You might be an avid reader of the The Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy. I’m not. I just stumbled across the title recently and immediately began to ask what kinds of articles the magazine might contain. Forget the topic of “education”—though when I look through the archived issues, that subject seems to dominate. I looked through the issues to see the “philosophical” articles with one thought. Is there something new afoot? A “new” philosophy? By “new,” I mean, in very simple terms, a thought never thunk.
We’ve been discussing philosophical questions for thousands of years, and we don’t seem to be making any advances on the age-old problems*: Does life have meaning? Why should humans consider the consequences of their actions? How do we truly know we know? Those and other questions send us round and round and round. Philosophies become trends, and like all trends, they fade from popularity as succeeding generations idolize in cults inspired by more contemporary philosophers. After centuries of philosophizing, we have a pantheon of characters and “classics” to which we bow, even though we, ourselves, probably think an amalgam of philosophies.
And now we throw into the mix not just human thinking, but artificial thinking, or machine thinking. Do we want machines to think in a human way? What would that mean? Machine philosophy? Could machines “advance” philosophy? Or could we, in thinking about machine thinking, advance philosophy? At this stage in fashioning AI, designers are probably more interested in the process of thinking more than its products? The rest of us are a bit concerned because people like the late Stephen Hawking have told us AI presents a real danger to our existence. Maybe the doomsday predictors are correct or maybe they have seen too many science fiction movies that show the downside of AI: A totally utilitarian perspective—as though Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill wrote software for robots.**
Let’s talk communication’s role in “advancing” philosophy. Do we fail to advance philosophy because of an endemic parochialism of language? Two close people—spouses or teammates, for example—don’t always use words to communicate. Strangers also employ nonverbal communication. Mutual flirtation works that way, and it is probably the first step many take on the road to verbal exchanges and love. Should we say that philosophy can “advance” because it lies in words and not in potentially mistaken physical signals? No, although wordless communication can be misinterpreted, it doesn’t have a lock on misunderstanding. All those philosophical tomes have generated their share of misunderstandings that have led others to forge different, but not necessarily better, philosophies and outcomes inimical to humans.***
I suppose what we ultimately want is a philosophy with a meaning that is clear—unequivocal—so that can finally put those “important” questions to rest. But in every attempt to communicate clearly, there’s always something in the way, especially when we encounter someone who thinks differently. What gets in the way? Cultural differences, political correctness, or silly super-sensitivity, for example. Our differences are often marked by esoteric expressions of groups with a particular agenda? That is, if you are not one of the “in crowd” with access to a secret language or understanding, can you know why the “in crowd” validates its philosophy (and invalidates yours)? Would an advance in philosophy derive from a new form of communication that crosses all intellectual and social boundaries to produce widespread understanding?
Surely, there are identifiable advances in philosophy since Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, and Heraclitus thought deep thoughts. For example, we no longer think the world is composed of only four elements, so you might say we have advanced beyond the notions of the first philosophers. But it was science, not philosophy that gave us the periodic table and quantum mechanics, not philosophy. It was through neuroscience that we learned about thinking mechanisms, if not about the nature of thought and consciousness.
Did the ancients have insights that have endured to our times? Of course, they did, but maybe one reason is that their insights have been artificially supported by cultism or maybe because their insights aren’t really that insightful; rather they border on mere platitudes or syllogisms that might be more entertaining than informing. After not many years of observing human interactions, most of us derive certain common notions (e.g., some people do this; some, do that; this or that seem “just plain wrong,” etc.). Are those matters we hold in common the basis for a universal advance in philosophy?
During the past 25 centuries, we’ve done what we always do: Mess with things and elaborate because we simply want to rearrange someone else’s mental furniture or decor. The ancients had four substances on the table of elements; we have over 100 on the periodic table. So, yes, we have advanced our understanding of the physical world until we reached the point of unimaginable dualities of quantum physics with its mathematical descriptions and uncertainties. But what about our understanding of those other kinds of philosophical inquiry, the kinds that deal with knowledge, purpose, and ethics? What about the search for identity that makes everyone adopt a “philosophy”?
Who are you? After 25 millennia of thought about human identity, don’t you think you should have a ready and clear answer? Or is such an answer elusive because you can identify only in social and psychological terms? And throw in this one: How do you justify who you are? Or is there even a need to justify who you are? Is there a philosophy by which all people—you, in particular—can define themselves? Is there some universal way of thinking or universal principle that works the way General Relativity works?
