just “Would it be wrong for me to cheat on this exam?” or “Would it be wise for me to take this job?” but rather something like: “Why should I care about doing the right thing in the first place?” or “Why should I be guided by rationality at all?” Those are requests for ultimate explanations concerning why we should act in certain ways.

He’s about to give an ultimate explanation

So, again, the second characteristic feature of philosophy is that is concerned with the most ultimate or fundamental explanations of why things are the way they are. It is this ultimate character that we see exemplified in stereotypical philosophical questions like: Why does anything exist at all? Why should I be moral? What is the meaning of existence?

3. Philosophy is concerned with truth and rational argumentation

Of course, lots of people have opinions on some of these questions. Different religions have different answers. Different views have prevailed in different cultures and at different periods in history. Different authority figures, such as governmental authorities, might favor some answers over others.

But philosophers are not merely interested in knowing what people happen to believe, or what this or that religion, culture, or authority happens to favor. They are interested in what is in fact true. And it might turn out that what popular opinion, or some religion, culture, or authority says is not true. Or it might instead turn out that what popular opinion or some religion, culture, or authority says really is true after all. The point is that philosophers are interested in being as objective and unbiased as possible in finding out. Of course, that’s not always easy, but the aim of philosophy is to get as close as we can to that ideal.

As you will see through the course of the semester, this means that philosophers are always trying to give rational arguments for the positions they take on this or that issue. And they are always open to hearing out objections to those arguments and trying to find some way to answer them – or, if they can’t answer them, to give up the argument. Again, this is the ideal, anyway, even if not everyone realizes it perfectly. The point is that philosophers hope that the give-and-take of rational debate can lead us at least closer to the right answers.

Philosophy aims at truth

In summary, then…

…philosophy is concerned with arriving at the most general description of what reality is like, and the most ultimate explanations of why it is like that, where it is seeking the objectively true answers to these questions by way of rational arguments.

That’s pretty general, but we’ll see how it works out in detail when we begin to consider specific thinkers dealing with specific philosophical questions and offering answers to them backed by arguments. Before we do so, however, there is one further preliminary set of issues we need to address: What is it exactly about human nature – and specifically, about the nature of the mind and its relation to the body – that makes it philosophically puzzling? And how exactly does a philosophical approach to the study of the mind differ from the sort of approach that would be taken in a psychology class, or a neuroscience class?

We’ll address these questions in the next lecture. In the meantime, here are some optional YouTube videos examining the nature of philosophy in a little bit more detail:

Daniel Bonevac on What is Philosophy?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yoFIvq_120

PHILO-notes on the Origin of Philosophy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR-QETBbnB0