Philosophy. What is it? What does it really do? Do we need it? These are all valid questions and ones which I find myself faced with quite a lot, as a single honours Philosophy student here at Durham. When asked these questions, the peculiar thing is that I never know where to begin when answering them. I could come up with some definition of what it loosely means to me, but this will surely be contested by someone to whom it means something quite different. Philosophy is, inherently, messy, confused and hard to pin down, but I would argue, so are we. It is for this reason that philosophy is an essential part of our world, whether we know it or not. While we may prefer neat categories and definitions, to only adopt such a perspective is, surely, to deny our experience in all its plurality and multifariousness.
Philosophy is often approached with some wariness, even dismissal, and perhaps this is due to the common image of the wealthy, white man sat in his armchair with very little else to do other than philosophise, however, I compel you to re-evaluate and give us another chance. I think a way to do this is to be reminded that philosophy, whether we like it or not, is always working away behind the scenes, so, arguably, it is worth knowing about. Philosophy is not something that should be reserved to the realms and shelves of academia, it is the very fabric by which we organise and understand ourselves. The best philosophy is that which is done on the ground, in and amongst the world and people over which we philosophise, and this is conveyed so perfectly in a piece I revisited recently: Mary Midgley’s paper Philosophical Plumbing (which I recommend you all read).
In this piece, she demonstrates the relevance of philosophy to our lives through discussing the conceptual schemes that we have come to rely on in our society and why it is philosophy that is required to keep these in check. Our society is home to a myriad of such models and schemes that have become so habitual and familiar to be invisible. Now, I am not suggesting revolution or revolt through philosophy’s exposure of our covert systems of thought; however, I am suggesting that we must employ philosophy to be aware of them and to not only keep them in check, but ensure they are still working for us. Conceptual schemes such as the idea of the Social Contract theory, the notion of affirming the rights of citizens and government through ones entering into a given agreement or contract, which, once established and accepted, went largely unnoticed and embedded within our Western institutions. Midgley uses this example to demonstrate that while, indeed, this model has served us well this does not mean it should be taken as the adequate guide for social and political organisation, rather it should be treated as something “partial and provisional” and balanced by alternatives. She also uses this example to illustrate the way conceptual schemes can diffuse from the political spheres, where they belong and function effectively, into our private lives. As such, contractual thinking can be found in the way we think about personal relationships—as that which should only arise out of freely negotiated contracts. This kind of cross-contamination should be observed and held to account, as surely the binding we have towards our parents or children, the mutual dependence that arises out of long-term friendship, is not a tragic infringement on our freedom as contractual thinking and Existentialists would lead us to believe. To think so does suggest a complete distortion of our conceptions of freedom and the potential for these concepts to extend into other facets of our lives and values.
Philosophy is required as a discipline as it does the necessary work of reminding us that a model is only a model and it is, in fact, essential that we keep correcting one model philosophically against another. Humans are guilty of latching on to something, one idea, that works in the hope that it will be the answer, the model by which we can live, but, of course, this is impossible, and it is dangerous to think otherwise. We need conversation, debate, a constant friction between different ideas to ensure we are in the best possible place and philosophy is the way we can do that. It is not static, as Descartes’ and Enlightenment thinkers may have caused us to believe, but something that does and must change. Even if we do not intend to change or uproot these underlying beliefs, it is vital to recognise and understand them rather than simply taking them as fact and ‘the way things are’.
I find this particularly relevant when observing the dominance of scientific rationality in today’s world which, again, can be considered an example of a model that has inserted itself into our society and has become an unquestioning framework by which we live. I have no intention of doubting the incredible scientific advancement we have witnessed, even within our own lifetimes. However, I do think it is important to question it as the solution, the only true grounds for belief being that which can be empirically verified does not encapsulate the human experience and can itself be considered a superstition, a myth. The drive following the Enlightenment to denounce all myth and symbols and use language only to report scientific facts is an unattainable fiction. Our thinking works through symbol, it is often the first way ideas present themselves to us. Even in science, language cannot be divorced from symbol, simply look at Darwin’s use of metaphor! It is important to remember, as Midgley suggested, that “we think as whole people, not as disembodied minds, not as computers” and I think this is what todays’ rhetoric is trying to convince us of. There is a general repudiation of that which does not offer straight, clear cut answers, a disregard for the humanities to make way for empirical rationalism. However, these are not opposing forces. Max Horkheimer was perhaps correct in professing that philosophy’s social function lies in its “criticism of what is prevalent” that serves to prevent us from losing ourselves in the ideas that organise our society. We do not have to choose between philosophy and these models, such as empiricism, life often requires us to adopt both a philosophical and empirical stance, philosophers simply draw attention to the event where we become obsessed with looking only at one side of things.
Philosophy, arguably, stops us from taking things, the status quo, simply at face value and it is for that reason it can be considered an annoyance, an inconvenience. Yet, as Horkheimer claimed, it is this blatant acceptance that we will never have all the answers and the hopelessness it embodies, that is ultimately philosophy’s saving grace. It is this kind of critical lens I think we need now more than ever, in an age of battling beliefs and ideas we must instead work to find a way they can all fit together and work to understand them. Genuine progress is borne of ideas, what is advancement if we do not understand its place, its why. This can be considered a call for us all to adopt a philosophical gaze on the world every once in a while, because it belongs to and is a part of all of us.