The objective of this web site is to engender thought concerning questions that have challenged Western Philosophy in the past, together with questions currently under examination. (Sorry to impose limits, but some parameters will be required if I am not to be snowed under).

Bearing this one limitation in mind, I aim to exclude no one, and particularly welcome reactions from those who consider themselves "non-philosophers". I will attempt to ensure maximum access by placing definitions of any unusual words in links, to aid those unfamiliar with philosophical terminology. Of course, I am well aware that many readers will be familiar with the terms in question, and for their information, I will attempt to cite my sources for any definitions used. Site users should note that where an authority is not cited, the definition is my own understanding of the term in question.

I have not attempted to create a chronological history of philosophy, although I am well aware that this would be the most orderly introduction to the subject. The fact is, there are many such histories already on the web, and I do not wish to simply duplicate a form already well served. Instead, I have chosen to create a number of articles which I offer for comment. The articles each deal with particular philosophical problems, but usually cover a much wider area, bearing in mind my purpose of introduction and engagement for visitors regarding themselves as "non-philosophers". Further to this purpose, I encourage feedback from site visitors. Any comments from visitors which contain ideas or criticisms likely to be of general interest, may appear (with the permission of their author) on the Reactions page. Indeed, I think that the Reactions page is the most interesting one on the site!

In placing any of my own ideas before an audience, I should also like to make a general acknowledgement of a great debt to a great many philosophers, living and dead.

Beginners: What Is Philosophy? [Top of the page]

The word "Philosophy" is derived from the Greek word, philosophia ("love of wisdom") and may be defined as a reasoned investigation and definition of the most fundamental methodologies, principles and purposes of human thought and activity. The modern discipline may be divided into a number of areas of study, for example:

• logic, the examination of the structures and principles of reasoning;
• metaphysics, the investigation of ultimate reality;
• epistemology, the study of the origin, validity, and limits of knowledge;
• ethics, the study of the nature of morality and ethical judgement;
• aesthetics, the study of the nature of beauty in the arts, and
• ontology, the study of the nature of existence (of physical and mental entities).

Whilst philosophical methodology may be said to comprise of:

• analytic philosophy, which is the logical study of concepts, their relations and definitions, and
• synthetic philosophy, which is the arrangement of concepts so as to create a unified system.

The term "philosophy" originally meant to seek knowledge for its own sake, encompassing all speculative thought (what we now call "Science" was termed "Natural Philosophy"). However, in modern times, specialisations have been developed concentrating on various specific subject areas (Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Art, Philosophy of Politics, Philosophy of Religion, and so on).

Beginners: What Is Logic? [Top of the page]

The word "Logic" is derived from the Greek "Logos" ("word," "speech," "reason") and is a form of analysis which deals with an investigation into the principles and methodologies of valid reasoning and argument. It is an effort to discover how we can justify passing from given statements, called premises, to a conclusion which we would wish to claim follows from the given statements. This involves an examination of methods of proof or demonstration.

Logical validity is a relationship between the premises and the conclusion, such that, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be. Logic, then, deals with the structure of reasoning, rather than the things we reason about. The usual form for examples of logical argument is the syllogism (examples follow below).

Logic may be divided into:

• deductive: looks at the general (rule or principle) and deduces the particular (case), and
• inductive: looks at particular (case or cases) and inducts a general (rule or principle).

Deductive Logic Example

Premise one:

All philosophy sites are boring;

Premise two:

this is a philosophy site;

Conclusion:

therefore, this site is boring.

However, it is very important to realise that what is called the "validity" of an argument is a different thing to its truth content (particularly in the case of the example above, I hope). If one or more of the premises is false, the conclusion of an argument which has valid form may also be false.

Inductive Logic Example

Premise one:

This philosophy site is boring;

Premise two:

that philosophy site is boring (and so on);

Conclusion:

therefore, all philosophy sites are boring.

An argument of valid logical form only establishes its conclusion on the condition that its premises are true. If such is the case, it is known as a "sound" argument. As you can see from the inductive example, logical validity for the inductive form is problematic, which has caused some philosophers to propose that the inductive form cannot produce a sound argument and should therefore be excluded from logic proper. Generally speaking, deductive inferences are taken to be logically stronger than inductive ones. When we use the inductive form, it is argued, we attempt support for a conclusion without guaranteeing it. However, it's important to realise that the inductive form contains information in the conclusion that is not in the premises. Deductive arguments, it can be said, are only analytical (they say nothing new), whereas inductive ones are informative (they generate new information, even if the truth of the information is uncertain).

A sound argument is one in which it is impossible to assert the premises and deny the conclusion without being contradictory. This shows that consistency is fundamental to logic and is taken to be fundamental to sound reasoning.

Here is an argument with valid form and a false conclusion.

Premise one:

All dogs have ten legs;

Premise two:

Fido is my dog;

Conclusion:

therefore, Fido has ten legs.

Although this argument is logically valid (its form is correct), it also happens to come to an untrue conclusion (due to an untrue first premise). It's also important to remember that an argument of invalid form may, just by chance, have a true conclusion.

Some animals are bipeds;

all people are animals;

therefore, all people are bipeds.

Although this happens to accidentally have a true conclusion, even so, the argument is still not valid. Logical validity depends on the form of the argument, not on its content. If the argument were of valid logical form, another term might be substituted for any occurrence of all those used in the example and validity would not be effected. But, in this example, if we were to substitute the term "four-legged" for the term "biped," it would be shown that the premises might be true and the conclusion false, which is inconsistent. Therefore an argument can be logically invalid, even with a true conclusion.

