Introduction to Philosophy EXAM 1

Introduction: What is Philosophy?

What is Philosophy? �  It is usually thought strange by people outside of philosophy that

philosophers ask this question. However, we have to acknowledge that the question is philosophical. The questioning of the very basic ideas that underpin your practice, theory, or ethos is at base philosophical.

�  So, �  I will begin the course with a discussion of 3 different answers to the

question.

�  In the end, I will claim that even though the first two answers are on to something, I will conclude that they end up being deficient.

�  And that the 3rd view encompasses what I think philosophy is all about.

The “Wondering” Conception

�  The philosophical enterprise is begins with a kind of wonder. You refuse to take reality for granted.

�  “Wonder is the feeling of the philosopher and philosophy begins in wonder” –Socrates, The Theatetus.

�  We desire to go beyond what we immediately perceive and/or the truths of morality, nature, and mind that have been handed to us by others.

�  According to David Pears, “philosophy originates in the desire to transcend the world of human thought and experience, in order to find some point of vantage from which it can be seen as a whole.”

�  An important dimension of this conception is doubt. �  If only for the short time you consider these speculations, you must

doubt the veracity of at least some beliefs you hold to be true.

The “Wondering” Conception

�  This conception definitely captures part of the philosophical enterprise. However, it can be criticized for being simply pointless day-dreaming. Philosophers are frequently found to be discussing subject matter that is seemingly disconnected from our everyday reality.

�  Parmenides on movement

�  Plato on whiteness

�  Aristotle on being

�  In the end, the “wondering” characterization of philosophy is lacking because it simply is a sort of psuedo-wonder.

�  no real direction, no concern for truth.

�  seems pointless and inert (maybe even a bit silly)

�  it lacks a clear-cut goal (or end-in-view)

The “Enduring Questions” Conception

�  We could contend that philosophy is famous for its questions.  This leads us to what I will call the “enduring questions” conception of philosophy.  To understand it, we will need to distinguish two sorts of questions (or problems):

�  Removable questions are those that can be firmly and finally answered or resolved).  Here I have in mind such questions as “What is the boiling point of water,” or “How can we vacuum-pack potato chips?” 

�  Enduring questions, on the other hand, are questions that can not be firmly or finally resolved. 

The “Enduring Questions” Conception

�  According to this conception of philosophy, these questions arise for all of us (they arise for each individual, generation, society, or culture) because we are the sorts of creatures we are, and because of the nature of the world, or environment, which we inhabit.  Examples of such questions include:

�  --questions about our relationship to others (about our moral responsibility, political and social obligations, etc.);

�  --questions about “nature” (about the existence of a deity, the fundamental character of reality, the relationship of minds and bodies, the existence of a rationale for the world, etc.);

�  --questions about our cognitive abilities (about the consequences of human fallibility, the distinction between science and pseudo-science, the justification of our knowledge claims, etc.); and

�  --questions about ourselves (about the nature of personal identity, the meaning of our lives, etc.). 

The “Enduring Questions” Conception

�  The “enduring questions conception” of philosophy holds that philosophers are concerned with asking and answering such enduring questions.

�  Deficiencies �  While this is partially the case, we must note that theologians,

novelists, and science fiction writers (as well as many others) also raise and endeavor to answer such questions. 

�  Thus, it is not (just?) the questions themselves (nor the endeavoring to supply answers to them) which constitutes what is unique or special about the philosophic enterprise. 

The “Dialectical” Conception

�  Rather than concentrating on the origins or objectives of the philosophical enterprise (the wondering and answering), this conception draws our attention to the particular methodology which philosophers employ as they respond to the wonders, questions, and problems.

�  Now it should be noted that for many individuals (at many times), any sort of response or answer to an enduring question will be satisfactory.  After all if we have pressing questions, we often need to adopt some responsive stance [any stance] quickly. This is how many areas of science works but these usually include their own methods and practices which guide the process of knowledge gathering.

�  In the long run, however, the dialectical conception of philosophy emphasizes that we will be best served by (and we often desire) critical or rational responses to these questions. That is, those that have been through a dialectical process.

The “Dialectical” Conception

�  According to the dialectical conception, philosophers seek to develop, critically examine, and rationally defend answers or responses to the sorts of questions (and wonders) noted above.  In short, philosophy is here conceived of as a critical enterprise. 

�  ‘Dialectic’ (as I am using it here) consists of rational argument —it is the enterprise of meeting arguments with arguments.

�  A passage from James Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy summarizes this conception of philosophy nicely:

�  “philosophy...is first and last an exercise in reason—the ideas that should come out on top are the ones that have the best reasons on their sides.”

