|
Regardless of whether you agree with that, you can see at least that it answers the question; in that it does answer the question, "What actions are right?" it is the sort of perhaps-enlightening answer that we’d like from philosophers. |
|
Regardless of whether you agree with that, you can see at least that it answers the question; in that it does answer the question, "What actions are right?" it is the sort of perhaps-enlightening answer that we'd like from philosophers. |
|
One might loosely interpret Mill’s "[greatest happiness principle]?" as a definition of "right action." In other words, one might regard it as saying what we really mean, or perhaps what we ought to mean, when we say that something is right. It is sometimes useful to regard philosophers as offering definitions in this way. But this is controversial; some philosophers in the twentieth century have concluded that it is [impossible to formulate good definitions (or analyses) of philosophical terms]?. So one might say, with less controversy, that Mill has a theory or an account of right action. |
|
One might loosely interpret Mill's "[greatest happiness principle]?" as a definition of "right action." In other words, one might regard it as saying what we really mean, or perhaps what we ought to mean, when we say that something is right. It is sometimes useful to regard philosophers as offering definitions in this way. But this is controversial; some philosophers in the twentieth century have concluded that it is [impossible to formulate good definitions (or analyses) of philosophical terms]?. So one might say, with less controversy, that Mill has a theory or an account of right action. |
|
Take the freedom and determinism problem again. What is needed is not, specifically, a definition of "free will" or of "determined action." No doubt those definitions would help in offering a solution to the problem. But the solution itself would consist of one of the three following. First, an explanation how it is that we might have free will and yet also be determined to choose what we do, in other words an explanation of how freedom and causality are compatible. Or, second, an explanation of how it is that free choices are an exception to deterministic laws. Or, third, an explanation of why it appears that we have free choices, even though we really do not. Any of these three sorts of explanations would be essential parts of a solution to the problem of freedom and determinism. |
|
Take the freedom and determinism problem again. What is needed is not, specifically, a definition of "free will" or of "determined action." No doubt those definitions would help in offering a solution to the problem. But the solution itself would consist of one of the three following. First, an explanation how it is that we might have free will and yet also be determined to choose what we do, in other words an explanation of how freedom and causality are compatible. Or, second, an explanation of how it is that free choices are an exception to deterministic laws. Or, third, an explanation of why it appears that we have free choices, even though we really do not. Any of these three sorts of explanations would be essential parts of a solution to the problem of freedom and determinism. |
|
Another example illustrates the same point. There is a very difficult problem in philosophy called "[the problem of induction]?." Induction is a kind of reasoning?: it is a way we get from reasons to conclusions. To work with an example, take the rising of the sun. We have experience of the sun rising every day. There has never been a day in human memory when the sun did not rise. Therefore, we say, it will rise tomorrow. This is a simple piece of reasoning, and basically we are arguing as follows: if something has been observed over and over to be a certain way, then the next time it is observed, it will be that way again. This is called inductive reasoning. |
|
Another example illustrates the same point. There is a very difficult problem in philosophy called "[the problem of induction]?." Induction is a kind of reasoning?: it is a way we get from reasons to conclusions. To work with an example, take the rising of the sun. We have experience of the sun rising every day. There has never been a day in human memory when the sun did not rise. Therefore, we say, it will rise tomorrow. This is a simple piece of reasoning, and basically we are arguing as follows: if something has been observed over and over to be a certain way, then the next time it is observed, it will be that way again. This is called inductive reasoning. |
|
The problem of induction is basically this: how do we know that the next time we see the thing it will not be different? How do we know the sun will not rise tomorrow? The obvious first answer here is: the sun has always risen. But that just begs the next question: how do you know that tomorrow will not be the first exception? Bertrand Russell, yet another English philosopher, tells the story of a chicken who is fed every day for its life. Every day the farmer steps out to the henhouse and scatters chicken feed to the chicken. So the chicken would be very reasonable to believe that tomorrow the farmer will come and feed the chicken. But tomorrow, instead, the farmer goes out to the henhouse and wrings the chicken’s neck for dinner. As Russell concludes, "More refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." |
|
The problem of induction is basically this: how do we know that the next time we see the thing it will not be different? How do we know the sun will not rise tomorrow? The obvious first answer here is: the sun has always risen. But that just begs the next question: how do you know that tomorrow will not be the first exception? Bertrand Russell, yet another English philosopher, tells the story of a chicken who is fed every day for its life. Every day the farmer steps out to the henhouse and scatters chicken feed to the chicken. So the chicken would be very reasonable to believe that tomorrow the farmer will come and feed the chicken. But tomorrow, instead, the farmer goes out to the henhouse and wrings the chicken's neck for dinner. As Russell concludes, "More refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." |
