Philosophy: An Antiquated Method of Explanation

This article was written in response to “Philosophy Will Always Be Relevant,” published in Volume 110, Issue 5.

Humankind's earliest thinkers, as ancient written records indicate, were infatuated with existence and the desire to explain it. These fundamental concerns of humanity have been echoed throughout history, and philosophers have generally addressed these queries by providing their own interpretations: interpretations of human behaviors and thoughts that lack an explanation, or even at the time, seem inexplicable. Though we still have a widespread recognition of these philosophies, the strong scientific basis that lies at the core of contemporary understanding has provided more accurate answers to our concerns about reality and undermined the authority of philosophical thought. The idea of a select group of figures responsible for postulating humanity’s ultimate truths is elitist, because it goes against the standards of democracy and individualism that are fundamental to a balanced society.

In researching a definition of philosophy to form a base for my thinking, I concluded that its definition is the subject of substantial disagreement, and that is part of the problem. The intentions and objectives of philosophy are obscure—they lack certainty. Besides asking questions about our existence and reality, there is little practical application for philosophy, not because its ideas do not carry any merit, but because by nature, there are no objectively correct answers in philosophy. This is not to say that the quest for knowledge is unimportant—it is—but as written by Igmar Persson, a professor at the University of Oxford’s center for practical ethics, “there is rarely a singular coherent point that philosophy is working toward, and thus it is bound to be inconclusive.” While philosophers often turn to the point that it is the journey and the “grappling” with issues that make philosophy worthwhile, I find that “tackling” these issues yields a more utilitarian outcome: an outcome that in an age of information, has more immediate gratification and purpose than speculation.

In the current philosophical climate, philosophy also contradicts itself. Philosophy confuses truth and reason, often proposing one logical argument and then finding an argument to support the opposing side. In an article published in the Pittston Education Chronicles, writer Kevin Steves argues, “The practice of contemporary philosophy implies not merely that there are two sides to every issue, but that there are two equally good sides.” This practice of having both an opinion and counter-opinion blurs the purpose of philosophy as a tool of reason and ultimately results in a lack of conclusivity.

Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle earned their reputations in a world lacking scientific sophistication, a world that was desperate for intelligent minds that could provide explanations for what could not be fathomed by ordinary men. It goes without saying that this desperation and lack of scientific knowledge no longer weighs down our greatest thinkers. The distinguished physicist Stephen Hawking claimed at a Google conference, “Scientists and new theories lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it.” While philosophy is intellectually liberating and the discussion of its principles yields powerful conversation, it takes its roots in a time of idle speculation, while our modern society has scientific evidence and theories that offer more precise explanations. An example of such is philosophy’s contribution of creation stories, presumably fictional stories that seek to address our existence, and these have been disproven by tangible evidence and discoveries of the Earth’s true development. Alexander Spirkin, a Russian psychologist and author of “Philosophy as a Worldview and a Methodology,” proclaims, “Science and philosophy have always learned from each other [that] every major scientific discovery is at the same time a step forward in the development of the philosophical methodology.” Many philosophical statements are based on scientific conclusions—the findings of Euclid, Newton, and Galileo, whose ideas would go on to be used as evidence by philosophers, for example—and this validates the assertion that science does not owe its existence to philosophy.

The concept of philosophy has generally been confined to those in high social standing, and as a result, it is elitist and out of sync with our modern values. Humanity seems to care a lot about its existence and thus philosophers, the “self-proclaimed deciders” of human nature, have a lot of power. There are few philosophers whose names have become an archetype of the profession, and that is because only so many theories can be presented and accepted by the world. Each individual is respected, yes, but most come from a privileged social standing. In a contemporary society that prides itself on democracy and diversity, this noble ideal of a single individual preaching our invaluable truths cannot last. Philosophy is dangerously close to undermining scientific progress and modern values; as much as a pursuit of knowledge is important, recognize that philosophy is bound to fail the test of time.