When I meet people and I tell them I am a philosopher, their responses are extremely varied.
"Aren't we all?"
"Right, so what is your opinion about unicorns?"
"So you're a Doctor in the Science of Not-Knowing-Anything!?"
"Me too! I've been working on my philosophy of life that will change everything, would you mind taking a look?"
"Oh, I'm so sorry for you..."
Okay, there are also people who simply walk away. Perhaps they are the wisest of them all.
But there are also times when it seems everything is okay, they don't feel shocked at all. And I assume they're okay because they understand. And they do. But they might very well understand something completely different. Because often, later in the conversation, I realise their definition of philosophy is completely bizarre. In my understanding, that is. It's interesting, but also difficult. (So yes, this post is also for you, @AnikeKirsten and @andrewking...)
Different understandings of philosophy
Lately I've been confronted again by a particular attitude which I consider a very American one, and which concerns a specific understanding of what philosophy is. I was in the US last year, as a Research Fellow at one of the East-coast universities for six months, and I sometimes would meet other philosophers. Or philosophy students.
And I realised 'philosophy' means a lot of different things. Not just depending on the person you meet, also depending on culture and educational system. I met one guy who was finishing his master in philosophy. So naturally I asked them what he was working on. He was working on a model on 'blahblahblah' that was to predict 'blahblahblah'. I could hardly understand what he was talking about, as my brain short circuited when I heard the words 'model' and 'predict' coming from a philosopher describing his research. I asked him to clarify. Did he mean he wanted to measure 'blahblahblah', by making a model?
And then he said something I'm still trying to recover from. "Yes, because everyone wants to be able to predict the future, obviously."
(Maybe it's good to add, that what I consider philosophy, is not taught in Philosophy Departments in the US, but in French or German Departments.)
No. Philosophy is not a science.
Science is about making models. About understanding reality and making models to predict it. About testing your hypothesis, your models, to see if they hold true in reality. Models can be equations about physics, or laws of human behaviour. Let's say up front I have absolutely nothing against science. I love science. I read books on science. I studied science in my BA. And I still do.
It's just that I value philosophy, precisely because it is not science. Also doesn't aspire to be science. It doesn't consider itself more important than science (although there might be people / philosophers who might say that). It also doesn't mean I don't appreciate what people in the US do when they do philosophy that involves making models and testing them. It's just that I don't think it is to be considered philosophy.
Science - Philosophy
Philosophy questions the fundamental assumptions about what we can know, what can exist, what life is. Science doesn't. Science works with a specific set of assumptions, within a specific world in which specific assumptions are not questioned, even though they are not proven. The whole point is that certain assumptions cannot be proven, and that they remain outside of the realm of questioning.
Okay, and now in normal English?
Imagine a bear running towards you. What kind of question would a scientist ask? Well, this depends on the scientist, obviously. A mathematician might want to know the angle of the approach, to see if the bear will actually hit you or not. But basically, science would be interested in finding out how different responses lead to different outcomes. So they make an hypothesis, or several (like: running away is best, or: hide in a tree, or: if you stand absolutely still and hold in your breath, the bear won't know you are alive and run right past you). Then science would test this, get a lot of data and see which statement is correct. Then they end up knowing what the best way is to respond to a bear. They have a model that is tested in reality.
So let's go back to the same situation: a bear running towards you. What kind of question would be interesting to a philosopher? Well, this depends on which philosopher, obviously. But let's take Immanuel Kant (a philosopher who is important to both American and continental European philosophy). Kant would ask how we even know it is a bear? How do we connect one concept to something that is built up by several things? How does it work, how does the human mind make this connection? Claws, teeth, brown fur? And how do we know it is actually moving? What we see are different moments in time, different moments that our brain connects together. How then do we come up with this idea of cause and effect? Also: how do I know this bear is interested in attacking me? Maybe it wants to hug me. Is it a part of the essence of a bear to attack humans, and how do I know that a priori.
Okay, I think you might get the point. And also get that philosophy (in my definition of it) is definitely not something we should always do, or something more important than science. Especially when you meet a bear, I dare say.
Development of Thought and Science
You might wonder why I make give this example, as it seems far fetched. Well, it might. But in every scientific field, if you look closer, you see that at some point you stop doing science, and start doing philosophy. Another example, more real. Take Euclid's 'Elements'. Euclid was an Ancient Greek philosopher/mathematician and he wrote a series of books that have survived time. You can still read it, and it's highly interesting. He is considered the father of geometry. In his book he employs a specific method that makes it very explicit that he makes some assumptions about things. For instance, that a line is made up of points. That there is such a thing as a point which has zero dimensions, which you cannot see, but it does exist.