So, what do you say about philosophy? That, for example, philosophy helps to define “the Good,” “the Good Life,” and related values and behaviors? That it explains evil or pain? That it defines either meaning or meaninglessness? Or, rather, that a philosophy is always particular and specific to the needs, attitudes, and intellectual background of an individual like you? If so, what is your philosophy? Is it applicable to your life but to no other? Or is your personal philosophy an amalgam because no philosopher you have ever read, regardless of his or her brilliance, has planted every human field? In essence, are there not fallow fields in every agriculture of the mind?****
You’re probably thinking that I just put you on the road to despair, that there can never be a holistic philosophy that satisfies the human soul. Or maybe you’re thinking there’s a difference between “philosophy” and what people in academia call a “philosophy of life” or a “philosophy of education”? When I was in school, I heard an educator say that teachers should have a “philosophy of education,” but I never considered the term to be philosophical because I believed epistemology and psychology already covered that matter—unless he meant “a method of teaching” by the phrase, and if he did, he accepted a trite definition of philosophy.
Isn’t a “philosophy of life” a term that has special meaning? Isn’t it a practical, workable way to go through life framed by some generalization? Now, shouldn’t I argue that a philosophy of life has room for “advances? Will that start you thinking that your personal “philosophy of life” is an advance over that of some medieval tradesman? The term “philosophy of life” won’t lead to an irrefutable definition of Being, but rather just to some working definition a few like-minded people will agree to accept as a basis for moving through society. I’m guessing, however, that even like-minded people will think and live differently from one another as circumstances warrant, making any “philosophy of life” a situational psychology.
If you do have a philosophy of life, have you maintained it without changes? No? Would you call those changes “advances”? Do you think that is how I should interpret a magazine devoted to “advances” in philosophy? Instead of the word advances, should the journal title read Changes in Education and Philosophy or Alternatives in…?
Look at your own thinking. It differs from what it used to be because of experiences. You’re not a kid anymore. You’ve faced some realities that forced you to rethink your worldview. So, assess those changes. Have they provided you with “advances” on the fundamental philosophical questions, those that lead you to understanding absolutes or lead you to answers for the questions I enumerated in the second paragraph of this discussion?
I’m not being pessimistic about your seeking answers if you so desire. I’m merely saying that philosophy hasn’t provided you with any advances worth putting in your personal journal. Neologisms abound among those who believe they have advanced the nature of human perspectives; renaming or combining terms is only an exercise in creativity—like yet another love poem or love song.*****
Plain folk like me want intellectual paths to lead to something other than crossroads and merging thoughts. Advances? Show me a road that doesn’t start at some long-traveled Appian Way. All those ancient roads have been well traveled, and all of them have adjacent paths leading to this or that intellectual neighborhood, intellectual cul-de-sacs and dead ends.
Here’s the challenge: Read through articles in that journal—or any other philosophy journal—and find something you consider to be an “advance” in philosophy that answers those questions unequivocally.
*See the December 20, 2018, entry on this website for a related posting. You can think of other questions: What is of value? What is the root of justice? Does any ethical system apply to all? The list is long, but here’s the question you need to answer here: Can you name a philosophical inquiry that has a definitive answer with universal acceptance? Maybe you can, and I, in my limited knowledge, just can’t think of one. By the way, I’m excluding theological questions, such as those on what is “right” or “wrong”—e.g., war, revenge, capital punishment, keeping excess wealth, stealing a loaf of bread in a famine….
**Mill is an interesting case of high intellectual ability asserting a contradictory stance: He was for the individual, but also for British imperialism on the grounds that those subjugated to British rule were “barbarous”—in opposition to the “civilized” British whose rule would “civilize.” But then, what should we expect if we run any philosophy—in this instance, utilitarianism—to its logical end? If AI comes to complete fruition, we can expect one possible outcome to be the subjugation of “barbarous” humans.
***Think Karl Marx and the rise of oppressive communism under which tens of millions died and economically depressing socialism, such as that in current Venezuela and Cuba under the Castros. Think Karl would approve of the interpretation of his work?
**** And I haven’t even asked whether or not philosophy is an offshoot of theology derived by minds that reject any pantheon of Olympians or Creator.
