Thomas Hill and Bertrand Russell On What Philosophy Can Offer

Thomas Hill is a Kantian scholar and philosopher who has published many papers on concepts like respect for persons and human dignity. In one such piece, Hill diverges from his main discussion to provide some good insight as to what we can really hope for out of philosophical reflection. The passage was pretty striking for me, as it addresses concerns I have had myself about the purpose of pursuing philosophy:

The practical problems raised here are major, complex problems in the real world, and so, one may wonder, what has philosophy to do with them? Obviously, mere thinking will not make the problems disappear. Nor does one presume, when offering philosophical reflections, that everyone will be convinced. The major questions that moral philosophy addresses are, in the end, normative ones that each of us must answer for ourselves. They ask, Where should a reasonable person stand on various issues and why? One obvious reason that moral philosophy cannot eliminate concrete problems, such as bigotry and intolerance, is that it can never make itself heard beyond a limited audience; but even when serious people listen, it has no magical power to coerce assent. At best, by doing moral philosophy one can offer others only the product of one's efforts to think through normative problems honestly and clearly, together with a commitment to live by the results. For oneself, engaging in moral philosophy can help to structure a life of integrity, by identifying what one can conscientiously live for, the normative ground where one finds one must finally stand after scrutinizing one's initial beliefs for hypocrisy, self deception, parochialism and prejudice. By philosophizing with others, one can hope for greater agreement, within limits; but, beyond that, when agreement proves impossible, one can only hope for respectful disagreement.

The limited kind of understanding and agreement which Hill refers to here is something familiar to anyone who has engaged in philosophical reflection. While he is referring to moral philosophy specifically, the attitude pervades all its fields. One of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century analytic tradition, Bertrand Russell, wrote prolifically about mathematics, philosophy of mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science and social and moral philosophy. Thus his perspective is one which could be safely said to be informed on what philosophy can offer. In a chapter of his landmark "History of Western Philosophy", he offers the following:

Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.

These quotes both indicate modest expectations for our hopes about discovering truth and reaching agreement about it. This hopelessness leads many to frustration and disillusionment with the project; often opting to retreat into a kind of cynical skepticism. To the skeptic - I have no response to offer except to say that we have good reasons to believe many of the things we do, and good reasons for doubting them. We should not be dogmatic either in clinging to the truth of our beliefs or in abandoning their justification. As Russell says, we have to learn to live without certainty while simultaneously maintaining beliefs about the world. I'll have more to say about this in the future but I thought this might be a good brief introduction to the problems of skepticism and doubt.

Further Reading:

Thomas Hill - Respect For Humanity

Bertrand Russell - The History Of Western Philosophy

Philosophical Virtues (I)

Aristotle's ethics is unique among other commonly endorsed systems of morality in that the importance of being good is understood in terms of people, as opposed to actions. While Utilitarianism and Kantianism judge if someone has acted ethically based on the content of an action, Aristotle's virtue ethics judges people on the content of their character. People flourish by way of cultivating certain character traits, or virtues (e.g. courage, wisdom, kindness, etc.) The goal of our ethical choices should thus be to cultivate whatever relevant virtue is effected and people can be judged as having accomplished this more or less successfully. However, Aristotle also makes it clear that being virtuous means being moderate in how we approach virtues. It is possible to be too courageous or too kind.

People don't need to understand Aristotelian ethics to understand virtues. And whether or not we accept Aristotle's account, I believe the the concept of "virtue" to be a useful one. Using this model, I've compiled a preliminary list of virtues which are seen as central in being a good philosopher, but which I also believe to be important social values which have been largely lost. Like Aristotle's virtues, these of course need to be cultivated in moderation. I've indicated three which I find important. However these are meant to indicate a more holistic conception of what a good philosopher looks like. The distinctions therefore will not be hard and fast but loose and general with certain ideas overlapping. The three discussed in this first post are related in that they defend against bias; both from ourselves and from others.

Humility

Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy" is one of the most famous works from the period of modern philosophy. Descartes makes his project to essentially subject his entire system of beliefs to a rigorous methodological skepticism by examining each belief in turn and disregarding those which are not absolutely certain. What is left is very minimal. All of his sense perceptions, memories and beliefs about the external world are all found to be less than certain. In fact the only thing which can always be demonstrated as being certain is that as long as he is thinking, he must necessarily exist. This is the basis for the phrase "I think therefore, I am" or "cogito ergo sum" in Latin. While Descartes did not actually believe that he was being deceived about the nature of reality, he recognized that practically nothing is known with absolute certainty.

