“To be a philosopher means to travel all the time, questions in philosophy are more essential than answers.” – (Karl Jaspers)
Here Jaspers seems to identify, by way of analogy, the philosopher with the traveller, claiming that it is the questions that are “most essential” in the process of doing philosophy rather than the answers themselves. This quote has serious and deep implications, which this essay will attempt to layout and expand upon, proposing to take the analogy of the traveller further by discussing the role of philosophy in providing definite answers.
If the philosopher is a traveller, then by extension, philosophy and the questions one asks are the paths taken to reach these yet-unknown destinations (or in his terms, the answers). Jaspers does not seem to reject the importance of the answers one may reach in philosophy, yet he seems to deemphasize them in comparison with the “paths” that are taken to reach them. For the philosopher, these answers, or destinations, never serve as permanent places to reside in, but are rather interesting places to observe temporarily. Just as the true traveller will not settle down, but rather continue to his next destination, so will the true philosopher keep on questioning, never to reach a perfect place to halt on the never-ending quest for knowledge.
This rings profound truisms on both the individual level (i.g. that who engages in philosophy) and much more deeply, on a societal level. In theory, it is possible to conceive of a situation where a chemist, a physicist, a biologist or a mathematician will publish a book one day, encompassing all the findings of his or her respective field, claiming that the last word has been uttered on the subject and there is no point in continuing research. Despite the absurdity of these hypothetical scenes, the progress of these fields seems to be finite, given that enough research and calculation were done. Although each field has an infinite amount of objects to research, the main methods, findings, paradigms and tools can be known, perhaps even in our own lifetime. Yet, this is wholly different in philosophy. For it is rather impossible to honestly conceive of a book saying that the last word of philosophy has been uttered, and there is no longer use for the philosophical discipline, just as there is no longer use for alchemical discipline.
This rather humorous image of the man holding all of life’s answers in one book may help in directing us to the core problem of this essay: can philosophy, in theory, offer final and definite answers? Is there any way to reach those final answers? If so how? If not, isn’t philosophy only a meaningless discourse, an intellectual visit zigzagging between different sites and vistas? To answer these questions, I must first attempt to define philosophy and its purposes in the modern era.
In the past, philosophy encompassed a much wider variety of subjects and fields of enquiry than it does today. Yet, when I will use the term “philosophy”, I will refer to the general questions meant to define or redefine the parameters in which humans inspect unsolved problems of the world. That is to say, I believe the best definition of “the questions of philosophy” will refer to the lenses through which we choose to view the world. Each field and subfield of philosophy allows one to observe the world (human or other) from a very specific angle, allowing criticism and improvements to emerge as a consequence. It is the “knife” that pierces through the social world that we take for granted, it offers the logical and cognitive tools to make the unknown known, it serves us in describing verbally what seems to many to be evidently true.
Yet with time, since the Greco-Roman period, the field of philosophy has fallen from its all-encompassing reign over all other disciplines. It’s no longer as prestigious as it was in ancient Athens or 20th century Paris. I imagine a freshman declaring that his main subject is philosophy would no longer extract the same praise as would, for example rather than, for example, a student of medicine or data science. Moreover, although more important philosophical questions have been raised, “natural philosophy”, and it is known today: “the empirical sciences” have taken over fields that were previously the purview of philosophers and theologians. Though the Greeks were not foreigners to observation or scientific reasoning, the ancient Greek philosopher Thales could talk about the nature of the universe (”Water is the first principle of everything”) without having to rely on experimentation or big-data graphs and algorithms. Since the scientific revolution, any claims about the nature of the cosmos that are to be taken seriously, are left in the hands of scientists (despite the post-truth-flat-earth-conspiracy-era we are currently witnessing). When it comes to the structuring of the human body or the shape of our galaxy, no modern person will assume the philosopher is a greater authority than the biologist or astrophysicist. This seems to be partly true in the realm of epistemology as well. Thanks to new technologies in neuroimaging, today it is possible to know about the processes of the human psyche, without needing to make educated guesses and no reputable scientific journal will publish your journey of self-inspection, as profound as surely is.
That is not to say that philosophy cannot contribute any longer in fields of epistemology and ontology. For there still is a need to define carefully and verbally what constitutes the terms we use, such as the terms for the “world” and “knowledge”. Yet, in normative discourse, it seems that when people refer to philosophy, they are in fact referring to ethics. For that is a field that the sciences still have not been able to invade and conquer (although certain philosophers of science will adamantly disagree).
Another crucial role philosophy plays is its role in casting doubt upon orthodoxy. As was mentioned earlier, questions of philosophy serve as intellectual lenses that help to pierce through different fields of knowledge, opening up previously obscured points of view. From the micro to the macro. Thus they may be used to question notions that their truth or pragmatic value appears to be irrefutable. This may be one of the reasons for Jasper’s emphasis on the “questions of philosophy” rather than their answers. It is how we choose our position in regard to reality that matters.
