Doing Philosophy

Doing Philosophy Plot Summary

Introduction

Philosophy often appears intimidating and distant from everyday concerns, yet it stems from the natural human curiosity about fundamental questions. We constantly engage in philosophical thinking when we wonder about knowledge, reality, ethics, or the nature of existence. The difference is that philosophers approach these questions systematically and rigorously, applying specific methods to analyze complex issues that affect how we understand ourselves and the world around us. The philosophical method is not a mystical process but rather a refinement of our ordinary cognitive abilities. It starts with common sense, proceeds through structured dialogue and clear reasoning, and employs various intellectual tools to evaluate competing theories. Through thought experiments, logical analysis, and theoretical modeling, philosophers create frameworks that help us grasp abstract concepts and address profound questions. This systematic approach enables us to transcend our initial assumptions and achieve deeper understanding, bridging the gap between casual curiosity and reasoned insight about the nature of reality, knowledge, and human experience.

Chapter 1: Starting from Common Sense: The Foundation of Philosophical Inquiry

Common sense forms the inevitable starting point for all philosophical inquiry. When philosophers begin investigating any topic, they must start from the knowledge and beliefs they already possess, along with the methods they already know for acquiring new knowledge. This doesn't mean philosophy remains confined to common sense—indeed, it often transcends it—but common sense provides the necessary foundation from which all investigation proceeds. Common-sense knowledge encompasses everything that most members of a society know: that objects fall when dropped, that humans have consciousness, that the sun rises in the east. This knowledge varies somewhat across societies but maintains significant overlap. Importantly, common sense includes not just knowledge but also the ordinary human cognitive capacities we all share: perception, memory, imagination, comparison, and communication. These basic capabilities allow us to learn about our environment and ourselves without specialized training. Philosophy often begins when common-sense questions are pushed to greater depth and generality. A child might ask, "What is milk?" and receive a simple answer about cows and mothers. But philosophy pushes such questions further: "What is knowledge?" "What is justice?" These aren't merely questions about words or concepts but about the phenomena themselves. Just as scientists investigate the nature of water or light, philosophers investigate the nature of knowledge or justice, seeking to understand fundamental distinctions and underlying principles. Common sense also serves as a check on philosophical theories. Any theory that contradicts what we know from common sense is likely false. For instance, a theory of perception that entails the impossibility of seeing through windows would be immediately suspect because we know from experience that we can see through windows. However, this creates tension: how do we distinguish genuine common-sense knowledge from mere common-sense belief that might be false? Societies once held as "common sense" that the Earth was flat—clearly not all common-sense beliefs constitute knowledge. The relationship between philosophy and common sense is dialectical: philosophy starts from common sense, often challenges aspects of it, but cannot entirely abandon it without undermining its own foundation. Even the most revolutionary philosophical insights depend on common-sense methods of thinking and communicating. This doesn't mean common sense is infallible, but it does suggest that it generally tracks reality in important ways—after all, animals with completely unreliable cognitive systems would not survive evolutionary pressures. The philosophical method involves refining, analyzing, and sometimes transcending common sense, but never completely disconnecting from it.

Chapter 2: Philosophical Disputation: Structured Dialogue and Argumentation

Philosophical disputation—the practice of systematically arguing different sides of an issue—is a cornerstone of philosophical methodology. Unlike casual conversation, philosophical disputation follows structured patterns designed to thoroughly examine competing claims. At conferences and academic settings, the question-and-answer session following a philosophical lecture often proves more illuminating than the lecture itself, as the speaker's ideas are rigorously tested through challenges, counterexamples, and requests for clarification. This adversarial approach to philosophy has parallels with legal systems, where prosecution and defense advocates present the strongest possible cases for their respective sides. While critics argue that such confrontational methods might favor confidence over insight, the adversarial approach ensures that ideas receive thorough scrutiny and that hidden assumptions are exposed. In a healthy philosophical culture, the goal isn't to "win" at all costs but to advance understanding through rigorous testing of competing views. The tradition of formalized philosophical disputation has ancient roots. Medieval scholastic philosophy featured structured debates called "obligationes," conducted according to strict logical rules where participants had to explicitly state which premises they accepted or rejected. These debates resembled games with defined moves and countermoves, but their purpose was serious: to discover truth through systematic reasoning. Modern logic games continue this tradition, using formal rules to determine whether statements are true or false through sequences of moves between a defender and an attacker. Written philosophy often reflects this dialogical structure. Plato's famous dialogues dramatized philosophical exchanges, allowing him to explore ideas without fully committing to them. Galileo used dialogue form to distance himself from controversial astronomical theories, while Hume employed it to mask his religious skepticism. Even contemporary philosophers frequently structure their writing as a dialogue between competing viewpoints, offering objections to their own positions and then responding to them. The practice of philosophical disputation recognizes that philosophy progresses through the interaction of competing perspectives. While it can sometimes appear overly combative, a well-conducted philosophical dispute is actually a cooperative enterprise where participants share the goal of reaching clearer understanding. Even when no consensus is reached, the process of articulating and defending positions forces clarity of thought and exposes hidden assumptions, advancing our collective understanding of complex questions in ways that solitary reflection rarely can.

