The Thin Ice Of Reason
Philosophy = ‘love of wisdom’ ?
It is frequently noted (especially around here) that the original meaning of philosophy is philos sophia, ‘love of wisdom’, and that this definition greatly informed how the Greeks practiced the discipline in its earliest days. Therefore, it is sometimes claimed that philosophy today is defined by ‘love of wisdom’ and must pursue similar goals and proceed by similar means as it did in its earliest days.
This limited assessment of the purpose of philosophy appears to be completely erroneous. To insist that the modern practice of philosophy is exclusively defined by its historical meaning is a form of genetic fallacy (a misleading reference to origins); specifically the etymological fallacy (the assumption that a word’s meaning can be discerned from its etymology or origins). A word’s meaning is determined by its current usage, not its historical origin. For example, ‘meat’ no longer refers to food in general, and ‘hobby horse’ is no longer a euphemism for mistress. Similarly, the meaning of the term ‘philosophy’ and the discipline itself are not circumscribed by what it meant or how it was practiced in the fourth century B.C.E. Greece.
Consider a similar case: Imagine if someone were to use Aristotle’s understanding of logic (with its heavy focus on his central theory of the syllogism) as its current definition. Surely any contemporary logician would instantly point out the extent to which Frege and the advent of modern formal logic changed the field? The boundaries and methods of logic as Aristotle understood them—long held as authoritative—do not determine the field today, no matter how significant a contribution he made. That the term ‘logic’ has its origins in a Greek word does not restrict its meaning today.
No philosopher would deny the profound importance of Greek philosophy, nor the value in reading their works, but that doesn’t mean the boundaries and methods of the discipline were set in stone two-and-a-half millenia ago. Many have in fact changed considerably since its inception, although its general concerns remain . ‘Love of wisdom’ is certainly a commendable principle, but not a working definition for the contemporary specialty.
As for the famously difficult task of offering a definition of philosophy, it is usually given as something like the systematic use of rational enquiry and critical reflection, guided/supported/characterised by logical argument. I personally like Anthony Flew’s comment that it is ‘thinking about thinking’, and this outline given by my old philosophy department. To quote a little of it:
[Philosophy continues] the tradition of critical discussion that originated with the ancient Greeks. Philosophers aim to reject dogmatic, authoritarian or purely rhetorical approaches to philosophical questions, and seek instead to proceed by means of arguments that can be critically assessed. We value lively critical conversation, where people with different views engage respectfully with one another in a common effort to advance their understanding.
Of course, to continue ‘the tradition of critical discussion that originated with the ancient Greeks’ does not imply we must slavishly uphold everything the Greeks represented—the mode of thought they inaugurated is in many ways more important that the specific doctrines they argued for. Any current definition of philosophy has to encompass how philosophy—particularly academic philosophy—is practiced today, taking into account its many sub-categories and diverse interactions with other disciplines, rather than the narrow and misleading assessment: The Greeks defined philosophy as X, therefore philosophy is, forevermore, X.
