lesson 1

What is philosophy?
It is fairly common to begin an introductory class in any discipline by asking for a definition of the subject. What is it that we are going to be studying this semester? In the case of this class, the question would be "What is philosophy?"

The approach is a sound one generally but difficult in the specific case of philosophy. It is not that no one knows what philosophy is. It is a discipline that has a long and continuous tradition and there are plenty of people who have been considered philosophers, both by themselves and others. Ways of thinking that clearly belong to either an Eastern or Western philosophical tradition date from about 800 B.C.E. . There are characteristics that philosophical thought exhibits that enable the identification of philosophy in the different cultures in which philosophical thinking occurs. It is these features that I am going to try to identify and that we will be working with in this course. However there are also ways of doing philosophy that are specific to particular historical periods. It is not surprising that the sorts of things that are particularly pressing problems for people at one time might not be relevant or seem so important at another time or in another culture. So while cloning is a topic that philosophers might talk about and offer opinions on today, it is not something that was discussed in the 17th century. In this course we will be noting both the elements of philosophy that have persisted over time and those that are time-specific. That there are some characteristics of human life and human concerns that are universal whereas there are others that are not is already a philosophical thesis about human nature.

For a first attempt at identifying a characteristic of philosophical thought, let us say that it is self-conscious. This means that when we think philosophically, we are conscious of ourselves, aware of ourselves, in a way that we are usually not as we go about our daily lives. One feature of philosophy which illustrates this sort of self-consciousness is that philosophers question things that we usually take for granted.

So for instance, we are all taught that in general lying is wrong. But if we were to think about this philosophically we might question what it is about lying that makes it wrong. Notice that you don't need to be a philosopher to do this. We all do this at those moments when we consider whether under some particular circumstances it might be okay to lie, even though generally we acknowledge that it is wrong. These are the moments in life when we stop to think about what it is about lying that makes it wrong. We come up with ideas about what we think it is and then also consider whether the particular case we are worried about is a case that has the features that make lying wrong. If not, or if some other factors outweigh the wrong that we see the lie doing, we may think that this is a case when it is appropriate to lie, even though in general, we still agree that lying is wrong.

In the example, you can see that there are other things happening as well. There is a self-consciousness but there is also at least the potential for thinking carefully and even deeply about some basic principles that are important to the way we act in the world. And so we can identify another feature of philosophical thought: it involves thinking deeply and carefully about the things that are most important to us.

We accept the reality of the physical objects around us and we do not think very much about them. There are trees, tables, chairs, houses, and so on that we interact with everyday. But if we were to think about such things philosophically we might wonder what the nature of these objects actually is. One of the ways in which such questions might be raised would be through taking a science course where we might learn that the solid, physical objects around us, are actually not solid at all, but collections of atoms, more or less closely spaced together. These atoms are moving and not at rest, even though the object before us appears to be very much at rest. So one kind of human knowledge, science, seems to be telling us something different from another kind of human knowledge, sense experience. How are we to reconcile these two different pictures of the world? How can they both be true? What is the nature of reality?

Once again, the questions asked here go to fundamental issues about what there really is in the world and what it is that we can know about it. And these too are philosophical questions.

From what I have said so far, you can see that philosophy is unlike some of your other college subjects since it is not identified so much by a subject matter as by a method, an approach, or an attitude towards whatever is being investigated. Though this is correct, there still are certain topics that are more typically philosophical than others. The collection of readings for this course presents those topics in terms of questions, hence the title, Twenty Questions. By glancing through the chapters and their associated questions you can get a pretty fair idea of the sorts of subjects that philosophy typically addresses.

We are all philosophers.

Everyone is reflective at one time or another and so we are all philosophers at some time. I am sure that you have heard the expression "to be philosophical" about something. Generally when we say that someone is being philosophical we mean that they are taking a longer-range view about an issue or putting it in perspective. We are able to do this when we are able to think about the problem without being totally consumed by it. This kind of thinking involves a certain amount of detachment. To detach oneself from the problem and reflect upon it, is part of what it means to take a philosophical attitude.