After a short period of time participating in philosophical inquiry, anyone will quickly discover that Descartes is right. There are very few things, especially in philosophy, that are known with certainty. In general, our understanding of the world becomes more complex and uncertain the closer we examine it. Thus philosophers learn to maintain a sort of balancing act. To make intellectual progress, we can't expect to be certain and need to be satisfied with a level of probability. On the other hand we need to be constantly re-evaluating our conclusions and the reasons for them. This requires that we be grounded and maintain humility by recognizing that as individual people, our understanding will be limited in many ways. Taking truth seriously means calling yourself (as well as others) out on bullshit arguments and flawed reasoning. This requires one to be fearless in approaching deeply held beliefs, which leads to my next virtue.

Emotional detachment

By its very nature, philosophical inquiry will challenge beliefs which are embedded in our individual perceptions of the world. This is true of all its sub fields, but perhaps most noticeably in ethics. Its no surprise, therefore that people who don't spend much of their time doing philosophy will be inclined to react strongly to ideas in which they have a strong emotional investment. This will lead otherwise reasonable people express much more extreme views than they would under conditions of objectivity. For instance, two people debating the ethicality of abortion might share the view that there are some instances where abortion is justified and others where it is not, while disagreeing about exactly when. Yet if the discussion were to escalate in the way that most heated debates do, the opposing positions would become much more polarized simply because the parties will begin to feel that they are being personally attacked, rather than simply the view which they are defending. When people feel like they are being attacked, they become defensive and the discussion becomes a fight. They will forget the subtlety of their arguments and instead put up the most extreme defense possible. The two arguing over abortion will quickly lose sight of the closeness of their views and instead assume polarized positions under the banner "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

I don't mean to imply that people don't really have (sometimes radically) differing views. On the contrary, philosophers will often fail to see eye to eye on very fundamental issues. But good philosophers acknowledge that each perspective general will have certain strengths and weakness. Nor do I mean to imply that its necessarily a bad thing to have extreme views. However, one must constantly reassess his views and ask "Is my position the product of reasoned deliberation? Or am I just reacting to a position emotionally? Or without serious consideration?" Most people aren't in this habit. It seems to be a product of a society which lets people believe that their opinions are okay no matter how unfounded or unjustified. Intellectual laziness is a concern that has wide ranging implications; not the least of which that it turns reasoned debates into shouting matches. Thus I believe that every day people can gain a lot from cultivating this particular virtue.

One last point - I do not mean to imply that there is necessarily something wrong with being emotionally invested in a belief. Authenticity and commitment are virtues which have their own kind of value. I simply mean that in philosophical, as well as every day deliberation, failing to acknowledge that emotional attachment can skew one's perceptions of the issue can lead to a position which is not the product of an impartial observer committed to discovering truth but one who has a vested interest in the outcome.

Charity

The project of truth requires objectivity, which in turn requires both emotional detachment and a willingness to listen and take seriously the views of others. Kantian ethics describes people as rational moral agents, capable of having a conception of what is valuable and pursuing it, while acknowledging and respecting that others will have differing but still reasonable conceptions of their own. Respecting people as "project pursuers" in the language of Thomas Hill, means that we can't simply write off their ends, and must generally allow for their free pursuit without interference. Humans are uniquely valuable because of their ability to use rationality and this imposes a requirement for respect.

Like Aristotle, we do not need to endorse the Kantian position to take something of value away from it. The argument for respecting someone else's viewpoint can be extended to public deliberation in general. Just as human reason allows for different conceptions of the good to flourish in each individual, it also allows for different explanations and ideas which contribute to deliberation in general. Taking seriously the views of others is an important part of the project of truth. Respect also has a more practical function in terms of objectivity. Being objective requires being open minded as to possible flaws in our arguments and chains of reasoning. Taking opposing views seriously could help in finding these flaws and adding important insights which we fail to see initially. Therefore, it is important to give an argument the most charitable possible interpretation possible; which means we should make our focus to examine and deliberate the major argument which the other person is attempting to convey, rather than picking at small problems which are not necessarily crucial. Obviously we shouldn't take this to the extreme of failing to pick out real flaws in the argument. The goal is to give the best possible argument for a position and see where it goes wrong, without bias or prejudice.

This is list is, of course, preliminary and only meant to indicate a few aspects of the ideal philosopher related to objectivity. I have tried to show that these virtues not only aid in philosophical deliberation but also have more practical implications as well. My hope is that people will take these seriously and make an effort to notice when they are reasoning or debating in a biased way. I hope to expand on other philosophical virtues in future posts. But for now, this should give you something to chew on.

Further Reading:

Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics

Descartes - Meditations On First Philosophy

Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

*All of these are classics and available for free at various locations on the internet.