non-progress of philosophy
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
1/21
1
Toappear:EssaysinPhilosophy,volumeentitled"Philosophy'sFuture."Probably2011.Comments
welcome.
ThereIsNoProgressinPhilosophy
EricDietrich
PhilosophyDept.BinghamtonUniversity
Binghamton,NY
Abstract
Exceptforapatinaoftwenty-firstcenturymodernity,intheformoflogicand
language,philosophyisexactlythesamenowasiteverwas;ithasmadenoprogress
whatsoever.WephilosopherswrestlewiththeexactsameproblemsthePre-
Socraticswrestledwith.Evenmoreoutrageousthanthisclaim,though,isthe
blatantdenialofitsobvioustruthbymanypracticingphilosophers.TheNo-Progress
viewisexploredandarguedforhere.Itsdenialisdiagnosedasaformof
anosognosia,amentalconditionwheretheaffectedpersondeniesthereisany
problem.ThetheoriesoftwoeminentphilosopherssupportingtheNo-Progress
viewarealsoexamined.Thefinalsectionoffersanexplanationforphilosophy's
inabilitytosolveanyphilosophicalproblem,ever.Thepapercloseswithsome
reflectionsonphilosophy'sfuture.
1.HowPhilosophyislikeScience
I'maprofessorinaphilosophydepartment.Mostofmyphilosophical
colleaguesstudyethicsofonesortoranother.Wehaveinourdepartmentseveral
consequentialists,acoupleofdeontologistsandmoralessentialists,acoupleof
virtueethicists,andafewrelativists.Itisacommonplacethattheseviews,atleast
incertainwell-knownformulations,areincompatiblewitheachother.Certainly,
mostofmycolleaguesbelievethis.Mostalsobelievethatheorsheisright.Since
theyalsobelieveintheory-incompatiablism,theybelievethattheircolleaguesare
wrong.Theconsequentialists(agrouptowhichIdonotbelong)areparticularly
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
2/21
2
vociferous(nodoubtjustbychance).Theypassionatelyandearnestlyexplaintothe
restofusthatwearewrong,andtheygiveusargumentsbotholdandnewtogetus
tochangeourviews.Weneverdo.
Thisisnottosaythattheirargumentsdon'taffectus.Likephilosophers
everywhereandofeverystripe,wenonconsequentialistsarestronglyaffectedby
ourcolleagues'argumentsforconsequentialism:theycauseustodrawdistinctions
andfindfalsepremisesanderrorsinourcolleagues'reasoning.Ofcourse,whenwe
pointtheseout,theconsequentialists,likeus,don'tchangetheirminds,theymuster
evenmoreresolveandbeginafresh.
Religionisalsoimportantinmydepartment.Heremattersareevenmore
pointed,whichisobviousfromthefactthatdiscussionsaboutreligionarefarmore
politethandiscussionsaboutethics.Thetheiststhinkthattheatheistsare
benighted,andviceversa.TheBuddhiststhinkbotharesadlyconfused,andwill
onlylosetheirconfusionaftermanymorecyclesofdeathandrebirth.Since
religionscarryrobustontologicalcommitments,thedisagreementshereabout
who'srightandwho'swrongaredisagreementsabouttheactualstructureand
contentoftheuniverse;theyaredisagreementsaboutwhatkindofuniversewelive
in.Argumentshereareevenmoreinefficaciousthantheethicalarguments
discussedabove.
Thesetwocases--ethicsandreligion--arelocalinstantiationsoftheway
philosophersbehaveandhavebehavedsincephilosophyfirstappearedin
humankind,whichisprobablycontemporaneouswiththeemergenceoflanguage.
Philosophersstronglydisagreewitheachother,argumentsrarelychangeanyphilosopher'smind(thoughsometimesargumentsawakenaphilosopherfromhis
orherdogmaticslumbers),andtheythinktheotheriswrongandhasmade
mistakes,ratherthanthinkingthateachothermerelyhasadifferenttakeonthe
relevantfacts.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
3/21
3
Inthusbehavingastheydo,philosophersareactingalmostexactlylike
scientists(andmathematicians).Toseethis,comparethesituationinmy
departmentwiththeoneacrosscampusinthebiologydepartment.Wehave,at
BinghamtonUniversity,awell-knownbiologistDavidSloanWilsonwhohasfor
decadesdevelopedandarguedforanimportantadditiontothecurrenttheoryof
evolution:groupselectiontheory.Ingroupselectiontheory,selectionpressuresact
notonlyonindividuals(orgenes),butalsoongroupsofsimilarindividuals,called
traitgroups.Wilsonusesgroupselectiontoexplainsuchthingsastheevolutionof
altruismandcooperation,forwhichgroupselectionworksquitenicelyand
apparentlybetterthanmodelsbasedongeneselection.Wilson'sviewismore
complicatedthanthisbriefdescription;forexample,groupselectionisbutonepart
ofhislargertheorycalledmultilevelselectiontheory,whichpositsselection
occurringatseveraldifferentlevels:gene,cell,organism,group(see,Soberand
Wilson,1998;Wilson,1975;WilsonandSober,1994;andWilsonandWilson,2008).
Nevertheless,thiswilldoforourpurposes.
