Return to my Issues and Opinions pages
Go to my home page
© Copyright 2000, Jim Loy
Philosophers seem to tend to take themselves, and their own ideas, very seriously. They also seem to sometimes ridicule the ideas of opposing philosophers. I find myself tempted to ridicule anyone who takes him/herself that seriously. Let me quote Philip J. Davis or Reuben Hersh (whichever of the two coauthors wrote this) in The Mathematical Experience:
... Vague questions, "philosophical" questions, should not be expected to have clearcut answers of the kind we expect in mathematics. There will always be differences of opinion about questions such as these.
He (whoever) was talking about the foundations of mathematics. But I think it applies to all of philosophy. I think that the essence of philosophy is the asking of the really deep, important questions, not in answering them (conjecturing yes, answering no). In fact, I think that if a question can be definitely answered, then it is obviously not one of the really important questions.
Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Whether he meant it or not, I think he was asking a very deep question, one which is worth thinking about. Superficially, Pilate's question has simple answers. I can look up "truth" in my dictionary. But the more I think about it, the more difficult the question becomes. For example, what is the relationship between truth and beauty? Can something be beautiful if it is false? Which is more true, a photograph or a painting (which may show something undefinable that the photo may hide)? If I tell the truth but give a false impression, am I telling the truth? A person says something that he/she suspects is false; is he/she lying? Can a lie ever be the truth? Even if that last question has a simple answer, it may be interesting to try to find an example of a lie which is the truth, even if none exists.
If you think that "What is truth?" is too simple to be one of the great questions, then substitute you own favorite philosophical question, such as: "What is the meaning of life?"
I think philosophy is important and profound. Philosophers ask important and profound questions. I think this is their mission, and their great achievement. But when one of them claims to have an answer to one of these important questions, I think that trivializes the question. Of course they should not just ask questions, but attempt to answer them. This attempt is as thought provoking as the questions themselves. But I don't think that they can really answer the big questions. When Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," he apparently thought that he was proving his own existence. I think that he clearly missed the point. Do I exist? At first I would answer, "Of course I exist." But on reflection, I see that this is only an opinion and is subjective. It cannot really be proved or disproved. Do I exist? The real answer: "That's an interesting question. Let me think about it."
My spell checker suspects that instead of "Descartes," I probably mean "desecrates." Hm, that's worth thinking about.
I can actually support the above view of philosophy. If one philosopher or another had a hot line to the actual truth, then there would be little argument about it, among philosophers. Certainly, they come up with serious ideas. But there is little agreement. And, as I argue above, there should maybe be little agreement.