How do/should we DO philosophy?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I wrote this in another thread, but it occurs to me that it might be a worthwhile topic for discussion here. Are there guidelines - or something similar - that have been discussed and described already? I'm not asking for your opinions here, useful and interesting though I'm sure they are, I'm wondering if there is an equivalent to all the dictionaries that define "philosophy", that describes how philosophical inquiry is, or should be, carried out?
Or is it, as I suspect, that this has never been written down? Have philosophers just assumed that they and their colleagues instinctively know how to go about philosophical inquiry?
What exactly is philosophy, in the sense of your words? What is it that philosophy demands of us? Is there a body of knowledge on philosophical inquiry, or on how philosophy is, or should be, practised? Is it written down anywhere? I've looked on the interweb, and surprised myself: I can't find anything along these lines. So can you, or anyone else, offer a better link than I have been able to find?
I wrote this in another thread, but it occurs to me that it might be a worthwhile topic for discussion here. Are there guidelines - or something similar - that have been discussed and described already? I'm not asking for your opinions here, useful and interesting though I'm sure they are, I'm wondering if there is an equivalent to all the dictionaries that define "philosophy", that describes how philosophical inquiry is, or should be, carried out?
Or is it, as I suspect, that this has never been written down? Have philosophers just assumed that they and their colleagues instinctively know how to go about philosophical inquiry?
Comments (41)
There is this excellent site if you have not come across it:
https://plato.stanford.edu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
That seems better! :smile: I'll read it shortly. Thanks. :up:
Quoting Devans99
Scientific method? Would we look in a cookery book to find out how to service a car engine? Would philosophical method not be more appropriate? :chin:
From the source above:
'Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories'
In philosophy, we are light on observation and experimentation, but the rest of it sounds like the ticket...
There is no one way to do philosophy, as long as all of those ways include thinking deeply about some aspect of ontology, epistemology, and axiology (which is about all there is).
That being said, there are more productive ways to do it. The tried and true method of the ancients is dialogue. And that's what we have here!
:up: :wink:
Quoting Devans99
We're surely "light on observation and experimentation", as science explores the matter-energy universe, while we explore the world of thought and thinking. We have nothing to observe, or to experiment on (if we ignore thought experiments :smile: ).
So that leaves us with reasoning (inductive and deductive) and testing (of hypotheses and theories).
Testing is almost as difficult for us as experimentation. We have nothing to do it on! Admittedly, there are circumstances where a particular piece of philosophy could be tested, but there are many more where testing isn't possible. So testing is of limited application to philosophy.
Inductive reasoning is not clearly accepted within science, never mind outside of it. Generalising from the particular is dodgy, if not downright wrong.
From all the items in the list you offer, it seems that only deductive reasoning might apply. And even that supposition is based only on there being no obvious reasons why we shouldn't apply deductive reasoning to philosophy. :chin:
Quoting Devans99
On the contrary, the fit seems poor, at best. :confused:
Science is inherently inductive. Both the theory of gravity and evolution are inductive knowledge. Most of the stuff we know is known inductively. So philosophy can't be without induction.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I think the problem is the general public have belief in the scientific method; if any philosophy does not follow the scientific method then it is regarded (by the general public) as unsound.
Remember that science was once (and still is) called natural philosophy.
Having read it, I found it to be a vague and very general examination of how philosophers do philosophy, with none of the details you might expect or hope for. Nowhere is there a list of guidelines, or anything like that. Only a general discussion of the sort of things that philosophical method might employ. Better than nothing (IMO), but not much.
Much has been said on this by philosophers themselves. Hume with his "consign it to the flames". Wittgenstein with his "whereof we cannot speak".
So you recommend that philosophy should (must?) adopt the scientific method because public confidence in philosophy might otherwise wane? More generally, I might observe that the general public know little of the scientific method, and care even less. Science is held up as a universal yardstick of reliability and trustworthiness, but only for as long as such claims are not carefully scrutinised, as any conscientious scientist or philosopher might do. :wink:
I don't see a credible argument for adopting scientific practices within philosophy. Science may have begun as a tool sprouting from certain schools of philosophy, but it left home long ago, and has been making its own way ever since. Science and philosophy are no longer the same (if they ever where), and standards which apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other.
