The Craft and Spirituality of Philosophy
Philosophy is a rigorous science and a method for healing the soul. Intellectual growth and spiritual progress cultivate a wakeful mind.
I often teach a section of Introduction to Philosophy to the new students at the local university. Many professors and students approach this sort of class with dread, but I do not share this feeling. It is a challenge to be sure. Nevertheless, I am still thrilled each semester to invite students into the path of thinking and living philosophically. To my mind, there are only a few endeavors more worthy of our time and energy.
The Desire to Understand
According to its original meaning, philosophy is the love of wisdom. This is a somewhat surprising definition, for we usually describe the various arts and sciences as the study of such and such. But not so with philosophy. Rather at its core, philosophy is a form of love. This suggests that more than a body of knowledge, it is an endeavor inspired by a desire arising from the human heart. According to Aristotle, this desire is rooted in nature itself; in his view, “all men by nature desire to understand.” Is this really so? This is a bold claim; after all, we are not lacking in examples of stupidity and ignorance. Nevertheless, the truth of Aristotle’s judgment on this matter is evident to the reflective mind.
By nature, man is endowed with an array of innate inclinations and desires. Man naturally desires life, friendship, honor, as well as understanding. This does not mean that he always succeeds or conceives of these matters rightly. He may err in his pursuit of praise or make shipwreck of friendships by neglect, but the regret of such men witnesses to the bent of nature. Similarly, the natural desire to understand does make sages of us all; the inclination to understand may be thwarted by circumstances or vice. Nevertheless, the desire to understand is natural and real.
Put simply, man’s natural desire to understand consists in his inclination to define, judge, explain, and dispute. Understood in this way, it is all but impossible to deny the reality of this desire. Observe that no man enjoys a reputation for ignorance and stupidity. Observe further, the abundance of arts and sciences developed by humanity. Again, observe that humanity is a font of endless questions. Finally, any argument against the reality of this inclination will only be further evidence of its reality, for any such argument will involve defining, judging, explaining, and argument. The desire to understand is a fact of human nature, and this fact is solid foundation of philosophy.
All men by nature desire to understand, and when this desire is extended to its full realization it becomes the love of wisdom.
A Deeper Form of Science
Part the difficulty of introducing philosophy to American students, is our tendency to have an overly reductive view of science in particular and rational enquiry more broadly. Many within the academy and outside of it, would meet the statement that “philosophy is a science” with raised eyebrows. However, the truth is that outside of our immediate context, philosophy and many other forms of enquiry have long been recognized as possessing a scientific character in some sense. And it is vital for us to recover this sensibility.
The practice of philosophy eventually leads us to questions about the meaning and purpose of human existence, the soul, justice, God, friendship, love, and so much more. But sadly our current intellectual culture says that right here, about the most important topics, rational inquiry is not possible; it is not possible to use reason to find the best answers. Is the ennui, angst, and anxiety of our times any wonder? If we cannot find answers for the most important questions, soul — man’s spiritual and moral energy — will inevitably decline. For this reason, it important for us to recover the scientific character of philosophy. Philosophy enquires into ultimate questions (first causes) and it is scientific in nature. We need not despair of solid answers to our deepest questions — the questions that address the needs of the soul.
In contemporary discussions, the term “science” refers exclusively to modern experimental science. Now there is certainly nothing wrong with the attribution of “science” to modern experimental methods. Modern science is clearly a powerful and effective method of inquiry. At the same time, an overly narrow understanding of science truncates the array of subjects that may be rationally investigated. Science is a powerful expression of reason and logic; however reason and logic need not be relegated to biology, physics, and algebra. Indeed, the power of reasoning reaches beyond these disciplines to the full horizon of human enquiry. Anyone who has seriously engaged in disciplines outside of the physics and mathematics departments knows that methodological rigor can be achieved in many ways. Consider the following disciplines: economics, business management, sociology, psychology, archeology, and history. Surely economics is not just “making things up.” Economists do not just concoct theories are out of thin air! At the same time economists regularly make mistakes. Should we infer from this state of affairs that economics lacks methodological rigor? Is it just bullshit? Surely not!
Economists zealously endeavor to unearth the logic of economic relations and changes. In doing so, they employ standards of research and rigorous methods, whether statistical or a priori exercises in conceptual logic. And the disagreements between Hayek, Friedman, Keynes and others are not arbitrary or emotional. These diverging theories may be methodically evaluated according to conceptual clarity, logical validity, and data. The reasoning and methodical care in such an endeavor needs to be recognized as a fully rational form of enquiry. “But economists get it wrong!” Well, yes, but so do scientists. Have you read the history of science? Errors and revisions are part of any rational form of enquiry, including economics and physics. So let us agree that economics is a rational form enquiry, but that it is distinct from physics and biology. In order to make sense of this situation we need an expanded notion of science; we need to recognize what German scholars call “wissenschaft.”