For centuries people have debated these assumptions. Those assumptions were necessary to build his geometry on, and people have used Euclids rules for centuries. And we still do, because it works. BUT. It doesn't always work. And when scientists discovered things that could not be explained by Euclid's methods (by Euclid's model), they realised that they might be dealing with something that did not fit the way they understood the world. The assumptions had to be rethought. Which resulted in other, non-Euclidean types of geometry.
So we could make the distinction between philosophers and scientists as follows. The moment a philosopher stops to think about the fundamental assumptions, but starts to work within a specific realm in which certain assumptions are taken for granted, a scientist is born. (Not to say that a scientist cannot also do philosophy...)
So why do philosophy?
So I hope I've established that philosophy is not a science. It's not more important than science. But neither is it less important than science. It is important to keep questioning underlying assumptions that might seem obvious, but they are not part of 'reality' or 'nature', they are fundamental choices, decisions once made, definitions once agreed upon. If we do not question them, science and any type of thinking can become totalitarian. It can start to dictate what can and what cannot be thought. What is right, and what is not.
Another example perhaps? Okay.
I've been involved in some projects regarding climate change. I once visited a conference in London, where the topic was 'radical changes'. The idea: things needs to change, and put a lot of natural scientists & policy makers in one room, and let them figure it out. Great idea. But they also invited me to give a short speech. As a philosopher. They referred to me as a 'French philosopher', and they don't know the kind of honour they gave me by doing so - I'm Dutch, and there haven't been any notable Dutch philosophers since Spinoza, so being considered French is a whole improvement, in my eyes...
The ideas and solutions that were offered, were ALL (yes, every one of them) intended to make a difference by approaching the problem economically. Their idea: there is a problem, there are solutions but people don't do them (UK government won't install clean energy, ships won't stop using oil to transport oil (most of the oil used is to transport oil, did you even know that?!!)), so their solution: let's make it economically interesting for people. Show people it saves money to save the world.
One value was converted into another one. The one value ($$$) we know was used to get us to like another value (greenness). Yet this makes a lot of assumptions about the world, about who we are, and it also limits our options. What if we need to take a step that is not economically viable? In this type of thinking, it is then understandable that people will not take that step.
Also, it seems to forget what has created a lot of our problems: our present understanding of value in economic terms. For instance the fact that in a stable economic system, it is not enough to break even, to have a stable company that is able to make ends meet. No, only when there is growth, added surplus, we speak of a healthy company. This is not something given, something always true, something irrevocably true. And it's philosophers who need to take up this challenge. Of not testing hypotheses in the present world, whether something fits our present understanding of reality. But to challenge the status quo, fundamentally. Addressing assumptions that are considered natural.
This quote is often addressed to Einstein, but is not his. He did say something similar ("A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels."). And I still think the quote is correct. (And to dismiss the quote because someone famous did not say it, would be a fallacy...)
Philosophy is not to be restrained by what is considered reality at any given moment. Its value does not depend on its immediate and obvious applicability. Philosophy, most of all, is an attitude that is humble and considers questioning the question the most important thing. Or, as I like to say...
Philosophy is about framing the frame.
To be continued...
Perhaps it's now a little bit more clear about what I mean with philosophy. Probably it is not enough of an explanation. And I'm looking forward to your questions, which I might not all be able to answer in the comments, but might point me in the direction on how to address this question further.
Looking forward to you comments, questions, thoughts, fury.
Picture source: The picture of the bear attacking you, is mine. Of course inspired by Foucault. Green blog by saving money picture / Einstein picture
in short ..
Philosophy is not science but the resulting laws and proven facts becomes a science
In short, the value of philosophy would be diminished if it is judged as a science.
In short, science is not philosophy because it has stopped questioning certain things.
About the first section: those responses all happened to me, including a guy literally turning this back and walking away without a word!
I've been asking the "what is philosophy" question my whole life and still haven't come up with a satisfying answer. I guess philosophy is what philosophers do?!
