To define a concept is to fix its bounds or limits, to detrmine with precision, to describe accurately or to fix the meaning of it. Thus definition is an explanation of the exact meaning of the concept. The most universal concepts of human thought, in its urge for more and more clarification, always stands in need of defining them. The philosopher has constantly to reflect on these concepts till they are matured enough to interpret the Reality corresponding to them, with the utmost approximation. Besides logical analysis, such a reflection is based on the meaning of the concept which, in its turn, is related to experience to which its corresponds. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, to define any concept the Philosopher must proceed with the double process of logical analysis of the concept and critical reflection on the experience for which it stands. The philosopher in his synoptic vision would only point out the broad and general characteristic of a particular concept. Obviously, a definition of philosophy would not define this or that philosophy but philosophy in general.
Introduction to Philosophy
We are proceeding with a twofold process of logical analysis of the concept and a critical survey of the historical treatment of the subject. As a general rule, the history of philosophy is a collection of the reasoned interpretation of the experiences of the individuals representing different aspects of Truth. Hence, what is desirable is not a destructive criticism of other approaches, but the assessment of their values in the whole and to find in it a reasonable place for each of them.
Historical review
Aristotle devised Metaphysics to be studied after physics. Thus etymologically speaking, meta-physics means ‘after-physics’. It is the last science, the science, the science of science. It is also the first science, the mother of all sciences. He also calls it the science of being thought such a science is impossible since science deals only with process of phenomena. Philosophy deals with Being as much as with Becoming. Thus it includes sciences within its ken. Man experiences eternity as well as change. Philosophy is an explanation of the total experience of man seeks the integral truth.
The rationalists in the early dawn of Modern Philosophy defined metaphysics as a knowledge deduced from self-evident principles. This attempt at rationalisation or mathematisation of philosophy sought to make it more exact. But metaphysics with thought as its instrument, should never dream of being exact like mathematics since thought, though real, cannot be identified with Reality. To be inexact is both a weakness as well as the strength of metaphysics. The philosopher is a lover of knowledge and never a sole possessor of it. The complete comprehension of Infinite by Finite, is a logical impossibility and yet the destiny of man lies in progressing for an ever near approximation to it.
Human thought which always bifurcates Reality in to form and essence, subject and object, ‘that’ and ‘what’ can never truly represent the Reality which is an all inclusive spiritual unity. Philosophy is not a matter of logico-mathematical deduction or induction. The laws of Geometry are not applicable to Metaphysics any more than they are applicable to Chemistry of Physiology. Every new field of experience has its own laws. Philosophy, the moment it losses touch with immediate experience of Reality, forgets its way in the wilderness of human ratiocination which lead us nowhere.
The necessity of basing philosophy an experience was loudly proclaimed by the opposite school of empiricists represented by Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Locke pointed out that for its content the form and instrument of metaphysics is dependent on experience. This was a great corrective to rationalistic extreme and yet by confining metaphysics to mere sense experience, the empiricists shifted the balance in the opposite direction which led to the negation of all metaphysics. This is obvious, since if sense experience is the only experience, philosophy is a mere wild goose chase.
To be itself, philosophy should widen its field to include all types of experience, religious, moral, scientific, spiritual, etc. Hume defined the supremacy of Reason. But if reason is a slave to passion, the refutation of reason, being itself a ratiocination, stands self-condemned. Hume’s “criticism of rationalism and reduction and absurdum of empiricism” however, gives a lesson which philosophy should not forget. Reason is its surest instrument but to get its data, it should rely on experience.
Kant combines the Beconian idea of the extension of knowledge with the Cartesian idea of certainty. But he also fights shy of all metaphysics in the ultimate sense. Only the metaphysics of Nature and metaphysics of knowledge is possible. Thus, it was left to Hegel to revive in full vigour the ultimate status of philosophy. The object of philosophy, according to him, is to search out the concept, the purpose, the significance of phenomena and to assign to these their corresponding positions in the world and in the system of knowledge. It systematises a true view of Philosophy as a systematisation of values and facts. But, by the identification of Nature with Logic Hegel arrives at an intellectualism which led Bradley to assert with a vengeance. “Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct.”