Groupselectionisroundlyrejectedandevensavagelyattackedbythelikesof
RichardDawkinsandDanielDennettwhorejectitaseitherwrongoratbest
inconsequential(see,e.g.,Dawkins,1994,andDennett,2006).Groupselectionwas
bannedfromevolutionarybiologybackinthelate1960smostlyduetothelate
GeorgeWilliams(Williams,1972)--thereasonsarecomplexandsociologicalrather
thanscientific.ButthankstoDavidWilsonandotherbiologistslikehim,group
selectionismakingacomebackandfindingahomeinevolutionarytheory.Dawkins
andDennettremainunpersuadedbyWilson'sarguments.Wilsonthinksthey're
wrong;theythinkhe'swrong.ForeveryargumentWilsonmusters,Dawkinsand
Dennettgearuptheirdistinction-makingandfault-findinginordertorefuteWilson,andviceversa.Oneisstronglyremindedoftheoldsaw"Scientificdebatesarewon
onlywhenthecombatantsdieandanewgenerationcomesofageadoptingthenew
theories."Ifgroup(andmultilevel)selectiontheorydoeventuallywin,itwillbe
becauseanewgenerationofbiologistsembracethem.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
4/21
4
Itisremarkablehowcommonthisisinscience.Einsteinapparentlywentto
hisgravebelievingthatquantummechanicswaswrong(eventhoughhehelped
createit).HenriPoincar,LeopoldKronecker,L.Brower,andL.Wittgensteinwent
totheirsbelievingthatGeorgCantor'stheoriesoftransfinitenumberswerenotjust
wrong,but"agravedisease,"toquotePoincar.Thoughfewinnumber,legitimate
scientiststothisdaydisbelieveevolutionarytheory,preferringinsteadsomesortof
creation-by-intelligent-agent(s)theory.Nodoubttheywillgototheirgraves
maintainingsuchbeliefs(andviceversaforevolutionists).
Therearecounterexamples,ofcourse.RobertBakker'stheorythat
dinosaurswerewarm-blooded,fast,andsmartisnow(withsomevariation)the
receivedview,andithasbecomethereceivedviewinhislifetime.Thereisan
appropriateandexpiatingironyherethough:Bakkerrefusestoacceptthe
asteroid/cometimpacttheoryoftheextinctionofthedinosaurs,andthisdespitethe
2010publicationinScienceofamajorpaperstronglysupportingthetheory
(Schulte,etal.2010).
So,noonecanconvinceone'sopponent.Allonecanhopetodoisconvince
thenext,youngergeneration.Goodtheories,bettertheories,dojustthis.This
behaviorevenprobablymakessense,inthelongrun,forifwesurrenderedour
cherishedscientifictheoriestooeasily,wewouldnotbesufficientlytestingand
stressingourtheoriesforthemtobelegitimatelyawardedthecovetedhonorific:
True.Thusdoessciencelurchforward.
Butwhatofphilosophy?Itclearlydoeslookalotlikesciencehere:noone
canconvinceone'sopponent,etc.etc.Doesitalsothuslurchforward?
No,itdoesnot.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
5/21
5
2.HowPhilosophydiffersfromScience
Philosophydoesnotevenstumbleforward.Philosophydoesnotmove
forwardatall.Itistheexactlythesametodayasitwas3000yearsago;indeed,asit
wasfromthebeginning.Whatitdoesdoisstaycurrent;philosophersconfusethis
withadvancing,withmakingprogress.Stayingcurrentisnotmovingforwardany
morethanstayinguponthelatestfashionsormusicismovementtowardgreater
socialjustice.
Iknowthisclaimofminestrikesphilosophersasobviouslyfalse,crazy,and
outrageous.Igettwokindslooks.Onekindisoneofutterconfusion,asifI'djust
sincerelyasserted"Oneplusoneequalsthree."TheotherisoneofdisgustasifIjust
sincerelyasserted"Slaveryismorallyrequired."
"Look,"youmightsay,inaspiritoftryingtocorrectsomeonewhothinksthe
moonismadeofgreencheese,"weallthinkslaveryisimmoral.Infact,weknowit
is.Howisthatnotphilosophicalprogress?Howisthatnotprogressinethicswhich
isbranchofphilosophy?"
Ididn'tsaysocietydoesn'tprogress.Itdoes.Wearenowquiteclearonthe
immoralityofslavery.(Moreorless:thoughslaveryisillegalineverycountryinthe
world,therearemoreslavesnowthanever,anditisabilliondollarbusiness).But
philosophydidn'tdiscoverslavery'simmorality.Philosophersweren'tleadingthe
chargeagainstslaverywhenitwasopenlyandcommonlypracticed.What
happenedwasthatpoliticalleadersandsocialactivists(whoweren'tphilosophers,
butsocialactivists)changedthewaymanythoughtaboutslaverytothepointthat
attitudeschanged,lawswereenacted,andsocietyandculturetherebychanged.Philosophershadtocatchup.Thisistrueacrosstheboardinethics.Exceptfora
tinyhandfulofwritings(Mill'sonwomen'srights,forexample;Lockeonindividual
libertyandequalrights),philosopherswere,andstillare,notatthevanguardofany
advanceinmoralityandethics.Philosophersdidn'tdiscoverandstartthepushfor
animalsrights,civilrights,rightsforthedisabled,thedisenfranchised,theydidn't
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
6/21
6
pushfirst,beforeeveryoneelse,forincreaseddiversityandrespectforallhumans
andalllife.Theyhadtocatchuptotheseideas,andfrankly,manyarelaggingquite
farbehind,still.
"Butevenso,"youmightreply,"philosophersnowknowthatslaveryis
wrong.That'sanadvance,asyouclearlyadmitted,sophilosophydoesadvance."
Ohyeah...,whyisslaveryimmoral?Notwophilosopherswillanswerthis
thesameway.Evenwithintheconsequentialistsinmydepartmentthereare
severaldifferentexplanationsastowhyslaveryisimmoral.Inadeepand
importantsense,wedon'tknowwhyslaveryisimmoral.Wejustknowthatitis.
Andknowingthelatterissomethingmanyknow.Philosophy'sjob--ifitevenhas
one--istoexplainorsaywhyslaveryisimmoral.Andithasn'tdonethat.(Whyit
hasn'tdonethatwillbethetopicofsection6.)
Societydoesn'tturntoitsphilosophersforadeeperunderstandingofmoral
andethicalissues.Society,whenindesperateneed,cannotaskitsphilosophersfor
help."Whatshouldwedo?"wouldbeanswered"Well,thatdepends.Ontheone
hand,youmightconsidermaximizingthegood(inanyofseveraldifferentways,
usinganyofseveraldefinitionsof"thegood"),butontheotherhand,youmight
considerthatcertainactionsseemtosometobeintrinsicallywrongandothers
intrinsicallygood.Andonthethirdhand,perhapsmoralrelativismistrueafterall.
It'shardtosay,really."
Here'sarelevantquotefromJamesSterba(2005):
Ethicsappearstobeunlikeotherareasofinquiry.Afterall,wecannot
findcontemporarydefendersofPtolemy(c.100-c.170CE),Copernicus
(1473-1543),orevenIsaacNewton(1642-1727),allclaimingtohave
thebesttheoryofthephysicsofcelestialmotion.Norarethere
contemporarymercantilistsorphysiocrats,astherewereinthe
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
7/21
7
eighteenthcentury,allclaimingtohavethebesttheoryofeconomics.
ButwecanfindcontemporarydefendersofAristotle(384-322BCE),
ImmanuelKant(1724-1804),JohnStuartMill(1806-1873),for
example,allclaimingtohavethebesttheoryofethics.Ofcourse,
significantdisagreementsremaininotherareasofinquiry,butthe
extentofdisagreementappearstobemuchgreaterinethics.
Sterbahashitthenailonthehead.Clearlyotherphilosophersalsoseethat
atleastsomebranchesofourchosendisciplinedon'tmakeprogress.Thetrouble
withSterba'sview,however,isthatitstopsatethics.Metaphysicsand
Epistemology,andalltheirsubdisciplines,suffertheexactsamefate(seealso,
McGinn,1993andNagel,1986).Veryunlikeanyscience,nopartofphilosophy
advances.Philosophyis,exceptforsomemodernizing,exactlythesamenowasit
haseverbeen.Ithasnotprogressedoneiota.
3.AristotleComestotheTwenty-FirstCentury
ImaginethatAristotle,ashe'swalkingaroundtheLyceum,encountersa
time-warpandpopsforwardtotoday,onawell-knowncampussomewhereinsome
English-speakingcountry,withtheabilitytospeakEnglish,dressedinmoderngarb,
andthathedoesn'tbecomederangedasaresultofallofthis.Curiousaboutthe
stateofknowledge,hefindsaphysicslectureandsitsin.Whathehearsshockshim.
Afeatherandironballfallatthesamerateinavacuum;beingheavierdoesn'tmean
fallingfaster,somethinghedoesn'tunderstand.Aristotlealongwiththerestofthe
classisshowntheexperimentalverificationofthisfromthemoon(fromthe
moon?!?!?)performedbyCommanderDavidScottofApollo15.Theverysame
equations(equations?!?!?)thatexplainwhyanapplefallstothegroundexplainhowthemoonstaysinorbitaroundEarthandhowEarthstaysinorbitaroundthesun
(orbits?!?!?).Helearnsofquantummechanicsstrangnesses.Themorehehears,the
moreshockedhegets.Finally,hejustfaintsaway.Hefaintsawayagainin
cosmologyclasswherehelearns,forstarters,thatcometsandmeteors,andthe
MilkyWayarenotatmosphericphenomena,asheconcluded.TheBigBang,
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
8/21
8
relativity,thesizeoftheuniverse,thenumberofgalaxies,darkmatter,anddark
energy...arealltoomuchforhim.Inbiologyclass,helearnsthatalivingthing's
potential,itsmatter,isnotatallexplanatory,ashethought,butinsteadlearnsof
geneticsanddevelopmentalbiology.Healsolearnsthathisideaofspontaneous
generationisjustplainwrong--notevenclosetobeingcorrect.Helearnsof
evolutionandthediscoverythatalloflifeonEarthisrelated.Astheclasscontinues,
heagainfaintsdeadaway.
Afterhecomestoo,hesoberlyconcludesthatthismodernworld,this
advancedtime,hasutterlysurpassedhisknowledgeandtheknowledgeofhistime.
