This came up in a thread about materialism and the problem of consciousness. I didn’t want to deviate from the topic, but it did stimulate my thinking about what makes for good philosophy. So I’m going to start a new thread focused on this question.
I don’t believe in an ultimate Truth, and so I don’t think there’s anything singular or objective for philosophy to get. It is limited to creating truths, or as Faust says, to eliminating them. I disagree with him that elimination is the only rule in the game (otherwise, it will eventually put itself out of business). I think people need philosophies - that is, things to believe in - and those needs will change as a function of sociopolitical changes as well as changes in science in our epistemic relation to the world. As such is the case, what was once good philosophy in a certain sociopolitical climate may become bad philosophy in a different climate. As an example, take the right to free speech. In a time when the freedom of expression was an extremely risky thing to practice, there was need for a persuasive philosophy defending the right to exercise free speech. But then it wasn’t surprising that as such philosophy gained widespread acceptance and support, there would be occasions when it was abused - such as the promulgation of anti-Semitic rhetoric and other forms of hate speech. Consequently, there arose a need for, not so much the wholesale rejection of the right to free speech, but the curbing of such rights under special considerations. The philosopher’s task, then, is to recognize the changes going on around him and make a thorough assessment of what philosophies stemming from the past are not as conducive to the current climate and what new philosophies ought to replace them. He is thus charged with the task of not only eliminating bad philosophies but creating new and better ones.
I guess if I were to outline what makes for good philosophy, it would have to consist of three criteria:
it doesn’t conflict with scientifically verified facts.
it has internal logical/rational integrity.
it is good for the people.
Numbers 2) and 3) need to be fleshed out. To say that a philosophy has internal logical/rational integrity means at least that its premises are reasonable and plausible, and that the conclusions drawn from them are drawn through a rational train of thought. The latter need not be exhaustively deductive every step along the way, but it ought to come relatively close. To say that a philosophy is good for the people means that if it is believed by the people, it will motivate behavior and mass movements (not necessarily revolutions) that lead to improved standards of living - that is, in the spheres of politics, science, health (physical and psychological), economics, etc.
That’s my take on what makes for good philosophy. What about yours?
I think good philosophy involves both the destructions of ideological foundations, and the construction of relatively better ones.
Hi gib. I think this outline is not pertinent to a good philosophy as much as it is to some specific construct of philosophy–an ideology. These rules seem like good guidelines for ideologies, but not the philosophy itself. I believe that good philosophy stops where ideology begins. Descartes for example, I take to be a good philosopher. Not for the new foundations he constructed, but for old ones he demolished. In short, good philosophy deals with foundations, first principles, game plans, the hearts of ideologies.
I think your question is useless, or not logical, unless you provide how the “goodness” of philosophy is measured.
Good for what? And how can it be measured?
If we want to think logically, we can’t forget about the nature and the limitation of logic.
It’s relative and based on certain premises like “division (or separation)”, “possibilities”, “memory”, etc.
All positive certainties obtained by logical thinking is relative and limited.
“Good” without premises doesn’t exist (in logical term) and it’s nonsense to talk about it, as far as we agree to talk in logical sense.
Any comparison without valid evaluation method is meaningless.
If “philosophy” is to seek something absolute, something free from premises, conditions, and limitations, it can’t be dealt with positive assertion.
Unless these basic understandings are clear in our mind, we will continue to think and talk about baseless and thus fake “good” as if it’s absolutely sure.
As each person can have different idea of imaginary “goodness”, we may not agree each other, making the discussion less productive.
Philosophy that is good for reducing our confusion must be based on clear understanding of relative nature of logics, and especially our inherent tendency to mix up the absolute and relative things.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but couldn’t my 3 criteria be used for foundations as well - I mean, if your foundation for a specific ideology were to conflict with science, wouldn’t it be a poor foundation?
The only kind of philosophy which I’m concerning myself with at the moment is that which is relevant to life, how to live one’s life and how to be in control of one’s life etc. I don’t think rationality is too important (we’re not vulcans) and I don’t think science is too important either.
Ooh, that’s a controversial one. Are you saying that any philosophy relevant to life and how to live it is ‘good’? And how do you toss rationality and science out the window so whimsically like that? You’re gonna have to be more convincing than that to persuade anyone else.
If the philosophy in question exerts enough influence on an individual to change, direct, take control of their life then I am inclined to view it as ‘good’. Good for them maybe but not necessarily me too.
Is persuasion important?
Science plays no part in my personal life, it doesn’t inspire me.
The universe isn’t rational nor are we.
Sorry for the curt answers I can smell my chicken burning.
I agree to a certain extent. The universe isn’t rational at all, and human rationality is severely muddied by bias, emotion, and ignorance.
Nevertheless, don’t you think that those who at least strive for rationality will be at an advantage in getting by in the world over those who don’t? If you’re philosophy centers around how to best conduct your life, you’d probably benefit from some measure of rationality - otherwise there’s no rhyme or reason to your actions and any progress you might hope to achieve in your life will be equally without rhyme or reason. You have to follow a predictable pattern to some extent in order to achieve progress.
This is why I support ‘life philosophy’ before indulging in other areas such as science etc. To come to some sort of understanding of our biases, emotions and to highlight our ignorances etc. All these queries should come before anything else (in my opinion).
Depends on what ‘getting by’ is.
What is rationality anyway? Whether or not rationality should be the centre of your philosophy depends on what role it plays in your life. I mean, it could be said that any action I consciously choose to make is rational because I chose it, irrationality may be something only perceived from another, from the outside looking in.
Okay, so rationality is not something one can pin down objectively for all to see and agree on. But are the actions you choose to take at least deemed to be rational by you? And are you always sure you’re being honest with yourself or are you telling yourself they’re rational just so you can excuse yourself for going with your emotions or going with what feels right in the moment? I mean, there have been times when I would look back at my past actions and think “Geez, I wish I thought things through more carefully” or “I should have resisted the urge to do that and thought about it more rationally instead” - If I don’t stop to think with a level head on certain important matters, I wouldn’t say I have control over my life nor would I say it was going anywhere desirable.
What makes for a good philosophy is that it does create something, that it creates something precisely because it is untimely. It is not enough to simply adopt the current trends of thought, anyone can do that. In fact that is precisely what science and sociology does. Philosophy must work on that trend, go outside of that trend, and overcome that trend. There is nothing philosophic about arguing for an ensconced world-view, or bickering about nuances of an already accepted set of assumptions. No, to do philosophy is to rip apart the status quo, philosophy is essentially radical. The great philosophers are not those who clarified some question of their time, or resolved some contradiction of their society, the great philosophers are those who created a new time, and a better time out of the ashes of their time. They tear down only in order to build back up.
The next great philosophy, if you ask me, is the one that breaks the epistemic oppression science has placed on my generation wide open, and brings man back into the realm of philosophy and philosophy back into the realm of man.
Do I choose one option over another because it is considered the more rational? Maybe the distinction between rational and irrational only comes from outside of myself i.e. a societal influence dictated by what society deems what my responsibilities are or what my goals should be.
Should we quash our emotions, our passions for rationality? I don’t think so. I think there are right and wrong ways of expressing our emotions, of channeling their power, I suppose rationality could be a channel for emotion, but does rationality exist without a goal? Rationality may simply be a directing force, irrationality then would be to stray away from a goal you have consciously set. And I’m not sure living in the moment is a negative thing, it can definitely be destructive sometimes. I suppose it depends on how you view moments.
If you have a goal, this desirable place, then most decisions can lead you that way, either directly or indirectly through hindsight. The only question I would be concerned about is the how and why you desire this goal.