|
[Note to self: continue wikification from this point!] |
|
One might think of arguments as bundles of reasons--often not just a list, but logically interconnected statements--followed by the claim they are reasons for. The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is the conclusion; together they make an argument. |
|
One might think of arguments as bundles of reasons--often not just a list, but highly interconnected reasons--followed by the claim they are reasons for. The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is the conclusion, and the whole thing together is an argument. |
|
Philosophers are, or at least they should be, very good at giving arguments. They are constantly demanding and offering arguments for different claims they make. The reason for this is that it is only a good argument--a clear, organized, and sound statement of reasons to believe something--that will ultimately cure us of the original doubts that motivated us to take up philosophy. If one is willing to be satisfied with an answer without any good arguments, without any good supporting reasons, then--for whatever this is worth--one lacks a Western philosophical temperament. One might have the questioning nature and the doubts that lead people to do philosophy, but one does not have the argument-wielding nature that really characterizes the heart of most Western philosophy. |
|
Philosophers are, or at least they should be, really good at giving arguments. They are constantly demanding and offering arguments for different claims they make. Now what’s the point of all that? Here’s the point: it’s only a good argument, a clear, organized, and sound statement of reasons to believe something, that will ultimately cure us of the original doubts that motivated us to take up philosophy. Only good arguments will satisfy our doubts. If you are willing to be satisfied with an answer without any good arguments, without any good supporting reasons, then (for whatever this is worth), you do not have a philosophical temperament. You may have the questioning nature and the doubts that lead people to do philosophy, but you do not have the argument-wielding nature that really characterizes the heart of philosophy. |
|
Here is an example of an argument. Say Rita has some doubts about religious matters, and she asks the question: "Does God really exist?" Rita's answer is, we will say, "Yes." How might Rita argue for her answer? Here is a very common, popular argument, called the argument from design: |
|
Let me give you an example of an argument. Say you have some doubts about religious matters, and you ask the question: "Does God really exist?" Your answer is, we will say, "Yes." Now how might you argue for your answer? Here is a very common, popular argument, called the argument from design. It goes like this. |
|
:The universe is made up of a huge variety of things, inanimate and living, natural and artificial--from the hills and the oceans, to the houses and ships on them, from the stars and planets, to the cities and highways. All of this huge variety of things is, as scientists well know, operating in a splendid order or harmony, much like a very complicated machine, only much more complicated and well-planned than anything that we humans have ever invented. Like a machine, this order or harmony could not have just sprung into existence all on its own; like a machine, it must have had a designer. Moreover, since the universe is so complicated and well-planned, this designer must be incredibly intelligent; and since everything is so well-made for the habitation of humans (generally speaking), this designer must be very benevolent. And of course, as the creator and planner of the entire universe, this designer must be extremely powerful. So the universe must have had a designer which is incredibly intelligent, very benevolent, and extremely powerful; and this designer is what we call God. Therefore, God exists. |
|
The universe is made up of a huge variety of things, inanimate and living, natural and artificial -- from the hills and the oceans, to the houses and ships on them, from the stars and planets, to the cities and highways. All of this huge variety of things is, as scientists well know, operating in a splendid order or harmony, much like a very complicated machine, only much more complicated and well-planned than anything that we humans have ever invented. Like a machine, this order or harmony could not have just sprung into existence all on its own; like a machine, it must have had a designer. Moreover, since the universe is so complicated and well-planned, this designer must be incredibly intelligent; and since everything is so well-made for the habitation of humans (generally speaking), this designer must be very benevolent. And of course, as the creator and planner of the entire universe, this designer must be extremely powerful. So the universe must have had a designer which is incredibly intelligent, very benevolent, and extremely powerful; and this designer is what we call God. Therefore, God exists. |
|
That is called "the argument from design" or "the teleological argument" and is studied the philosophy of religion. It offers a series of interconnected reasons to believe that there does exist the sort of entity that in various religions is called "God." This sort of argument is just exactly what philosophers want from each other. To deserve our consideration, the argument does not have to be perfect. It might have some problems. In fact, it might be a very bad argument. But on the face of it, there should be something rather persuasive about it. That gives us something to analyze and learn from. So philosophers do talk quite a bit about each others' arguments. |
|
That’s called "the argument from design." We will study it again when we study philosophy of religion. But you can see, I think, that it offers a series of interconnected reasons to believe that there does exist the sort of entity that we call "God." Now this sort of argument is just exactly what philosophers want from each other. To deserve our consideration, the argument doesn’t have to be perfect. It might have some problems. In fact it might be a really bad argument. But on the face of it, there should be something rather persuasive about it. That gives us something to analyze and talk about. And that’s what philosophers do quite a bit: they talk about each others’ arguments. |