Chapter 3: Thought Experiments as Philosophical Tools

Thought experiments are imaginary scenarios constructed to test philosophical theories and illuminate abstract concepts. Consider this example from Buddhist philosopher Dharmottara: A man sees what appears to be smoke in the distance and concludes there's a fire. He's correct—there is a fire—but what he sees is actually a cloud of flies attracted by meat being cooked over the newly-lit fire. Despite having a true, justified belief about the fire, he doesn't seem to have knowledge because his correct conclusion relies on luck rather than a proper connection between his evidence and the truth. This thought experiment demonstrates that justified true belief isn't sufficient for knowledge, challenging a longstanding philosophical theory. Unlike scientific experiments, philosophical thought experiments don't require physical implementation. Their power comes from our ability to recognize possibilities without actualizing them. When Judith Jarvis Thomson compared pregnancy to being involuntarily connected to a famous violinist who needs your kidneys to survive, she wasn't suggesting we actually create such scenarios. Rather, the thought experiment helped clarify the moral dimensions of abortion by isolating specific ethical principles about bodily autonomy from other complicating factors. Thought experiments work because they tap into our natural capacity to reason about hypothetical situations. Humans evolved this ability because imagining possibilities offers practical advantages—it helps us anticipate dangers, prepare for opportunities, and evaluate options without risky trial and error. When choosing between paths through difficult terrain, mentally tracing the route and imagining potential obstacles can prevent dangerous mistakes. Philosophy simply refines and systematizes this everyday cognitive capacity. Critics sometimes dismiss thought experiments as mere appeals to "intuition," suggesting they rely on some mysterious inner oracle. However, this mischaracterizes what's happening. When we judge that Dharmottara's character doesn't have knowledge, we're applying the same cognitive capacities we use to recognize knowledge or its absence in everyday situations. The judgment isn't mystical but practical—we understand what knowledge requires through extensive experience with both knowledge and its counterfeits in ordinary life. The value of thought experiments extends beyond testing existing theories to generating new insights. They allow philosophers to isolate specific variables while controlling others, creating conceptual "laboratory conditions" that may be impossible to arrange in real life. This is particularly valuable when investigating topics like consciousness, personal identity, or free will, where crucial aspects may be inaccessible to direct observation. By constructing these imaginary scenarios, philosophers can bridge the gap between abstract theoretical principles and our concrete understanding of how these principles would manifest in particular cases.

Chapter 4: Comparing Theories: Abductive Reasoning in Philosophy

Philosophical progress often involves comparing rival theories rather than testing a single theory in isolation. For instance, when examining the mind-body relationship, philosophers don't merely evaluate physicalism (the view that everything is physical) by itself but compare it against alternatives like dualism (which posits both mental and physical substances) or panpsychism (which holds that everything has mental properties). This comparative approach helps philosophers determine which theory best explains the available evidence and coheres with our broader understanding of reality. The method of choosing between competing theories based on their explanatory power is called inference to the best explanation, or abduction. Unlike deduction, which guarantees the truth of conclusions if premises are true, abduction is ampliative—it extends our knowledge beyond what is logically contained in our premises. When evaluating theories, philosophers consider criteria such as simplicity, informativeness, generality, unifying power, and fit with evidence. A good theory should explain diverse phenomena using relatively few principles, make precise predictions, and avoid ad hoc exceptions. Abduction is crucial in both philosophy and science because, in principle, many competing theories can be logically consistent with the available evidence. For example, current observations might be consistent with both standard physics and the bizarre theory that gravity will behave normally until next Tuesday and then go haywire. Scientists rightly dismiss such arbitrary theories not because they contradict evidence but because they lack explanatory virtues like simplicity and coherence. Similarly, philosophers reject theories that make unnecessary complications or arbitrary distinctions. The concept of overfitting illustrates the importance of simplicity in theory selection. When scientists force equations to match data points perfectly, they often create overly complex models that accommodate random errors in the data rather than capturing genuine patterns. A more robust approach is to prefer simpler models that may not fit every data point perfectly but better capture underlying regularities. Similarly, philosophers who prioritize accommodating every intuitive judgment about thought experiments often develop increasingly convoluted theories that make them vulnerable to errors in those judgments. Philosophical abduction differs from scientific abduction primarily in the kinds of evidence considered. While scientists rely heavily on observation and experiment, philosophers must also evaluate thought experiments, logical implications, and conceptual connections. However, the basic process remains similar: examining which theory best explains the available evidence while exemplifying theoretical virtues like simplicity, coherence, and explanatory power. This methodology allows philosophy to progress beyond mere appeals to intuition or authority and provides a rational basis for preferring some theories over others, even when conclusive proof remains elusive.

