The 15-Minute Philosopher

Ideas to Save Your Life

Anne Rooney

• Publisher: Arcturus
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781782126423
• eBook ISBN: 9781784280482
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Part of the brand-new Arcturus series, Ideas to Save Your Life, The 15-Minute Philosopher introduces the reader to the main ideas of philosophy, showing how the subject has a clear practical purpose vital to our day-to-day lives and thinking. A fun introduction to the subject of philosophy...

Chapter 1

How do you know how to think?

How, then, do you proceed with philosophical thought?

‘Philosophy is a discipline. You’ve got to discipline your thought. It’s not just making stuff up. And disciplining your thought is very hard to achieve.’

Tim Crane, Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge

Question everything

Disciplined thinking takes nothing for granted. In the last chapter, we saw that the apparently simple question – which of two mountains is taller? – needs more clearly defining before it can be answered. In philosophy, all questions and all terms must be examined and defined before we can feel secure in proposing answers.

The tools we use to do philosophy are logic and reason; the arguments they produce can only be presented in language. This means that language itself falls under scrutiny. A good part of the philosophical work of the twentieth century went into examining the foundations and reliability of language.

When you begin to look at philosophy, it can feel as if everything is constantly shifting, and questions multiply in front of you. It can be invigorating, or terrifying, or both. If you like certainty, philosophy might not be for you. But if you enjoy mental gymnastics, and don’t mind the ground you have built your life on being wrenched from beneath your feet, it might be just what you’re looking for.

A fractal is a pattern that becomes ever more complex. The closer you look, the smaller the details you can see as the pattern replicates as it fragments. In mathematics, the area enclosed by a fractal is finite, but has a boundary of infinite length. You can think of philosophy as fractal – every question leads on to further questions.

Dismantling certainty

Socrates often said that the only thing he was sure about was his own ignorance, and that if he was wiser than other men it was in that he recognized his ignorance. Socrates made a habit of challenging people who thought themselves knowledgeable to define common concepts such as ‘courage’ or ‘justice’. He would then present counter-arguments, revealing inconsistencies or contradictions in whatever they said – it didn’t matter how they answered, he could always pick holes in what they said. His aim was to show that everything is more complicated than we are inclined to think, and accepting commonly-held beliefs without scrutiny is unwise. That was how he got into such trouble with the authorities in Athens. His way of teaching is known as the Socratic method and is still used. It is a dialectic method – a dialogue framed as a reasoned argument in which logical responses should lead the participants to the truth.

Thesis-building

Although Socrates used dialectic principally to unpick established beliefs, it is also used to build knowledge. Again, it works through a process of questions and answers, the answers prompting new questions that probe further and allow the participants to edge towards deeper understanding.

Dialectic now is often associated with an eighteenth-century German philosopher, Georg Hegel (pictured above). It progresses in three stages:

•thesis: this is the idea or statement that is being proposed as true, such as ‘lying is wrong’

•antithesis: this is a reasoned answer to the thesis, contradicting it, such as ‘lying sometimes protects people from harm and so can be good’

•synthesis: this is a new statement of the idea, revised in the light of the objections raised by the antithesis. In the example, it might be ‘lying when it is not intended to protect the person lied to is wrong’.

The process can be repeated. The synthesis becomes the new thesis, and is examined and readjusted. By going through these steps, either in dialogue with someone else or by thinking the argument through yourself, you can scrutinize your ideas and make them more robust.

Court cases are tried by debate, with one side arguing in favour of the defendant and the other arguing the case for the prosecution. The skills and methods of philosophical debate are used to determine whether or not someone is guilty of the crime.

Start from scratch

In general, philosophers start with the work of earlier philosophers and use logic and argument to move the debate forwards. But that’s not always the case. Philosophy is one of few disciplines in which it’s perfectly possible to throw out baby and bath water and run a new bath, starting from first principles. As long as the new model is logical and internally consistent it stands a fighting chance of being taken seriously. Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) both decided that for two thousand years philosophers had got it all wrong and it was time to start again. Wittgenstein even stated: ‘It is a matter of indifference to me whether the thoughts that I have had have been anticipated by someone else.’ It certainly saves a lot of time that would otherwise be spent reading up on previous ideas, and can also bring a freshness that allows completely new angles to emerge.