|
Philosophical criticism |
|
So we still aren’t done. There is an important element of philosophical method, the fifth, that we need to explain. This is the element of criticism. And this is where other people come in. We offer definitions and explanations in solution to problems; we argue for those solutions; and then other people come along and, often, devastate those solutions, throw us into doubt again, and force us to come up with better solutions. This exchange and resulting revision of views is called dialectic. Dialectic is simply philosophical conversation amongst people who do not always agree with each other about everything. |
|
Another element of philosophical method, common in the work of nearly all philosophers, is philosophical criticism. It is this that makes much philosophizing a social endeavor, and usefully so. |
|
Now you can do this sort of harsh criticism on your own. You don’t absolutely need other people to tell you what might be wrong with your views, especially if you are a very self-critical sort of person. But others can help greatly, especially if you share many important assumptions with the person offering the criticisms. |
|
We offer definitions and explanations in solution to problems; we argue for those solutions; and then other people come along and, often, devastate those solutions, throw us into doubt again, and force us to come up with better solutions. This exchange and resulting revision of views is called dialectic?. Dialectic (in one sense of this history-laden word) is simply philosophical conversation amongst people who do not always agree with each other about everything. |
|
Perhaps this sounds rather obvious to anyone who has gone around the block once arguing about God, morality, free will, and stuff like that. But this is perhaps the most disconcerting part of philosophy for people just starting to study the subject. It’s quite different from other subjects that study general aspects of the universe, like natural science and mathematics; in those other disciplines, the experts all agree about the fundamentals. But in philosophy, which concerns the most fundamental aspects of the universe, the experts all disagree. And in disagreeing they are following this fifth step of philosophical method, to offer and deal with criticisms of proposed solutions. Or as I said, to engage in dialectic. |
|
One can do this sort of harsh criticism on one's own. One does not absolutely need other people to tell one what might be wrong with one's views, especially if one is a very self-critical sort of person. But others can help greatly, especially if you share many important assumptions with the person offering the criticisms. It seems that other people are always able to think of criticisms that one has not been able to discover oneself. |
|
The entire history of philosophy is a long -- millenia-long -- philosophical dialectic. There is practically no philosophical question which has not been asked; practically every possible solution has been proposed. And yet philosophers go on arguing with each other. And it certainly looks like they aren’t going to stop, either. |
|
This will sound obvious to anyone who has engaged in much dialectic about any subject. But this is perhaps the most disconcerting part of philosophy for young people just starting to study the subject. It is, or can be, quite different from other subjects that study general aspects of the universe, like natural science and mathematics; in those other disciplines, the experts agree about most of the fundamentals. But in philosophy, which concerns the most fundamental aspects of the universe, the experts all disagree?. |
|
This is what makes philosophy so disconcerting for beginners, who aren’t used to the alleged experts disagreeing about everything. If there is no general agreement, then what’s the point in studying the subject? If there is no truth to be had, why go to the trouble of coming up with solutions and arguments? |
|
Summary |
|
This is a very common concern and it needs to be directly addressed at the outset. Suppose you have this concern -- we’ll put it like this, in the form of an argument: |
|
Some common features of the methods that philosophers follow (and discuss when discussing philosophical method) include: |
|
(1) For almost every problem in philosophy, philosophers throughout history have offered conflicting solutions. |
|
* Doubt. Notice doubts that one has about the meaning or justification of some common, everyday belief one has. |
|
(2) Moreover, there has been no progress toward general agreement. |
|
* Formulate a problem. Formulate the doubts in a philosophical problem, or question. Explain the problem very clearly and carefully. |
|
(3) Moreover, there does not appear to be any progress toward general agreement at present. |
|
* Offer a solution. Offer a solution to the problem: either something like a philosophical analysis or a philosophical explanation. |
|
(4) Therefore, there is no truth to be found in philosophy; and hence there is no point in studying philosophy. |
|
* Argument. Give an argument or several arguments supporting the solution. |
|