*****Sorry for all these footnotes: When the Beatles discovered Eastern Mysticism, they fell into the pattern set by the Transcendentalists and other groups that, upon discovering a different culture, thought they were thinking things afresh, all the while simply thinking an amalgam. Try it: Adopt another culture’s way of thinking without holding onto any part of your previous way of thinking.
We’ve been discussing philosophical questions for thousands of years, and we don’t seem to be making any advances on the age-old problems*: Does life have meaning? Why should humans consider the consequences of their actions? How do we truly know we know? Those and other questions send us round and round and round. Philosophies become trends, and like all trends, they fade from popularity as succeeding generations idolize in cults inspired by more contemporary philosophers. After centuries of philosophizing, we have a pantheon of characters and “classics” to which we bow, even though we, ourselves, probably think an amalgam of philosophies.
And now we throw into the mix not just human thinking, but artificial thinking, or machine thinking. Do we want machines to think in a human way? What would that mean? Machine philosophy? Could machines “advance” philosophy? Or could we, in thinking about machine thinking, advance philosophy? At this stage in fashioning AI, designers are probably more interested in the process of thinking more than its products? The rest of us are a bit concerned because people like the late Stephen Hawking have told us AI presents a real danger to our existence. Maybe the doomsday predictors are correct or maybe they have seen too many science fiction movies that show the downside of AI: A totally utilitarian perspective—as though Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill wrote software for robots.**
Let’s talk communication’s role in “advancing” philosophy. Do we fail to advance philosophy because of an endemic parochialism of language? Two close people—spouses or teammates, for example—don’t always use words to communicate. Strangers also employ nonverbal communication. Mutual flirtation works that way, and it is probably the first step many take on the road to verbal exchanges and love. Should we say that philosophy can “advance” because it lies in words and not in potentially mistaken physical signals? No, although wordless communication can be misinterpreted, it doesn’t have a lock on misunderstanding. All those philosophical tomes have generated their share of misunderstandings that have led others to forge different, but not necessarily better, philosophies and outcomes inimical to humans.***
I suppose what we ultimately want is a philosophy with a meaning that is clear—unequivocal—so that can finally put those “important” questions to rest. But in every attempt to communicate clearly, there’s always something in the way, especially when we encounter someone who thinks differently. What gets in the way? Cultural differences, political correctness, or silly super-sensitivity, for example. Our differences are often marked by esoteric expressions of groups with a particular agenda? That is, if you are not one of the “in crowd” with access to a secret language or understanding, can you know why the “in crowd” validates its philosophy (and invalidates yours)? Would an advance in philosophy derive from a new form of communication that crosses all intellectual and social boundaries to produce widespread understanding?
Surely, there are identifiable advances in philosophy since Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, and Heraclitus thought deep thoughts. For example, we no longer think the world is composed of only four elements, so you might say we have advanced beyond the notions of the first philosophers. But it was science, not philosophy that gave us the periodic table and quantum mechanics, not philosophy. It was through neuroscience that we learned about thinking mechanisms, if not about the nature of thought and consciousness.
Did the ancients have insights that have endured to our times? Of course, they did, but maybe one reason is that their insights have been artificially supported by cultism or maybe because their insights aren’t really that insightful; rather they border on mere platitudes or syllogisms that might be more entertaining than informing. After not many years of observing human interactions, most of us derive certain common notions (e.g., some people do this; some, do that; this or that seem “just plain wrong,” etc.). Are those matters we hold in common the basis for a universal advance in philosophy?
During the past 25 centuries, we’ve done what we always do: Mess with things and elaborate because we simply want to rearrange someone else’s mental furniture or decor. The ancients had four substances on the table of elements; we have over 100 on the periodic table. So, yes, we have advanced our understanding of the physical world until we reached the point of unimaginable dualities of quantum physics with its mathematical descriptions and uncertainties. But what about our understanding of those other kinds of philosophical inquiry, the kinds that deal with knowledge, purpose, and ethics? What about the search for identity that makes everyone adopt a “philosophy”?
Who are you? After 25 millennia of thought about human identity, don’t you think you should have a ready and clear answer? Or is such an answer elusive because you can identify only in social and psychological terms? And throw in this one: How do you justify who you are? Or is there even a need to justify who you are? Is there a philosophy by which all people—you, in particular—can define themselves? Is there some universal way of thinking or universal principle that works the way General Relativity works?