This curt remark is a timely warning to all those who attempt at reduction to Reality of mere thought but the rejection of all metaphysical speculation as bad reasons appears to be too sweeping. The intellect is not rejected in Spirit but transformed into a better instrument to receive the truth.
Bergson’s approach here seems to be more balanced than that to Bradley. Philosophy, according to him, must take into account not only sensory but also mental and intuitive experiences. It must be based on Real experience. Bergson shows a true insight into the problem when he points out that the difference between various schools of philosophy is because of their fragmentary glimpse of Reality, supplemented by different kinds of intellectual interpretation and elaboration. He suggests that by mutual comparison and elimination of peculiarities, philosophers may grasp the universal character of basic Reality.
Again, philosophy according to Bergson “does not only facilitate speculation; it gives us also more power to act and live. For with it we feel ourselves not longer isolated in humanity, humanity no longer seems isolated in the Nature that it dominates.” Finally Bergson in its usual capacity in practical life, intellect working on data suppled by sense-perception. Otherwise, the intellect may co-operate with intuition by assembling the data of intuition and forming fluid concepts. Intuition and reason are equally indispensable instruments of Philosophy.
Contemporary thought witnesses a chaos in the field of Metaphysics. All sorts of arguments have been advanced to support widely divergent views of Reality. All kinds of reactions are raising head under big sounding names of ‘isms.’ All types of methods have been put to test. The purpose of Nature beneath all this burning cauldron of ideologies, however seems to be the manifestation of an integral philosophy which may reconcile all and transcend all, and rouse itself from its dogmatic slumber. A true philosophy is the intellectual search for the fundamental truth of things.
It is generally agreed by all that philosophy must be based on experience but as we have already seen, often the term experience has been limited to certain specific regions. The root fallacy underlying all the conflicting schools of philosophy is a shift from the centre to periphery, an exaltation of part as whole, a dogmatic denial of everything beyond the limited ken of intellect and finally, an unwarranted application of the logic of finite to the matters of the Infinite. “The work of philosophy” as Sri Aurobindo rightly points out, “is to arrange the data given by the various means of knowledge, excluding none, and put them in synthetic relation to the one truth, the one supreme and universal reality.”
Philosophy should be all comprehensive, affirmative, syn-thetic and spiritual. Philosophy, meaning love of wisdom (philos=love, sophia=wisdom) should be distinguished from mere opinion. Knowledge, as the Indians conceived it, is the knowledge of that by knowing which everything else can be known. Thus philosophy is the knowledge of Ultimate Reality. But Ultimate Reality, as Indian philosophy truly maintains, is not only Existence but also Consciousness and Bliss. Hence, philosophy, as the quest after ultimate truth, is science of value par excellence. It should not only criticise facts but also satisfy, religion and science. To quote Sri Aurobindo, “It should be a discovery of the real reality of things by which human existence learn its law and aim and the principle of its perfection.”
Definition of Philosophy
A beginner in philosophy is perturbed to find that different philosophers have given different definitions of philosophy. While some philosophers have laid emphasis on psychological facts, others have given more importance to values. According to John Dewey, “Whenever philosophy has been taken seriously, it has always been assumed that it signified achieving a wisdom that would influence the conduct of life.”
On the other hand, according to Windelband, philosophy is “…the critical science of universal values.” While there is much difference in Indian and Western definition of philosophy, one finds widely different definitions presented by Western philosophers also. Of these definitions some emphasize the critical aspect of philosophy while others lay emphasis upon its synthetic aspect. Some examples of these two types of definitions of philosophy are as follows:
Philosophy is a critical method of approaching experience. Example of this type of definitions are as follows:
- Egar S. Brightman : “Philosophy is essentially a spirit or method of approaching experience rather than a body of conclusion about experience.”
- Clifford Barrat : “It is not the specific content of these conclusions, but the spirit and method by which they are reached, which entitles them to be described as philosophical…”
- C. J. Ducasse : “Were I limited to one line for my answer to it, I should say that philosophy is a general theory of criticism.”
Philosophy is comprehensive synthetic science. The following definitions of philosophy emphasize its synthetic aspect :
- Joseph A. Legihton : “Philosophy like science, consists of theories of insights arrived at as a results of systematic reflection.”
