When I tell people I'm a philosophy student and that I intend to hopefully spend my life learning, teaching and writing philosophy, I'm almost universally met with a specific look. This look can be described with words like confusion, skepticism, amusement and exasperation. Confusion - because most people don't really understand philosophy and don't profess to. Skepticism - because most people initially fail to see the value which can result from studying philosophy. Amusement - because most people think of this area of study as somehow trivial. Exasperation - because people think I'm simply idling in this field until I find something better. While the presence of each of these attitudes is more or less apparent in the looks of varying individuals, they are usually all present in some degree.
It's important to make clear that I haven't chosen to write about the look in order to complain or tell people that they should take me more seriously. From an outsider's perspective, I can sympathize with all of these attitudes. Yet I also believe all of them to be, more or less, unfounded. This often results from a lack of appropriate understanding as to what we as philosophers actually do, as well as how one could benefit from participating.
So, like any decent philosopher, I'm going to attempt to give reasoned responses to these positions via this blog. My aims here will be twofold: first - to help provide a general understanding of philosophy and the issues it attempts to address; and second - to show how the pursuit of philosophical understanding can be enormously fruitful both in terms of understanding the world and aiding us in everyday life.
What is philosophy?
I've faced a large plethora of responses when I tell people what I study. Everything from "Can you tell me the meaning of life?" to "So you're trying to read my mind right now, right?" Some people think that we essentially write bumper sticker-isms (e.g. "you can never step in the same river twice"). Others think that we are part of some branch of religious study. While none of these are correct characterizations, some hint at some of the projects we participate in.
Philosophers love dictionary definitions. The appropriate use of words is of paramount importance to understanding subtle differences between difficult, often abstract concepts. Many historically huge philosophical problems have come about as a result of misuse or misunderstanding of language. The dictionary is thus a good starting place for our account.
Dictionary.com defines philosophy in this way:
The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
While not entirely unproblematic, this is a good working definition. I'm going to take each part of this sentence in turn, as each part requires specification; starting with the word 'truth.' Aristotle provides a classic formulation of the everyday definition of truth:
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true"
In more readily accessible language; we characterize a belief or a statement as being true if the state of affairs obtains in the real world. If I believe that "my bedroom wall is yellow", then my belief will be true if and only if my bedroom wall actually is yellow. Thus the pursuit of truth is the project of discovering what beliefs and statements obtain in the real world.
While acknowledging that this sense of 'truth' is philosophically problematic and controversial, the every- day notion will work for our present purposes. The basic idea of the search for truth is not something unique to philosophy. The natural and social sciences both make it their project to attempt to understand truth in their area of study. Yet while we as philosophers often work closely with scientists and utilize their findings in our own work, our project is different. The difference is captured in the first few words of the definition: "Rational investigation."
When a physicist studies the behavior of physical objects by doing experiments, she is participating in a type of investigation. However it is not "rational" investigation. She is using methods of observation and experimentation, and these are known as “empirical” methods rather than rational ones. Essentially, scientists of all varieties simply look at the world and report what they discover. The philosopher on the other hand takes observations of the world and uses these facts to derive other conclusions which are only possible through reason, reflection and argumentation. If the scientist tells us that human beings are descended from the same ancestors as the great apes, the philosopher then asks questions such as: How does that affect our understanding of our supposedly uniquely human qualities, such as rationality? Are these just matters of degree? What does this say about the way we should treat animals? Etc.
The distinction is somewhat arbitrary in practice. Most scientists go further than simply recording their findings, and attempt to draw some philosophical conclusions. Conversely, philosophers will often participate in empirical investigations of the natural and social sciences. However, these are useful labels as general indicators of which parts of the truth project we are involved with.
The end of the definition indicates the fields of study which are included under the banner of “philosophy”: Being, knowledge and conduct. This is not exhaustive, and the list itself can be drawn up in many different ways. However these three things do cover much of the ground of conventional philosophy.
The first two, being and knowledge are discussed in the fields of metaphysics and epistemology, respectively. The big questions that are associated with each are “What is the nature of reality?” and “What is the nature of our knowledge?” While these are distinct fields, I group them together here to make note of the fact that they are often very deeply intertwined. After all, to really figure out what exists, we need to know that our perceptions of the world are accurate, and to understand knowledge, we need to have a specific account of one part of reality (namely, what human beings are like.) The big project here is this: What is true of the world? So constructed, the project will include another major branch of philosophy; logic, or the study of argumentation.
Some of the major sub branches of this part of philosophy include philosophy of mind (what is the nature of consciousness?), philosophy of language (How does language effect our understanding of the world?), philosophy of science (What do the natural sciences tell us about the world and how do we reconcile this with our experiences?) and philosophy of religion (Are there deities? Does fate exist?) The list can be multiplied at great length.
The last word in the definition is “conduct.” This term indicates a distinct, but again heavily intertwined branch of philosophy which concerns ethics and morality. While this branch is often referred to as “ethics” or “moral philosophy”, these are very controversial terms and do not necessarily encompass all that we mean to discuss. The term “value theory” has been considered as a possibly better title, as at its base what we are talking about is what we should value. There are three kinds of questions that are addressed in value theory: How should we treat other people/animals/objects? What constitutes a valuable life? What should be considered beautiful? This last question indicates the field called “aesthetics.”
Common kinds of questions involved in value theory include: What is the relationship between doing the right thing and being good? What kind of life is valuable? Is morality universal, and if so how? How do concepts like happiness, respect, justice and virtue factor into the picture? And so on.
The point of this first post has been to give a general picture of the projects of philosophers, without getting into much detail. In fact, I have barely just glossed the surface of the complexity which is present in these questions. For those who will be reading this blog, this first post will serve as a good primer for understanding what will be discussed later on in greater depth. I’d like to stress that nearly everything that is studied in philosophy is controversial to some degree or another. If you are looking for hard and fast answers, this is not the field for you. However, if these problems attract you, I encourage you to keep reading or study on your own (or both). I named the blog “In Wonder” from another quote from Aristotle: Philosophy begins in wonder. What he means by this is that genuine curiosity and desire to understand the world are what really drives the philosopher, and this is what sets us apart. Stay curious. Thanks for reading.
P.S. - Good philosophers welcome (good) criticism with open arms. Its the only way that our positions improve. So please give me feedback about anything I write and I'll at the very least check it out and take it seriously. Also if anyone wants to contribute something to this blog, particularly about something that I'm not knowledgeable about, please let me know. I'd love to have other perspectives, so long as they are reasonable and informed.