If someone tells you that you must accept an argument because "it is logical," the assumption should be that, if you accept the premises (the statements leading up to the conclusion), you must also accept the conclusion which follows from those premises. Some conclusions, when they are revealed, can be unexpected (not to say unwelcome). This is why philosophers are particularly careful not to commit themselves too quickly, even to what appear to be common sense statements. It should never be forgotten, however, that Logic cannot prove the truth of premises. It rather examines the formal relationship between statements and provides rules for that formal relationship. Just because an argument is logical, it does not follow that it is true.

Beginners: A Number Of Criticisms Against Philosophy [Top of page]

The Lack Of Progress Criticism

It's often said that the subject of philosophy never makes any progress, mainly because philosophers never reach any solid conclusions, an accusation not strictly true. Philosophers often reach conclusions - just not the same ones. This perennial criticism appears to be derived from an assumption that all philosophical discussion should end in universal agreement. Seeing as this happy termination seldom occurs in other areas of human congress, why is it supposed that it should occur within the activity of philosophy? Presumably because better is expected of philosophy? But this appears to reveal a strange contradiction in the attitude of the critics. On the one hand, they don't think much of philosophy, on the other, they expect much of it.

It is true that philosophers still spend much time on questions unresolved since the time of the ancient Greeks - questions usually summed up in that grand phrase, "The meaning of Life." Questions like, "Does God exist? What is a Right? What is Art? What is Right and Wrong? How do we know?" It's true that many people find such questions disturbing rather than stimulating. However, I find it difficult to see how philosophy is supposed to be at fault, just because some people don't like asking certain questions. It is not compulsory to ask such questions, even if they are unavoidable considerations to anyone with curiosity.

In fact, even if you don't think that you hold any particular philosophical viewpoint or philosophical opinions, it can be argued that we all have a philosophy of some sort. Even the denial of philosophy is a philosophical assertion. The philosophy we adhere to may be ill-defined and never put into words, perhaps, but still, there will always be some set of assumptions and ideas which each of us depend on in dealing with life. These assumptions and ideas may be the unexamined mental furniture we have picked up along the way as we have progressed through life. A study of philosophy subjects such unexamined assumptions and ideas to a close and critical scrutiny. Even if such an examination does not finally change our assumptions, it at least makes us aware of their existence and nature. Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Whether or not this is so, an examined life certainly promotes self-awareness, and thus, one could argue, a better quality of life.

Philosophy tends to promote the attitude that it is more important to enquire and examine, than it is to find definitive answers. The assumption behind philosophy is, that it is better to think than not to think, better to examine and discuss than to passively accept, even when the problems under scrutiny have no single, definitive solution. From this standpoint, philosophy is good mental exercise. Just as we may employ various devices to exercise our bodies, so we may apply our minds to exercising problems, which stretch us to our limits. To say that this is pointless because it gets us nowhere, is rather like saying an exercise treadmill gets us nowhere: a treadmill develops well-exercised legs; the practice of philosophy develops a well-exercised mind. The acquired fitness can then be applied elsewhere to good effect.

Another defence to this particular criticism can also be made. Philosophy never appears to make progress, because it no sooner discovers something, than a new subject is born and splits off from the parent body. Psychology, sociology, psychiatry, the list goes on. It's often forgotten that the pioneers in almost every science began as philosophers. However, philosophy is primarily concerned with the cutting edge, so to speak - those grey areas at the limits of knowledge, where opinion, speculative reasoning, analytical examination and logic, are the only options for dealing with matters where proof is currently lacking, or of a permanently doubtful nature. If this activity does cast light into the shadows, then the torch becomes the burden of the scientist. As science has progressed, many of the dark old hunting grounds of the philosophers have been cleared and planted, so to speak. Those that remain have been listed above.

The Undermining Of Beliefs Criticism

This criticism springs directly from what has just been said above, and it is often made by those holding strong religious beliefs.

Because philosophy, ideally, allows for no forbidden areas of enquiry, people with strong religious convictions often cannot accept it as a legitimate activity. For such people, many of the questions a philosopher might want to examine, are already settled by a religion which, for them, embodies a Universal and Absolute Truth. To examine such beliefs is disturbing to them, because they suspect that their certainty will be undermined by philosophical examination. They feel secure with their beliefs and fear the loss of them. However, it does not necessarily follow that one must lose one's belief in god if one studies philosophy. Indeed, one could argue that it is a pretty weak and shallow sort of faith that can be undermined by simply being examined honestly.

The Difficulty Criticism

Another criticism often levelled at philosophy, is that it is difficult. Well, have you ever pondered upon your own existence and asked yourself, "Where am I going? What am I? Is there a point to all this?" If you have, then you have practised philosophy. Such practical philosophy is not difficult, for it only requires that you discover questions. Discovering answers to such questions (answers which can satisfy) can indeed be difficult, but the degree of difficulty really depends upon you. Nobody else can decide how much, and what, will satisfy. Analysing and examining the arguments proposed by others in the past, can require a degree of abstract thought, and this can be demanding. However, I do not see how this fact marks out philosophy as any different from a host of other worthwhile pursuits.

Having considered all the criticisms made above, I find that the case against philosophy does not hold water. What do you think?