TAKING SIDES IN PHILOSOPHY

 Subscribe to my monthly Philosophy Newsletter and get a Free copy of Understanding Philosophy: The Smart Student's Guide to Reading and Writing Philosophy

 TAKING SIDES IN PHILOSOPHY

Should we take sides in philosophy?  I ask this question because I recently did an online search and found at least one hundred  ‘isms’ or 'schools of thought’ in philosophy, ranging from Aristotelianism to Empiricism, Existentialism, Hedonism, Idealism, Kantianism, Marxism, Nihilism, Platonism, Rationalism, Stoicism, and Utilitarianism, to name only a few philosophical isms. The very thought of choosing one of these philosophical schools and rejecting others is overwhelming.  

But does a philosophy student need to take sides with a school of thought?  Should philosophy professors teach their students from the standpoint of a philosophical school?

Many years ago, Professor Gilbert Ryle argued that there is no place for ‘isms’ in philosophy.  Philosophical schools of thought are like political parties in which one’s loyalty to the party or to leader of the party is indisputable.  Similarly, one who announces that he or she is an Empiricist or Rationalist, Utilitarian or Intuitionist is in effect telling us that they are "cleaving to a position" in which they entertain no doubts about the theory promoted by the school of thought or by the philosopher after whom the school is named.   

Ryle argues that refusing to doubt a philosophical theory “is an unforgivable irrationality”(317).  He means that philosophical theories are the product of logically valid arguments that are always open to discussion.  “Any philosopher should see and welcome the logically valid parts of its own arguments and welcome the logically valid parts of the arguments of its contestant” (318). 

Presenting a logically valid argument as the answer to a philosophical question is not the same as ‘taking a side’ or ‘cleaving with’ a philosophical school of thought.  Suppose that a professor asks her students, “Can a truth of fact be deduced from a priori premises?”  If this question is answered by some students in the affirmative, their answer should be backed by a logically valid argument.  And they should be prepared to abandon their answer if the argument they have presented is shown to be invalid. But of most importance, philosophical questions are not properly answered by the students who simply announce, “I am a Rationalist,” or “I always side with Empiricism,” and leave it at that. 

Ryles' point is that students of philosophy should be taught to focus on the problems of philosophy and philosophical argumentation not on what philosophical school of thought they should join. “Every rigorous philosophical argument is a discovery…But it is not just the conclusion of the argument which is the discovery; it is the total argument for that conclusion.” (328) 

[Read Gilbert Ryle’s full article “Taking Sides in Philosophy,” in Philosophy, Jul., 1937, Vol. 12, No. 47 (Jul., 1937), pp. 317-332.  The article can be found online at JSTOR.  Ask your librarian for access.]

Learn more about the nature of philosophy, philosophical problems, and how to think critically about the classics of philosophy in my book Understanding Philosophy: The Smart Student's Guide to Reading and Writing Philosophy, 3^rd edition, now available at the Amazon online bookstore.