Art of Reasoning

The word, “Philosophy,” is a combination of two Greek words that mean, “Love of wisdom.” The practice of philosophy can be called “wisdom-seeking,” or, as it is more commonly thought of today, “truth-seeking.”

Of course, most people don’t think of themselves as philosophers, although they do seek truth in many contexts. Every question we ask, every observation we make and evaluate, is a search for truth. So what distinguishes “philosophy” from the everyday forms of truth-seeking we all do?

In fact, all the truth-seeking we do is “philosophizing” in the broad sense. We are all “philosophers” if we honestly seek the truth. But there is something that sets the intentional practice or discipline of philosophy apart from the general “philosophizing” we all do. “Philosophy” in this more intentional sense involves a careful method.

An analogy can be found in the practice of science. We are all “scientists” in that we all observe the events of the world and try to figure out how things work. What sets the practice of science apart as a discipline is that scientists employ a careful method with the intention of eliminating the errors most people introduce into their everyday method.

For example, it was once widely believed that a stiff shot of whiskey would cure rattlesnake bite. After all, when a cowboy got bit, he would take a stiff shot of whiskey, and he would recover. There was such a close observed correlation between bite-victims taking a shot of whiskey and their recovery, that the “evidence” seemed overwhelming.

However, careful experimentation, employing such scientific methods as using a “control group” would have revealed the actual truth. A large percentage of rattlesnake bites are “dry bites,” and no venom is injected. Furthermore, it turns out that the vast majority of rattlesnake bite victims don’t die and fully recover without any treatment at all. Employing a “control group” of rattlesnake bite victims that do not take a shot of whiskey would reveal that whiskey is not curative… if anything it has no effect at all. Rattlesnake bites are usually not as dangerous as people thought. Cowboys were “doing science,” but they were not doing it well because they were not using a rigorous method.

In the same way that we are all “scientists,” even though we do not all do a very good job of being careful in our methods, we are all “philosophers,” even though we do not all do a very good job of being careful in our methods.

So, what is the method that distinguishes philosophy from other disciplines or approaches to truth-seeking? The answer to this question is partly what this course is about, so we will develop the answer as we go along. But for now, let’s summarize this way. The method of philosophy is to analyze arguments using logic and careful thinking about the content and implications of the parts of arguments.

Of course, we have not yet discussed what an argument is, and in the sense we use it, the term “argument” does not mean two people fighting. We will get into that subject in the next section of this course. For now, however, just be aware that philosophy employs are particular method of thinking about issues, and that method is fundamentally about analyzing the language and structure of arguments.

Philosophy is traditionally divided into four broad threads: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. We will discuss each of these as the course proceeds, but here is a quick overview.

Metaphysics is the study of what there is. Metaphysics considers what really exists. It is about the nature of existence.

Epistemology is about what we know and how we know it. Epistemology considers the nature of truth, beliefs, and knowledge.

Ethics is about values. Ethics considers goods, bads, rights, and wrongs. It studies the basis of values and considers how words like “right” and “wrong” have meaning.

Logic is about the structure of thinking. This is not like psychology, which is more about why a person thinks certain things. Logic is the study of the underlying structure of thinking itself.

Of course, any philosophical subject has elements of all of these aspects of philosophy, and logic underlies all philosophizing.

Furthermore, there are subjects in philosophy that arise from thinking in various of the main four threads. For example, philosophy of language is closely tied to logic and metaphysics.

Political philosophy is closely tied to ethics and metaphysics.

Ethics itself deals with metaphysical and epistemological questions.

And, as already stated, logic underlies all. Just keep in mind these broad themes in philosophy as we proceed. You will see that in this course we will expose you to some of all of them.

At this point, the most common question college students often ask is: “Why should I care about philosophy? I’m an engineering student (or some other discipline). I know what engineers produce, but I don’t see the point to philosophy. What has philosophy ever produced?”

This is certainly a pressing question, particularly since most people have never actually met a professional philosopher. In fact, when people sometimes ask me about myself, and I tell them that I am a philosopher, their most common response is something like, “Ohhh… yes, I have a brother in law that is a psychologist.”

Most people have no clue what philosophers do.

