Is Philosophy Bunk?
| Skyler: Aristotle and Plato both thought the most important people in a society were its philosophers. Yet, the world largely moves on without them and their great conversation through the ages ever having much impact. Philosophers didn't give us refrigeration or the internal combustion engine -- which each have done more to transform human existence than anything Hegel wrote. Philosophers did give us the concept of the super man and racial purity and other dangerous ideas that caused millions to be uselessly murdered. Perhaps we'd be better off with more "training" and less "educating" by your terms. Right and wrong aren't that hard to figure out, and we simply don't need snobs sitting around pretending they know better than the rest of us what is obvious. I am, whether you think I am or not. Descartes was a fool, but a fine mathematician. His math has done more for mankind than his silly Meditation on First Philosophy ever will. And I can study him without a brick classroom, though I'd rather not. |
Yesterday, in a post entitled Online Training vs. Online Education, I drew a distinction between training and education, and I suggested that, while online courses might be adequate for the former, they were a poor substitute for personal contact in and outside the classroom. Saturdays at Ricochet are usually slow days, and I thought that my post would interest only a handful of members. But I was wrong. I stirred up a hornet's nest -- which suggests that it might be worthwhile to do another post on one aspect of the argument I stirred up.
I am not sure that Skyler's comment, quoted above, fairly reflects what he would think and say when in a calmer mood, but it is a position shared by some in our number and more widely shared within the general public, and it deserves examination.
I will begin with a simple point. The contempt that Skyler expresses for Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Hegel in this comment reflects a remarkable ignorance concerning the history of science and the relationship between philosophy and science.
Put simply, science (ancient and modern) is a product of "great conversation through the ages" that Skyler mentions. Modern science arises from Galileo's suggestion, inspired by Plato, that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics; from Sir Francis Bacon's insistence that, if we torture nature by way of experiments, we can make her reveal her secrets; and from Descartes' bringing together of Galileo's hypothesis and Bacon's method. It also presupposes a shift in moral sensibility begun by Machiavelli, taken up by Bacon, and embraced by Descartes in his Discourse on Method -- a shift in which human beings came to see their task as the conquest of nature, their end as the acquisition of power, and their purpose as the avoidance of pain, the prolongation of life, and the intensification of pleasure. It is this shift, initiated by the philosophers for whom Skyler has so much contempt, that led to the invention of refrigeration and the internal combustion engine.
We owe to this shift a great deal. Were it not for it and the work of those who signed onto the project designed by Bacon and Descartes, I myself would, for example, almost certainly by now be dead. But there is a price -- which caused Plato and Aristotle to shy away from embracing the ethos of constant innovation -- for it is the scientific project initiated by Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes that produced nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons. The ancient philosophers were not entirely foolish when they wondered whether human beings can be trusted with such power. The jury is still out.
If you want to explore these themes, take a look at the second volume of my Republics Ancient and Modern, where I discuss Machiavelli, Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes. I return to some of these themes in Against Throne and Altar and try to develop them more fully. It should suffice to say here that there were profound political ramifications. Resources had to be reallocated, and this would be accomplished, as Bacon foresaw, by the commercialization of society. He was a great defender in Parliament of the patent of monopoly, which was intended to encourage inventions by creating property in innovative ideas. When Skyler, in another comment, claims that the world we live in is based on science and engineering, he is only partially right. The importance we accord to science and engineering has its roots in a political decision inspired by a philosophical conviction.
Let me add that, when Skyler writes, "Philosophers did give us the concept of the super man and racial purity and other dangerous ideas that caused millions to be uselessly murdered," he skirts past a problem. Racism -- by which I mean not color prejudice but the conviction that there is a hierarchy of biologically distinct races here on earth -- was not a product of the philosophers. It was espoused and propagated by the biologists and their admirers. Friedrich Nietzsche may have spoke of the ubermensch, but he was not a racist. There was, in the 1920s and the 1930s, hardly a scientist in the world who opposed the eugenics movement. What opposition there was came from outfits such as the Roman Catholic Church, which had embraced via Augustine and Aquinas the outlook of Plato and Aristotle. Training without education can be exceedingly dangerous.