I think, if you study it historically, many things that are now called sciences were once the stuff philosophers did, and there were no separate departments for it. From politics to economics to psychology to logic...let me stop there for a moment: we had this logic professor at uni who wanted to have his own separate department, and kept fighting with the philosophers. Right then and there I kinda knew the day would come when they would wrestle even this from us. But it doesn't matter, we'll just invent the next new science. Philosophy is like a mother than never ceases birthing, and it gives open-handedly, even if she is rarely appreciated.
I often try to approach things more practically. If we made a society where we made all the smart people go to the sciences, and all the bad students we made to do philosophy, what would happen to philosophy? And when you had a deep question to ask, who would you ask?
I could elaborate, but I think the reason philosophy is the best discipline (yup!) is because it attracts the best people, and it attracts the best people because the best people are interested in everything, and only philosophy satisfies that Renaissance urge ("philosophy of x" "philosophy of y" etc.)
But I think the ultimate quest is the quest for truth, I wouldn't put philosophy in a (very) separate basket. Take for instance this:
Isn't that a question neuroscience might one day answer? The only reason it's considered philosophy is that philosophy was there first. Philosophy at one time used to ask (and still does) "what is the best way for society to be organized?" Now this is politics and social planning. A philosopher is basically a person who gets there first, plants his flag, solves the issue, and then moves on to more interesting pasture, leaving the people who come later to argue over the finer points and maybe go to war with each other because they can't take the truth (for instance that god doesn't exist, or whatever).
Anyway, this is getting long, but I'll close by saying that I don't like the expression "philosophy is not a science", because in some people's minds that will invalidate philosophy. So I would add, "philosophy is not a science: it is the thing that creates sciences"! And I dare anyone to argue that historically this hasn't been the case!
Lastly, if you don't mind, go here and drop humanities-related posts in the deep-think-post-promotion room, I'll add you once I know your username there. You're officially a deepthink member! :)
I totally agree with you. It is not a science because it totally precedes it, and precisely as you said, not only historically but also theoretically. So yes, everything you say I agree with more than 100%. It's just that I was thinking of the people who told me 'philosophy is a (social) science', and trying to find a way to show that saying it ehm, that is not exactly what is going on, I decided to go the other way. By first pretending to invalidate philosophy, and then adding that this is why it is actually the most valuable at all.
Of, I don't agree with 'plant the flag (sure), solves the issue (hmm... no...)'. Very happy to be a deepthink member, looking forward to talking about all this there, in maybe a different way...
(discord is same name as here...)
You need to enter the group so I can click you and add you to the room. There's no discussion going on there currently but posting your articles there will help you get discovered by other authors.
Yes, I did. Some days ago (after another post I found through reading something somewhere, also linked to you... so scroll up :) )
My first experience with philosophy wasn't really pleasant.
Since very little I always either asked questions non stop or was silently observing everything around me. Well most children ask a lot of questions when they are little, and my parents were the ones to suffer the brunt of my questioning. They started calling me "Дървен философ", it literally means "wooden philosopher". It can either mean someone whose stubbornly philosophizing about meaningless stuff or someone who knows too much.
That was my first bad experience with philosophy since they started dismissing all my questions or arguments with that expression or just saying "Stop philosophizing". It's really convenient since that way you can dismiss any argument that you don't like. I think I gradually stopped asking questions when I was a becoming a teenager since I started realizing that I wasnt asking the right people and they didn't know the answers nor were they honest enough with themselfs to admit it or even think about it.
My second experience with philosophy was in school. Just before University there was a subject about philosophy and I remember being quite exited about it since I liked questioning everything and argumenting. But it turned out to be just History of Philosophy and we just had to "learn" aka memorize the different theories of "great philosophers". I can say I'm pretty bad at memorizing and especially stuff that doesnt make sense to me or I disagree with so that was kinda painful.
The things I remember of those theories was that there were too many assumptions, too many things taken for granted. Maybe it was just left out and we were tought only the "core" or "most important stuff". I dont know and it got even worse when we got to the "christian philosophy" aka propaganda. So as I told you in a earlier post, the only famous philosopher I like is Socrates. Maybe I just dont know them well enough.
Those were my experiences with Philosophy.
I'm curious if you had a favourite philosopher. And if you do, why?
Thanks for sharing! Yes, I can really understand why you would not like philosophy. When I went to an 'Open Day' when looking what to study at university, I went to a philosophy day, and I hated it! They were just debating for the sake of debating, not listening to the other people. I felt sick. So I didn't start out to study philosophy. And I'm glad I just kept on reading on my own. Because having the background, knowing what has been said, is very important. But I would never been able to do that for three years - I'm also super bad at memorizing. But I did end up studying philosophy at masters level and then a PhD - that's where the fun things started. A little at least. The environment where you can really ask the questions you want to ask, it has a lot to do with meeting the right people & teachers, I so agree.
