What Have I Learnt?––– an Answer to a Classical Question of

[Patriarch]

What Have I Learnt?––– an Answer to a Classical Question of “What is Philosophy?”

It is unbelievable that having studied a year in the university a student cannot tell you what she/he has learnt in her/his major courses at all. However such kind of students is quite common in Philosophy department–––at least I meet some in CUHK. Some of them may know what is philosophy but just find it hard to express their ideas with language. Some philosophy students may really fail to know what is philosophy at all. As a French Rationalist philosopher who have just spent one year in the philosophy department, however, I am confident that I know and I can tell you clearly what philosophy is.

Defining “philosophy” is not easy. Usually we can easily provide an “intentional definition” (i.e. the contents of x) of a subject, e.g. geography is a study of earth's surface with its features, population and phenomena. But philosophy has no intentional definition. In Greek it simply means “love wisdom” (Φιλοσοφία). But wisdom is not concrete. “Earth's surface” is concrete because it is an idea with a specific material object signified: i.e. an idea ↔ a material (bijective). But “wisdom” has no specific material object signified. Such abstract “definition” makes philosophy (at least for western philosophy) includes almost everything, leading to confusion. Anything, like going to toilet, can be “philosophised” as long as I can get some “wisdom”. Such definition of philosophy obviously says nothing about philosophy. To define philosophy clearly I will provide several extensional definitions (i.e. the extension of a concept, e.g. implication, application, usage).

Early when I was in form 2, I clearly distinguish philosophy from natural and social sciences by this point: while all sciences tend to answer the question of how, philosophy tend to answer the question of why. You may challenge such definition. Sciences seems to answer “why” too, e.g history want to know the cause of Opium War while physics want to know the reason of earth revolution. But these “causes” (things leading to some consequences) and “reasons” (things explaining something) are entirely descriptive. The cause of Opium War and the reason of earth being able to bear lives only serves as the instruments describing certain processes: e.g. the development of modern Chinese history and the operation of Solar system, i.e. answering the question of “how” by nature. But philosophy is more than description. Philosophy aims to seek the most fundamental reason of everything. Philosophy does care the question of “how”, but it asks further, e.g. why Chinese people should suffer from Imperialist invasion and why the earth operates so perfectly in the solar system that it can bear unnumbered lives. But questions come about:
Theology also answer the “fundamental reason” of things, e.g. why human are “created” by God; so what is the different between philosophy and theology?
The definition of “fundamental” is unclear, which becomes another “abstract” definition of philosophy.

The first question is quite simple. Theology (θεολογία) is the “god-logy”; it aims to study “God”. God's existence can hardly be proven; instead to most people God is a hypothesis. And many nature of God are hypothesises only. Most importantly theology emphasises faith––a certain belief on those hypothesises. But philosophy has no common hypothesis. Most subjects, even sciences share some common hypothesises within their own subjects–––at least they hypothesise their own “concrete” definitions to be true. The mind-body assumption suggested by Cartesian dualism, for example, is rejected by many philosophers. In the post-modern age even the authority of rationality is not commonly accepted by philosophers.

The second question is quite difficult. In the previous examples it seems that the term “most fundamental reason” may refer to two things: the value judgement of something that exist and the final purpose of something that exist (Aristotle's final cause). These two terms seem to be more concrete as we seem to have some real experience on the occurrence of “value judgement” and “final purpose” from the observation in material world.

Firstly, value judgement. Most philosophers concern the problem of “value”. It is not about price quantified by money. It is about the significance of something. But some analytic philosophers may challenge that “value” is too subjective, relative and variable (therefore, “meaningless”; let use the logical positivist definition of “meaning” as “can be judged to be either true or false”). While I think this essay is valuable, you may judge such essay is valueless as it is incredibly boring. Therefore Logical Positivist philosopher like A.J. Ayer tries to exclude questions simply about “value judgement” like ethics, metaphysics and aesthetics from philosophy. But such exclusion is unfair to Chinese philosophy. Mohism, Confucius and Taoism focus on ethics–––a typical kind of value judgement (on what is “morally good”) as they want to practice their values (claimed to be universal) in their own daily living (for society or individual) after expressing their own values. A practical philosophy is already justified to be meaningful by their practices which can be examined “objectively” to a certain extent.