Hefeelsdwarfedbyourepistemicsophistication.Sadly,hetrundlesofftoa
philosophyclass--ametaphysicsclass,asitturnsout.Herehehearstheprofessor
lecturingaboutessences,aboutbeingquabeing,aboutthemostgeneralstructures
ofourthinkingabouttheworld.Heknowsexactlywhattheprofessoristalking
about.Aristotleraiseshishandtodiscusssomeerrorstheprofessorseemstohave
made,andsomeimportantdistinctionsthathehasnotdrawn.Asthediscussion
proceeds,themetaphysicsprofessorisabittakenabackbutalsodelightedatthis
(older)student'sacumenandinsight.ThenAristotlegoestoanethicsclass,where
helearnsofthecurrentimportanceofwhatisapparentlycalled"virtueethics."He
recognizesitimmediately,butagain,theprofessorseemstohaveleftoutsome
crucialdetailsandfailedtoseesomedeeperaspectsoftheview.Aristotleraiseshis
hand....
ThisstoryofAristotle'sreturntophilosophynodoubtissomewhatplausible
tothereader(excluding,probably,thetime-travelpart).Perhapsitisnomorethan
thatorjustbarelythat.ButthisisallIneed.Thefactthatthisstorycontainsevenawhiffofplausibilityshowsthatthereadercandiscernacrucialdifferencebetween
scienceandphilosophy.Fromourtwenty-firstcenturyperspective,weseethat
Aristotlewasnotevenintheballparkwithmostofhisscientificideas,theories,and
conclusions.Hisworksinscienceareonlyofhistoricalinterest.Butheisagiantto
thisdayinphilosophy.Wecanlearnbyreadinghisphilosophicalworks.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
9/21
9
Thispatternofignoringoldsciencebutrereadingoverandoveragainold
philosophyrepeatsthroughoutthehistoriesofscienceandphilosophy.Here's
anothercase.ConsiderEinstein(1879-1955),Frege(1848-1925),andWittgenstein
(1889-1951).Theworksofthelattertwophilosophersarereadcloselytothisday,
notonlybyaccomplished,professionalphilosophers,butingraduateseminars
wheretheirworksareplumbedfordeeptruths.Yet,nophysicistsreadEinstein's
1905papers,eventheoneonSpecialRelativity,nordotheyreadhis1916paperon
GeneralRelativity.Ofcourse,bothSpecialandGeneralRelativityarestilltaught--
theyareregardedasthebackboneofmodernphysicsandcosmology.Havingbeen
testedthoroughly,Einstein'stheoriesarecurrentlyregardedastrue.Butitis
preciselybecausethesetheoriesareregardedastruethatnoonereadsthemin
theiroriginaldescriptions.Insteadmodernversionswithmuchmoreperspicuous
mathematicsaretaughtandused.Sincehistheoriesaretrue,whatEinsteinactually
saidneedn'tbefoughtover.Frege'sandWittgenstein'stheoriesandconclusions,on
theotherhand,arenotregardedastrue;theyareregardedasinterestingand
important.So,ofcourse,theoriginalswouldbereadandexamined...andfought
over.Forexample,Kripke'sinterpretationofWittgenstein(1982)causedstrong
debate,withmanyWittgensteinscholarsdecryingKripke'sbookandtheideasinit
(e.g.,McGinn,1984;BakerandHacker,1984).
TheexactsamepatternemergeswithCharlesDarwin(1809-1882)andJohn
StuartMill(1806-1873).Darwin'sconclusionsareregardedastrue,sothere'sno
needtoagonizeoverwhatheactuallysaid.Mill'sconclusionsarenotregardedas
true,butrather,interestingandimportant.Sowedoneedtoagonizeoverwhathe
actuallysaid.
Insum,thoughtherelevantscientifictextsareold,thetheories,whentrue,
aren't(truthdoesn'tage).Soweteachthetheories,whichweupdatewithbetter
techniques.However,nophilosophicaltheoryistrue,oratleastnotheoryis
regardedastruebysignificantandlargemajorityofphilosophers.So,wehaveno
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
10/21
10
recoursebuttoagonizeoverandrehashwhatthephilosophersaid.Inthecaseof
philosophy,thetextsremain"new,"inthesensethattheyarestillpublishedand
read.
Whatcouldexplainthispatternofvastdisparityinthehistoriesof
philosophyandscience,inwhatthereturningAristotleexperiences?Onlyone
thing:Philosophydoesn'tprogress.Yes,itmorphsandtransformstostaycurrent.
OurmetaphysicstodayisnotAristotle'smetaphysics.Oursispopulated,for
example,withpossibleworlds,whoseexistenceisbolsteredbyarobustandlarge
familyoflogicsthatAristotlecouldn'thaveimagined.Ourmetaphysicscontains
ideaslikesupervenience,whichisusedtoexplain,amongotherthings,the
relationshipbetweenmindandbrainandtherelationshipbetweenconsciousness
andbrain.Butmoreimportantly,ourmetaphysicsisforus.Itiswritteninour
languageforustocommunicateourtwenty-firstcenturyideasin.Butthat'sall;
that'stheextentofthe"progress".Theideasandtheoriesareneworcouchedin
modernlanguage,butnorealprogressismade,none.