- Comment (96)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (14)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
A thought that crosses both topics:
I did my degree online, and my minor was philosophy. I found the interaction with the professors much better than in any traditional classes I took previously for a couple of reasons. Each discussion was one-on-one and could not be interrupted by other people's children. Even though the discussions occurred in online forums, the onlookers could not really interfere with the proceedings. Because the interaction was written each communication could be reread, studied, and argued point by black-and-white point. Because of these two reasons I think received much more from the experience than I would have with only verbal communication. Of course, I did this as an adult, so my interest and engagement was much higher than young people so easily distracted by the next kegger and the opposite sex.
May '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
My opinion is that the quality of an education is almost entirely dependent on the quality of the student. Any subject I have ever studied is far too complex to be adequately covered by a few brief lectures a week and the real learning comes from quietly studying and contemplating what is supposed to be learned.
This is why online education works. You can't change a student's spots. They are going to be what they are. The value of the Harvard degree is not the location, but the selection of the student body. They will be brilliant (or the child of a rich person) regardless. The students at the top universities are the ones best able to benefit as far as their education goes. What is missing is that they will not get the imprimatur of the school.
And it's also why philosophy, although being the most important subject, is also the least important to study formally.
Edited on August 19, 2012 at 11:53pmSep '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield disagrees with you:
Edited on August 20, 2012 at 12:02amApr '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Essentially, what you're talking about is the modernist paradigm. Marx, Hegel, Einstein, Dewey, Crick, and friends described an ever increasing sphere of knowledge that allowed ever more detailed and effective intervention. A lot of that was helpful and insightful, although a lot of the overreaching elements were perhaps a little less so. There are a few philosophers of this sort still about; even Nozick could lean in that direction. The modern ones (eg. Singer) don't produce much of value, although they can be fun to read (eg. Scruton when he's writing on something he understands, ie. not postmodernism).
Jan '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
You can make the same argument about any department in the academy. More on point, why are the political science, law, or history departments stocked with left-wing professors?
As I say, there's a distinction between the subject itself and how it's taught in the professional education industry.
Nov '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
KC Mulville
Richard Fulmer
I agree that dialog is needed to question and refine our thoughts. But cannot dialog occur over the Internet?
Dialog can certainly occur over the internet; however, internet dialog presumes that the interlocutors are interested and engaged.
True. I withdraw my suggestion.
Apr '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Continued: As a conservative, theologically and politically, planning is not my bag. Because of this, those philosophers who explain why it is not possible, why state intervention depends on ultimately unworkable assumptions, seem valuable to me. Derrida, in particular, was very good on this stuff indeed.
Of Grammatology is often dense and sometimes deliberately obscure (although the discussion of logocentrism is very relevant to the topic of online education; I think he'd have been in favor), but The Politics of Friendship is a delight to read. There, and in other places, he engages in brilliant analysis of Plato et. al. not with the intent of knocking the classics down a peg, but with the intent of knocking down their modern detractors and their modern supporters (Friendship talks about a lot of the pre-suppostions made today and demonstrates how different Plato's intellectual context was in some surprising ways).
Where Derrida has been most successful is in eviscerating essentially communist philosophies, particularly Post-Structuralism. Sure, he sometimes uses difficult terms, and can take an effort to work through, but the same can be said of Aquinas. He advocated little positively, promoted understanding of the classics, and disable Marxist efforts.
Apr '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Richard Fulmer
KC Mulville
Richard Fulmer
I agree that dialog is needed to question and refine our thoughts. But cannot dialog occur over the Internet?
Dialog can certainly occur over the internet; however, internet dialog presumes that the interlocutors are interested and engaged.
True. I withdraw my suggestion. · 8 minutes ago
I'll still defend it. While it is true that learning benefits from mutual engagement, this can happen online, and does not always happen in person. I know that I failed to pay attention in more than one class that I later bitterly regretted not taking in. I don't believe that I am unique in this.
Oct '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Bluebottle
Teachers that have had the most success in getting me to challenge my own beliefs or assumptions are the ones that first built a relationship of trust.
It's worth pointing out that philosophy is what taught us we have assumptions. Only then did we start thinking about how to discern what's true despite those (misleading) assumptions. A teacher that causes you to reevaluate your assumptions is guiding you philosophically, regardless of the topic.
