Challenging Philosophy

I wrote earlier that I’m ‘momentarily dissatisfied with mainstream philosophy’. Even at the time of writing it, I was aware of the ambiguity of what I was asserting. After all, it hangs, in part, on the definition of ‘dissatisfaction’: do I mean a merely not being satisfied (a state of ‘passive’ dissatisfaction), or do I mean that I am actively dissatisfied? Clarity here is essential, as, to be honest, I’m never satisfied with philosophy, and therefore am in a constant state of ‘passive’ dissatisfaction. Therefore, what makes my original statement something that might ‘interest’ people, or take people by surprise, is that I am now actively dissatisfied with philosophy in general.

It might strike you as ironic that I’m using philosophy to come to terms with my dissatisfaction with the practice. I can understand that argument, but I’ll try to explain why this doesn’t brand me as a hypocrite. You see, if you strip philosophy back to its basics, it’s quite a respectable practice, really: using logic and reason to investigate controversial topics in an attempt to obtain answers to some of the bigger questions in life. Hey, we all have ‘big’ questions we’d like answering, and philosophy is the way to find the answers, or, at the very least, to get on the right path to finding the answers. I think, then, that it’s the word ‘mainstream’ that’s important here. What do I mean by it? Is there such a thing as ‘mainstream philosophy’? These are all relevant questions. I think it’s a term that I’ve defined myself, and therefore you may not be able to relate. To me, mainstream philosophy looks at the way that philosophers act these days: the methods of inquiry that contemporary philosophy use in their quests for knowledge. It’s a whole way of thinking, not just of acting; in fact, it’s a way of living.

I’m doing a Philosophy degree, and this week we started two new modules: Ethics, and Knowledge and Perception (Epistemology). Everyone was really excited to start these modules, as they both sounded really interesting. I must confess that I myself was looking forward to tackling the issues that would be raised, in Ethics in particular. After all, Ethics is relevant to all of us, as it has such a huge impact on our lives; it’s something that everyone has an opinion on, in some form or another. However, I had two lectures this afternoon – one for each module – and both left me frustrated and dissatisfied. In one, counterexamples were used to show that the tripartite definition of knowledge isn’t good enough, but I found the counterexamples extrmely weak, and therefore the argument flawed. In the other lecture, far too many assumptions were made regarding ethics, many of which I simply believed to be false. When your argument is based on false assumptions, you’ve got yourself a wek argument. It’s difficult, though, when everyone else seems satisfied, to still feel that you’re right. There were many different questions running through my head: have I misunderstood? Is there something I’m missing. Is nobody else thinking like I’m thinking? Why can nobody see what I can see? Such questions lead to doubt: doubt in my thought processes, my understanding, and my ability in general.

This evening, however, I believe I’ve worked out at least part of the reason why I’m so dissatisfied. Philosophy, I feel, is too objective. I mean, to be reasonable and logical, you sometimes need to take a step back and be a bit objective, but the whole practice is far too objective for my liking. I need to get involved with matters, not simply stand, staring in from the outside and analysing what’s going on. After all, what good would acting in such a manner do? What do you achieve by practically disassociating yourself from the situation at hand. You need experience – that’s how you make good judgements. I’m not going to stand around watching something bad happen, analysing whether it’s bad, and why it’s bad; I’m going to make the judgement that it’s bad, because I ‘know’ in my gut that’s it’s bad, and then I’m going to rush in and try to stop it. You need empathy, even though philosophers might argue that it ‘clouds your wisdom’; you need to be subjective, even though philosophers might argue that your perspective becomes ‘warped’. Philosophy itself isn’t satisfactory, if you ask me. You need to incorporate humanity.

Advertisement