Literally translated “wissenschaft” means “knowledge making.” Science as wissenschaft refers to a rigorous method capable of producing a critical and systematic understanding of a given subject matter. By “systematic” I mean relatively comprehensive, complex, and coherent; by “critical” I mean subject to relevant standards of evidence and testing. History, biology, law, and economics differ from one another in many ways, but they are all “scientific” in this broader sense of “science.” Each field includes a well-defined subject matter and method, along with standards of evidence and research and means for rational testing. Of course, what counts as evidence and testing will differ in each science, but each field retains the general structure of “science.” In each of these fields, it is possible to formulate a systematic theory and test the theory according to relevant standards.
Ultimate Questions
Philosophy is a science in much the same way as economics or history. In fact, philosophy is first science because it seeks what is “first” in the sense of “primary” and architectonic; philosophy seeks the primary sources, ideas, order, relations, foundations, etc. This is the subject matter of philosophy. When enquiry reaches towards the ultimate or foundational it has reached the level of first science, that is, philosophy. One could call philosophy, the science of first causes and first principles.[1] A concrete example of this sort of enquiry will prove helpful.
Human behavior can be explained in part by economics, genetics, sociology, and psychology, but when we ask which of these is primary, we are dealing with a philosophical question because it is a question about which factor is ultimate or primary. So, if someone claims that sociological factors are the primary determinates of human behavior, he has moved towards philosophy. Such a man is putting forward a philosophical theory about what is primary in human behavior — what is controlling and in command. And very importantly, in doing so he is moving beyond the practice of sociology as such and taking a philosophical stance. Sociology as such, proceeds from its own data set and in accordance with its own methodology, which is focused on describing and explaining given social phenomenon. This is excellent insofar as it goes, but to adjudicate the causal power of social factors in comparison to other disciplines and approaches, goes beyond the methodological bounds of sociology. To assert the primacy of sociology is to affirm a theory about sociology, but it is not itself the product of the discipline of sociology — it is a philosophical stance about sociology that goes beyond the discipline itself. In saying this, I do not intend any criticism of sociology or the person who insists on the primacy of sociology (although I certainly do not agree to the thesis). I simply intend to bring to light the distinctly philosophical way of thinking, namely, searching for the ultimate explanations and the first things.
One further feature of philosophical enquiry needs to be recognized. Simply insisting on the primacy of sociology approaches philosophy, but it does not go far enough. Philosophers do not merely affirm and deny; as Plato might put it, they provide logos for their primary theses — a rational account or argument. Indeed anyone even slightly familiar with philosophy knows that the development of systematic explanations, arguments, and counter-arguments is an essential aspect of philosophical practice. Like any other science (taken in the broad sense), philosophy not only has a well-defined subject matter, but employs rigorous methods and standards to bring to eliminate weak philosophical theories and identify better the theories.
Fulfilling the Desire of the Soul
To recapitulate: philosophy is a science broadly construed (wissenschaft). It possesses a well-defined and distinct subject matter and rigorous methods and standards for supporting and falsifying competing theories. In addition, philosophy boasts a canonical list of thinkers, theories, and texts that provides abundant examples; taken together, these resources provide a solid inductive basis for philosophical practice. Thus, philosophy is scientific in a broad sense; and not only this. Philosophy is not only scientific, but the first or primary science because it explores the first things and ultimate questions.
The horizons of human understanding do not shrink from what is most important to man’s spiritual condition; the soul need not languish in despair of ultimate questions. It is indeed possible to find solid answers to questions about justice, God, and the meaning of life. Perhaps surprisingly, philosophy is useful to the soul because of its scientific rigor.
Aristotle is correct: all men by nature desire to understand and this desire leads us to formulate ultimate questions. These are the questions and topics dearest to the human soul, and it is just at this point that our current intellectual culture tells us to despair of solid answers. But it need not be so. There is a better way. Philosophy holds out to us the possibility of going beyond opinion and subjectivity in the most important matters; it holds out the possibility of developing carefully considered, thoughtful, and rigorous answers to the ultimate questions. In this way the mind becomes more fully awake to the world around us and the world within.
The soul of man is no futile spark; it rises towards the full horizon of truth and goodness; and now and then, it catches a glimpse of what it ultimately seeks.
(Much of this essay was inspired by Bernard Lonergan’s magisterial text, Insight)
[1] In fact, this is a common way of describing philosophy in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition.