It is very difficult to give a satisfactory formal definition
of philosophy. For philosophy is like those other great human enterprises of
ideal society—art, science, and religion: every definition turns out to be the
expression of an individual and limited conception, reflecting the practice of
that enterprise in the definer's own culture, and shutting out as much as it includes.
And no definition conveys much illumination apart from a knowledge of the
concrete philosophies men have formulated, the philosophical problems out of which
those formulations have grown, and the role which philosophical thinking has
played in their own lives and in that of their culture. Philosophy, in other
words, is a human and cultural enterprise to be inquired into, rather than a
mere term to be defined. Any definition must emerge from a careful analysis of
what men have been doing when they philosophized, and how that is to be
distinguished from what they do when they engage in their other cultural
enterprises. The boundaries between these different pursuits are notoriously
vague; and different definitions reflect a more or less arbitrary drawing of
the lines.
Philosophy and Religion, Science,
and Art. Philosophical thinking, indeed, has very close relations with
religion, with science, and with art. It has normally culminated in the attempt
to do intellectually what religion has always done practically and emotionally:
to establish human life in some satisfying and meaningful relation to the
universe in which man finds himself, and to afford some wisdom in the conduct
of human affairs. Historically, philosophy arose as the reflective criticism of
religious and moral beliefs, and it has never ceased to have that critical
concern. But in its methods it has been allied rather with science, even when
it has been most critical of the scientific assumptions and conclusions
prevailing at a given time. Philosophic and scientific thinking, in fact, were
born together; and again and again philosophic reflection has been revitalized
by fresh contact with the concepts, methods, and standards of scientific
inquiry. And finally, those comprehensive visions of the world and of human
destiny which we cherish as the great philosophic systems of speculative
thought are surely among the most imposing artistic achievements of the spirit
of man. The outstanding philosophers, indeed, have been endowed with something
of poetic imagination, critical acumen, natural piety, and spiritual insight.
So closely
allied has philosophic thinking been with all the other basic cultural
institutions of human society that we often call the general intellectual
temper of an age—its pervasive world-outlook, its distinctive methods of
thinking, its unquestioned assumptions and climate of opinion— "the
philosophy" of that period. But this usage hardly suffices to define the function
of philosophic thinking itself; that is both more self- conscious and more
critically analytic than this would suggest. In every age there are men who,
aware of this distinctive intellectual temper, either give it systematic
expression or seek to modify certain of its aspects. It is they who carry on
actual philosophic thinking and merit the title of "philosophers," because
they are concerned with the conscious analysis
of methods of thinking, and with the conscious
formulation of a world outlook.
Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery
The term philosophy
derives from the Greek words philein, to love
or desire, and sophia, wisdom.
Literally speaking, then, a philosopher is a "lover of wisdom." Hut
what exactly does a lover of wisdom do? To answer this let us reflect on the
process of social conditioning that all human beings undergo, the process that
social scientists call enculturation.
This is the systematic and efficient shaping— by family, peers, teachers,
media, advertising, religion, music, government, and other forces—that turns a
person into a functioning member of his or her society.
When a baby is born, it is neither a Hindu
nor a Christian nor a Baha'i; it seeks
inspiration and guidance in neither the Bible nor the Koran nor the Bhagavad Gita; it esteems neither Buddha nor Jesus nor
Mohammed; it prefers neither democracy nor
dictatorship; it speaks neither Arabic nor French nor English; it prefers no
particular mode of dress or hairstyle; it has a penchant neither
for ice hockey nor football nor polo; it lip-syncs the vocals of neither Eminem nor Shania Twain nor Whitney Houston; it
harbors no view on when, if ever, society may incarcerate a citizen; and it
offers no opinions on the propriety of human cloning, whether human choices
are free, whether humans should eat other species of animals, whether a dying
person may hasten death, when (if ever) violence against others is justified,
whether a clitoridectomy should be performed on a prepubescent girl, or where
government should form the line between prudent security measures and
overzealous infringement of liberties. As the baby becomes a child, the child
an adolescent, and the adolescent an adult, a systematic and efficient shaping
will change all this. There is no escape from enculturation short of death. And
even then, how death Is defined, what is
done with the body, what ceremonies are followed, and how the surviving family
responds will be dictated by cultural precedent.
