Someone who has different views about the subject matter of a particular science is simply not engaged in that particular field. And although there is methodological debate during scientific revolutions, someone with radically deviant methods, who for example totally disregards observation and experiment in favour of aesthetic considerations, simply ceases to be a scientist. In contrast, disparate intellectual activities, tackling different problems by incompatible methods and with different aims are still called philosophy. There are, for example, philosophers who would maintain that philosophy should strive neither for knowledge nor cogency or argument but for beauty and spiritual inspiration.
– Hans-Johann Glock, What is Analytic Philosophy? (2008), p.7
Long time readers of this blog will no doubt be aware that I’m intrigued by the question, ‘What is Philosophy?’ A brief glance over to the subject list will show that the ‘metaphilosophy’ cloud looms large over its little portion of the sidebar. I think the reason why this question is so interesting to me is that if we are going to delineate philosophy from theology and then have a theory about why the former is of value (a project I am quite interested in), then we ought to have some kind of conception of what philosophy is.
The remark above from Glock is the right first step to take. The question, ‘What is Philosophy?’ is an open one, because philosophy seems to have the unique characteristic of academic disciplines in having surprisingly large and porous borders – there is much more activity which passes for philosophy, then there is which passes for astronomy or medical research. Philosophy, somehow, is able to traverse an enormous ground of subject matter (mind, matter, medicine, morals, meaning, just to mention the ‘m’’s) and deploy extremely different conceptual instruments to get its work done.
Does this mean that any form of thinking on any subject can be classed as “Philosophy”. Is there no land in the sand?
Hey Jeremy – thanks for your question! I’m not sure I’ve heard the phrase ‘land in the sand before’? Is that some sort of amalgamation of ‘missing the trees for the forest’ and ‘line in the sand?’
But to answer your question, I think the fact that I would need to think about that question shows that it is a very live and open question. The answer I’d say is ‘maybe’! The only qualification I’d give is that to be philosophy it ought to adopt a questioning or abstract standpoint towards the discourse in question. I think simply thinking within a certain discourse – i.e. contributing to chemical engineering theory – would have a hard time being philosophy. But if you start to question assumptions of chemical engineering methodology, be critical of certain practises, or try to say something about that discipline at large, then you are getting closer to philosophy I think.
Philosophy tends to float around certain questions, but many philosophers are happy with a wide definition like yours. What do you think? Thanks again!
Ha ha Tim I am not sure I have ever heard of the phrase ‘missing the trees for the forest’? Is it some sort of subversion of ‘being unable to see the forest for the tress’?
heh heh
This being on a far less serious note, obviously…