Secondly, final purpose. Different from theology philosophy does not aim to study the purpose of God's creation. Instead we should study what is our own purpose, i.e. our own meaning of existence. What is the meaning of earth to us? Give us a safe environment for living. But why should we live? The meaning of human's existence is particularly a big philosophical problem to existentialist. To a certain extent it is about value judgement, as the meaning of existence is determined by our own final purpose which is based upon our values: if I value love relationship very much, the final purpose of my life should be seeking true love.

But these extensional definitions still contains problems. My emphasis on practices, instead of so-called “meaning”, may be challenged by a few analytic philosophers. “Practically work” does not guarantee true value. Something is practical but not true theoretically. The story of Santa Claus is practical in entertaining children but obviously not true. But philosophy is not just a “practical” or useful fairy tale. As I have said before, “meaningless” value judgement are not so “subjective”, “relative” or “variable”. Generally and traditionally, Continental philosophy and Chinese philosophy emphasises universality in their ethics. They believe in universal value rather than particular value. Universal value like human right is never “subjective”, “relative” or “variable”. While relativist disagree, it is clear that all cultures share some common values, e.g. all cultures condemn murdering without reasons.

The strict emphasis on universality of certain value comes from a final and core extentional definition of philosophy: reflection or examining. Philosophy is reflective thinking. Socrates says “an unexamined life does not worth living”. Different from all sciences philosophy contains no common hypothesis (particularly a fixed and common intentional definition) which allow philosophy to reflect itself. Social sciences and natural sciences must stick to the phenomena in the material world through scientific method (i.e. induction). But philosophy can get rid of material world although it should be practical finally. Through the clarification of concepts and ideas within our mind, we can generate a clear and distinct (and practical) theories from ambiguous and confusing terms. Finally we have to practice these theories in the material world. That's the real philosophy.

Descartes, a great French Rationalist philosopher, has said, “philosophy gives one the means to speak plausibly about all things and to make oneself admired by the less learned” (la philosophie donne moyen de parler vraisemblablement de toutes choses; et se faire admirer des moins savants)1. Philosophy is a method (méthode): a reflection aims to conclude universal theories in solving the problems in our real life, i.e. philosophy as a way of living. It deals with value judgement and final purposes (meaning of life). A question simply about the meaning of “true or false” should not be considered as philosophy at all.

Prince Andrew
14th July, 2011

1Descartes, René. “Première Partie: Considérations touchant les sciences”. Discours de la Méthode. Leyde: L'Imprimerie de Ian Maire. Paragraph 7th. 1637.

[Existence]

I think asking any student what they learned from any subject in their first year would garner the same response. People tend to think of quantity when asked such a question. Perhaps ask them if their experience in philosophy has provided them with a broader view of one aspect of their life. For me one of the most important aspects of philosophy is the development of critical thinking. Now a lost art. I would hope the focus would be on both the philosophers, their work and how to develop critical thinking.

[hilda]

I think you have gotten terribly bogged down here.
One starts off with a reasonable proposition; one then reflects on the substance of philosphy as a subject matter, one adds a few half digested quotes from a philosopher and before you know it you are drowning in gibbersih.

Philosophy is an unregulated Bedlam and your task is to sort out which are the patients (who inevitably think the psychologists are mad) and which are the psychologists who think the patients are mad.

A perfectly reasonable reason for not telling anyone what one has learnt is that they might think you have internalised Bedlam if they do not realise that what one has learnt is a compartmentalised thing completely unaffecting any other aspect of one' s character or personality. When a psychologist leaves the consulting room he does not necessarily want to discuss what he has learnt about the mental disorder rationalism from John Stuart Mill or whatever because it would be like releasing all the demons on some unmentionable moor, as it were, and I would suggest that is precisely why they are on such a Godforsaked place as that moor, held under the auspices of a Prince, accessible by nothing more than a secret one horse track uniquely clouded by mist in the first place.