BTW (shock!) the nature of truth still isn't ‘resolved’ despite millennia of learned philosophizing. I think it safe to assume we will be arguing about philosophy ("truth") when our sun runs out of fuel in five billion years. Jesus told Pilate: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” Pilate’s response? “What is truth?” Indeed.
Sep '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Sure, he sometimes uses difficult terms, and can take an effort to work through, but the same can be said of Aquinas.
You rang?
Jul '12
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Rocket City Dave: I think of philosophy as a way of living your life and I have to think it's the best way. And, as an aside, I don't think that philosophy and faith exclude each other. A Christian philosopher just accepts revealed truth on it's merits and it's own terms. So I have to disagree with your statement that Philosophy is a tool. It means the love of wisdom. That is a way of living, not a tool.
But on the subject of online learning, I think much of the discussion is missing an important issue and that is cost and school capacity. If there are not enough available opportunities in good schools to accomodate the supply of deserving students, what are the ones that can't get in going to do? It isn't enough to say that the classroom is better than the internet, we know that. The challenge is to find a way to serve those students who can learn and want to learn and it seems to me that the online option should be looked at. It isn't the best option but it's better than nothing.
Aug '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Paul A. Rahe
for it is the scientific project initiated by Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes that produced nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons. The ancient philosophers were not entirely foolish when they wondered whether human beings can be trusted with such power. The jury is still out.
The Mongols gave us biological warfare in 1346 - two hundred years before Galileo.
Paul A. Rahe
Let me add that, when Skyler writes, "Philosophers did give us the concept of the super man and racial purity and other dangerous ideas that caused millions to be uselessly murdered,"...
Racism -- by which I mean not color prejudice but the conviction that there is a hierarchy of biologically distinct races here on earth -- was not a product of the philosophers. It was espoused and propagated by the biologists and their admirers.
Say, didn't those biologists have PhDs? Didn't they influence other PhDs? (Namely Woodrow Wilson with PhDs in History and Political Science).
I merely ask because it goes to the heart of Skyler's objection.
Philosophy helps because (as Dr Arn once put it) it helps us think of the higher things - fine, but don't hand wave Skyler's objections away.
Oct '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Is liberal arts practical on a mass scale? I've taught myself a lot about the world, but almost all of it required searching out people in positions of real power (both in the past and the present) and reading their material (or material of their private conversations, like Fed minutes). "Second-hand" knowledge just doesn't cut it.
Obviously there a limited supply of powerful or ex-powerful people. Is a decent liberal arts education something non-elite universities can even do? In that case, if "everyone" can't have a liberal arts education, does online education even matter?
Oct '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Instugator
Say, didn't those biologists have PhDs? Didn't they influence other PhDs? (Namely Woodrow Wilson with PhDs in History and Political Science).
I somewhat agree. It's hard to imagine racism not having a philosophical component, especially a hundred years ago when the differences between races were so large. Theoretical racial supremacy explained the world as it was 100-150 years ago, and throughout most of human history. Classical liberalism was a long-term view: in the long run, capitalism and freedom would make us all rich, and the stark racial differences of the time would disappear. It must have seemed insane to elites of that era.
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Joseph Eagar: Is liberal arts practical on a mass scale? I've taught myself a lot about the world, but almost all of it required searching out people in positions of real power (both in the past and the present) and reading their material (or material of their private conversations, like Fed minutes). "Second-hand" knowledge just doesn't cut it.
Obviously there a limited supply of powerful or ex-powerful people. Is a decent liberal arts education something non-elite universities can even do? In that case, if "everyone" can't have a liberal arts education, does online education even matter? · 57 minutes ago
These are excellent questions. Obviously, some things can be done on a mass scale, and some individuals, with the help of books, videos, and who knows what, can educate themselves. But my instinct is that personal attention is, if not essential, very, very helpful, and that does cost money.
But keep in mind that our colleges and universities waste vast sums on unnecessary bureaucracy and on country-club accommodations. There are very few such institutions that could not cut their overhead by a quarter or more without sacrificing anything in the way of instruction.
Feb '12
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
KC Mulville: There is a distinction between philosophy itself, versus and how it's taught in the current education industry. Is it the kind of subject that can be taught online?
I'd say no. Philosophy matters most when it challenges your assumptions. Most people don't like to have their assumptions challenged, and they avoid it when possible. In a classroom, much like a courtroom, your beliefs are challenged. That's the essence of critical thinking. Given that, an actual classroom is a better place for that than going online.