4.PhilosophicalAnosognosia
Onemightobjectthatnotionssuchaspossibleworlds,supervenience,and
modallogicaredefinitelyadvances;theyobviouslyrepresentprogress.Infact,
philosophy,acrosstheboard,containsmanynotionsandconceptsthatare
completelynewandveryuseful.Aristotledidn'thavethesenotions,theseadvanced
andpowerfulconceptswithwhichtoexplainthemind,theuniverse,andeverything.
Imusthavereceivedthisobjectiondozensoftimes.What'sastonishing
aboutthisobjectionishowlameitiswhileatthesametimebeingardentlybelieved.Ifallthesenewnotionsrepresentadvances,where'sthetruephilosophicaltheories?
Where'sthedeepandwidespreadagreementthroughoutthephilosophicalworld
aboutwhichtheoriesaretrue?Ihaveevenbeentoldbyphilosophers,asthey
narrowtheireyes,furrowtheirbrow,andgetveryserious,thattheoryXistrue.The
problemis,andyou,thereader,knowsthisiscoming,thatXrangesnotonlyover
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
11/21
11
manydifferenttheories,buttheorieswhichareflatlyincompatible.I'vebeentold
thatKant'stheoryofethics(withsomefixes)istrue,andthenbeentoldthatMill's
theoryis(withsomefixes).Inallthesecases,thetheoryXthatI'mtoldistrue,isthe
onethephilosopherhim-orherselfhappenstobelieveandworkon(nosurprise
there).
Howcouldtheobvioustruththatphilosophylackstruetheories,oratleast
lackstheoriesthatarewidelyregardedastrue,bedenied?Howcouldtheobvious
truththatphilosophyneverprogressesbesovociferouslydenied?
Anosognosiaisamentaldisabilityinwhichapersonwhosuffersfrom
another,primarydisabilitydeniesthatheorshedoesinfactsufferfromtheprimary
disability.Somecasesofanosognosiaareshockinginthattheprimarydisabilityis
conspicuousandlarge.Forexample,blindorparalyzedanosognosiacswillsimply
denythattheyareblindorparalyzed.
Philosopherstheworldoversufferfromanosognosia.Theirprimary
disabilityisthattheyworkinafield,adiscipline,thatneverprogresses,yetmostof
themgetstatemoneyintheformofsalaries.Thiscreatescognitivedissonanceand
isapparentlyimpossibletolivewith.So,theydevelopanosognosiaandsimplydeny
thatphilosophyneverprogresses.Theyassertthatphilosophydoesprogress,
because,afterall,wenowknowthat...waitforit...theoryXistrue.
Philosophersalsosufferfromothermentaldisabilities.Theysufferfromthe
IllusionofExplanatoryDepth.IOEDistheuniversalerrorthatallofusmakein
believingthatweknowmoreaboutsomethingthanweactuallydo.Example:Tryexplaininghowazipperworks.Orabattery(seeRozenblitandKeil,2002).
Philosophers(quaphilosophers)sufferfromaparticularlyegregiousformofthis
epistemicerror:Whileholdingaheavilymarked-upandannotatedcopyof
Aristotle'sMetaphysics,amodernmetaphysicianwillholdforthaboutmodern
metaphysicaltheoryXandwhyitistrue,evenwhilenoonebelieveshim.Atleast
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
12/21
12
zippersactuallyworkandtherewasapre-zippertime--theyrepresent
technologicalprogress.And,andthisisthekey,atleastsomeonesomewherecan
explainzippersfullyandcompletely.
Andfinally,philosophers(quaphilosophers)sufferfromIllusorySuperiority,
acognitivebiasthatcausespeopletooverestimatetheirpositivequalities.Again,
philosopherssufferfromanextremeversionofthis.Philosophyisessentially
destructive.Whateveryoubelieve,nomatterhowobviousorfundamental,no
matterwhoyouare,orwhere,orwhen,there'sagoodphilosophicalargumentthat
yourbeliefisfalse.Thereisnodeep,foundationalbeliefthatphilosophycannot
refute(notevenDescartes'Cogito).MostwhoaresusceptibletoISthinktheyare
aboveaverage,butphilosophersthinktheyaresosuperiorthattheyclaimtobethe
directoppositeofwhattheyactuallyare:theVandalsandVisigothsofthe
intellectualworld.Or,better:theincoming,Everest-sizedasteroidstreakingtoward
allthatdecentpeopleholddear.
5.PhilosophyandtheNosognosiacs
Nosognosiacsknowthattheysufferfromsomeailmentordisability
("nosognosiac"isatermofmycoinage).Aswe'veseen,therearesome
philosopherswhodoknowthatphilosophyneverprogresses,oratleastarewaryof
claimsofsignificantprogress.TwoofthemostdistinguishedareThomasNageland
ColinMcGinn.Theirseminalworksonthistopicare,respectively,TheViewFrom
Nowhere(1986),andProblemsinPhilosophy(1993).Here,verybriefly,aretheir
theories.
Nagelarguesthatphilosophicalproblemsareintractablebecauseofthecontradictoryinteractionoftwonecessaryandineluctablepointsofview:the
objectivepointofviewandthesubjectivepointofview.Forexample,fromthe
subjectivepointofview,weseemtohavefreewill,butfromtheobjectivepointof
view,weseemtolackfreewill,andinsteadbecausallydeterminedlikeeveryother
physicalthing.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
13/21
13
ScienceworksonNagel'sviewbecauseitisonlydonefromtheobjective
pointofview.Thesubjectivepointofviewthoughreal,isignoredinscience:even
whensciencestudiesconsciousness--thesinequanonofthesubjectivepointof
view--itstudiesitfromtheobjectivepointofview(tonogreatsuccess,obviously).
