Showing posts with label derek ball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label derek ball. Show all posts

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Life Without Philosophy

Last Friday I attended a talk by Derek Ball (from the University of St. Andrews), titled "Philosophy Without Truth". His basic claim was that even if philosophical theories were never true, we might nonetheless have reason to accept them. His argument followed the structure of arguments for anti-realism in the philosophy of science, appealing to, amongst other things, the failure of previous philosophical theories and fact that some theories might actually contradict themselves if they were true.

I think that the most interesting point came out in the discussion at the end, where someone suggested that we might want to go for a "pluralism-plus" with regard to the aims of different philosophical disciplines. This would mean that not only might different disciplines have different aims (a possibility that Ball mentioned towards the end of his talk), but that even within a given discipline there might be a number of different competing aims, truth being only one of them.

What might some of those aims look like?

Truth - Obviously we might think it's important that a philosophical theory is true (whatever that might mean).

Scientific Progress - Related to the above, some disciplines/schools see philosophy as being continuous with science, in which case (presuming scientific realism!) they might well aim at truth.

Instrumental Value - On the other hand, we might only care about a theory being in some way "useful", whether that be to scientific progress or in some ethical sense. Pragmatism (as a global description) perhaps falls into this category.

Clarity - Even if it doesn't achieve anything else, a philosophical education certainly enables one to think and reason clearly, and could be valuable for that reason alone.

Being "Interesting" - Towards the end of the discussion I flippantly commented that if we were only motivated by being interesting, we'd be better off becoming fiction writers, but I do actually agree that there can be an aesthetic value to philosophy.

Being Fun - A bit like being interesting, but somewhat broader and perhaps more liable to result in incoherent post-modern ramblings.1

Existential Necessity - Not an aim so much as a motivation, but philosophy asks some pretty mind-bending questions, and perhaps at some level simply pursuing those questions is a necessary component of a fulfilling life.

Winning - The aim of philosophy is to disprove the argument of others while working within the rules of logic.2

I think that all of these are important, and all in some sense contribute to my reasons for pursuing a philosophical career. Some are definitely more important than others though, and if I didn't think that there was at least some instrumental value to what I was doing, I probably wouldn't carry on doing it. On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine a life without philosophy, so perhaps I haven't got much choice in the matter.

This list is by no means comprehensive, so please let me know if you can think of any other aims of philosophy!

1. Inspired by a comment from Krzysztof Dołęga, although he is not responsible for the suggestion that incoherent post-modern ramblings are "fun".
2. Krzysztof also suggested this, albeit as an example of "fun".