Philosophy

I have a friend who is a top philosophy student. She is also one of the top English students, but bristled at the suggestion that an excellent grasp of language did, in some way, confer upon her her superior ability in conducting philosophical argument. Is this link between proficiency in the language of philosophical argument and one's ability to make philosophical argument too tenuous? Or is philosophy like mathematics, bound by certain axiomatic rules which must be mastered and manipulated with discipline in order to authoritatively address philosophical problems(with the language of the axioms being insignificantly marginal)?

Comments

It's hard to see how one could be good at philosophy without a good deal of linguistic subtlety. That said, there are many things that might count as having an excellent grasp of language, and not all of them are especially relevant to being a good philosopher. Someone who is very sensitive to the expressive and poetic qualities of language might have very little analytical ability, and very little feel for philosophical thinking. And some excellent philosophers have very little capacity for literary appreciation, let alone for writing graceful prose.

We could multiply examples. Some people are gifted at making spontaneous puns. They may not have any philosophical ability for all that, and many good philosophers no doubt lack this talent. It would be hard to be a good philosopher if one had an impoverished vocabulary. But having a rich stock of words doesn't by itself signal philosophical skill.

And on it goes. Some kinds of linguistic ability are necessary for being a good philosopher. But others aren't, and in any case high verbal skill is compatible with low philosophical talent. That's because, for all its reliance on words well wielded, philosophy is much more than that.

A footnote, however. One wag defined philosophy as the systematic misuse of words designed expressly for that purpose. I'm not so cynical, but on some days I can understand what might have provoked the thought.

It is hard to think straight about philosophical questions and it's even harder to write clearly about them. If you're like me, you've had the experience of feeling like you are thinking straight about a philosophical question, but when you try to explain it to someone or write about it, it just doesn't come out right. (My students sometimes say things like, "Well, I know what I mean but it's hard to explain.")

Perhaps there are philosophical geniuses who just can't get their ideas out well (indeed, perhaps this applies to some who are recognized as philosophical geniuses!). But I think being able to express philosophical thoughts and arguments in a way others can interpret intelligibly (rather than just interpret however they please) is a necessary ability for being a good philosopher. And hence, being a good writer and/or teacher (e.g., Socrates) is a necessary ability for being a good philosopher.

Two things I tell my students when writing papers are relevant here:

1. Think of writing a philosophy paper as teaching a good friend about a really interesting issue. Write in such a way that your friend could understand what you are talking about.

2. When writing, remember the problem of other minds: your thoughts seem clear to you but others cannot read your mind--they can only read your words. So, make sure your words clearly express your--no doubt, wonderful-- thoughts.

{This is my first response on AskPhilosophers. I'm excited to be a part of this wonderful forum!}

Read another response by Allen Stairs, Eddy Nahmias

Read another response about Philosophy