Someone posed this question to a philosophy professor at a conference that I recently attended. The professor, in a somewhat agitated voice, said “I am not prepared to answer that question right now; I can’t talk to you about what philosophy is.” I thought that this was an interesting response, considering that the professor is, after all, a professional philosopher.
A friend of mine recently asked me why I am studying philosophy, if I already have the truth (namely, Christianity). He said that most people who study philosophy today do not have the truth, and study philosophy to find some sort of truth, which probably is not Christianity.
Since then, I have been trying to formulate an answer to the question ‘What is philosophy’, but I am having trouble defining philosophy so that 1) the definition takes into account philosophy’s relation to revelation, and 2) its relation to the natural and social sciences.
Of course, one obvious way to answer this question is to explain that revelation needs philosophy in order to make the truth manifest, and philosophy needs revelation to develop true teachings. This is the Thomistic view, and most Catholics would agree. However, this is not how philosophy is studied and pursued at most universities today. Most philosophers today do not deal with religion, and treat philosophy as something that can be pursued independently of revelation. As we know, this has been the predominant trend since the Enlightenment. However, I find this view to be unsatisfying because it seems to follow that from the perspective a Christian, there is no truth to be gained from philosophy, and hence no reason to pursue philosophy. So, I am looking for a more comprehensive view of philosophy, one that clarifies its relation to both theology and the practical sciences.
Is it possible to give a positive definition of what philosophy is? Or must it always be defined in historical terms in conjunction with some other science (e.g. in year X philosophy was Y in the service of theology, or philosophy is Z in the service ofnatural science). This is another problem I have been having lately: how to make a distinction between the history of philosophy and philosophy ‘proper’. Is all philosophy historical? Maybe it cannot be defined and is rather a method than a science with a definite subject. I have my own views on this, which are constantly changing and evolving; these are just some of my rough thoughts. But I am wondering what other people think.
Adam
A friend of mine recently asked me why I am studying philosophy, if I already have the truth (namely, Christianity). He said that most people who study philosophy today do not have the truth, and study philosophy to find some sort of truth, which probably is not Christianity.
Since then, I have been trying to formulate an answer to the question ‘What is philosophy’, but I am having trouble defining philosophy so that 1) the definition takes into account philosophy’s relation to revelation, and 2) its relation to the natural and social sciences.
Of course, one obvious way to answer this question is to explain that revelation needs philosophy in order to make the truth manifest, and philosophy needs revelation to develop true teachings. This is the Thomistic view, and most Catholics would agree. However, this is not how philosophy is studied and pursued at most universities today. Most philosophers today do not deal with religion, and treat philosophy as something that can be pursued independently of revelation. As we know, this has been the predominant trend since the Enlightenment. However, I find this view to be unsatisfying because it seems to follow that from the perspective a Christian, there is no truth to be gained from philosophy, and hence no reason to pursue philosophy. So, I am looking for a more comprehensive view of philosophy, one that clarifies its relation to both theology and the practical sciences.
Is it possible to give a positive definition of what philosophy is? Or must it always be defined in historical terms in conjunction with some other science (e.g. in year X philosophy was Y in the service of theology, or philosophy is Z in the service ofnatural science). This is another problem I have been having lately: how to make a distinction between the history of philosophy and philosophy ‘proper’. Is all philosophy historical? Maybe it cannot be defined and is rather a method than a science with a definite subject. I have my own views on this, which are constantly changing and evolving; these are just some of my rough thoughts. But I am wondering what other people think.
Adam
RSS Feed