- Herbert Spencer : “Philosophy is concerned with everything as a universal science.”
- Roy Wood Sellars : “Our subject is a collection of sciences, such as theory of knowledge, logic, cosmology, ethics and aesthetics, as well as a unified survey.”
The above mentioned definitions of philosophy show that while some philosophers have mainly emphasised critical philosophy, others have defined its as a synthetic discipline. In fact both these viewpoints are one-sided because philosophy is both critical as well as synthetic. Literally speaking, the word ‘philosophy’ involves two Greek words—‘Philo’ meaning love and ‘Sophia’ meaning knowledge. Thus literally speaking, philosophy means love of wisdom. It should be noted here that the definition of philosophy is different from the sense in which the word “Darshan” has been taken in India. The literal meaning of philosophy shows that the philosopher is constantly and everywhere engaged in the search for truth. He does not bother so much to arrive at final conclusions and continues with his search for truth throughout his life. His aim is the pursuit of truth rather than its possession. Those who enjoy journey do not care so much about the destination, neither are they perturbed when the destination is lost in sight in spite of continued long journey.
In an effort to define philosophy, one arrives at the difficulty that there is no genus in this case and also no differentia. In defining a science one points out to the genus science and also to the particular area of the particular science which differentiates it from others. This is however, not possible in the case of philosophy because philosophy is one and not many. Hence in order to arrive at the meaning of philosophy you will have to discuss its problems, attitude, method, process, conclusions and results. In brief, philosophy is a philosophical process of solving some characteristic problems through characteristic methods, from a characteristic attitude and arriving at characteristic conclusion and results. Some might find this definition very vague and inadequate. But while defining science, do we not say that science is scienteing or that it is method and can we understand this definition of science without understanding scientific method? When science cannot be understood without knowing scientific method, how can we hope to understand philosophy without knowing philosophical method? Again, in understanding the definition of science we are required to understand not only scientific problems and scientific conclusions because all these together form a science. Therefore, what is vague and inadequate if we say that in order to understand philosophy one must understand the attitude, problems, activity, conclusions and results peculiar to it? This will also clarify the distinction between philosophy and science which has been forgotten by many philosophers.
Philosophical problems
Each branch of knowledge gives rise to certain peculiar problems. In the early human life on this planet when man was struck with wonder at the natural phenomenon or when he found complexes and conflicting existing order of things, it was the beginning of philosophy. While the philosophy of Vedas began in wonder, the philosophy of Gautam Buddha began in discontentment with the miserable world. In the West the early beginning of philosophy was in wonder while the modern Western philosophy had its origin in doubt. In the words of Patrick, “Although philosophy among the ancients began in wonder, in modern times it usually begins in doubt.”
This wonder and doubt gave rise to several types of problems A general characteristic of these problems was that they were concerned with general and universal questions and not with the questions of particular nature. In this sense the philosophical problems are different from scientific problems which have their origin in particular questions. Some examples of philosophical problems are—What is knowledge! What is world? Who has created the world? Is there a God? Who am I? What is the aim of my life? Why should I live? What is the purpose of the world? etc. Infact, a description of all the philosophical problems will almost from a book. Hence for our present purpose it is sufficient to say that philosophical problems are those which arise in the field of philosophy. Now, what is the field of philosophy? The philosophical field includes epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, semantics, metaphysics, axiology, philosophy of religion, social philosophy, political philosophy, of history, philosophy of education, etc.
In brief, the field of philosophy includes all knowledge but the philosopher raises questions of general nature only. For example, about the beautiful things his question will be what is beauty?
In the above mentioned classification of philosophical problems it should be noted that problems of different fields of philosophy cannot be absolutely isolated from each other because in fact philosophical problems are not so much problems of a particular field as problems of a particular type. In other words, as opposed to the particular problems of science, they are general problems.
Philosophical problems can be viewed from two aspects—critical and synthetic. In the critical aspects the problem of philosophy is to critically examine the postulates and conclusion of different sciences. In the synthetic aspect, its problem it to present a complete world view based on the conclusion of sciences. Thus ,in brief, philosophy is a totality of some peculiar problems of which some are problems philosophical sciences while others are problems of criticism and synthesis of the postulates and conclusions of different sciences.