So, what do you say about philosophy? That, for example, philosophy helps to define “the Good,” “the Good Life,” and related values and behaviors? That it explains evil or pain? That it defines either meaning or meaninglessness? Or, rather, that a philosophy is always particular and specific to the needs, attitudes, and intellectual background of an individual like you? If so, what is your philosophy? Is it applicable to your life but to no other? Or is your personal philosophy an amalgam because no philosopher you have ever read, regardless of his or her brilliance, has planted every human field? In essence, are there not fallow fields in every agriculture of the mind?****
You’re probably thinking that I just put you on the road to despair, that there can never be a holistic philosophy that satisfies the human soul. Or maybe you’re thinking there’s a difference between “philosophy” and what people in academia call a “philosophy of life” or a “philosophy of education”? When I was in school, I heard an educator say that teachers should have a “philosophy of education,” but I never considered the term to be philosophical because I believed epistemology and psychology already covered that matter—unless he meant “a method of teaching” by the phrase, and if he did, he accepted a trite definition of philosophy.
Isn’t a “philosophy of life” a term that has special meaning? Isn’t it a practical, workable way to go through life framed by some generalization? Now, shouldn’t I argue that a philosophy of life has room for “advances? Will that start you thinking that your personal “philosophy of life” is an advance over that of some medieval tradesman? The term “philosophy of life” won’t lead to an irrefutable definition of Being, but rather just to some working definition a few like-minded people will agree to accept as a basis for moving through society. I’m guessing, however, that even like-minded people will think and live differently from one another as circumstances warrant, making any “philosophy of life” a situational psychology.
If you do have a philosophy of life, have you maintained it without changes? No? Would you call those changes “advances”? Do you think that is how I should interpret a magazine devoted to “advances” in philosophy? Instead of the word advances, should the journal title read Changes in Education and Philosophy or Alternatives in…?
Look at your own thinking. It differs from what it used to be because of experiences. You’re not a kid anymore. You’ve faced some realities that forced you to rethink your worldview. So, assess those changes. Have they provided you with “advances” on the fundamental philosophical questions, those that lead you to understanding absolutes or lead you to answers for the questions I enumerated in the second paragraph of this discussion?
I’m not being pessimistic about your seeking answers if you so desire. I’m merely saying that philosophy hasn’t provided you with any advances worth putting in your personal journal. Neologisms abound among those who believe they have advanced the nature of human perspectives; renaming or combining terms is only an exercise in creativity—like yet another love poem or love song.*****
Plain folk like me want intellectual paths to lead to something other than crossroads and merging thoughts. Advances? Show me a road that doesn’t start at some long-traveled Appian Way. All those ancient roads have been well traveled, and all of them have adjacent paths leading to this or that intellectual neighborhood, intellectual cul-de-sacs and dead ends.
Here’s the challenge: Read through articles in that journal—or any other philosophy journal—and find something you consider to be an “advance” in philosophy that answers those questions unequivocally.
*See the December 20, 2018, entry on this website for a related posting. You can think of other questions: What is of value? What is the root of justice? Does any ethical system apply to all? The list is long, but here’s the question you need to answer here: Can you name a philosophical inquiry that has a definitive answer with universal acceptance? Maybe you can, and I, in my limited knowledge, just can’t think of one. By the way, I’m excluding theological questions, such as those on what is “right” or “wrong”—e.g., war, revenge, capital punishment, keeping excess wealth, stealing a loaf of bread in a famine….
**Mill is an interesting case of high intellectual ability asserting a contradictory stance: He was for the individual, but also for British imperialism on the grounds that those subjugated to British rule were “barbarous”—in opposition to the “civilized” British whose rule would “civilize.” But then, what should we expect if we run any philosophy—in this instance, utilitarianism—to its logical end? If AI comes to complete fruition, we can expect one possible outcome to be the subjugation of “barbarous” humans.
***Think Karl Marx and the rise of oppressive communism under which tens of millions died and economically depressing socialism, such as that in current Venezuela and Cuba under the Castros. Think Karl would approve of the interpretation of his work?
**** And I haven’t even asked whether or not philosophy is an offshoot of theology derived by minds that reject any pantheon of Olympians or Creator.
*****Sorry for all these footnotes: When the Beatles discovered Eastern Mysticism, they fell into the pattern set by the Transcendentalists and other groups that, upon discovering a different culture, thought they were thinking things afresh, all the while simply thinking an amalgam. Try it: Adopt another culture’s way of thinking without holding onto any part of your previous way of thinking.
RSS Feed