First of all, notice that during those thousands of years of philosophical conversations, all of those philosophers did not give up simply on grounds that they disagreed with each other. In fact, historically, disagreement has been a great motivating impetus to philosophical work. The fact that Descartes said something different from Locke is often looked on by philosophers not as discouraging but as something to be excited about: both men had such great minds, so if one of them was mistaken it must have been a deep, important, interesting mistake. Second, and more importantly, notice that the conclusion of this argument just doesn’t follow from the premises. In other words, the premises might all be perfectly true, but the conclusion doesn’t necessarily then have to be true. An example from another academic discipline might help here. Suppose Tom, Dick, and Harry are all arguing about the origin of Mars’ moon Deimos. Tom thinks it is a captured asteroid; Dick thinks it formed out of the primordial cloud of dust that formed Mars; and Harry think it broke off from Mars when Mars was struck by a gigantic asteroid. Now I personally have no idea of the respective plausibility of each of these views. But one thing I can say is that the mere fact that Tom, Dick, and Harry disagree does not mean there’s no truth to be found about the subject. If we went back in time to the right moment in planetary history, we could see that Deimos was formed in one way and not the others. There’s a fact about the matter even if Tom, Dick, and Harry don’t know it yet. I want to suggest that the problems of philosophy are like that. I mean that philosophical problems are, on the one hand, very difficult issues to resolve, and it’s very easy to disagree about them; but, on the other hand, the mere fact that there is disagreement doesn’t, all by itself, mean that there is no philosophical truth to be found. But admittedly, philosophical problems are extremely difficult to sort out in a clear-headed way. Unfortunately, we can’t simply make observations and design experiments to test philosophical definitions and explanations. Observations and experiments are used by scientists to arrive at a consensus; similarly, rigorous proofs based on axioms and definitions are used by mathematicians to arrive at consensus there. But, except in the philosophical subdiscipline of logic, philosophers do not have any such consensus-building techniques. All we have are words -- words that express those same, not-very-well-understood concepts that we are confused about. So there are at least two basic reactions to the phenomenon of philosophical disagreement. First, you might simply give up before you start. Or, second, you might try to increase the degree of clarity and rigor with which you think about philosophical questions. I think I have observed some very important advances in philosophy, and they are almost always due to applying ever-increasing amounts of clarity and rigor to the subject -- they involve exploring every unexplored avenue, thinking about every unconsidered possibility, understanding all the assumptions that lie behind a view, taking apart arguments in very careful detail, and so on. I think that many philosophers, throughout history, have shown at least that certain solutions that other philosophers have proposed were wrong. And it took clear thinking to do that. That much at least is a kind of philosophical progress. However it is that you ultimately react to the phenomenon of philosophical disagreement, at least do yourself this favor. For the space of this quarter, assume that there is some philosophical truth to be found. Keep your mind open to that possibility. If you shut yourself off from that possibility you will not be able to keep an interest in philosophy, and you won’t be able to get half out of it what you might. For the space of this quarter, don’t regard an inquiring philosophical nature as naive. If it helps, remember this: some of the finest, most brilliant minds in the world have not thought that trust in the existence of philosophical truth was naive. Now we’ve gotten a little off track. I have talked for the past half hour explaining five very general features of all philosophical methods. Or you might think of these five steps I’ve given as steps in one general philosophical method. Here then are those steps again: Step 1. Doubt. Notice doubts that you have about the meaning or justification of some common, everyday belief you have. Step 2. Formulate problem. Formulate those doubts in a philosophical problem, or question. Explain the problem very clearly and carefully. Step 3. Offer solution. Offer a solution to the problem: either a definition, or a philosophical explanation. Step 4. Argument. Give an argument or several arguments supporting the solution. Step 5. Dialectic. Present your solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and help them judge their own. Now this little five-step method is, as you might expect, highly simplified and idealized. No one does, or should, follow these steps in exactly this order. A lot of times for philosophers it’s not doubt about their own beliefs that gets them thinking; a lot of times it’s doubt about what other people say that does it. And some philosophers really put the cart before the horse: they examine a solution and arguments for it, and only after doing that, they go back and ask what problem it was they were trying to solve. And surely there are a lot of people who plunge right into philosophical debates, and by the seat of their dialectical pants figure out what the problem is, what solutions have been offered, and what the arguments on all sides have been. All that having been said, in many cases it probably is best to proceed as systematically as possible, and not go to the next step until the prior step is completed. That may be most efficient way, at least. It might not be the most fun. But here the words of the great French philosopher Descartes come to mind: "Like a man who walks alone and in the shadows, I resolved to go so slowly and use so much circumspection in all things that, if I never advanced but slightly, I would at least avoid falling." Now as I said a while ago, what motivates us to take up philosophy is doubts about the meaning and justification of our beliefs. But then I said that other disciplines, such as the natural sciences, study that as well. I asked what it is that distinguishes philosophy from other disciplines; and I said they differ in the methods they use. So now that I have stated some generalizations about philosophical method, I am ready to say how philosophy can be distinguished from other disciplines. <The foregoing is a portion of Larrys Text. If you can do better, you can feel free to radically update or even replace this--please, just don't reduce the amount of useful content. See Larrys Text for further notes and comments.> |
|
* Dialectic. Present the solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and help them judge their own. |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)