Does anyone know of any philosophical books that are written in the following style:
A philosopher begins by asserting his goals: he will start with a basic set of assumptions, fixed on solving a certain set of problems, but with no idea how to get there from the outlined assumptions. He intends, basically, to ramble on - that is, to see where his train of thought leads him. He sticks to his assumptions until they prove incoherent somehow. He vowed to stick as closely to reason as he can. He allows for the possibility that some, or even all, the problems he sets out to solve can’t be solved, but he doesn’t intend to rest until his train of thought leads to solid conclusions and nothing is left hanging.
Know any books like this? Would be an interesting read.
I’ve read such books on Science, Physics, How the Mind Works, and The Language Instinct: the last two books involving: philosophy, psychology, and evolutionary theory - one can also pit one’s own thinking on those subjects against the author’s: as they are working on theory and observations just like the lay man.
They try and delve into modern humanity, and how we became ‘us’ compared to ‘something else’.
John Rawls comes close, but not exactly in one book. If you read his monumental Theory of Justice and his revision, Political Liberalism, you will see much of what you seek. He doesn’t exactly expect to reach incoherence, but he does recognise some flaws of his original work, which he seeks to correct in his subsequent work.
Throughout, he is aware of his assumptions and early on states his influences and the ideas he bases his theory on, and even what he reacts against. There isn’t much guesswork for the reader.
In the end, he is incoherent, because he starts out that way. But his exposition is among the best philosophy has ever produced. While I do not agree with his assumption or his conclusions, he is one of the best writers of philosophy in all of history, in my view. He even tells you which parts to skip, if you don’t want the rambling.
What does Rawls set out as his goals? Does he intend to prove something, or does he take the attitude: let’s just see where this takes us.
You know the difference?
It’s like some philosophers who set out to prove a point, and their commitment is to that point. Their premises and arguments bend to serve that point. On the other hand, there’s philosophers who commit themselves to the initial premises and discipline themselves to use reason and allow themselves to be lead by these to whatever conclusions they are lead to. Is Rawls more like the latter?
I am sure you can find this quite easily with a Google search. He seeks to provide a workable social contract for the US in the present time. Does he set out to prove anything? That it can be done, I suppose. Social theory in general doesn’t seek to “prove” anything. I don’t think Plato was trying to “prove” anything in The Republic. You may want a science book after all.
Rawls is like neither one. He is first descriptive, then prescriptive. It’s not about proof. It’s philosophy.
Hobbes’ Leviathan, maybe? I know that he tries to prove the abysmal state of nature while he uses a geometrical method of matter…and in the end this magically leads to complete and utter sovereignty by one magistrate.
Yeah - Descartes was a sneak. Hobbes came to my mind as well. But Hobes was a certifiable loony-toon. And I’m not sure he really comes clean about his political agenda. Surely the modern reader will know, however.