Moreover, human societies, human fields of knowledge and human behaviour all have a natural tendency to become old and tyrannical. This is because, in the natural and social world, new problems and questions arise to be dealt with by individuals and societies. Conflicts dilemmas and difficulties are all part of the human condition. One’s culture, society and education are all immense sources of knowledge, which offer different “answers” to dealing with different problems. Despite the irreplaceable wisdom of the past, one cannot solely rely on knowledge previously gained to act in the present world. For much of the knowledge handed down through tradition is often unsuited to deal with the specific circumstances each individual finds himself in the present. Some of the knowledge of the past may be simply misleading or flat-out incorrect. The philosopher, using his own intellectual toolkit, is able to cast doubt upon such foundations, whilst opening the door to propose better alternatives.
Thus, I would argue that in the broadest sense, unlike the Greek notion that the philosopher is the “lover of knowledge in search of Truth”, modern philosophy serves three main purposes:
- Framing of questions (the lenses)
- Providing ethical guidelines on how one ought to live life
- Casting doubt on traditional structures of knowledge
Yet the question remains, is there a final answer to the questions of philosophy? By the definition offered here on the purpose of the “questions of philosophy”, these questions are misleading at best, for they do not take into account the ever-changing circumstances of the world. Philosophy is the consistent intellectual project of revitalizing culture and creating sorting out order from uncontrollable or incomprehensible infinity of chaos. As long as there is chaos in the world, which may be a direct result of the natural state of being (e.g. the natural flux of reality, the imperfections of human beings), there will be a need to constantly redefine the goals, meanings and significance of what humans prize most. Philosophy is the most conscious and coherent method we have at our disposal to take part in this laborious yet necessary meaning-making process. Simply put: Why do you value what you value? Why should you care?
If we look back on the traveller analogy, it seems that the philosopher by his nature never seems to be content. For there are questions to be constantly explored, in order to reach new answers. On an individual level, this exploration, or the process of travelling, does not seem to ever reach an end. This is because there is a near-infinite amount of ways to frame our perspective of the world, infinite knowledge to be gained, countless different and valid ways to live a moral and prosperous life. most importantly, as long as humans remain human – problems will remain problems, and every answer philosophy will offer us. as good as it may be will most certainly prove temporary.
Up until now, I have been discussing all questions that concern the philosopher operating within the constraints of reality, where one is bound by society, ignorance and a limited amount of time and resources. Yet, if we confine the “questions of philosophy” solely to the territory of ethics, and allow ourselves more liberties within a more hypothetical realm, I would argue there may, in fact, exist an answer to the “questions of philosophy”. This answer exists solely within a utilitarian framework, and by the constraints of this essay, I will not justify in-depth the reasons to adopt such a morality. It will have to suffice to borrow Aristotle’s argument in favour of a consequentialist ethic, arguing that whether we are aware of it or not, every human action serves a goal, which may serve another goal, while the end-goals of all goals is to reach happiness.
The next step requires us to imagine a perfect machine, which may exist only theoretically. This machine, for the sake of argument, is able to determine the amount of “well-being” we experience in the world, both in the present, as well as in the future. If it could scan the brain, and be able to put on scale different types of conscious experience, using a specific algorithm – then we could determine, “scientifically” (though this word should be used with caution) what is “good” and what is “bad”. This machine could work, if it was possible to compare, in a mathematical fashion, the pleasure of food, friendship, spirituality, as opposed to the pain of an injury, disappointment and a broken heart. I would argue that in spite of the fact that the details of such an algorithm may be infinitely complex and problematic, it does exist in theory. This is because, each decision we make uses a similar calculator, of pleasure and pain, albeit imperfect. By the same logic of “opportunity cost”, each decision we make comes at the cost of another alternative that we may have enjoyed more or less so. When one chooses to study law instead of perusing acting, when one chooses pasta over meat, the judge of that is the cost-benefit calculation that is happening first imperfectly in our internal calculations, the in the consequentialist reality of how things in fact transpired.
To conclude, the function of philosophy can be likened to the nature of a traveller in search of different paths, not of destinations. Jasper’s analogy may shed light on the definition of philosophy as a “question-oriented” field of enquiry, rather than an “answer-oriented” one. Accordingly, the essay proposed to define the role of modern philosophy as a field that offers new lenses, provides ethical guidelines and puts into question traditional notions, which are unsuited to deal with the problems of the present. By such a definition, and in light of the nature of the world to be rid of constant challenges and problems, there will always be a need for philosophy to maintain the stable functioning of humans in society. Finally, it was argued that it is only hypothetically; within a utilitarian-consequentialist framework, that ethics may find a definite final answer. If there existed a perfect algorithm to measure well-being, maximum happiness for the maximum amount of people, then perhaps, every dilemma on human well-being will be solved. However absurd it may sound, if such an algorithm existed, ethics, may, in fact, become obsolete. Then it could be said, that the philosopher would have reached his final destination – until then, we should keep on travelling.