The efficacy of philosophy
Why have philosophers not tried to construct an empiricism of common life? I suspect that they hold out the hopes of being as successful as the sciences. Sciences go their own way, with esoteric and technical theories, but these theories always make a difference to common life, in our understanding of the universe, and our acquisition of technology. But science achieves this success because it can impose a difference on common life. The predictions of science result in new and startling observations accessible to common life, whose impression, once beheld, can never fade. But philosophy, which depends purely on the a priori understanding, must rely purely on reason and argument. Because it is necessarily abstract, it cannot impose any observation on anyone. If it attempts startling insight, this only becomes instead a proof that philosophy has drifted ever further out of touch with reality. Yet no philosopher wants simply to justify common sense, because they do want to to achieve truth by recourse to banality.
What, then, can be the role of the philosopher? To answer this question, we must again return to the great paradigm shift brought about by industrial capitalism. This imposed enormous changes upon common life, the ramifications of which are still being felt today. It demanded new philosophies that would have practical consequences coextensive with the success of the new social order. But the purpose of philosophy was not here merely to follow in the footsteps of sociological functionalism. For these theories, once espoused, had practical consequences that extended beyond what was required for industrial capitalism. Slavery need not have been abolished after the industrial revolution, but the new world views no longer could make moral sense of such an institution, so it eventually disappeared. Animal rights hardly need to be a consequence of the social functioning of the industrial revolution. Yet if we are going to extend equality to blacks and women, then how can we exclude animals, who are capable of having interests just like other social groups? Peter Singer correctly identified this application of a principle of equality in his book Animal Liberation. It is widely credited with having sparked the animal liberation movement.
Therefore, I doubt that philosophy alone could originate startlingly original ideas with any practical force. But, if the preconditions for such ideas in society become met, it will be there to elucidate their ramifications for ideas. These ideas, once conceived, will have practical consequences that cannot be ignored. People are not perennial hypocrites, and once they have accepted the basic new principle, they will naturally seek to practice it with consistency. Philosophy here facilitates this application and this consistency. I regard this as a major practical function of philosophy ever since the industrial revolution, and it is still in the process of being fulfilled.
What, then, can be the role of the philosopher? To answer this question, we must again return to the great paradigm shift brought about by industrial capitalism. This imposed enormous changes upon common life, the ramifications of which are still being felt today. It demanded new philosophies that would have practical consequences coextensive with the success of the new social order. But the purpose of philosophy was not here merely to follow in the footsteps of sociological functionalism. For these theories, once espoused, had practical consequences that extended beyond what was required for industrial capitalism. Slavery need not have been abolished after the industrial revolution, but the new world views no longer could make moral sense of such an institution, so it eventually disappeared. Animal rights hardly need to be a consequence of the social functioning of the industrial revolution. Yet if we are going to extend equality to blacks and women, then how can we exclude animals, who are capable of having interests just like other social groups? Peter Singer correctly identified this application of a principle of equality in his book Animal Liberation. It is widely credited with having sparked the animal liberation movement.
Therefore, I doubt that philosophy alone could originate startlingly original ideas with any practical force. But, if the preconditions for such ideas in society become met, it will be there to elucidate their ramifications for ideas. These ideas, once conceived, will have practical consequences that cannot be ignored. People are not perennial hypocrites, and once they have accepted the basic new principle, they will naturally seek to practice it with consistency. Philosophy here facilitates this application and this consistency. I regard this as a major practical function of philosophy ever since the industrial revolution, and it is still in the process of being fulfilled.
Comments