[ This is a response to, though not necessarily a rebuttal of, Mike D's blog entry titled, "What good are philosophers?" ]
The distinction needs to be made between philosophers (or those who dare affix such a label to themselves) and philosophy proper. A while back I wrote an entry which serves as my answer to the question, "What is Philosophy?" and I point readers there for an initial response to the question, "What good is philosophy?" as well. In fact, I recommend that readers click on the philosophy label to get even more of my answer to that question.
But what good are philosophers? I'm inclined to say, "not very." I've been to a couple philosophy conventions (and yes, they are as exciting as they sound). The crowd is whiter and nerdier than a World of Warcraft LAN party - and that's not an easy thing to accomplish. Seriously, though, I think the reputation of philosophy has taken a serious hit because of these eggheads who have the uncommon privilege of devoting their lives to philosophical inquiry (and if you think it's neither uncommon nor a privilege, I implore you to read a little more history) who approach this vast discipline with less enthusiasm than a bag of dead bunnies.
Philosophy - my philosophy teacher Dr. Stark in particular - ignited that fire of curiosity within me. When I first stepped into Dr. Stark's class, I was a young Christian minister who thought he had all the answers. I listened to Dr. Stark lecture about the importance of seeking truth, and for the first time I was challenged to think, to question, to explore the thoughts and arguments of history's great (and allegedly great) thinkers. Indeed, if more philosophers were like Dr. Stark, less people would feel the need to ask, "what good are philosophers?"
Mike D notes that "philosophers aren't bringing us any closer to new knowledge;" rather, "[r]eal progress is made by science." Sure, the computer I'm using now, the cell phone that keeps me in touch with family and friends, the medication that's keeping me from going crazy with pain and the MP3s that keep me entertained as I write this are examples of scientific progress. But science is a product of philosophy. Next time you get on Facebook, or get in your car, or make delicious fruit smoothies in the blender, thank Aristotle, whose philosophical inquiries led to the first real scientific inquiries.
What we call "modern science" is based on philosophical presuppositions that empirical science alone cannot prove, or even attempt to justify without smacking face-first into a Petitio Principii (a phrase which can be translated into English as, "what Christian apologists do a lot"). Maybe most of the work of contemporary philosophers isn't preventing disease, putting high-definition television in our homes or pimping our rides, and I agree with Mike that a lot of these eggheads offer not much more than "a hodgepodge of masturbatory tautologies masquerading as insight," but science is not only the offspring of philosophy, it is in itself a branch of philosophy (or a branch of a branch of philosophy). In fact, science was once known as "natural philosophy."
As important as science is, there are important questions which lie beyond its scope. Science, for example, can't say much about ethics. Certainly we philosophers can utilize scientific data when formulating and critiquing ethical theories, but answers to questions like "what is good?" and "why be good?" cannot be answered by empirical science alone. Likewise, questions concerning god or an afterlife, or any other supernatural concept (the word "supernatural" by definition is that which is above or beyond the natural, and thus beyond the scope of empirical science) cannot be answered by science, even though both theists and non-theists attempt to utilize scientific data to justify their theological and philosophical paradigms.
A big question science cannot answer, but every scientist should ask continually, is: "How far is too far?" I call this the "Dr. Frankenstein." At what point do we go too far? When should we not do something, even if we have the ability to do it? And is there ever a point in which too much knowledge is a bad thing? I mean, if we ever acquired the knowledge that enabled a person to create an atomic bomb with a paper clip and bubble gum, imagine what the consequences might be. After all, not everyone is MacGuyver, who only uses his incredible abilities for good.
Pardon me if this blog entry is a bit too loquacious and sesquipedalian. I felt compelled to defend my favorite discipline because I still see the importance of it. I also believe that divorcing science from philosophy is detrimental to science in the long run. Ideally, scientists need to keep the philosophers spinning in their leather-bound chairs, and philosophers need to keep scientists grounded in reason and responsibility.
The way I see it, saying we no longer need philosophy because now we have science is like saying we no longer need legs because now we have cars.
Dead-Logic.com
What Good are Philosophers?
What Good are Philosophers?
Posted by , Published at 1:00 AM and have