Chapter 5: Deductive Reasoning and Logic in Philosophy

Deductive reasoning forms the backbone of philosophical argumentation, allowing philosophers to draw logically necessary conclusions from premises. In a deductively valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true—the premises logically entail the conclusion. For example, from the premises "Either there is no suffering or there is no god" and "There is suffering," one can validly deduce "There is no god" through the pattern known as disjunctive syllogism. The power of deduction lies in this guarantee: accepting the premises while rejecting the conclusion would be logically inconsistent. Modern logic has significantly expanded our understanding of deductive reasoning through the development of precise artificial languages and formal systems. Unlike natural languages like English or Mandarin, these formal languages have clear, unambiguous structures that make logical relationships explicit. Philosophers often translate their arguments into these formal systems to check validity more rigorously, similar to how scientists might use mathematics to ensure precision in their calculations. Despite its sophistication, however, formal logic ultimately derives from our ordinary human capacity for simple reasoning. While deduction plays a crucial role in philosophy, it has important limitations. Most significantly, deductive arguments can be valid without being sound. An argument is sound only if it is valid and all its premises are true. When confronted with two valid arguments for contradictory conclusions, such as arguments for and against the existence of God, we must evaluate their premises. Unfortunately, many philosophically interesting arguments involve premises that are neither self-evident nor provable from more basic principles. This explains why philosophers often reach different conclusions despite agreeing on the rules of logic—they begin from different premises. Deduction serves philosophy most effectively not in proving theories but in exploring their consequences. When testing a theory through thought experiments, philosophers deduce what the theory implies for specific scenarios and then evaluate whether those implications are plausible. This resembles how scientists use deduction to derive testable predictions from their theories. Deduction also plays a key role in explanation—for instance, physicalists might explain how mental events can cause physical events by deducing this possibility from the premise that mental events are physical events. The foundations of logic itself raise philosophical questions. Principles like the law of excluded middle (that a statement must be either true or false) or the principle that contradictions cannot be true have been challenged on philosophical grounds. Some philosophers argue that statements about the future lack truth value because the future is unsettled, while others (called dialetheists) maintain that certain paradoxical statements are both true and false. Such challenges demonstrate that logic is not a neutral arbiter standing outside philosophy but a philosophical enterprise in its own right, with assumptions that can be questioned and revised as our understanding develops.

Chapter 6: Using Models: Building Simplified Theoretical Frameworks

Model-building has become a central methodology in contemporary philosophy, mirroring its importance in natural and social sciences. Rather than seeking universal, exceptionless laws about complex phenomena, philosophers increasingly construct simplified models that capture key features while deliberately omitting others. This approach recognizes that many philosophical subjects—human knowledge, language, ethics, consciousness—involve messy complexity that resists perfect characterization through universal generalizations. Philosophical models, like scientific ones, are deliberate simplifications designed to illuminate specific aspects of complex realities. For example, epistemologists might use a lottery model to explore questions about knowledge and probability. In a lottery with 1,000 tickets where exactly one will win, what threshold of probability should justify belief? Such a model strips away many real-world complications—uncertainty about ticket numbers, varying probabilities of different outcomes—to focus precisely on the relationship between probability and justified belief. The resulting insights apply to real-world epistemological questions even though the model itself is a simplification. In philosophy of language, model-building has proven particularly fruitful. Rudolf Carnap pioneered this approach by developing formal semantic models to understand how the meaning of complex expressions depends on the meanings of their components. His work on "intensional semantics" showed how modal terms like "possibly" and "necessarily" could be interpreted through possible worlds. Though simplified, these models provided crucial insights into how natural languages function and established frameworks that linguists and philosophers continue to develop today. Models offer two key advantages over more traditional philosophical methods. First, they allow for manipulation and experimentation—philosophers can systematically vary parameters within a model to see what happens, gaining insights that might be difficult to achieve through less structured reflection. Second, they make predictions explicit and testable, creating clearer standards for evaluating competing theories. A well-defined model allows philosophers to calculate rigorously how it behaves, bypassing prior philosophical intuitions and potentially leading to unexpected discoveries. This model-building approach differs from traditional philosophical rigour in an important respect. Traditional philosophical arguments often collapse when faced with a single counterexample, while models survive despite known simplifications and idealizations. Just as physicists don't abandon planetary models because planets aren't actually perfect spheres, philosophers using models don't reject them merely because they involve idealizations. Instead, models are evaluated by their overall explanatory utility and are replaced only when better models become available. This methodology makes philosophical progress less vulnerable to isolated counterexamples and more robust against the inevitable errors in individual judgments.

Summary

At its core, doing philosophy means refining our natural curiosity through systematic methods that help us navigate from common-sense starting points to deeper understanding. The philosophical toolkit—comprising structured dialogue, conceptual clarification, thought experiments, theory comparison, logical analysis, and model-building—provides powerful ways to address fundamental questions about reality, knowledge, and value. These methods allow us to test intuitions, evaluate competing theories, and develop frameworks that illuminate complex phenomena. Philosophy's distinctive contribution lies not in providing final answers but in developing increasingly sophisticated ways to approach perennial questions. By combining the precision of logic with the creativity of thought experiments, the historical perspective of tradition with the analytical tools of contemporary research, philosophy offers a unique approach to understanding that complements and enriches other forms of inquiry. As we face new challenges in science, technology, ethics, and politics, these philosophical methods remain essential for clarifying options, evaluating evidence, and pursuing deeper understanding of ourselves and our world.

About Author

Loading...

Timothy Williamson

Read more