Topics Philosophy

Question This is a question about the pertinence and legitimacy of the approach towards contemporary philosophy. Increasingly it seems that philosophy has become divorced from common culture, which is sad as the subject has offered so much insight on, and for the sake of, society throughout the ages. Since the advent of the 'new realism' philosophers do not, as I understand, attempt to build systems of philosophy but rather try to answer small and well-defined questions with consistency and through giving a justification for their own notions. However, there seems to be several problems with this approach which I will present: (a) One can be consistently false. In particular, if one focuses on small questions, chances are one is just not including anything within the remit which will challenge one's argument. (b) If one begins from the standpoint of one's own intuitive notions, this is effectively reinforcing one's own opinion and bias. If two people give an argument justifying their opinion, this will not make either of them correct unless there is some sort of objective mediating process by which a judgement based upon arriving at an understanding of the inherent nature of the subject. (c) Finally, without a concept of the Absolute or, say, Truth, and a derivation from first principles in relation to this, there is no way to know whether one is consistently supporting a delusion which is called by the fancy name of "intuition." Because of this focus on the subjective notions of the philosopher, philosophy appears to have become generally detached from the contemplation of Truth which is required for any substantial insight into the universe or society. However, how can this mode of argument, if I have apprehended it adequately, have any legitimacy to it? If each philosopher is only justifying his own opinion, without having a collective shared concept on posssible perspectives on an Absolute from which this would be dialectically derived, doesn't philosophy just become a game in which each player is placing down his stakes but only to advance the furthest for little peices of trifles?

Accepted:
April 30, 2007

Comments

I have often found the appeal to intuitions, unsatisfying and sloppy. But I'm not sure it's always so, especially in cases where the intuition is widely shared, or anyway shared by the audience or readership. In that case, it is true that the intuition itself lacks scrutiny, but I have my doubts that we can ever get to the sort of bedrock Absolutes you describe. In fact, even with an appeal to the Absolute, I don't see any way one can be sure one isn't consistently supporting a delusion--since one's appeal to the Absolute might be erroneous. In fact, the many different Absolutes that people have promote today demonstrates that most and perhaps all appeals to the Absolute comprise systems, perhaps even consistent systems, of falsehood.

And in any case, is there any difference between calling "p" an Absolute Truth from saying simply, "I believe p very strongly"? I'm inclined to say that appeals to Absolutes and articles of faith impede philosophical discussion by placing certain ideas beyond scrutiny. Rather than organize one's thought around some pretended Absolute, it's better to say, instead, "Here's the way I see things. And here's why. Do you follow me in this? If not, then please explain why you don't. I stand open to hearing you out and changing my view if I find your account compelling. I don't claim any special access to the truth beyond yours, and I don't pretend to any superhuman knowledge or revelations. In short, I don't insulate my claims from challenge or correction by call them 'Absolute'. So, commrade, friend, equal, let's talk." Properly used, "intuitions" may serve a similar function.

With regard to pilosophy being divorced from common culture, I think you're right that philosophers are in part to blame. But I have my doubts about the absence of Absolutes being the cause. Philosophers are, and generally have been, astoningly bad writers. The topics with which philosophers have been occupied over the last century have been terribly arcane and abstruse--real angels-and-heads-of-pins stuff. Moreover, especially in the United States, there's a vicious streak of anti-intellectualism in popular culture--a good bit of which is cultivated by religious adherents to various (and inconsistent) Absolutes, another portion is generated by our culture of consumption, acquisition, celebrity, and spectacle, and perhaps another portion our brutish preference for violence over reason. But perhaps contrary to you view, I see plenty of signs that philosophy is making inroads into popular culture. I have found occasionally stunning examples of the way philosophers' ideas have found their way into popular culture, even the cultures of children. (Recently, when I was addressing a group of 13 year-olds, one of them offered me a fairly clear gloss of Robert Nozick's political theory.) Many philosophy texts aimed at a general audience are selling briskly. Britain is sustaining at least three magazines devoted to philosophy: The Philosophers' Magazine, Philosophy Now, and Think. Philosophy classes at universities seem to be gaining in popularity. (Philosophy ought to be taught in primary and secondary schools, too.) It's hardly a deluge, but my hope is that humanistic thought drew philosophy out of the cloister of the middle ages, a new kind of humanism will make philosophy more popular today.