I'm not sure you can honestly improve your critical thinking skills online, unless you're involved in a real conversation with a real person.
In the spirit of challenging assumptions, I think we should exercise care when presuming what an online experience is, or is not. Technologies such as TelePresence, and the like, are key enablers.
Challenges occur based on the presence of others, why bind that to the constraints of a physical room? The Internet expands the discussion beyond the geographical and societal boundaries. Brick and mortar classrooms are relegated to those fortunate enough to be there, at that time.
Edited on August 20, 2012 at 3:51amAug '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
I remember a scene in the movie, Good Will Hunting where the main character's genius is compared to Srinivasa Ramanujan, a man from India who was a genius at math. Although he had no formal education, his contributions to mathematical theory is compared that of Euler.
My point is, the love of learning is sufficient to itself - had the principles of those great men not been invented by them, someone else would have stepped into their shoes.
If you need additional proofs then look at the people who homeschool - a liberal arts education is merely a continuation of their efforts.
As for the scale - liberal arts is an informational discipline and we live in the information age - yes it is scalable, especially with Google et al digitizing every work known to man.
Last year, our pastor mentioned Baltasar Gracian and quoted from his work, "The Art of Worldly Wisdom". Once home, my wife pulled out her Tablet, found a copy of the work on Google Books and began to study.
We live in an age where the collected knowledge of mankind can be delivered to your living room.
Oct '10
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
Paul A. Rahe
But keep in mind that our colleges and universities waste vast sums on unnecessary bureaucracy and on country-club accommodations. There are very few such institutions that could not cut their overhead by a quarter or more without sacrificing anything in the way of instruction. · 48 minutes ago
But there's still my point about powerful people. People outside the circles of policy-making can blind themselves to certain issues. A perfect example is wages and the current account: trade deficits require cuts in consumption, otherwise you get a crisis; and that usually means lower wages [in the sense that the government allows them to fall; the default assumption in politics is that the government will not].
That's a very difficult thing for people to accept. It's so difficult that modern economies do not adjust wages downward in nominal terms at all--most wages adjust downward via inflation. It's such an emotional issue that if you want to learn about it, you have to find people with practical experience in public policy.
Edited on August 20, 2012 at 4:48amNov '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
On either side, we are fortunate having leisure to prosecute or defend philosophy.
Philosophers should not complain, but instead should be thankful, about being compelled continuously to give an account of what they do, because giving an account of the philosophical activity is (conveniently!) the philosophical activity sine qua non.
If philosophers weren't compelled to give an account of what they do, then their favorite activity would appear to be just so much self-indulgent navel-gazing. But because they are compelled to give an account, they can't hardly be blamed for undertaking every investigation necessary to defend themselves.
The most serious charge formerly was that philosophers undermined piety, but nowadays the most serious charge is that philosophers are useless.
Both charges are old and persistent, yet the modern shift in emphasis is revelatory. In front of a modern jury, it seems philosophers might effectively defend against the second charge by confessing to the first. If it would be wrong to go that far, it seems at least that the first charge, the charge of undermining piety, nowadays can be safely ignored.
For a better defense to the remaining charge, the charge of uselessness, see my next comment.
Nov '11
Re: Is Philosophy Bunk?
The second charge, the one with the modern emphasis on the utilitarian rather than the pious, is commonly stated as a question:
"What is philosophizing good for?"
Things are good three ways: 1. Good for accomplishing what's necessary. 2. Good for accomplishing what's useful. 3. Good in themselves. The first two are things that are good as means to an end. The third consists of things good as ends. Since means are subservient to their ends, the best activities are those that are good, not for what they lead to, but as ends themselves.
So the correct answer to the question, "What is philosophy good for?" is, "Nothing in particular, other than philosophizing."
In utilitarian times, we mistakenly believe everything must be justified as useful for something else. To ask a philosopher, "What is philosophizing good for?" is like asking a pious person, "What is worshipping God good for?" No doubt, someone thinking himself perfectly pious will now hasten to explain why worshipping God is useful.
If philosophers could discourage that impious misunderstanding of divine worship, they will have hit upon a fine defense against the first charge (in case they happen ever again to need one).