Thanks for your comments. I don't see a clear dis...

2008-05-16T16:25:00.000-07:00

Thanks for your comments. I don't see a clear distinction between the two senses of philosophy. That is, they don't seem mutually exclusive. This may be because I'm not following what you are saying.

A fair reading of my post shows that I don't equate philosophy with critical thinking. But critical thinking is also different from saying that philosophy is "the application of logical reasoning to any subject." I don't define philosophy that way, contrary to your claim that I do, in the original post. I don't provide any definition of philosophy. Nonetheless, the idea of philosophy as the application of logical reasoning to any subject is appealing. I don't think philosophy has any specific content (in the way that chemistry has the study of molecules as its specific content). So in that respect, I agree with your characterization of my view.

I don't see this as distinct from your second proposal of philosophy. From what I understand from your comment, philosophy is primarily a study of methodology. I don't disagree; philosophy is primarily concerned with how one asks the questions they are seeking answers to, how those answers are to be discovered, and how the answers should be formulated. The subject matter (the question and the answer) is open.

After that, I am afraid, you lose me. I don't see the distinction you are trying to draw between so called real philosophers and academic philosophers (which is not to say that I am a fan of the current state of the profession).

Nor do I understand how philosophical method can be understood as being apart from logical reasoning, construed broadly. (In the broad sense, logical reasoning is redundant. This is not say that reasoning must always be linear and deductive--that surely would be mistaken.)

It's also quite surprising to read your comment that philosophy is not about the pursuit of truth or knowledge? That would come as quite a shock to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

There certainly are a lot of reasons why students ...

2008-05-16T15:46:00.000-07:00

There certainly are a lot of reasons why students might choose philosophy. Whether or not they are right or wrong can only be decided when we know what philosophy is and what it is supposed to do. I think we disagree about these things, or, I want to try and draw a distinction you haven't between two senses of what "philosophy" might be. You seem to think that philosophy is not different from critical thinking -- that is, philosophy, on your definition, is the application of logical reasoning to any subject. It is indifferent to subject matter and rigid with regard to form. Here is what I would claim: philosophy is distinct from other disciplines (is the Queen of the sciences) because it does not allow itself to take its method for granted either at the beginning or the end of its quest (either when it is being learned or practiced). This is so because philosophy is the discipline tasked with raising the issue of how things ought to be done, or, what they are, or, whether we have yet found the correct criteria for truth.
The philosopher who takes the current established practices within the academic field of philosophy as a ground of his thinking is... not a philosopher. To make the point, here is a quote from Thoreau in "Walden" in the form of a critique: "We have no philosophers, only professors of philosophy."
Here there is a distinction between "true" philosophers and "academic" philosophers. At first this distinction makes it look like I think academic philosophers really are what you have said philosophers are, so that a student pursuing philosophy in academia for the reasons you have given would make perfect sense, whatever other pretentious use of the word philosophy there might be.
But now here is the question: will it be a problem if academic philosophy ceases to recognize its basis in whatever Thoreau is talking about, as it seems like you may have done? And it certainly seems like those NYTimes students have done. Will it be a problem if, while ceasing to recognize its source, it continues to refer to itself as philosophy, potentially concealing behind rigidified disciplinary methodology ("logical reasoning") what is in philosophy to find? (This object of philosophy may be called "the good life," "meaning," "the unsaid" "an ethos" - but not "truth," not "worldview," not "knowledge," not "a good job.") If so many philosophy students have been allowed to forget that there even are two senses of what it might mean to be a philosopher -- (that sophistry is a sin against philosophy) at least to the extent that this distinction can be readily ignored in the way we discuss these issues, has anyone then "professed" philosophy at all?
If not, then we don't even have what Thoreau says -- in which case we really are poor.
I'd be glad for responses.

Comments on Philosophy Blog: Philosophy majors increasing

Thanks for your comments. I don't see a clear dis...

There certainly are a lot of reasons why students ...