I say: How can this be so? It is true that the act of performing philosophy has come to be called philosophizing, but is it the case that what philosophy studies is philosophy? From the far-reaches of history to the immediate present, philosophers have asked many questions about what the world is made of, what the various meanings of things are, how humans can live together in peace with one another and the world at large, and questions about truth, beauty, and goodness. Can philosophy be so easily encapsulated as saying it is the study of all these things? Are these things not also studied and discussed by other fields?
Many philosophers of the day say: Even though what we discuss is often not purely philosophy, we discuss it in ways that the other kinds of thinkers do not. We write treatises that attempt to make sense of the human situation and the very nature of Existence. When we do this, we are not appealing to charts and graphs or systems of chopped logic and twisted words. Rather, we are writing logically about what is and, in doing so, we make sense of things in ways that the other fields do not. While they merely report, we rationalize.
I say: That does not seem a reasonable distinction. Physicists study the nature of the physical universe. Do they not attempt to explain it to us? Chemists study the make-up of things and their structural properties. Do they not attempt to make it understandable to us? Biologists study the existential properties of being and what it is to be. Do they not attempt to relate it to us? Linguists study the languages we use to analyze and make sense of the world around us. Do they not attempt to show this to us? Psychologists study the way humans think. Do they not attempt to teach us about ourselves? Writers write stories about the human situation. Painters paint images that evoke the feelings. Actors perform plays that touch our very heart-minds. Are these not mostly things philosophers claim to do as well?
Many philosophers of the day say: Even if this is so, there is still something distinct about us in our methodology. Only philosophers are capable of developing the kind of expertise necessary to so thoroughly analyze the problems of ethics, epistemology, and the metaphysical. Only philosophers have the analytic expertise to study these issues and produce tenable theories that may be put into practice and understanding.
I say: It is true that the fields of ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics are genuinely accepted as being in the realm of philosophy and no other discipline, and it is true that good philosophers are ones who have honed their ability to analyze and construct thoughts. On these points we agree. Is it so, however, that only philosophers are capable of these things? Do there not exist non-philosophers capable of such analysis and construction? Do others lack both critical discernment and creativity? This is certainly not true. Therefore, why should we assume that non-philosophers are incapable of making these judgments and making them well?
Many philosophers of the day say: Such a person would be a philosopher.
I say: If such a person would be a philosopher, then why do you so infrequently grant them the title? If such a person would be a philosopher, then why do they so frequently reject the title?
Therefore, I suggest this: Let philosophy keep its field of study and methodologies, but let it never be conceived of as a study in isolation. Let philosophy not be thought of as the thing that is studied, but the vantage point it is studied from. When desiring to look upon the ocean at sunrise, sometimes it is better to be close to where the water breaks on the shore and other times from atop a high dune. Both locations have their advantages and can be appreciated. At any given time, however, most people will prefer to take one over the other and take the position they prefer. Philosophy is like this when compared to other disciplines. When overlooking a subject, philosophy is a different vantage point that gives one different thoughts and different things to think about when compared to what the other field will say about the subject. This does not mean that the subject is not the same, and it does not mean that the two fields use different means of taking in the subject. The water is seen with the eyes either up close or far away, but it is the way it is seen that changes.
Many philosophers of the day say: If this is so, then what makes philosophy genuinely different and of unique value?
I reply: The questions philosophers ask do differ from other kinds of thinkers; the way philosophers think do tend to differ from other kinds of thinkers. Other kinds of thinkers may be more or less philosophical than others in their field; some philosophers may be more artistic or scientific than others in philosophy. This does not make them not of their kind, it just makes them different. A white horse is still a horse. The kitten with the white spot over the eye can still be part of the pure-black litter.
This is how it is with philosophy, and this is why philosophical purism is like isolationism, and isolationism is a dangerous practice as history has shown us. What, then, is so bad about philosophical impurity, if the impurity amounts to little more than an unusual brown mark on the left arm?
Silly scholars.... philosophy is for everyone!
ReplyDelete:)