What is it to be a philosopher? Some would say that a philosopher is an academic whose career consists of writing inscrutable papers designed to be read only by others who possess an advanced degree in the field. At the other extreme, some would say that everyone is a philosopher by virtue of the fact that adherence to some philosophy or other, whether it may be, e.g. a philosophy of child rearing, or a religious philosophy, or even an exercise philosophy, is something most people would attest to.
I don’t believe that either extreme is correct (though I will admit I think there are certainly some professional philosophers that fit the first description). Instead, I believe that to be a philosopher is to actively engage in an ongoing process. Simply to espouse some set of philosophical principles does not sufficiently meet the criterion. The necessary process is one of continually refining one’s way of thinking and one’s approach to problems. It is a process of ongoing improvement of one’s rational relationship to ideas. (Not necessarily all ideas – one can certainly be a philosopher of something in particular, or of multiple somethings). The defining characteristic being the ongoing effort to challenge one’s self to think as clearly as possible about the subject matter in a way that avoids self-deception and which allows for the creation of new (to the individual) or novel frameworks and approaches to understanding the area of inquiry.
Given this definition, I believe that choosing to be a philosopher is an undertaking that can be pursued by anyone of reasonable intelligence with a drive to be a better thinker. It is in a sense similar to the choice to become a musician. To be a musician is to pursue the creation of music in a way that goes beyond simply being able to play an instrument. It is a process which is open-ended, wherein new avenues of musical creation can be continually developed over a lifetime. That is not to say that all people who choose this path will create great music. But many will experience at least moments of greatness in some sense. It would be inappropriate to claim that they are somehow not “real” musicians because they are not members of the elite class of world-famous artists. The analogy here is that one can indeed be a philosopher without any requirement to be an academic publishing papers from the hallowed halls of the worlds great universities. However, I do believe that to qualify, one must do more than just “play an instrument”.
* * *
My description of the process of philosophy is rooted in the modern American philosophic style known as analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy is not a philosophy of something. It can be thought of generally as a scientific approach to doing philosophy, and as such can be applied to any of the traditional sub-branches of philosophy such as epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc. However, as with much in the philosophic world, there is no universally accepted definition of the term, and it is often used simply to distinguish between modern philosophic movements originating in English-speaking countries versus, for instance, continental philosophy which groups together the philosophic movements originating in continental Europe. Nonetheless, what I think is significant about the term analytic philosophy is its implication of a strong relationship between philosophy and the fields of science and mathematical logic.
I believe that analytic philosophy (hereafter simply “philosophy”) and science overlap in three significant ways. First, philosophy often makes use of scientific methodologies to defend or to refute philosophical propositions. Second, science itself is better understood through the careful analysis of its methodologies and of the scope of its applicability – the study of which is called the philosophy of science. And third, science is fundamentally engaging in philosophy when it offers explanations that provide mental frameworks with which we understand scientific facts.
There is a convoluted interconnectedness between science and philosophy in this view which I think is indicative of how the disciplines have enriched each other in modern times. As an example of the third type of overlap I describe above, one can look at the science of evolution as established by Darwin, and the revolution in thinking on that topic embodied in Richard Dawkins’ work as described in his book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins as a scientist clearly expresses his keen understanding of genetics – the mechanisms by which genes are passed from generation to generation in biological organisms – and how mutations in genes are fundamental to the process of evolution of species as described by Darwin. These are descriptions of scientific facts. But Dawkins then goes further, and shows that the implication of these scientific facts is that our standard conception of organisms passing on their genes is deceiving and actually gets things completely backwards. He shows that a more effective way to look at the situation is to see that it is genes that utilize organisms (their phenotypes) to create more genes! His breakthrough, therefore, was not simply a scientific one, but was also one which changed how we look at those scientific facts and internalize them within an explanatory framework. It was, in other words, philosophy.
I think the overlap of disciplines described here helps to reinforce the point that philosophy is not just an ivory tower pursuit. It can be quite relevant to enhancing a practical understanding of the modern scientific world view. Given this context, we can now also ask the related question, “What is it to be a scientist?”. Perhaps not surprisingly, I think the answer is very similar to the answer given regarding being a philosopher, or for that matter being a musician. This may be slightly at odds, however, with the conventional wisdom on this. I think that many people would assert, for instance, that since chemistry is clearly a science, then chemists are clearly scientists. However, I would point out that in many instances, the work of a chemist may entail using scientific knowledge and following scientific procedures, but the results are not necessarily expected to lead to new discoveries or new understanding. It is effectively, “playing the instrument”, as opposed to actively creating new music. The definition of scientist I am driving to may be better encompassed by the terms research scientist, or theorist. But whatever the title, the best of science is epitomized by those whose work includes the creation of new explanations which are used to describe the raw data acquired through work in their scientific domain. The point being that in one sense, “real” scientists are the ones who are also philosophers!
* * *
What approach should one use when trying to best understand a subject? How does one formulate questions in order to get appropriate answers? How does one frame the questions so that contingent answers will be most useful or meaningful? To care about these things is to care about philosophy. I have attempted here to make the case that engaging in the process of doing philosophy is something that should be seen as more accessible and more widely applicable than it is often considered to be. However, philosophy is also a creative discipline, the pursuit of which entails more than just thinking about things. It is the ongoing struggle to form one’s thoughts so that the thinking is most productive. It is the quest for the best thought forms.
