Whats the future of philosophy???
Paul McGilloway
If we look back through history, whether 2000 or 200 years ago, and contrast
the types of assumptions people had about the world they lived in , with the
assumptions that we hold of the world we live in now, it could be suggested
that we are far more advanced, or even that we have gained an almost
complete picture of the world we live in. However, in another 2000 years,
humans may look to the 20th century, with a knowing humour, and muse as to
why on earth we held such an incorrect world picture of ourselves. This
would seem to be more probable than not, as human arrogance or dogmatism are
factors that always seem prevalent in history.
If the picture we create of the world that we live in fits, we abide by it.
For instance, if we look at the Egyptians and Babylonians, they created an
understanding of themselves and the world around them. Based on mythological
assumptions of the time, they believed that the world was a giant oyster,
with water on the top that would seep through, this was their explanation
for rain; water was also underneath the oyster, and this was the cause of
fountains or underwater springs. The Greeks however, had a different
approach. In their endeavour to understand man and the world around him they
adopted or utilised rational thought; this was to be the infancy of
scientific thought and the birth of philosophy. Based on rational ideas and
thought, they took a stand and rejected mystical beliefs and superstitions
that at the time were held to be concrete facts, but in themselves they were
unaccountable.
Over two thousand years later, there are still, unfortunately, schools of
thought that use theories that are based on concepts that appear to tie up
all the loose ends. But are we looking for a neat and tidy statement of
fiction that will keep people happy and content, or are we looking for the
truth?
There have been many different theories thrown about by philosophers.
However, most of the theories appear to be based on previous theories or ,
have components of previous theories; also a new theory appears to come
about because or despite of a previous theory. If we look at the progress
that has been made, the result is undoubtedly small. If we believe that the
world is a giant oyster, and base every subsequent theory on this axiom,
then how are we ever supposed to find the truth, all that we are creating is
another volume for the library marked under fiction, not even science
fiction. It could be compared to building a house on quicksand.
It is here a comparison can be drawn between ourselves and with the
Babylonians and the Greeks, only that in this instance the ancient Greeks
come in the form of modern science, and philosophy is our oyster picture of
the world; ironically the forefathers of science is credited to the ancient
Greek philosophers, but at times the modern philosopher comes across as
being against science.
So the ironic progression could engulf philosophers, those who over 2000
years ago, made a stand against the tide of mysticism and superstition. From
their use of rational thought they lay the foundations for most if not all
of the sciences that we now live with. But, there is a realistic threat I
believe that philosophy could now be forgotten like the mystics of the past
or relegated to the teachings of Latin and the classics if they refuse or
appear to refuse to work along side science as opposed to against it.
My position is not to argue against philosophy but instead to change or
rekindle the motivation, acceptance, uses, and attitudes towards philosophy.
In effect this could be seen as placing philosophy into a new paradigm. With
hindsight if we were to look at ultimate laws that have been discovered,
such as Einstein’s theories we can see that at times a fresh new approach is
needed even it is incompatible with previous theories. Or, in other words it
is better to progress than be stagnant; philosophy should be seen as a
speeding train and not the train station.
In a sense philosophy could be seen as existing on some kind of parallel
plain. In the world of Joe and Josephine Bloggs there is science, politics,
literature, art, linguistics, etc., but on the other plain Phil and Sophie
Bloggs exist where there are just as many subjects only they begin with The
Philosophy of……, History, politics, art etc. My concern is that philosophers
may be getting so wrapped up in themselves that they are isolating
themselves from laypersons. Do you think many non-philosophers could tell
you the last time a philosopher was needed directly in any walk of life,
apart from some early morning debating society on channel lonesome.’ People
say that employers would jump at people with philosophical qualifications,
perhaps they will. But if you do not have any knowledge of what philosophy
is which it appears to me that an increasing amount people do not, why would
you jump at a person qualified in philosophy.
The image of the philosopher to some people seems to be tied in with
mysticism, far away times and incense burners. Even book shops have a
tendency to place books in sections for new age, superstitions, mysticism.
Even the pub philosophers, take in a sharp intake of breath, ‘ really
philosophy,' ‘so what’s that about then. Others within the academia regard
philosophy, as a difficult discipline indulged by the intelligentsia. Many
people may feel intimated by philosophers, who talk in their own brand of
language, so that asking what the time is… turns into an unwanted debate. It
appears currently that jobs within philosophy are only in an education
capacity, But due to the current decline in the status of philosophy, and
the exclusion from the national curriculum at a school level this also could
be a restricted area. It would appear to me that the only people who know
the value of philosophy are philosophers. Many of you may argue with me that
I’m off the mark, but it's not me you have to convince.
There is so much I feel philosophy can bring to the world. Imagine a
government philosopher. Currently we have people who are or were lawyers or
bankers who are deciding on moral issues, to not seek advice from a
philosopher would seem to be a waste of resources. But then again as
mentioned most people do not know anything about philosophers or philosophy
so to let a person use a process you have no knowledge of to decide on how
the country is run would be a definite vote loser.
I think the time is ripe for philosophers, and philosophy to be given the
respect and social standing it deserves, this can range from philosophical
counselling to industry. The age of the corporate philosopher is a realistic
proposition. Philosophy is one of the only disciplines that teaches you or
even trains you how to think and not what to think. An objection I have
often heard aimed at philosophy is what use it is, or what can you do with
it.
In reply to this I would agree that philosophy is restricted… restricted to
those activities or disciplines that require rational thinking. That’s one
restriction I’m happy to accept
But whose to blame for this decline in interest in philosophy. If Descartes,
was about today, or even Plato would they turn their back on science or
society at large; or would they adopt some romantic idea of the philosopher
sitting on a large chair in front of a log fire musing about the riddles of
the world? Progression is one thing, extinction is another.
As science, politics and many other subjects were born or progressed from
philosophy it seems bizarre that many of the conceptual frameworks are
moving further apart from one another. The more that we disagree with others
about what reality is like, the less we can understand what they say.
Therefore, anything untranslatable into our own terms is therefore treated
as nonsense.
I feel that for philosophy to have any impact as it used to have is for it
to carry implications for the here and now. We are entering the era of the
information age, where religion is in decline, and people are turning to
superstitions, new age remedies, Uri Geller the X files, and to think that
people once upon a time used to believe the world was a giant oyster, OH
haven’t we made progress, what goes around comes around.
These are my musings. Although not philosophical in nature they highlight
certain problems of philosophy. It would be interesting to have comments
from philosophers and also non-philosophers
Paul Mack