Philosophical attitude
Philosophical attitude begins in wonder or doubt. It is critical, reflective, tolerant, detached, continually progressive, directed by experience and reasoning and devoid of hurry in arriving at conclusions.
Philosophical Method
The philosophical method is not exclusively employed by philosophers only. Every man some time or the other, utilizes philosophical method in his thinking or philosophical problems. However, the philosophical method is mainly utilized by the philosopher. Secondly, the philosophical method is not absolutely different from scientific method. As has been already pointed out, philosophical problems have much in common with the scientific problems. It goes without saying that in solving its problems concerning science, the philosopher utilizes the same methods of induction and deducation as used by a scientist. Thus, in the understanding of the philosophical method, these two methods must be discussed:
Induction : The principles of different sciences are arrived by means of inductive process. For examples, in psychiatry, some general principles concerning mental diseases are discovered by observation of the behaviour of mental patients, its recording, its analysis, classification and finally generalization to arrive at certain common principle. This is the method of induction. The philosopher does not act on the facts like the scientist. He has not laboratory work to do. He utilizes concepts and propounds new theories, e.g., materialism, idealism etc. And then he tries to explain his experiences satisfactorily on the basis of these theories. As in science so in philosophy a theory is acknowledged to the extent it satisfactorily explains experience, otherwise it is substituted by another theory which is more successful for this purpose. The cure of bad philosophy is not the negation of all philosophy but the affirmation of a better philosophy. The failure of a particular philosophical theory does not mean the failure of philosophy itself because very soon a better philosophical theory substituted the earlier and this process goes on ad infinitum. The process to arrive at a general proposition by means of several particular proposition is known as the inductive process and it is equally found in philosophical as well as scientific thinking.
Deducation : Deducation is the process to arrive at certain particular propositions from a general proposition. For example : All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal. Deducations like tis are occasionally made in philosophical thinking.
Besides the two above mentioned methods, philosophical thinking involves another peculiar to it, known as dialectical method.
Dialectical method: This is a natural method of philosophical thinking. It is a common place experience that when we think over a problem we arrive at certain positive facts. This is thesis. Now, after some time we come to know some facts which are contradictory to the thesis; this is antithesis. Now these thesis and antithesis cannot live together for long and hence they are synthesised into a synthesis. This synthesis, arrived through antithesis, is more comprehensive than the original thesis. Thus knowledge grows in a dialectical process through this antithesis and synthesis. To illustrate in the beginning a philosophers in the knowledge and experience he finds that the world is untrue. When he proceeds further in the realm of knowledge and experience he finds that the word is neither true nor untrue but both. Thus philosophical thinking proceeds from thesis, antithesis to synthesis. In fact, the dialectical process is the thinking of thought. In it the man rethinks over his earlier thought and discovers hitherto known facts.
While searching for the solution of his problems the philosophers utilizes two methods with regards to his experience, analysis and synthesis. While some philosophers have exclusively emphasized the value of philosophical thinking others have absolutely denied its value. It goes without saying that these two extremist views are equally one-sided.
Analysis : Analysis means the process of distinction between different elements involved in a particular state of experience so that they might be more clear. Realist philosophers have emphasised this procedure while absolutists have advanced arguments against it.
Synthesis : This process involves connecting together the scattered elements in a particular experience which brings into light new patterns and facts. The Idealist philosophers have laid emphasis on synthesis. But, as has been already pointed out, philosophical thinking requires both analysis and synthesis. Analysis, therefore, cannot be banished from the field of philosophy, though it might be useless in certain conditions. The contemporary school of Logical Positivism has taken analysis as the sole method in philosophy. Though the method of logical analysis solves many intricate problems in philosophy it does not negate the value of synthesis.
Thus philosophical method is multisided. Though the philosophers have sometimes emphasized this or that method exclusively, yet all the above mentioned methods have been found to be useful in philosophical thinking.