Let’s look at a particular example to try and get an idea about how this might work. Suppose I have made a trip to a crowded shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon. I have circled the parking lot several times in search of a parking space and have not seen one, though I have been tantalized by seeing several other cars beat me to parking spaces. After about fifteen minutes, I begin to get very frustrated. Finally I see that there is a young woman walking purposefully down the lane that I am currently in. I follow her closely, realize that she is parked on the other side of the aisle, race around and manage to arrive as she unlocks her car door and climbs in. I am delighted until I look up and see that there is another car waiting, facing me, the driver signaling that he intends to take this place. The level of my frustration at this point could rise and keep me totally riveted in the moment and in my felt need for this parking space. Driven by this feeling, I could quickly dart into the space ahead of the other driver. Or alternatively I could leap out of my car and block the space with my body prepared to fight to the death over my right to park there. Or I could consider that there will ultimately be other spaces and that the fight over this one would not be worth the ill will between another human being and myself and so choose to move on and continue my search.

My description of the situation above is one in which the last alternative is the more philosophical one, not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the option arrived at after reflection and after taking the whole situation into account. That response, as opposed to the others, is not driven entirely by an automatic reaction, but by thinking things through. With that response, I was "philosophical" about the loss of the parking space. I want to emphasize that describing this alternative as philosophical doesn’t depend upon it being the best choice, even though we would hope that such reflection will lead us, if not to the best choice, at least to better choices. This is part of the motivation for being philosophical and for doing philosophy. But the sense in which I am using the term at the moment refers only to the attitude with which the thinking about the issue is carried out. I might have reflected on the situation and come to the conclusion that if I do not fight for this parking space then my life will be worth nothing because this parking space is clearly a symbol for all those things that I was entitled to and did not get. If this is why I fight, then I believe that I would have to call my decision to fight a philosophical one as well. The point that I am trying to make here is that we are philosophical when we are reflective and when we look at something in a way that takes us beyond the emotions, thoughts, and beliefs that normally govern our immediate actions. We all do this at one time or another and so we are all philosophers in this sense.

Notice that in each of the different philosophical conclusions that I came to above there were general principles that I appealed to that shaped my decision. In the first case, I thought that it was not worth the strife with another human being. So I am appealing to some notion of what is valuable and what is not. In the second case, I am seeing this particular case as an example of all cases of this type and again appealing to what I take to be valuable, since I judge my life not to be worth living. To be philosophical involves reflecting in a way where we seek the most general categories to which the things around us belong and the most general principles that apply to what we are doing. We look for answers on a more fundamental level than we do when we seek merely practical solutions to problems.

The fundamental beliefs that we hold do have practical implications, though these are not always clear. Part of what is involved in doing philosophy is sorting out what the implications of our fundamental beliefs may be.

If we are all philosophers why is it a special discipline? Why are there experts?

The discipline and the experts.

Though we may all be philosophers at some times in our lives, this course is really about those who have focused their attention on philosophical modes of thought and who have, in this sense, become experts. For there to be experts in any field or discipline there needs to be a clear sense of what the rules for participating in this discipline are. If philosophy involves reflective thought, are there any rules for how to proceed with this reflective thought? What is the proper method of philosophy?It is difficult to talk about the method of philosophy without talking about the subject matter, so I will say something about the method as well as something about the subject matter. The key tool necessary for applying philosophical method is reason. Logic is the discipline that studies the proper use of reason and consequently some understanding of logic is necessary for understanding what is happening in philosophy. Consequently, one of the first things that we will be doing in this course is looking at some of the key concepts in logic and talking about how they are applied.

Metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory.

What about the subject matter? Since the kind of reflection that philosophers have traditionally carried out has been focused on certain fundamental sorts of issues, there are three main areas in which these issues give rise to philosophical questions. They are metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, what there is (ontology) and how the things that exist are related to each other. The first topic that we are going to do involves a fundamental metaphysical question: Does God exist? Epistemology attempts to address questions of knowledge and belief. Connected to our first question is an epistemological issue as well. How do we know that God exists? And then finally, there are also questions pertaining to values (value theory). These sorts of questions are about what we take to be good. Which things are better than others? What are values to begin with? So, for instance, a value question related to our first topic might be: Why should I care whether or not God exists? Why should I value the answer to this question?

