Friday 11 November 2011

Friday Question: Philosophy, whither now?

This week's Friday question takes up a theme explored a few weeks back viz. the nature and role of philosophy. Whereas previously I raised the issue of the nature and role of philosophy in relation to the wider society, I now wish to focus on the nature and role of philosophy in academia.
One of the core strengths of philosophy is that it is quite a malleable subject, meaning that for any other academic discipline there is usually a ‘philosophy of’ that discipline. This phenomenon is so apparent that it hardly needs defending, one need only point to such branches of philosophy as philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, political philosophy etc to see its presence. I call this a strength because in disciplines such as science, theology, politics etc there is often widespread disagreement resulting from presupposed philosophical principles. Philosophy thus can provide a playing field within which such disagreement can be resolved.
One reason often offered for the pervasiveness of philosophy amongst other strictly non-philosophical disciplines is that the other disciplines often employ philosophical presuppositions which are left undefended by the discipline itself and require a defence by the philosopher. This would then suggest that there is a core area or set of areas that is (are) purely philosophical and not simply a ‘philosophy of’ something. A case can be made for the view that the core philosophical areas are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic and their particular branches, with the ‘philosophy of’ disciplines being an application of these core areas to the discipline on which the ‘philosophy of’ focuses.
Given that philosophy can be diversified into (i) core areas and (ii) ‘philosophy of’ areas, the question of the role of philosophy in academia becomes an interesting one. If we accept that philosophy is an important subject worthy of study (a theme discussed in the Friday question a few weeks back), then we must ask ourselves what position it should take in the contemporary academy. There is a lot to be said for having ‘philosophy of’ disciplines, since the disciplines about which they are a ‘philosophy of’, e.g. science, psychology, theology, politics, all have a place within the contemporary academy. However, the ‘philosophy of’ disciplines are only such because they recognise that there are philosophical issues at work in the discipline on which they focus and drawing upon the core areas of philosophy, which are not ‘philosophy of’ disciplines, they seek to clear up the philosophical issues at work in the disciplines about which they are a ‘philosophy of’. The argument can thus be made that if the contemporary academy only retains the ‘philosophy of’ disciplines and neglects the core areas of philosophy, the ‘philosophy of’ disciplines will become rootless, they will lose their philosophical integrity, and philosophy will ultimately become a kind of fanciful reflection with no systematic manner of conducting its own affairs. If we recognise that philosophy is a noble pursuit and a subject that ought to be preserved in the contemporary academy, then perhaps the core areas of philosophy ought to be nourished, to be given their own space to pursue their own problems independently of their application to various other disciplines.
This is a real dilemma, not only for the pragmatic issues that a contemporary academy must face but also for the very identity of philosophy and its independence or otherwise from other strictly non-philosophical disciplines. I thus welcome your thoughts on the matter.

No comments:

Post a Comment