Therelationbetweenscience'scrucialpropertyofbeingpublicandopenly
accessibleistightlytiedtoitsbeingpracticedonlyfromanobjectivepointofview.
McGinnarguesthatphilosophicalproblemsareintractablebecauseofthe
wayourmindsfunction.Ourmindsareprimarilyforknowingabouttheworld.
Theyworkbestwheretheretheycandiscernsomedomainofprimitiveelements
thecombinationofwhichgivesrisetocomplexaggregatesorstructuresthat
superveneontheprimitiveones.Theproblemisthatphilosophicalproblemsare
notamenabletosuchanunderstanding.Allphilosophyproblemsaretractablein
principle,justnottous.Itisasifweaskedaturtletorunthe100meterdashin
under20(orevenunder60)seconds.Orweaskedachimpanzeetofigureouthow
tocombinegeneralrelativityandquantummechanicsinasingletestabletheory.
ScienceworksonMcGinn'sviewbecausethebottom-upstrategyourminds
preferisapplicabletotheordinaryworld:physics,chemistry,biology,andeven
psychologydoseemtoworkthisway.
6.Philosophy:aRiotofRelativism
McGinn'sandNagel'stheoriesseemdifferent,butacloserexaminationof
themrevealsthattheyarevariantsofthesameidea.Fromhere,wewillseethat
theyinfactarecontradictory.
CrucialtoMcGinn'sviewisthatideathatthoughwecannotsolvethe
problemsofphilosophy,theyareinfactsolvable,atleastinprinciple(1993,chs.8
and9,esp.pp.128ffand135-156.).Andthisisn'tmerelogicalpossibilityeither,this
isphysicalpossibility(possibleinthisuniverse;indeed,hethinksaspectsofour
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
14/21
14
ownbrainshaveinfactsolvedsomecentralphilosophyofmindproblems,butwe
cannotaccesssaidknowledge,pp.135-143).Therefore,thereare,inprinciple,aset
ofphysicallyrealizableepistemic,cognitivecapacitiescansolvephilosophy's
problems.Thissetofcapacitiesconstitutesapointofviewfromwhichphilosophy's
problemscanbesolved.Humansjusthappennottoinhabittherightpointofview,
i.e.,havetherightcognitivecapacities,tosolvephilosophyproblems.Nagel'sview
isdirectlyaboutpointsofviewshifts.Therefore,bothMcGinn'sandNagel'stheories
ofwhyphilosophydoesn'tprogressarebasedonpointsofview.
Giventhissimilarity,itisnoweasytoseethatthetwotheoriesare
contradictory.Nagel'stheorysays:
Therearethreepointsofview.Fromthesubjectiveview,wegetonesetof
answerstophilosophyquestions,andfromtheobjectiveview,weget
another,usuallycontradictory,set,andfromathirdview,fromwhichone
canseetheanswersofboththesubjectiveandobjectiveviews,onecansee
thatthesubjectiveandobjectiveanswersareequallyvalidandequallytrue.
Therefore,philosophyproblemsareintractable.Philosophycannotprogress
becauseitcannotsolvethem.
McGinn'stheorysays:
Therearetworelevantpointsofview.Fromone,thehumanview,
philosophyproblemsareintractable.Fromtheother,thealienview,
philosophyproblemsaretractable(perhapseventrivial;again,seech.8,op.
cit.).ThesituationhereisexactlylikethesituationwithdogsandEnglish.Weeasilyunderstandit.Dogsunderstandonlyatinynumberofwords,and
seemtoknownothingofcombinatorialsyntax.Therefore,thoughitis
unlikelywecansolveanyphilosophyproblems,theyarenotinherently
intractable.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
15/21
15
Weseethen,thatNagelthinksthatphilosophyisinherentlyintractable:any
humanlyintelligent,consciousbeingisgoingtobeensnaredbyphilosophy,
providedonlythatitconsidersanyofit.Andthereexistsapointofviewfromwhich
thistruthcanbeseen.McGinndeniesthis.Hethinksthatphilosophyisonlylocally
intractable.Alienbeingscouldwellfindphilosophyproblemsintuitivelyeasyto
solve.Thereexistsapointofviewfromwhichphilosophyproblemsaresolvable.
NagelandMcGinnareofcoursedoingmetaphilosophy.Plausibly,
metaphilosophyisphilosophy.Therefore,wehavehereaparadigmcaseexhibiting
thepropertyphilosophyhasincommonwithscience:twotheoristsdisagreeing
abouttheirexplanations(inthiscase,aboutwhyphilosophydoesn'torcan't
advance).Butsincethisisphilosophy,wecanpredictthatneithertheorywillever
winout,eveninthemindsoffuturegenerations.
