Topics Philosophy

Question Do you ever find the questions of philosophy to be mundane and rather inconsequential to our lives, not just in the daily sense but in totality? What about poverty, inequality, war, and our individual responsibility in these areas? Isn't there so much to learn, and if so, why are we philosophers instead asking about the finer details of whether a hypothetical barber of a hypothetical village shaves the hypothetical beard of hypothetical men??

Accepted:
August 9, 2007

Comments

A couple of points. First, your worry about the irrelevance or unimportance of philosophy applies differently to different areas of philosophy. There are many kinds of philosophical issues. Many ethical issues -- for instance, the sort of issues about poverty, inequality, war, and individual responsibility to which you allude -- are or raise philosophical issues. Of course, redressing poverty and inequality or preventing or protesting war are different from thinking about conceptual issues at stake in these issues or debates about them. Nonetheless clear thinking about these issues can be relevant to redressing them successfully. So at least parts of philosophy address the sorts of moral and political issues you care about. So, second, we might turn to those parts of philosophy that concern more recondite issues about metaphysics and epistemology (broadly understood) that seem to have a less direct bearing on the sorts of moral and political issues that concern you. Of course, thinking about metaphysical and epistemological issues may be relevant to addressing some misconceptions about morality (e.g. that morality is just a matter of taste) that stand in the way of reasoned moral and political argument. Or it may help sharpen all-purpose analytical skills that are relevant to and helpful in moral and political reasoning. But though metaphysics and epistemology might prove relevant to moral and political progress in some way, it's not clear why they have to be. Surely, there is value in intellectual curiosity, creativity, and knowledge that can be recognized and prized, alongside the value of moral and political progress. To think otherwise, would be to accept a narrowly moralistic conception of value. Eliminating poverty, inequality, and war are important social goals, though I doubt that they should be our only social goals. In any case, it strikes me that there are many people who lead valuable lives and have an important impact on the lives of those around them who do not make the elimination of poverty, inequality, and war the organizing theme of their professional lives (e.g. plumbers, mathematicians, cabinet makers, artists, professional musicians, and metaphysicians). It's no doubt a good thing that some people do make careers out of these moral and political causes, and perhaps all of us need to make a bigger commitment to them than we do in volunteer work, charitable giving, and the ballot box. But it would be a morally procrustean world in which we had to forego all convenience, family life, art, and knowledge until we had solved these social problems.