Philosophical Activity
Once an eminent psychologist was asked what is psychology? To this, he replied: psychology is what the psychologists do. Similarly, we can say philosophy is Philosophising, Philosophising involves thinking, criticism and the process of solving the philosophical problems through different philosophical methods. Philosophical activity begins in a state of wonder, discontentment and doubt. In it the philosopher thinks over his own experience. This thinking is critical and the attitude is philosophical. In brief, philosophical thinking has the following characteristics:
- Philosophical thinking is gradually matured with the increase in knowledge and experience.
- Philosophical thinking is concerned with philosophical problem.
- Philosophical thinking utilizes philosophical methods and philosophical attitude.
- Philosophical thinking is done in individual and group situation, alone and together with others.
- Philosophical thinking is comprehensive while non-philosophical thinking is one-sided.
In the end, the real nature of philosophical thinking can be known only after one himself takes recourse to it. The above mentioned discussion only points out its chief characteristics.
Philosophical effects
Different types of knowledge affect the individual and group differently. This effect of philosophy is as following:
Effect on the Philosopher : The effect of philosophy can be seen in the life on the philosopher, in his expectations and aspirations, in his aim of life, in his bent of mind and in his different activities.
Effect on Group-Life : The effect of philosophy is seen not only in the life of the individual but also in group life. The influence of democratic philosophy can be seen in the democratic societies of the world.
Effect on Civilization and Culture : In any time and place contemporary philosophical trends express the process of thinking in contemporary culture. Philosophical changes are the expressions of culture changes. A comparison of the history of philosophy with the history of culture will prove this fact.
Philosophical conclusions
It has been said regarding philosophical conclusions that while a philosopher raises questions he does not answer them. Ordinarily, philosophical conclusions are the conclusions arrived at by the philosophers regarding philoso-phical problems where a question one may point out to the names of hundreds of thinkers who have presented widely different and mutually contradictory conclusion. A beginner in philosophy is very much perturbed to see this difference of opinion. He fails to understand as so which are the philosophical conclusions and which are non-philosophical. Another definition of philosophical conclusions may be given by calling them the conclusions of philosophical problems. Here it is difficult to prepare a final list of philosophical problems and even those which are quite well-known have been solved in so may different ways that no definite conclusions can be derived.
A non-philosophical person may raise a question as to why philosophers so much disagree regarding the conclusion of philosophical problems. Will the philosophical thinking always be unconcluded? Can all the philosophical conclusion not arrive at any final truths? Now, while we find differences in the views of different philosophers we also notice that the same philosopher presents widely different views at different times. But this is not the case with the philosophers alone. As William E. Hocking has said, “Everybody has a philosophy and the differences between man and man are chiefly philosophical differences. The difference by which people frequently fall into a philosophy which does not belong to them, and leads them away from themselves because they borrow a philosophy from somebody else. The truths of this statements can be ascertained by any one who looks to his own experience and thinking.
In fact the diversity of philosophical conclusion is not a weakness of philosophy. Different philosophers have thought over philosophical problems from different perspectives and however wide, integral and comprehensive a perspective might be, it always remains one-sided. The philoso-phical conclusions, therefore are workable and limited. As the philosophers develops in his thinking, his philosophical conclusion are also modified position but only that he is visualizing new truths, which show the one-sidedness and limitation of the truths known earlier. In fact the philosophical aim is never completely achieved nor is philosophical curiosity ever completely satisfied because if this is done then philosophical thinking will stop.
Actually speaking, the aim of the philosopher is not so much to arrive at certain final conclusion regarding the philosophical problems as to sustain philosophical thinking. His efforts should not be evaluated on the basis of definite conclusions but by his philosophical insight, maturity and constant thinking.
The above discussion regarding philosophical conclusions shows that the main function of the philosophers is to raise philoso-phical questions and constantly think over them through philo-sophical methods and from philosophical standpoint. Hence, it cannot be said that philosophy raises certain questions and leaves them unanswered. By leaving a question unanswered we mean the absence of any final answer to it then this is the case with the philosopher and this has been already discussed. But if leaving a question unanswered means absence of any efforts to solve it, it does not apply in the case of the philosopher. Thus it goes without saying that the philosopher raise certain questions, meditates upon them through philosophical methods and tries to arrive at certain conclusions but does not take them as final and therefore continues with his philosophical reflections.
