Once upon a time, or so I've heard, three Greek philosophers sat in a taverna arguing about the number of teeth a horse had. Their arguments were rigorous and elegant. One applied principles of symmetry. The second considered the nature of grass whilst the third drew on Plato's doctrine of ideal forms. Finally, unable to agree and somewhat drunk, they approached an Arab merchant at the next table to judge between them.
The merchant listened carefully and then asked to be briefly excused. On his return he gave judgment. The losers were upset and demanded that he explain what was wrong with their arguments.
"Arguments be dammed" said the Arab "I went to the stables and counted them!"
The merchant listened carefully and then asked to be briefly excused. On his return he gave judgment. The losers were upset and demanded that he explain what was wrong with their arguments.
"Arguments be dammed" said the Arab "I went to the stables and counted them!"
I was reminded of this several times on Saturday at the BHA's conference on Humanism, Philosophy and the Arts. Interspersed with singing, poetry and two non-philosophical speeches three humanist philosophers offered persuasive arguments about the role of the Arts and their relevance to humanism. The philosophers made many claims about facts. For instance, Richard Norman and Nigel Warburton argued that humanists could appreciate religious art just as much as the religious could whilst Richard Norman claimed that WW1 war poetry had changed our attitudes to war. Now these are factual claims that should be settled by empirical investigation. The first needs the methods of psychology and the second of history. Neither can be resolved by the methods of philosophy.
I was still wrestling with this after lunch when Julian Baggini spoke on Hollywood vs. Philosophy. One of his points connected with mine for he said that philosophy is not usually an argument; it's more often an attempt to draw the reader's attention to a fact or connection that he may have overlooked. That, it seems to me, is a very useful approach when approaching an issue but it's not very useful for settling it. Philosophers may help us to understand what teeth are and what is to qualify as a horse - even perhaps what counting means - but if you really want an answer you can believe in you just have to go to the stables with the Arab and start counting.
I think Francis Crick got it right in conversation with Sue Blackmore: “philosophers often ask good questions but they have no techniques for getting the answers. … A lot of problems that were once regarded as philosophical are … now … part of physics” Or, I might add, history, sociology or psychology.
In the last 200 years scientists and other empirical scholars have got much better at finding data and at connecting those data with longstanding intellectual problems (as well as with major practical problems and, regrettably, trifling pseudo-intellectual ones). The process is incomplete but it expends inexorably to address issues of religion, aesthetics and morality.
And it is not just religious and political ideologues who will be upset by what the facts tell us.
1 comment:
"Once upon a time, or so I've heard, three Greek philosophers sat in a taverna arguing about the number of teeth a horse had....Philosophers may help us to understand what teeth are and what is to qualify as a horse - even perhaps what counting means -
There is a well worn fable that attributes the above to Aristotle - although I have never seen it in his works. It is normally used by people who want to disparage philosophy.
The above piece seems to be in that line of thought.
However philosophers tend to be good at reasoning, and as such they may point out that if you start an argument off with dubious assumptions or misleading analogies then there will be little reason to trust in your conclusion despite the desire to do so.
"A lot of problems that were once regarded as philosophical are … now … part of physics”
Well it might be worth recalling that philosophy never used to be regarded as a separate discipline from the other sciences but instead it was seen as a necessary component of them.
Current philosophers don't tend to carry out experiments (except for experimental philosophers) they do (if they are any good) tend to keep abreast of empirical research that impacts on their field of enquiry.
"In the last 200 years scientists and other empirical scholars have got much better at finding data and at connecting those data with long standing intellectual problems "
Yes, those scientists and empirical scholars were speculating on the relationship between 'data' and philosophical problems and in so doing were doing philosophy. They don't necessarily do this very well, and the concepts that scientists use tend to be more ambiguous and less sharply defined than the ones that exchange hands in philosophical debates.
Scientists are useful for observing and collecting 'data' but when it comes to seeing the relationships between things, they may miss what is right in front of them - such as recognising when they are philosophising!
This may stem from lacking a clear idea of what philosophy consists in.
P.S.
I don't think philosophers have ever helped us understand what teeth are. However, I recognise that I might be mistaken. Hence I am curious as to whether you based this assertion on some empirical evidence. If not the admonition that "factual claims that should be settled by empirical investigation" will look a little rich.
Post a Comment