If philosophy was tied to the scientific method, it would not be able to investigate any aspect of human culture, for a start. Although our everyday lives are lived literally in the space-time universe, they appear to us to be lived completely immersed in human culture(s). Philosophy could not, for example, consider the morality of Islamophobia or anti-semitism if it operated by the scientific method.
They both share logic (deductive, inductive, abductive reasoning) as a foundation.
If you look at how the two disciplines evolved, it is correct to say that science is a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy).
Quoting Pattern-chaser
We can have an abstract philosophical argument, say space is discrete, but that argument will not find general acceptance unless there is empirical evidence to back it up. This is the heart of the scientific method and philosophy must abide by it where possible in order to still be relevant.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I believe morality can be accounted for logically but that is another discussion. IMO everything is susceptible to logical and thus scientific/philosophical investigation.
[My highlighting.]
But, as I think you have already pointed out, when the subject matter is thought and thinking, empirical evidence is thin on the ground. So your "where possible" seems to mean "never", or something close to it. :chin:
So I think what I'm suggesting is that philosophy should employ as much of the scientific method as possible for a particular problem:
- Systematic observation and experimentation - philosophers observe nature and comment on it. They may perform experimentation too.
- Inductive and deductive reasoning - philosophers do this as a matter of course.
- The formation and testing of hypotheses and theories - philosophers should do this if possible.
Politics?
Music and art?
Religion and spirituality?
Katie Price (as a media phenomenon, not a person)?
You know of empirical evidence for (or against) the existence of God? I thought the main problem with that particular question is that there's no (empirical or other) evidence at all. :chin:
Its all a simple equality of short term < long term.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Music and art are mathematical. See for example the Golden Ratio.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Is basically a quest to answer the question 'what happens when we die?'. Possibly investigable empirically via 'Near Death Experiences'.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Possibly collecting data on her via a survey?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
The Big Bang is evidence for a first cause, which is sometimes taken as God. I believe there was a first cause for other reasons too though (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1)
You see, this is part of the problem. A scientific view of art and music fails to see the things that make them relevant and desirable to humans. The emotional appreciation (if I might call it that) of art/music is wholly invisible to science. It's as if you have proposed to investigate Monet's oil paintings by analysing the composition of his paints. Such an investigation would miss so much (of what is relevant to humans) about Monet's art that it's useless and pointless. The same applies if we think mathematics can describe or explain music in any meaningful or useful way.
But emotions are due to glands and chemicals in our brain/bodies. These things are investigable with science. We could correlate the patterns of music to the biological changes that take place.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
His paintings are about nature I think. So it would be a question of seeing what it is about nature that we find so fascinating. Nature is about patterns and patterns tend to be mathematical or subjectable to mathematical analysis.
For me, religion/spirituality tells me much more about how I might conduct my life, than what will happen later. I don't think science can investigate that. And if you think an investigation of near-death experience (which isn't actually death, as we all know) offers any useful understanding of religion, ... I don't know how to respond, except maybe "Really??? :chin:".
I am after the truth. These religions claim life after death. So life after death experiences do offer a way to assess the claims of conventional religion.
Yes, but the problem stays the same as for your other suggestions. If you were a Vulcan or a Romulan, an alien seeking to learn more about humanity, your suggestions are about as well as they could do. An external understanding of human behaviour, with no hint as to why humans behave in these ways. You are a human. I am a human. A scientific investigation into things such as I have listed would tell a human much less than they already knew about these things before they saw your conclusions.
And if you have any idea how knowledge of our glands and biochemicals could inform our knowledge of emotions, there are many people who would be very interested to speak with you, maybe even offer you money for your insights. It's as easy ( :wink: ) as understanding how Microsoft Word can help and support authors who use it, from an analysis of the raw bytes of WinWord.exe.