The “Dialectical” Conception

�  Ending a Philosophical Dialectic:

�  A reasoned dialectic is completed when the participants rationally accept an argument, explanation, or problem- resolution.  Here we can see a parallel between philosophic dialectic and science:

�  Why do we feel that the sciences and medicine have progressed during the last two thousand years?  Do we know the truth in science or medicine?  Might our present answers be wrong? 

�  Do we have any idea what the endpoint would look like? 

Ending a Philosophical Dialectic

�  A reasoned dialectic is completed when the participants rationally accept an argument, explanation, or problem- resolution.  Here we can see a parallel between philosophic dialectic and science:

�  Why do we feel that the sciences and medicine have progressed during the last two thousand years?  Do we know the truth in science or medicine?  Might our present answers be wrong? 

�  Do we have any idea what the endpoint would look like? 

Ending a Philosophical Dialectic

�  How are our present theories better in science and medicine?

�  In avoiding past mistakes and resolving (better than they did) past problems.

�  Philosophers may claim the same success! 

�  Neither science nor philosophy arrives at an answer that is final but, rather, each finds an endpoint in a critical and tentative rational agreement amongst the participants. 

Ending a Philosophical Dialectic

�  What happens if other participants join in or if new considerations arise later?  The dialectic is again taken up! 

�  This is why philosophical arguments are often characterized as “perennial”—they arise anew for each age as each group of individuals carries on the dialectic and assesses the answers of its ancestors. 

�  To many this suggests that philosophers will never solve any of the problems (or answer any of the questions), and this leads them to think that the contrast between philosophy and science is not at all favorable to philosophy.  After all, the scientists are able to reach broad intersubjective consensus as to whether or not a scientific question is answered or a scientific problem is resolved. 

Ending a Philosophical Dialectic

�  In his “Thomas Kuhn, Rocks and the Laws of Physics,” Richard Rorty offers a discussion which may help mitigate such a critique:

�  “the trouble is that intersubjective agreement about who has succeeded and who has failed is easy to get if you lay down criteria of success in advance [and, he suggests, this is what scientists are able to do].  If all you want is fast relief, your choice of analgesic is clear (though the winning drug may have unfortunate belated side effects).  If you know that all you want out of science is accurate prediction, you have a fast way to decide between competing theories (though this criterion by itself would, at one time, have led you to favor Ptolemaic over Copernican astronomy).  If you know that all you want is rigorous demonstration, you can check out mathematicians’ proofs of theorems and award the prize to the one who has proved the most (although the award will then always go to a hack, whose theorems are of no interest).  But intersubjective agreement is harder to get when the criteria of success begin to proliferate, and even harder when those criteria themselves are up for grabs [as they are, he suggests, in philosophy].”

The Proper Ends of the Philosophical Enterprise

�  Here I want to make clear what I believe distinguishes philosophy from plain old rhetoric.  I used the phrase “meeting arguments with arguments” earlier as a characterization of the philosophical enterprise.

�  However, I realize that it may be misconstrued as simply disagreements amongst individuals or as stylized debates where individuals seek primarily to one up each other. 

�  So, it’s important for me to add that there is end-in-view of the philosophical dialectic which must be salient in our minds.  The “goal” of philosophizing has had a number of different manifestations, but below I present four of the major views.

The Proper Ends of the Philosophical Enterprise

�  Here are four of the many differing goals of philosophizing which have been advanced by various philosophers:

�  (1) Rational Understanding and Truth: many philosophers contend that philosophy seeks rational understanding (“truth supported by reason”). 

�  Here rational understanding is not sought because it facilitates some other goal, instead it is seen as intrinsically valuable (or the search for it is conceived of as an intrinsically valuable activity).

�  (2) The Happiness of the Rational Life: some philosophers contend that human beings can not be happy (or lead the good life) unless we develop critically-considered rational responses to the wonders and enduring questions noted above (or a critically considered overall world-view). 

�  Here it is happiness which is claimed to be intrinsically valuable, and philosophy is conceived of as a necessary means toward its attainment. 

The Proper Ends of the Philosophical Enterprise

�  (3) Rational Understanding and Worship: other philosophers contend that the end-in-view of philosophy is the understanding (and proper worship) of a deity. 

�  These philosophers contend that the appropriate end for man is philosophical understanding of a deity (that such rational understanding is our primary purpose, obligation, and the only appropriate form of worship for a rational creature). 

�  (4) The Empowerment of Individuals via Reason: the goal of philosophizing is the empowerment of individuals.

�  This is accomplished via the liberation of their thought, culture, and lives from the prejudice and traditions of their society which culture, upbringing, and convention instill.

�  The dialectical methodology is rigid, however, in its faithfulness to the ideal of rationality—it is to be used to offer others (and to help oneself find) rationally-persuasive responses to enduring problems or questions.