Butwait!Isn'tthisincorrect?Ifspacealiensshowupandgiveusthe
solutionstoourphilosophicalproblems,thenMcGinnwillbeprovenrightand
Nagelwrong.But,McGinndeniesthatthiscanhappen:wewouldn'tunderstand
theirsolutions.Again,thinkofgivingdogsoursolutiontomakingdogtoys
(factories,synthetic,harmlessfibers,plasticsqueakers,etc.).Theywouldn'tgetit,
toputitmildly.And,inanycase,theargumentsareaboutwhattobelievenow.Of
course,wemightwakeuptomorrowwithasuddenunderstandingofthe
freewill/determinismproblem.Butifweask,today,whatthatunderstandingwould
be,we'dbedoingphilosophyandwe'dgetnowhere.
SoNagelandMcGinnaredoingphilosophy,andaccordinglywewillnever
knowwhichoftheirtheoriesiscorrect,ifeitheris.FromNagel'spointofview,thesubjective/objectivedivideisunbridgeable,andisthefontofallphilosophyandits
intractability.FromMcGinn'spointofview,thereisapointofviewfromwhichthe
problemsofphilosophyaresolvable,indeed,solved.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
16/21
16
WeseefrommycouchingtheclashbetweenNagel'sandMcGinn'stheories
asaclashbetweenpointsofviewthatNagel'spointofviewtheorygeneralizes:All
philosophyproblems,andindeed,anythingthatseemslikeaphilosophicaladvance
canberenderedasaclashbetweenpointsofviewonaspecificissue.Fromone
pointofview,wegetoneanswer,andfromanotherview,wegetadifferent,usually
contradictory,answer.Nagel'stheoryrestrictsthesepointsofviewtosubjective
andobjectiveones,butthatrestrictioncanberelaxed.
Foranexample,considerafamouscasefromthehistoryofphilosophy.Quite
sometimeback,itwasthoughtthatallnecessarytruthscouldbeknownapriori.So,
ifa=bwasanecessarytruth,thenitcouldknownwithoutanyinvestigationofthe
world.Butthenaposterioritrueidentitieslikewater=H2Owhichcannotknown
withoutinvestigatingtheworld,mustbecontingentlytrue.Thenotionofcontingent
identitywaswidelyagreedtobecorrect,andfoundsteadyemploymentinthe
philosophyofmind,whereitbolsteredphysicalism.In1970,SaulKripkechanged
allthatbypointoutthatcontingentidentitieswereusuallynothingofthesort.
Assumingthat"a"and"b"arenamesofacertainkind(whatKripkecalledrigid
designators-namesthatdesignatethesamethinginallpossibleworlds),thena=b
hastobenecessary.Usually,"a"and"b"arerigiddesignators.Sousuallyidentities
arenecessary;contingentidentityisalmostvanishingrare,accordingtoKripke.
Hence,theremustbenecessarytruths,e.g.,water=H2O,thatcanonlybeknowna
posteriori.OneargumentKripkeusedtomakehiscaseagainstcontingentidentity
wasthis.Consideryourdesk.Fansofcontingentidentitywerefondofsayingthings
like"Thedeskcouldhavebeenmadeoutofice;butitisnot;itistherefore
contingentlytruethatyourdeskismadeoutofwhatitis,wood,let'ssay;whence
thereisacontingentidentityhere."But,asKripkepointedout,thisdesk(here,youpointtoyourdesk)couldnothavebeenmadeofice;thisdeskismadeofwood.If
yourdeskhadbeenmadeofice,itwouldnothavebeenthisdesk.Byusingthe
demonstrative"this,"Kripkewaschangingthepointofviewinthedebateabout
contingentidentity:hewasforcingthereadertoconsiderthisverydesk,ratherthan
adeskconsideredonlyunderthedescription"Mydesk."TheKripkeanpointofview
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
17/21
17
(K)ofthisverydesk,focusesthereaderonthedeskasanobjectinandofitself,
ratherthanthedeskasfallingundersomedescriptionas"Mydesk,atwhichIsit
andtype."FrompointofviewK,thedeskisperceivedindependentlyofall
descriptions,whilefromthedescriptionpointofview,thedeskisperceivedundera
description.Essentially,Kripkepointedoutthatfansofcontingentidentitywere
guiltyofthinkingonlyofthingsunderadescriptionandneverasthingsasthey
wereinandofthemselves.
Kripke'spointofviewchangehadahugeimpactonphilosophy,butitisnota
changebetweensubjectiveandobjectivepointsofviewsuchasrequiredbyNagel's
theory.ExamplessuchastheKripkeanoneareeverywhereinphilosophy,andare
responsibleformuchofit.Wecansee,then,thattherearemorepointsofview
changecrucialtophilosophythanthosebetweensubjectiveandobjectivepointsof
view.ThechangebetweenNagel'sandMcGinn'sisanotherexample(formoreon
thisexample,seeDietrichandHardcastle,2004,esp.ch.6).(Ishouldpointoutthat
ascompellingandimportantasKripke'sdemolitionofcontingentidentitywas,since
itwasphilosophy,contingentidentityhasmadeacome-back(see,e.g.,Gibbard,
1975).Todate,bothapproachestoidentityarealiveandkicking,naturally.)
Philosophy,then,emergesasariotofrelativism.Viewsthatareflatly
contradictoryareequallyplausible.Allonehastodoisadopttherightpointofview
toseefirstoneanswertoaphilosophyproblemandthen,byadoptinganotherpoint
view,seeaconflicting,secondanswer.