One thing that makes it seem that philosophy doesn’t “produce anything” is that professional philosophers struggle with questions that other disciplines don’t confront; and once philosophers gain traction regarding a particular subject, that subject tends to get spun off into a new discipline of its own. So, the underlying philosophical work that produced the new discipline is quickly backgrounded.

For example, the discoveries in philosophy of language have led to the discipline of linguistics.

Mathematics and geometry were originally pursued by philosophers, and even today philosophical logicians are heavily engaged in the most thorny questions of mathematics.

Political philosophy has spawned the discipline of political science. And so on.

But perhaps the most forthright answer to the question of what philosophy produces is to point to some of its direct products. For example, the political philosophy of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, and Rousseau produced the United States of America. It is literally true that the particular form of government that is the United States could not have come into being without the contributions of these philosophers.

Questions such as, “What is justice?” affect us all, and philosophers are the ones grappling with that question. Their efforts directly affect legislation, which directly affects the practical application of justice.

Philosophers produce better science, which in turn affects the discoveries that affect us all. Philosophers of science closely examine the scientific method and detect science’s presumptions and shortcomings. This ongoing scrutiny forces science to become more and more careful in its own methods, which results in more reliable science.

Another point is that philosophers are often employed in fields far removed from the academic discipline of philosophy. Philosophical training uniquely fits people to grasp the “big picture” along with the details. Most people are “big picture” or detail people, but philosophers are trained to “zoom in and out” in their analysis of a situation. So, philosophers tend to be better than most people at seeing the way the details work together to create big pictures. This sort of skill is just one of many that philosophers have, but even this one skill makes trained philosophers valuable to employers in many different capacities.

Philosophers make unusually good project managers. In fact one philosophy professor I know originally made much more money working for a computer processor design company. Even though she did not know electronics, she was quickly trained to understand schematics, and she was then able to be a very effective project manager for a chip design team. She entered the teaching field because she find it much more rewarding, despite the significant cut in pay.

Philosophy and philosophers have far-reaching effects throughout society, even if the source of those effects often goes unrecognized. Of note is that even the degree “Ph.D.” means “doctor of philosophy.” So, people get Ph.D.s in a wide range of disciplines where that underlying philosophical foundation has been forgotten even by the people getting their “doctor of philosophy” in the “non-philosophical” discipline.

But the effects of bad “philosophizing” are perhaps most pervasive. Consider an argument between a husband (John) and his wife (Mary). John calls Mary at work to ask, “When will you be home?” Mary replies, “I’ll be right there. I just have to finish up one thing.” On the basis of this understanding, John puts the finishing touches on dinner, expecting Mary to be home within fifteen minutes. Half and hour later, Mary still isn’t home, and John is beginning to fume. When Mary finally walks in forty-five minutes after the phone call, the dinner is cold, and John is hot.

John says, “You said you would be ‘right home.'”

Mary replies, “Yes, and I said that I had to finish up one thing.”

John says, “Since you said, ‘right home,’ I finished up the dinner! Why would you say that if you weren’t coming right home?”

Mary responds, “Well, I told you that I had to finish up one thing first. When I said, ‘Right home,’ I meant, ‘Right after I finish this.'”

John fumes, “So, I can’t believe what you SAY?”

Mary replies, “I thought it was clear what I meant.”

John responds, “I can only know what you mean from what you SAY, and you SAID you would be right home.”

And so on. Both Mary and John were engaged in philosophizing here, and both were employing unrecognized assumptions about meaning and language. If either or both of them had been more careful in their communication, seeking to recognize the hidden assumptions, they would have enjoyed clear communication instead of mis-communication.

Good philosophizing is first and foremost a function of getting clear about meanings and hidden assumptions. The practice of philosophy is fundamentally “linguistic,” fundamentally a matter of being clear about meanings. So, we will devote ourselves to quite some discussion about the structure of thinking and how to get clear about what is really being communicated.

In summary, “philosophy” is a particular method of truth-seeking that employs clear definitions, analysis of reasoning structures, and carefully constructed arguments. Certain “philosophies” emerge from this process, but, initially, what we mean by “philosophy” is the method itself.