Philosophy actually means madness etymologically.
Natural philosophy = madness about nature and philosophy = madness pure and simple.
But of course where there is madness there is not only curiosity but also, thankfully, psychjologists rising to the challenge hence Philosophy = Bedlam = patients proper and psychologists proper but indistinct and it is crucially sagacious to keep them all locked up because only gentlemen proper are able to suspend belief, massacre whenever wise, and generally control it.

[nameless]

Defining “philosophy” is not easy.

Philosophy is 'critical thought'!
All avenues of 'knowing' are 'feeder branches' of philosophy.

Critical Thinking Mini Lessons
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

Those who study the 'thoughts' of others (Plato, Lao Tsu...) are not necessarily philosophers, they are 'philosophologists', suited to teaching 'philosophology' in the same stale hallowed halls in which it is learned in the first place.

[hilda]

Regarding philosophy in the first message he naughtily quotes Aristotle.
aristotle is not really a philosopher in the screaming mad seller of outrageous proponents of "metaphysically" or alternative world propositions. He is not the sort of man who will try to sell human rights on the back of a metaphysical analysais of language but a reflective man of the world who intellectualises. He is not wise so much as knowing; knowing of the foibles of people and philosophers and this knowingness comes from being a man of the world.
Now the one thing every man of the world knows is that every and any sort of belief is the deadliest enemy of mankind because they challenge the natural authority of the knowing man of the world, such as himself; beliefs are screaming mad things produced by problematic people which generally have some sort of ulterior ethical or subversive implication exactly like Chomsky. Philosophers, academics, inetlellectuals, logicians, students are not knowing men of the world and in most cases would not survive without some form of implementation of some sort of philosophical belief.
So if you do have read Aristotle for God' s sake relax, he is obnly intellectualising for humanity. He is only Harry Stotle who owns a bakery, reflects on the world, and being a man of the world gets about a bit and understands all the foibles of mankind and like all such essentially lighthearted and optimistic authority speaks and acts on behalf od the silent majority against all those revolting ghastly things called beliefs.
One conversation one imagine goes like this at the bakery
Marx: Who are you two?
Plato: Moring Harry Stotle, how is business?
Aristotle: Oh do not ask
Plato: The slaves?
Arsitotle: Now they want an hour tea break; they are going to murder me.
Marx: Do you pay them?
Arsitotle: Never enough, ha ha.
Marx: So the diference is exploitation! (walks off)
Plato: Strange
Arsitotle: Bloody Christian!

(enough said)

Patriarch talks about final causes.
A milkmaid is milking a cow in a field. A neanderthal, call him Karl, is watching from the other side of the hedge and thinking what sort of entity is that? Aristotle is walking past on a constitutional and Karl asks him.
Now Karl is as an infant to an adult when trying to make sense of homo sapiens. Aristiotle tells him she is performing an activity. Now action is just a sound to Karl; normally only a calf does that to a cow as a part of nature.
So Aristotle tries to break it down with regard to the "final purpose" or the achievement if successful of the series of doings. (karl understands doings), which is a pail full full of milk (with due regard to the whole circumstance including her relief, her calf etc etc.).
But Karl simply does not understand hom. sapiens so the whole exercise is in a way completely academic. All Aristotle can do is record the intellectualisation as it were for the sake of argument.
Karl goes off and tries to work out how culture must be a sort of magic generated by virtue of being in a group (but of course a flock of sheep has no more powers than any individual sheep writ large) so it is a Neanderthal dead end.

So "final cause" is part of a uniquely human form of interaction with each other and the world which distinguishes man from animals; an activity. there is no final cause in the rest of nature and certainly nothing philosphically (homosexually) hystrionically mega senstaionally metaphysical about it.

Oh look here comes the farmer:

Farmer: And what in blazes is the meaning of this?
Milkmaid: I' m your milkmaid you old fool.
Farmer: Ah yes now I recognise you, it is little early for me, you know.
Milkmaid: Honestly!! it' s de trop.
Aristotle: Slavery
Marx: ?