I hope you will find that environment, in which you won't have to explain why Socrates is your favorite philosopher :)
I will think about what is my favorite, will probably take more than a comment to answer that interesting question!
So... please keep asking those questions! that's the only way to meet the people who like those questions...
Yes please do. You can make a post about your favourite one and why. I will try my best to debunk all of his theories(insert evil laugh here). I might even like him/her in the end.
Challenge accepted! ;)
Interesting! I studied philosophy in both the US and the UK and I must admit I don't recognise your characterisation of philosophy in the US as based on making models and predictions. I guess the method we use could be described as scientific or at least aspiring to be scientific, in the sense that it's logical and analytical, and we 'test' theories by exposing them to rigorous logical interrogation. Obviously as we're working with language not numbers this ends up being less purely logical than for example mathematics, but the goal, even if never achieved(!), is to come up with infallible arguments.
However even if the method could be described as scientific I would distinguish it from science precisely as you do, on the basis of the questions that we ask, questions that scientists take for granted.
One thing I would say is that we are comfortable, at least in the fields in which I worked (moral and political philosophy), in adjusting theory in response to intuition. So a moral theory that leads to the conclusion that we must kill the weakest in society, let's say, would be rejected, by many anyway, on the basis that this can't be right, we can't have a moral theory that requires us to kill people. This then would be an example of adjusting philosophical theory to fit 'reality'- i.e how people actually think about moral behaviour.
I wonder was the guy you met working in experimental philosophy? That was quite the hot topic when I was in the US, but far from mainstream and certainly controversial as to whether they were still doing philosophy.
Thanks for prompting such a rich discussion!
Ah, good to hear about this. Unfortunately I don't know the full background of this guy, as I downed my drink and got out when he asked me to describe my field, and he then concluded 'ah, so you do poetry'. Ehm, no.
But he was not the only basis for my understanding about US - philosophy. The whole of it was too much for a post like this, I felt. But sitting through a lecture by Daniel Dennett was another one. And perhaps he is also on the fringe of philosophy, who know.
and in the end the distinction goes further than what I've mentioned in this article. Has to do with type of attitude. But not yet understand that enough myself to really articulate that good enough.
Thanks for your response! Looking forward to reading more of you!
True, there's definitely a distinction between the anglo-american tradition and so-called continental philosophy, which I can't claim to articulate as I unfortunately never studied continental philosophy, but from what I gather it does come down to method.
Dennett is pretty mainstream I guess, or at least is not considered on the fringe of philosophy in terms of his method even if his ideas are not fully accepted. And he's a good example to back up your case :) he definitely did/does a lot of work at the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy. Again, though, I see it as philosophy, and not science. He doesn’t do neuroscience experiments, but questions the assumptions that neuroscientists make. So, for example, on free will. He holds that we have free will, in the sense that we can be held morally responsible for our actions. Experiments in neuroscience have shown we do not have free will. Dennett denies their conclusions by questioning the assumptions made, in this case the way that the scientists have defined free will. He is willing to accept the findings of the experiments in terms of their definition of free will but says that they do not affect the existence of free will as he defines it. In his analysis of the concept of free will I see him as clearly doing philosophy and not science, and for me it fits with what you say about philosophy framing the frame?
I don’t know his work well at all, and I don’t deny that maybe he does more ‘scientific’ stuff, and as I say the experimental philosophy scene does do actual science experiments to try and inform their philosophical theories.
For me, allowing philosophical theory to be impacted by ‘reality’ is not strange, but I guess that reflects my particular background in philosophy!
Anyway, I left academic philosophy behind quite a few years ago now, but I do miss it! Nice to have someone on here to discuss ideas with and I look forward to reading your next post!
I love quite a lot about Dennett, but there are two things I think are ridiculous: his idea that consciousness is an illusion, and his idea that free will exists (he's a compatibilist).
The idea of free will, in most people's minds, is very simple: it's the ability to have done otherwise if everything were exactly the same. This Dennett admits is impossible, but still proceeds to redefine what it means. He basically redefines until he gets his conclusion through. I don't know why some people are so enamored with certain ideas they were taught as kids.