The answers to these questions are often interrelated. When we give answers to all the questions about a particular topic then we have a systematic philosophy about that topic.

In addition to these various areas of philosophy, it is also pretty clear that we can think philosophically about all sorts of different things. In doing so, you would be questioning the assumptions that are at the foundation of these human endeavors. So, for instance, we can do philosophy of science, philosophy of art, philosophy of biology, philosophy of technology, philosophy of love, philosophy of…, well, you get the idea. When doing philosophy of science, for instance, you might ask questions about the nature of science, what sort of knowledge it produces, its purposes and effects. In the case of philosophy of art, a question that might be asked is "What is art?" "Why are some human creations art and others not?" There could be a philosophy of just about anything. Some of these arenas have been more completely explored than others. So for instance, in our text you can see some topics in philosophy of science and philosophy of art because these are areas in which there is an established literature and tradition of discussion.

Philosophical Questions

So one of the things that defines philosophy is the sort of question that one attempts to answer. Philosophical questions are questions about the very basis of any of the activities we engage in and so are fundamental questions. It is sometimes tempting to think of philosophical questions as ones that have no answers because the answers to them are so varied and disputed. But it is really better to think of philosophical questions as having many possible answers. When we are philosophical we are examining these answers, getting clear about what each of them commits us to, and making decisions about which of the available answers is the best among the alternatives. No answer is without flaws. There are always more questions and always reasons that count against each of the possible answers. Nonetheless, some are still better than others. But even when a philosophical answer does not seem good to you, it is frequently possible to learn a tremendous amount from understanding why it is not a good answer.

Bad examples of philosophical questions

From what I have said above, it should be pretty clear that two questions that are frequently said to be philosophical are not. The two that I am thinking of are:

1) Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

2) If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

These are questions that people say do not have an answer and sometimes they are said to be philosophical for that reason. Even if it were true (which, as I have already said above, it isn't) that philosophical questions didn't have answers, the fact that these questions do not have answers would not necessarily indicate that they were philosophical. (Just because all mathematicians are smart doesn't mean that all smart people are mathematicians!)

But there are other reasons why they are not philosophical questions given what I have said so far. Any ideas on this? For some suggestions see below.

Where are you now?

Whenever you are learning new material it is helpful to think about what you already know or believe to be true. Sometimes you will find that you are building on previous knowledge that you have of a subject. Sometimes you will find that what you thought you knew is not entirely correct and so you will have to replace old, false beliefs with new ones. Learning is a little like taking a journey and a course is a bit like a map. But a map is not very useful unless you know where you are going (see the column to the left) and where you are when you start using it. Have you ever been looking for a store in a shopping mall, you go to the directory and find what number it is supposed to be on the map so you know where you are going, but then you realize that someone has defaced that X that is shows "You are here". The map is not useful to you under those circumstances.

To get a better sense of where you are go to the following website and take the philosophical health check. This is not a test but rather a way of seeing something about the beliefs that you have and how you are currently thinking.

philosophical health check

Why aren't these philosophical questions? There are two issues here. First, how are these questions that deal with fundamental issues? They don't really seem to be and so already they are unlikely to be truly philosophical. In fact, they are sort of a parody of philosophical questions. Second, each of the questions seems to have a misleading flaw in it. The chicken and the egg question only gives us two options. Perhaps neither the chicken nor the egg was first (and just what is meant by "first" anyway?). In fact, evolution would suggest that this is a better way to think about the issue. The tree question also seems to have a flaw. What is meant by "sound"? Do we always use the word in the same way? The answer would seem to be no. Sometimes when we say that something makes a sound we mean exactly that it was heard by someone (in which case the answer to this question is obviously "no".) Other times we think of sound as something physical, sound waves, for example. In that case, the answer would be "yes" because the sound waves are going to be there whether anyone hears them or not. So the answer depends on understanding which question is actually being asked. The mystery is not a philosophical one but rather one about meaning. What is interesting about these questions though is that philosophical methods of careful thinking and paying close attention to what is meant can help understand just why these questions are not themselves philosophical.