| |
These three short articles were originally posted on Matt's blog. They form a basic introduction to the study and history of philosophy.
Part 1 - Definition
The word philosophy comes from the Greek "philo sophia" which means "the love of knowledge". This doesn't really help explain the modern meaning very well. Western philosophy can be said to originate with the ancient Greeks, where Greek scholars would analyse statements, question knowledge and even reality, in order to attempt to seperate truth from non-truth. You see, the ancient Greek philosophers realised that our most common beliefs cannot really be proven. For example, you probably think that you're sitting at a computer reading this off of a screen, but ask your self - how do you know?
You could very well misperceive the computer. You could be imagining it, or dreaming it. You may exist in a virtual reality. You might claim that if you can see it then it's probably there, but all of your senses are flawed: you know you can succumb to optical and auditory illusions, for example, so what grounds do you have for trusting your own senses? This questioning is called 'philosophical doubt' or scepticism.
It wasn't only the Greeks who began questioning their knowledge and reality. India and China have developed their own in-depth philosophies indepenently of the west. Philosophy is often split up as follows: Western Philosophy, covering Europe and later the Americas, and Eastern Philosophy, covering Asia, particularly India and China.
Getting back to the point: how do you know for certain there is a computer in front of you? the answer is that you don't. Go ahead and present to me any argument to the contrary you like, I can and will refute it easily.
Soon two schools of thought arised in a particular branch of philosophy now called 'epistemology' - or the study of knowledge. The two schools were rationalism and empiricism.
In empircisms it is claimed that all knowledge we have, we gain from experience of the world. A person is born with a completely blank mind and from there discovers things about the world such as maths, logic, morals, and laws such as gravity and causation.
Rationalism opposes this, suggesting that all knowledge we have we obtain through either reasoning or innate knowledge - that is knowledge we are born with.
The rationalist Renne Descartes suggested that we know certain things before we are born, including: the existence of God, basic maths, laws of logic and causation, and the rest we learn either by experience or reasoning. An empiricist will refute this by pointing out that there is no evidence for such innate knowledge existing.
Philosophers from both sides soon defined two types of knowledge: that which can be known without experience, and that which cannot possibly be known without experience (or being born with the knowledge).
Some things are true by definition, for example: "all bachelours are unmarried men". You don't have to experience the real world to know that is true, all you need is a definition of the word bachelour, which is 'an unmarried man'. This type of knowledge can be obtained without experience. But how about the colour of grass? does the word 'grass' contain the word 'green'? no, and while the definition does contain 'green', how can you describe green?
Of course you can't describe it. You have to experience 'green' in order to know what it is.
No real philosopher is a pure rationalist or empiricist, instead they will often sit somewhere close to the border. Both positions have criticisms that can't be answered. And herein lies the essence of what philosophy is, at least in my opinion. Philosophy can be the study of absolutely anything, but it must be a critical study, aimed at stripping away falsehoods and getting to the central questions. Therefore philosophy is about identifying those questions which cannot be answered.
Why do we need to know if a question can't be answered? well would you like to travel through life with assumptions that might be false, never questioning anything and thereby never making any intellectual progress? Well I wouldn't...
Modern philosophy covers many things. Popular topics are: epistemology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and moral philosophy.
I'm particularly interested in epistemology and the philosophy of: religion, morality and mind. I'm also very interested and reasonably well read on Eastern philosophy, in fact I probably know as much or more about this as I do Western philosophy. This post has been a brief overview, so if anyone would like me to talk about any specific areas in detail then I'd be happy to try in future posts.
You may post comments on this article by going to the original blog post here
Part 2 - What philosophy looks at
It seems to me that many people in have an interest in what might be called 'big questions', such as those regarding existence, reality, truth and purpose.
I'm also aware that in the West there is an increasing interest in Eastern philosophy, the apparent result of disatisfaction with the transparent worldview that some feel the West holds. At the same time others want to stay well away from anything mentioning God, which might shy them away from Eastern thought since traditionally 'religion' and philosophy have been much closer in India and China, compared with Europe. (although I would contend that religion doesn't exist in India and China at least in the Western sense of religion).
The so called 'big questions' I mentioned can be looked at from both viewpoints, although I to feel this distinction is mostly superficial.
If you've read the earlier post then you will notice that I highlighted one particular phrase: "philosophy is about identifying those questions which cannot be answered."
But just because philosophy can't give answers to these questions, that doesn't mean a philosophers themselves cannot or should not present their own suggestions, and for as long as humans have been able to think and reason, we have been doing just that (well before philosophy existed as a study).
You may post comments on this article by going to the original blog post here
Part 3 - Eastern and Western philosophy
In my last post I said I would explain exactly what I mean when I say 'eastern philosophy', so let me start by telling you that I don't really mean much. The distinction between eastern and western philosophy really refers to cultural differences more than philosophical ones, and those who try to segregate the two miss out on the value of either.
Eastern philosophy generally refers to philosophical systems found in India, China, Japan and other Asian countries. It often also includes Persian philosophy (mostly relating to the Zoroastrian religion). The term is used in contrast with western philosophy, which is centered traditionally around Europe and more recently the United States as well.
The major difference is in how each views philosophy. Specifically, it boils down to religion. Religion itself has a different meaning in the east and west. In fact one can argue that 'religion' doesn't exist in eastern cultures, at least not by the western definition. And it is due to this difference that philosophy is also seen differently...
Quite often religion and philosophy are seen as opposed in the west. One encourages people to doubt their knowledge, and question everything in order to obtain truths, while the other provides people with a dogma which they are to accept unquestioningly as truth. Of course this is a very facile description because I was speaking in general. There have been many Christian philosophers for example, who clearly did not accept things unquestioningly. But in general many people perceive the two as being mutually incompatible and for that reason in the west philosophy and theology have influenced each other but always remained strongly seperated.
So what about the east? The general perception of religion in India contrasts with Europe historically in two ways: 1. it was/is not viewed as a property of a person, but as an integral part of their identity, and 2. it was/is viewed as very personal - ie. there is no doctorine which everyone must adhere to. This means that questioning occured often and was even encouraged in all the major Indian schools of thought.
In India philosophy developed as a result of religion. That is why labels like 'hinduism' and 'buddhism' can be used to refer to a philosophy and a religion at the same time. The two are not considered to be in opposition.
This lends itself to great diversity. In theory one can be a hindu and an atheist, for example. (Note: I won't get into why the word 'hindu' is a seriously misleading word here). A Hindu, Buddhist or Jain may hold different views regarding the nature of the universe, the self and God. Those religions don't in themselves dictate the views held by followers so each religion can be broken into different philosophical outlooks - this especially occurs with Hinduism, where there are many sometimes opposing belief systems under the same religious label.
In short then, the difference between eastern and western philosophy is that in the west philosophy has been seen as opposed to religion, while in the east it has been seen as a necessary part of religion.
China developed similar 'liberal' views on religion, leading it to readily accept Buddhism. This allowed Buddhism and China's own Taoism to be of great influence to each other.
Beyond religion there really isn't much more difference. The same ideas have been thought of in India and China as have been thought of in Greece, France, Germany, Britain and America (although in many cases the Indian and Chinese philosophers thought of them first). This includes the problem of philosophical doubt leading people to analyse their own knowledge, and questions over perception, the mind, the meaning of language and numbers, and of course metaphysical questions like the existence of God and the soul. Of course both the east and west have produced many completely unique ideas which also set them apart, but it is not right to consider one side's views 'better' than the other's.
You may post comments on this article by going to the original blog post here
|
Contents
What is philosophy?