Philosophy

When philosophers try to answer a question like 'is it right to do X?', or 'do I have a soul?', they are asking the same questions which we all ask, and answer for ourselves, in everyday life. If philosophers research these questions intensively (perhaps for many years) before publishing their findings, and if even then there will be some counterarguments, how can we ever hope to find approximately true answers in our less formal, everyday musings? Thank you.

Comments

I very much like your expression, "approximately true answers." That, it seems to me, is all that any of us can realistically hope to achieve in our thoughts about many things. So, perhaps, the only difference between the musings of the best philosophers and the most ordinary of people would be the degree of approximation they strive for--and in the best of cases, achieve.

One of the things that has always concerned me on this sort of issue is the worry that our questions themselves betray us in their presumptions. Let me give you and example of a blatantly presumptuous question: Have you stopped abusing your lover?

Blatantly presumptuous questions, of course, are fairly easy to deal with, because we can spot their false presumptions so readily. But might some of our most basic questions also have flawed presumptions? Let me use the ones you mention as examples. "Is it right to do X" obviously presumes that there is such a thing (or, if not a "thing," at least some applicable concept) as being "right." But we might worry about what the options are here. Are they simply "right" and "wrong"? Or do they include "neutral," as well? Is "neutral" the same as "permissible," or is that a different option, closer to "right," but not necessarily precisely the same thing as "right"? And are there degrees of any or all of these (such that the lowest degree of "right" might still leave a bad taste in the mouths of those with the highest standards). Or is "right" even the best way to think of what we're really after here? Does it change the question if we substitute "good" for "right"? How about "advantageous," or "beneficial," or "virtuous" and all of the alternative options they might provide?

How about "Do I have a soul?" Exactly what would be required to "have a soul"? Is consciousness enough? Or does there have to be some thing that is somehow "within" or "attached" to one--perhaps an immortal thing--in order for one to have a soul? People have been talking about souls (and what has and what doesn't have them) as long as there has been philosophy, but do we really have any clear idea of what we are talking about here? If not, the presumptions of our questions in this area are ones we can't possibly be clear about.

"Approximately true answers"...yes, indeed. If you are deliberating about some specific course of action, then perfectly ordinary minds can go through the process of surveying the options that appear to be available, and considering the values of each. Better minds will find more options, and will do, perhaps, a more disciplined (less merely impulsive or merely emotional) job of evaluating those options. The best minds will find options the rest of us would never have found, without their help (and we hope they will help by publishing their discoveries, if they are generally applicable!), and may also provide the clearest and best thought-out evaluations of these options. But given that our questions themselves (no matter how learned and brilliant the minds that seek to answer them) are likely to be flawed from false presumptions, I think we will only ever arrive at "approximately true answers," and I suspect that those reached by even quite ordinary folks, when they do their best, have proven to be entirely adequate to live by. So your question, in a way, becomes, "just how much more than 'adequate' is good enough for me?" The answer to that question, I think, will tell you whether you are a philosopher or not!

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Philosophy