The Relevance of Philosophy

 The Relevance of Philosophy 

Philosophy today is caught between emotivism and moral realism where philosophers who think it is reasonable to seek rational solutions to practical problems are marginalized. It is important to recall the meaning of Reason: to seek the truth and solve problems.

A post-truth attitude has infected philosophy. "We have decided there is no knowledge to be sought so we will seek pleasure rather than happiness." 

Why do "philosophers" or anyone pursue philosophical investigation? For practical reasons? That is, they always have some program, some issue, or problem that they seek clarity, resolution, or simply a deeper understanding. Why is there any quest at all? Perhaps because the notion of Reason, whether innate or learned, motivates some people to seek the truth and solutions to problems.

A student who is concerned about questions of systemic and historic injustice examines their feelings of social estrangement and certain practices in their culture regarding crime rates and the aggressions of social life. In Ethics 101, various normative frameworks such as consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are presented for discussion. Can a moral judgment be true? In meta-ethics, we wonder whether morality actually exists or is it just emotional expression. Epistemology addresses whether it is possible to find an answer - what can I possibly know, what am I that actually exists? A bit of exploration in the University finds academics ruthlessly debating every issue.

The purpose of philosophical pedagogy should be to make proper judgments through right reason, not to put everything under skepticism and everyone under suspicion. During college education, students tend to develop from subjectivism to realism but many end up uncertain about key issues, e.g. abortion, rape, environmental destruction, war, liability, etc.

Perhaps one way to frame the issue is comparing dogmatism to skepticism to refutation or argument. The common pedagogical practice in philosophy is to question everything. The professor plays devil's advocate defending various alternative viewpoints. A better analogy may be a child repeatedly asking, "But why?" Or, vice versa, the student asks 'why' to an indifferent professor. In certain circumstances, there's an argument and counterargument ad nauseam for literally everything. The student is often left perpetually thinking without a solution to anything. At some point, we must ask the question of whether this skepticism ad infinitum is truly worth anything. Or, whether one viewpoint is really better than another.

There are certain viewpoints or philosophical arguments which should be taken seriously, like normative and applied ethics which are critical, that is, they address all rebuttals - they consider all the data. The transcendence, or imposition, of ethics is not understood dogmatically or as a justification for relations of domination. But, ethics requires the basic agreement that morality is real.

Until we reach a point in philosophy where people can agree that certain things just are true, philosophy cannot contribute to social discussion. There is no common ground upon which to reach moral consensus. If a view like emotivism is true, what good is ethical debate anyway? Social relations turn into open season, cutthroat, and destructive. Regardless of whether you are an Aristotelian or Neo-Platonian, one must recognize why Socrates and Aristotle were the standard teachers all the way up until the modern period. Today, we are aware of the misconceptions and concealments of the ancients. However, the importance of morality - whether one's dispositions, virtues and vices, attitudes, thoughts, decisions or habits impose domination and oppression on others - is the foundation of philosophy.