This also harms philosophy, since it creates this idea that philosophers have been debating the same issues for thousands of years without making any progress or solving anything. This is patently false: we've solved more issues than I can count. But no, philosophers must re-invent the free will vs determinism debate as a compatibilist vs incompatibilist debate, lest they file the issue under 'solved', cos then who knows maybe the universe will collapse or something.
Thanks a lot for giving more insight on Dennett than I could! I studied him once in a phil mind course as an undergrad but moved towards moral and political philosophy for the PhD. What you say about some philosophers re-inventing debates - yes that's something that did frustrate me and one of the reasons why I eventually chose to leave the field. Great comment!
Lovely, entirely. I did not know philosophers in the US use models and predictions, either. Seems odd, I agree.
And I agree with your argument on philosophy not being a science, not as the physical sciences are science at least. I will argue that philosophy is, indeed, a science of observation and of question, on which the physical sciences have their foundation (thus the interchanging aspects of the fields as you've eloquently elaborated in your article). Perhaps, yes, a cultural or regional influence in our understanding of what philosophy is--which is inevitable considering the differences in education systems and modules.
For instance, philosophy here in South Africa is grouped with and regarded a social science (as mentioned during our discussion prior). I do see philosophy as such a science as anthropology and sociology. The basis of all being observation, questioning, and understanding. While the physical sciences employ these traits as well, the social sciences rarely use models in hopes of predicting outcomes. The underlying matter of philosophy, or rather its importance and application, focus on the social, on the Self and Other, and the various aspects threaded between other fields of study on the social.
Yes, I see your point. But although there is philosophy in social science, and philosophy of social science, there is also philosophy that is not social science.
And philosophy's basis is not observation. This might be debatable. highly depends on what you mean with 'observation'. And in the scientific sense of observation, philosophy does not deal with observation. Instead it deals with considering what a subject is, that observes.
All science is partly philosophical, btw. Also historically this can be seen, how sciences slowly defined their own domain as outside the realm of philosophy that was the main domain for a long time.
I do agree philosophy can often be rightfully applied to the social. Just as to the physical.
I find that most people shy away from any discussion of philosophy once it trips into the bottomless well of infinite core interpretations of reality. What defines existence? Do I exist? How can we be certain of existence outside of our own minds? How does one derive an ought from and is? I think these questions are fascinating topics from an academic perspective of philosophy.
The commercial success of mindset philosophy marks a contrast. Wheras the other questions don't usually make much difference in our day to day lives regardless of the conclusion, the questions posed by mindset philosophy are often simple and accessible. Furthermore, they offer solutions to everyday problems that are within our control and impact our relationships and personal happiness.
I won't say that this is where academic philosophy falls short, because you can't fall short of what you aren't reaching for, but I would say that this point marks the divide where many philosophers' find their own interests in philosophy fail to be appreciated by others.
Just some rushed ramblings. Hope it was somewhat coherent.
Yup, coherent enough. Not sure I agree completely. Yes, those question may seem to be only fascinating in an academic environment. And I'm also not saying that we should all, always be wondering about those things - think of the bear example.
Yet by training my mind to think those things, by wondering on that level, life becomes more complicated and complex, but also much more rich. Without training that skill, that attitude, many things remain off-limits from people. Which is why I think those type of questions should definitely be appreciated, also outside of academia. Academic philosophers should stop thinking they 'own' that part of thinking, making everything complicated. Yes, sure, it's good there is a place for 'hardcore philosophy', but things should never remain locked up there. And general philosophy should not be made to downplay the complexity either.
Don't really know what you mean with 'mindset philosophy' - but will do some googling :)
I guess a good classical example that comes to mind would be Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (currently listening to this so it came to mind), or something more modern and niche like Gorilla Mindset.
I have to concede to your point on the value of those things, but the question would be of value to whom? I personally find those examinations valuable. My mechanic probably doesn't care, but he might listen to his buddy give him a new perspective on his recent relationship problems that allow him to think positively again. It's not one size fits all, which is obvious to both of us and I certainly understand not the point you were trying to make.
Your comment on academic philosphers in general I thinks is spot on and I fully agree.
Oh and I can't understate enough what an amateur I am on the topic, so if I am misusing some of these terms or mischaracterizing some of the positions I apologize.
I so much love this. So enlightening!
there you go. i waited with my vote until i got my payout and my vote is a t 100% :)