Meditation on Metaphilosophy: how ought we philosophize?
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:32 am
Metaphilosophy, the use and application of philosophical techniques to the concept of philosophy itself. What is philosophy? What can philosophical viewpoints claim to know? Is philosophy any good, or is it actually bad? Most importantly, to me anyways, how ought one philosophize?
I find metaphilosophy so interesting for a couple reasons. First, if we are going to philosophize at all, shouldn't we know what it means to be doing such? What is our actual goal as philosophers? What are we trying to do? Its also interesting because I want to philosophize well. This is much tougher than it sounds. As an phil major, what I am taught in school is more akin to a scientific research paper, which is definitely fine, and interesting, and important, but it doesn't really hit the mark where I want it to. Not only am I a phil major, but my goal is to work in public philosophy as a writer (I know, everyone has that dream right?) Scientific research papers are not going to quite do it for the general public.
Recently, there was an article on Philosophy Now by Grahame Lockey titled "In Praise of Aphorisms," which was an attempt to point out how aphorisms can be implemented to really bring forth an entire idea. A summation of an argument missing its conclusion for the reader to conclude and think for themselves. This article brought to light an experience I have been having and why it has been a problem. You see, on social media, where I post, people will only spend a few seconds reading anything. Lets be fair, I am no great writer, what I have, though, is how to build an argument. Here, readers may give me more of their time, but where I normally am, I am mostly focused on writing an argument in its inferential form in an image. Or I am making a philosophically based meme. This focus on brevity has been successful for social media. But it doesn't bridge the gap to long-form writing. I have been meaning to write my first (technically second) book, and it has switched topics a few times, mainly because I don't find that I am going about it the best possible way. I am confused as to how to philosophize best.
My previous answer was to be brief, make it short enough to fit the attention span of the reader. Then it went to the hook, but that turned into the thought that it was a rhetorical trick, and leaves out emphasis on the argument. Through multiple incarnations of how to best philosophize, there has seemed to only be one real necessary condition to be considered philosophical: it must include an argument of some sort.
This, though, does not help me discover how to best philosophize on paper. There are a lot of great ideas around metaphilosophy. In particular, I like Karl Jaspers in "On My Philosophy," who points out that "only as an individual can man philosophize," and that ultimately, a philosopher is on a metaphorical road. They follow a map getting where they want to go, going down metaphysics road, epistemology highway, or ethics avenue. Then they turn off further at the normative ethics way, and further still at the utilitarian drive, and eventually, after going through many philosophers, they come to a place where there is no more road. However, the journey has prepared them well to start actually making a road themselves. This perspective is very interesting, and I find to be rather correct. There is another view I rather like, however. Namely of Roger Scruton in "A Short History of Modern Philosophy," Scruton points out that philosophy seems to sit somewhere between literature and science. There is an air of both an artistic styling and approach, while also having the aim and intent on rigorously ascertaining truth. The problem with this, though I agree with it, is that artistic fields can see philosophy as too dry and 'sciency,' while the science fields could see us as too underived.
Both Scruton and Jaspers views are awesome, but they still don't tell me how I ought to write philosophy for my goals. Though, I think this could be part of the art part of philosophy that Scruton is trying to suggest. The way we ought to philosophize is figured out as an artistic endeavor. To have a hard set in stone means of philosophizing would make philosophy dry and uniform. Maybe this is why some of my readers eyes glaze over when I present a manuscript that I post to PhilArchive.
Thanks for reading,
Dave
I find metaphilosophy so interesting for a couple reasons. First, if we are going to philosophize at all, shouldn't we know what it means to be doing such? What is our actual goal as philosophers? What are we trying to do? Its also interesting because I want to philosophize well. This is much tougher than it sounds. As an phil major, what I am taught in school is more akin to a scientific research paper, which is definitely fine, and interesting, and important, but it doesn't really hit the mark where I want it to. Not only am I a phil major, but my goal is to work in public philosophy as a writer (I know, everyone has that dream right?) Scientific research papers are not going to quite do it for the general public.
Recently, there was an article on Philosophy Now by Grahame Lockey titled "In Praise of Aphorisms," which was an attempt to point out how aphorisms can be implemented to really bring forth an entire idea. A summation of an argument missing its conclusion for the reader to conclude and think for themselves. This article brought to light an experience I have been having and why it has been a problem. You see, on social media, where I post, people will only spend a few seconds reading anything. Lets be fair, I am no great writer, what I have, though, is how to build an argument. Here, readers may give me more of their time, but where I normally am, I am mostly focused on writing an argument in its inferential form in an image. Or I am making a philosophically based meme. This focus on brevity has been successful for social media. But it doesn't bridge the gap to long-form writing. I have been meaning to write my first (technically second) book, and it has switched topics a few times, mainly because I don't find that I am going about it the best possible way. I am confused as to how to philosophize best.
My previous answer was to be brief, make it short enough to fit the attention span of the reader. Then it went to the hook, but that turned into the thought that it was a rhetorical trick, and leaves out emphasis on the argument. Through multiple incarnations of how to best philosophize, there has seemed to only be one real necessary condition to be considered philosophical: it must include an argument of some sort.
This, though, does not help me discover how to best philosophize on paper. There are a lot of great ideas around metaphilosophy. In particular, I like Karl Jaspers in "On My Philosophy," who points out that "only as an individual can man philosophize," and that ultimately, a philosopher is on a metaphorical road. They follow a map getting where they want to go, going down metaphysics road, epistemology highway, or ethics avenue. Then they turn off further at the normative ethics way, and further still at the utilitarian drive, and eventually, after going through many philosophers, they come to a place where there is no more road. However, the journey has prepared them well to start actually making a road themselves. This perspective is very interesting, and I find to be rather correct. There is another view I rather like, however. Namely of Roger Scruton in "A Short History of Modern Philosophy," Scruton points out that philosophy seems to sit somewhere between literature and science. There is an air of both an artistic styling and approach, while also having the aim and intent on rigorously ascertaining truth. The problem with this, though I agree with it, is that artistic fields can see philosophy as too dry and 'sciency,' while the science fields could see us as too underived.
Both Scruton and Jaspers views are awesome, but they still don't tell me how I ought to write philosophy for my goals. Though, I think this could be part of the art part of philosophy that Scruton is trying to suggest. The way we ought to philosophize is figured out as an artistic endeavor. To have a hard set in stone means of philosophizing would make philosophy dry and uniform. Maybe this is why some of my readers eyes glaze over when I present a manuscript that I post to PhilArchive.
Thanks for reading,
Dave