PLAYING DEVIL’S ADVOCATE

In philosophical debate, one person or group might play ‘devil’s advocate’, arguing for a view they don’t necessarily support just for the purpose of having a debate. From 1587 to 1983 ‘devil’s advocate’ was an official role. In examining the case for making new saints, the claim for the proto-saint was presented by ‘God’s advocate’ and challenged by the ‘devil’s advocate’. It was the job of the devil’s advocate to pick holes in God’s case. Socrates played devil’s advocate to uncover inconsistencies in the arguments of his opponents.

The role of logic

Logic is a very highly formalized way of thinking and reasoning that involves using language as a precision tool. The first philosopher to set out the methods of logic was Aristotle, who lived in Athens in 384–322BC. He showed how we can start with two true statements that share one ‘term’, and draw another true statement from them, using the terms they don’t share. The most famous example of this method – called logical syllogism – is:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Here, the shared term is ‘man’ – it’s in both the first two statements. This can be reduced to something more formulaic:

All As are B. C is an A. Therefore C is B.

The third statement remains true even when we remove the content (the details of men and mortality). This shows that the logic is valid: it is a formal relationship between statements. As long as the first two statements are true, the sequence will always work. Logic of this kind cannot be refuted – the difficulty for philosophy is filling in the terms – finding the statements – that lead to useful and meaningful conclusions. This is where we need to be very precise and careful.

Suppose we were to say:

Killing people is wrong. Abortion involves killing people.

Therefore abortion is wrong.

This is open to several challenges. The first is whether ‘killing people is wrong’ is actually a true statement – there might be circumstances in which killing people is not wrong. The second is whether abortion involves killing people: we have to ask when or whether a foetus counts as a person, and whether we can ‘kill’ something that is not independently alive. Although the logic is sound, the content is not. To practise philosophy, you need to keep a tight rein on both – to ‘discipline your thought’.

Where to start?

The French philosopher René Descartes (who, incidentally, also invented the Cartesian coordinate system used to draw graphs) famously said: ‘I think, therefore I am.’ It was his starting point for philosophy. He realized that he needed to start from something he could feel sure of, a secure proposition.

The position of certainty he came up with was his own existence, proved by his being able to think. Using Aristotle’s system of syllogisms, he could say:

Only things that exist can think. I can think.

Therefore I exist.

For most people, the more important and pressing questions in philosophy are ethical questions – these are concerned with what is morally right and wrong. This is the area where we are most likely to encounter philosophical quandaries in our daily lives, and where they will impact on actions. Questions such as whether we should move an elderly relative into residential care against her wishes, or how we should treat animals, probably seem more relevant than if/why anything exists.

Often, this is where you will start – asking what you should do or trying to decide your opinion on a topical issue. But philosophical questions are especially prone to mission creep. Something that starts off as a seemingly straightforward and specific question often has roots that go far deeper – which is why Descartes had to start by establishing that he existed. It is precisely this aspect which makes philosophy so fascinating and rewarding.

Chapter 2

If a tree falls over in a forest, does it exist?

So where can we start? What’s real?

‘What is comprehended by you or I may not be [comprehended] by a cat, for example. If a tree falls in a park and there is no-one to hand, it is silent and invisible and nameless. And if we were to vanish, there would be no tree at all; any meaning would vanish along with us. Other than what the cats make of it all, of course.’

William Fossett, Natural States, 1754

ABOUT THAT TREE

The usual wording of the tree question is: ‘If a tree falls over in a forest and there is no one around, does it make a sound?’ The seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke would say that the answer is no. Most scientists would agree: ‘sound’ is defined by being heard. As the tree falls, it creates vibrations in the...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction: What is philosophy for?
• Part 1: Thought
• Part 2: Deed
• Conclusion
• Picture credits