The Many Problems of Philosophy
Philosophers busy themselves with a host of problems, not the least of which has been the nature of the discipline itself. In the twentieth century almost every major philosopher has spoke about the end of the discipline, or the need to bring it to a close. As Wittgenstein said, the goal is to show the “fly the way out of the fly bottle.”
The problem with philosophy could be discerned by most high school students, and hence often informs their decision not to pursue such a course of study. Philosophers pose questions which it is often not possible to answer, in principle. (In addition, and perhaps because of lack of tangible progress among other reasons, there is little market demand for philosophers.) There are no agreed upon methods of coming to consensus, leading to raucous debates where members of one camp accuse the other of engaging in “non-sense.” From afar, this is amusing of course precisely because there are no agreed upon standards to determine truth from falsity in the field. So either philosophers do make progress, providing answers to questions, or they provide entertainment; currently, they are doing poorly by both metrics.
We can say that philosophers who advocate the end of the discipline at least showed a modicum of integrity, but this is not always the case. Naturally, philosophy as part of the education market is a business, and it needs clients, namely, students. So at the University of Windsor (which seems to be typical in this respect), philosophy is promoted, among other reasons “because we can study the best minds in history.” Studying the best minds in history is perhaps a spurious strategy, since it forces us to tacitly assume that doing so will lead us be have at the least very good minds. But we have reason not to believe this to be true: much better often to actually seek out problems and solutions ourselves, by employing empirical or mathematical methods. Many of the so-called “best minds” were so because they spoke to some need at the time; and not a few of them have held social views that we may find far from savory today, making them questionable role models.
When philosophers have problems, they go to the library. Among the stacks, they read what other people say about an issue, agreeing, adding their own twist, or developing a new position. The discipline, then, is both backward looking, that is historical, and inward looking, depending almost solely on archival research.
But perhaps philosophers serve some high social role linked to social justice. We have reason for doubt. Compounding matters, the humanities generally, and philosophy specifically, tend to be populated by people of European descent studying and writing about their own intellectual history, with a myopic view of "the other," as they call it; at least in Canada, I have not met a Black philosopher. Compared to the humanities, the natural sciences seem more human by being more open to involving people from diverse backgrounds, which is ironic.
The only thing capping philosophical activity is administrative leaders that determine how much money to allocate to the study of the classics, and how much to engineering. Also, as mentioned earlier, student enrollment is a factor.
Sure, at its best, philosophy still can engage us with the big questions and be interdisciplinary. But anyone with a fleeting exposure to the discipline knows it can be one of the most conservative in every respect, involving us in debates where really nothing is at stake. I have always held that philosophy is like prostitution; it has been around for a long time and is probably not going away anytime soon. But even in the “oldest profession,” books must be balanced, and this can likely only happen in philosophy if it is deemed to be relevant and inclusive, two things that are far from clear.
For my part, after not finding employment in philosophy, I was somewhat forced out of the fly bottle. Being educated first in philosophy, I had struggled to define myself, not fitting into a neat pigeonhole like “Hume scholar”; this was compounded by doing further studies in the social sciences and conducting interdisciplinary research. I admit it. It is fulfilling to have contact with the external world, to pursue a course of understanding that relates to my life, and to be able to help others purse passions that can have a high probability of terminating in employment. It is a new day, but not every day.
The problem with philosophy could be discerned by most high school students, and hence often informs their decision not to pursue such a course of study. Philosophers pose questions which it is often not possible to answer, in principle. (In addition, and perhaps because of lack of tangible progress among other reasons, there is little market demand for philosophers.) There are no agreed upon methods of coming to consensus, leading to raucous debates where members of one camp accuse the other of engaging in “non-sense.” From afar, this is amusing of course precisely because there are no agreed upon standards to determine truth from falsity in the field. So either philosophers do make progress, providing answers to questions, or they provide entertainment; currently, they are doing poorly by both metrics.
We can say that philosophers who advocate the end of the discipline at least showed a modicum of integrity, but this is not always the case. Naturally, philosophy as part of the education market is a business, and it needs clients, namely, students. So at the University of Windsor (which seems to be typical in this respect), philosophy is promoted, among other reasons “because we can study the best minds in history.” Studying the best minds in history is perhaps a spurious strategy, since it forces us to tacitly assume that doing so will lead us be have at the least very good minds. But we have reason not to believe this to be true: much better often to actually seek out problems and solutions ourselves, by employing empirical or mathematical methods. Many of the so-called “best minds” were so because they spoke to some need at the time; and not a few of them have held social views that we may find far from savory today, making them questionable role models.
When philosophers have problems, they go to the library. Among the stacks, they read what other people say about an issue, agreeing, adding their own twist, or developing a new position. The discipline, then, is both backward looking, that is historical, and inward looking, depending almost solely on archival research.
But perhaps philosophers serve some high social role linked to social justice. We have reason for doubt. Compounding matters, the humanities generally, and philosophy specifically, tend to be populated by people of European descent studying and writing about their own intellectual history, with a myopic view of "the other," as they call it; at least in Canada, I have not met a Black philosopher. Compared to the humanities, the natural sciences seem more human by being more open to involving people from diverse backgrounds, which is ironic.
The only thing capping philosophical activity is administrative leaders that determine how much money to allocate to the study of the classics, and how much to engineering. Also, as mentioned earlier, student enrollment is a factor.
Sure, at its best, philosophy still can engage us with the big questions and be interdisciplinary. But anyone with a fleeting exposure to the discipline knows it can be one of the most conservative in every respect, involving us in debates where really nothing is at stake. I have always held that philosophy is like prostitution; it has been around for a long time and is probably not going away anytime soon. But even in the “oldest profession,” books must be balanced, and this can likely only happen in philosophy if it is deemed to be relevant and inclusive, two things that are far from clear.
For my part, after not finding employment in philosophy, I was somewhat forced out of the fly bottle. Being educated first in philosophy, I had struggled to define myself, not fitting into a neat pigeonhole like “Hume scholar”; this was compounded by doing further studies in the social sciences and conducting interdisciplinary research. I admit it. It is fulfilling to have contact with the external world, to pursue a course of understanding that relates to my life, and to be able to help others purse passions that can have a high probability of terminating in employment. It is a new day, but not every day.
Labels: economics, inclusion, Philosophy
posted by Anoop Gupta at 12:43
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home