Christianity does. I think Islam and Judaism do too. But what about Taoism, Buddhism, or any of the other Eastern religions? "Religion" includes all religions, while you seem to be assuming, as many do, that religion = (American fundamentalist?) Christianity. Religions offer much more than life after death. And science cannot see any of it, never mind comment upon it usefully. Horses for courses. Science is a remarkable and useful tool, that has given us much. But it has its area of applicability, as any such tool does, and human culture, in all its madness, is not part of that area.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I'm no expert but adrenaline is the fight/flight chemical, dopamine the reward chemical. There is quite a science to it I believe.
Fundamentally I think science is about logic and logic is applicable to everything (the world is logical and humans are logical).
I beg to differ. We are capable, on occasion, of logical and rational behaviour, but you don't need me to provide a host of examples of humans not behaving so. I think we've taken this exchange as far as it can usefully go. Do you agree?
Ok, here’s a small example from chapter 56:
Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.
Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity.
Translated (very liberally) to read as advice on writing (philosophy or otherwise):
No need to shout or argue. More words count less. Don’t always trust your eyes and appearances. Words can be cutting, be careful. Know yourself, your faults most of all, for that’s like fertilizer. Shine the light on the subject matter, not yourself. Don’t write to impress, do so to express... and hopefully something beyond merely yourself...
Just a quick example. Eventually I hope to learn to follow its path. :blush:
[I'm a Gaian Daoist, so the TTC is close to my heart.]
I'm a Nietzschean, so I don't care much about the "truth". If I need to think about that, I'll think scientifically, but that's not usually why I'm thinking. And Devans99's mechanistic answers, although I more or less agree with them, are totally charmless. It's hard to think of those answers as informing a course of action. One of the ways Nietzsche described philosophers of the future was as "experimenters". And that seems good to me. Why not experiment with ways of living? Western Civ is dying anyway, and maybe the seed I plant will evolve into a culture. I don't think human knowledge is worth much, except as a tool for power (it is true to the extent it works). All there is to me in life is my biological functions: consume resources, protect myself, procreate and raise the young. I've taken each of these things a little farther, eg "raise the young" includes trying to establish traditions for my family/clan.
I pretty much leave people alone to their business. I don't care if they agree with me unless I need them to. Anyway, that's what philosophy is to me: given death, what should my life be?
Yes, Neitsche's philosophic spirit is far superior to the soulless analytical garbage pervading present day philosophy. His aphoristic style is particularly intriguing since it prevents him from falling into the temptation of system building. The aphoristic style also gives him the versatility to easily attack all topics from all angles, putting perspectivism into action.
Just read. Most relevant. Good stuff, in my amateur opinion. Succinctly and clearly written essay which proposes to rinse some of the starch out of philosophy writing. And open it up once again to varied literary approaches which are part of the tradition. That is, without dumbing it down to gain a wider audience. Here’s some highlights (imho) from the article:
[i]Genre considerations intensify the question of what should organise philosophical writing: dialogue, treatise, aphorism, essay, professional article and monograph, fragment, autobiography. And if one’s sensibility is more inclusive, letters, manifestos and interviews also become possibilities. No genre is fully scripted, however, hence the need to also consider logical-rhetorical operations: modus ponens, irony, transcendental arguments, allegory, images, analogies, examples, quotations, translation, even voice, a distinctive way of being there and for the reader. So much seems to count when we answer for how we write...
....Texts and readers do not meet in a vacuum, however. I thus wonder: how does one also address prevailing contextual forces, from ethno-nationalisms to white supremacy to the commodification of higher education? It is tempting to imagine a text without footnotes, as if they were ornaments. But in a period so averse to the rigours of knowledge, and so ahistorical in its feel for the truths we have, why not underscore the contested history of a thought, if only to insist: thought is work, the results fragile, and there will be disagreements. Clarity poses another question, and a particular challenge for philosophy, which is not underwritten by experiments. Instead, its ‘results’ are won (or lost) in the presentation. Moreover, philosophical conclusions do not remain philosophical if freed from the path that led to them. ‘God exists’ says one thing in prayer and something else at the close of a proof. Experts often are asked to share their results without showing their work. But showing one’s work is very much the work of philosophy. Can one do so and reach beyond the academy? [/i]
(Info on author: John Lysaker is William R Kenan professor of philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta, where he also serves as chair of the philosophy department. His latest book is Philosophy, Writing, and the Character of Thought (2018). He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.)