Thereismuchmoreworktodoonpointsofview,workthatisrequired
beforetheweirdnessthatisphilosophycanbeexplainedandunderstood.Butwenowknowthismuch:Inphilosophy,clashingpointsofviewareineluctable,and
theirexistenceistheonlytruth.Thusphilosophycannotprogress.
(Pointsofviewdon'tgoawaywhenwedoscience.Butalltherelevantviews
belongtothesamefamily,andthusbelonging,cooperate,atleastinthelongrun.It
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
18/21
18
isquitehardtocharacterizethisfamily.Itisnotjustthefamilyofobjectivepointsof
view,thoughitisthat.Public,repeatable,objectivearetermsthatonlypartially
characterizethisfamily.Ihopetohavemoretosayaboutthisinfuture.)
7.Hewhounderstandsmefinallyrecognizesmeasright...andwrong
In6.54-7ofhisTractatus,Wittgensteinsays,
Mypropositionsareelucidatoryinthisway:hewhounderstandsme
finallyrecognizesthemassenseless,whenhehasclimbedoutthrough
them,onthem,overthem.(Hemustsotospeakthrowawaythe
ladder,afterhehasclimbeduponit.)
Whatwecannotspeakaboutwemustpassoverinsilence.
Samethinghere,andI'massilentasWittgensteinwas.Myexplanationofwhy
philosophydoesnotandcannotprogress(clashingpointsofviewareineluctablein
philosophy)isabitofphilosophy.So,ofcourseitwillnotconvincethe
anosognosiacs.Anditwon'tevenconvincethenosognosiacs,likeNagelandMcGinn,
whosetheoriesdifferfrommine(theunionofthosetwosetsisprobablyeveryone
butme).Norwillthetruthofwhyphilosophyneverprogresseseverbeknown.
Eonsfromnow,afterthehumansaregone,perhapspointsofviewwill
remain.Perhapspowerfulintelligenceswillstillexist--asufficientconditionfor
pointsofview.Perhapstheywillexistelsewhereintheuniverse,perhapswewill
havecreatedourowndescendents(Dietrich,2007).Regardless,wecanbecertainofthis:ifpointsofviewstillexist,thensowillphilosophy--theveryphilosophywe
arewrestlingwithtoday,andtheveryphilosophywewrestledwithallthose
centuriesago.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
19/21
19
Acknowledgements
IthankZachWeber,ChrisFields,andDavidChalmersforreadingandcommenting
onpreviousdrafts.ThankstoZachandChrisforlongandtrenchantdiscussionson
thistopic.IalsothanktheparticipantsofBinghamtonUniversity'sApril2011TEDx
Conferenceforcomments.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
20/21
20
References
Baker,G.andHacker,P.(1984).Sceptcism,Rules,andLanguage .Blackwell,Oxford.
Dawkins,R.(1994).BuryingtheVehicle.CommentaryonWilson&Sober:Group
Selection.BehaviouralandBrainSciences.17(4):616617.
Dennett,D.(2006).BreakingtheSpell:ReligionasaNaturalPhenomenon.Viking
Penguin,NY.
Dietrich,E.(2007).AftertheHumansareGone.PhilosophyNow,v.61,May/June,
2007,16-19.
Dietrich,E.andHardcastle,V.(2004).Sisyphus'sBoulder:Consciousnessandthe
LimitsoftheKnowable.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Gibbard,A.(1975).ContingentIdentity,J.ofPhilosophicallogic,4,187-221.
Kripke,S.(1980).NamingandNecessity.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.
Kripke,S.(1982).WittgenstienonRulesandPrivateLanguage.HarvardUniversity
Press,Cambridge,MA.
McGinn,C.(1984).WittgensteinonMeaning:AnIntepretationandEvaluation.
Blackwell,Oxford.
McGinn,C.(1993).ProblemsinPhilosophy:Thelimitsofinquiry.Blackwell,Oxford.
Nagel,T.(1986).TheViewFromNowhere.Oxford,NewYork.
-
8/3/2019 Non-Progress of Philosophy
21/21
Rozenblit,L.,&Keil,F.(2002).TheMisunderstoodLimitsofFolkScience:Anillusion
ofexplanatorydepth.CognitiveScience,26,521-562.
Shulte,P.etal.(2010).TheChicxulubAsteroidImpactandMassExtinctionatthe
Cretaceous-PaleogeneBoundary.Science,Mar.5,2010,v.327,1214-1218.
Sober,E.andWilson,D.S.(1998).UntoOthers:Theevolutionandpsychologyof
unselfishbehavior.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.
Sterba,James,(2005).TheTriumphofPracticeOverTheoryinEthics.Oxford
UniversityPress,NewYork.
Williams,G.C.(1966).AdaptationandNaturalSelection:ACritiqueofSomeCurrent
EvolutionaryThought,PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ.
Wilson,D.S.(1975).ATheoryofGroupSelection,Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.72,(1),143-
146.
Wilson,D.S.andSober,E.(1994).ReintroducingGroupSelectiontotheHuman
BehavioralSciences.BehavioralandBrainSciences17(4),585654.
Wilson,D.S.andWilson,E.O.(2008).Evolution"forthegoodofthegroup".
AmericanScientist,96(5),380-389.