Philosophy

What makes a question a philosophical question precisely? For instance the question what makes a question a philosophical question" SOUNDS to me like a philosophical question But why? Is it that it's abstract? Well in what way does a question have to be abstract to qualify as abstract in a manner that makes it a philosophical question? Are there abstract questions that aren't philosophical? I suppose the question "Does so and so love me?" would be abstract in some sense since it deals with the abstract topic of love but it isn't a philosophical question. So then a philosophical question is more than simply an abstract question. Perhaps the question is philosophical because it was concerned in someway with what defines something. So the question "Do all mothers love?" seems very close to a philosophical question but it isn't since whether mothers love or not doesn't directly bear on what a mother is (or if it does it does so only by inference). But are there philosophical questions that are not concerned with the definition of an abstract something? Okay maybe ethical question don't concern themselves with the definition of an abstract something. For instance "Is it wrong to eat animals?" seems like it could be interpreted as concerning itself with is in the realm of what constituted wrongness? So then if a philosophical question is concerned with abstract definitions what is an abstract definition? Are all philosophical questions then in someway ontological?

Comments

To use an analogy, one might say that the question and answer are like the diastolic and systolic action of the heart. Historically, as in the Platonic dialogues, we find the use of the pointed question to promote dialectical inquiry, in the Socratic sense. Socrates poses a series of questions to his conversational partners that essentially lead them, step-by-step, to answers. However, these end points are not always positive outcomes. Euthyphro, for example, after Socrates questions him, realizes that he actually knows nothing about the concept of piety despite his claim of positive knowledge. He leaves in a huff. Crito, to take another example, through a series of questions posed by Socrates, comes to understand that Socrates’ refusal to flee from an unjust sentence of death is grounded in a deeper understanding of his relation to the City and the Law itself.

More recently, philosophers have explored the logic of question and answer. The basic idea is that a well-formed philosophical inquiry dealing with complicated concepts, such as justice or love or beauty, proceeds step-by-step through smaller questions that can be answered. The expectation is that even if a final or ultimate answer is not reached, at least some partial understanding can be gained.

Finally, one might say that philosophers are keenly aware of an inverse relationship between the specificity and generality of questions and answers. As questions and answers become increasingly abstract or general, application to the specifics of life is neither easy to do nor unproblematic in its own right. Consider ethical questions, such as the one you raise by way of example: "Is it wrong to eat animals?" And the philosophical inquiry begins, again as you’ve noted, with a question: "Define wrong behavior." But an answer -- an abstract notion-- to that question does not automatically lead to an answer as to the rightness or wrongness of eating animals -- a specific situation.

Read another response by Max Oelschlaeger

Read another response about Philosophy