The Purpose and Importance of Philosophy
The word “philosophy” is derived from two Greek words, “philia,” meaning love, and “sophos,” meaning wisdom. Simply put, philosophy is defined as the love of wisdom. Since philosophers are lovers of wisdom, it would be logical to assume that the purpose of philosophy must be to obtain wisdom. However, the “purpose” of philosophy is a tricky and somewhat difficult thing to define.
In several of his writings, Josef Pieper denied that philosophy should have any one goal. “Philosophy is said to be above any and every ‘purpose'” (“Leisure” 118). There should not be a particular consequence in mind that determines the course of the activity of philosophy. “There is still a connection between the desired objective of the common people and the action of philosophy, but the relationship is such that philosophy is never controlled by the endpoint” (“Lesiure” 108-9). He compared philosophy to poetry, stating that once a poet writes towards a specified endpoint, the very nature of poetry as a free-spirited activity ceases to exist. He argued that the same is true of philosophy. Once it becomes a tool toward some objective, it is no longer truly philosophy (“Leisure” 109). Once philosophy becomes a utility, it must then also be forced to validate its being, and this is contradictory to its very point. “Philosophy then becomes a function within society, solely practical, and it must of course justify its existence and role among the functions of society” (“Leisure 117). Rather than a task of society, Pieper holds that philosophy is “an endeavor containing its own meaning and requires no justification from a purpose served” (“Verteidigungsrede” 113). It does not need to denigrate itself with petty validations and excuses for its own existence.
However, other authors have differing views on the subject of philosophy’s purpose for being. John E. Smith, for example, feels that philosophy must have a clearly defined purpose in order to be useful. “Truth and reality are always defined (by a philosopher Royce) as the fulfillment of a purpose, as goals which, when attained, will represent the successful completion of a process guided throughout by the aim in question” (“Themes” 11). Smith spends much of his time in his book, Themes in American Philosophy discussing the views of Royce. According to Royce, thought as an activity simply cannot exist without a purpose. There must be some question that the philosopher is trying to solve, some understanding that he is trying to reach, that, in order to do so, the action of thought must be employed (“Themes” 8-25).
The difference between these two opinions appears to be that Royce is more pragmatic than Pieper. A pragmatist is one who believes that something must have a use in order to have worth. This is not to say that Royce is or is not in actuality a pragmatist, merely that he is more pragmatic than Pieper, who believes that philosophy should be free-flowing and self-defining, rather than a tool. Whichever view is more accurate of philosophy and its purpose, both opinions hold strongly support the inherent significance of philosophy.
Philosophy is the father of all the sciences, as it was the first disciplined way to consider the natural world. The highly specific fields of science grew from this first, more general study of the world. Both philosophy and science are sparked by the action of wonder and the desire to destroy ignorance. “Wonder” is defined as an overpowering, emotional response to a major event. At the beginning of history, people first wondered about the reality of change – why things change and how people are expected to deal with this phenomenon. From this first type of wonder, more specialized studies came about, concentrating on the wonder of how things change, or how chemicals work, or how behavior and thought interrelate. These were the sciences. Philosophy and science have the obvious similarity that they are both disciplined and structured ways of learning about reality. But they also have a great many differences between them.
According to Pieper, the sciences view the world from a perspective of desired power and control. Scientists wish to understand the world only as far as it takes in order to manipulate it. Philosophy is not about altering the present state of reality, only coming to understand it (“Leisure” 116-118). “Whenever we look at being philosophically, we discourse purely ‘theoretically’ about it, in a manner, that is to say, untouched in any way whatsoeverâÂ?¦by the desire to change it” (“Leisure” 116). Once the desire to change reality takes over, a change happens. At the moment of manipulation, the study stops being philosophy and becomes something else entirely – that is, science.
Fred Westphal, however, disagrees with the claim that only scientists attempt to alter reality. While he feels that there are important distinctions between science and philosophy, this is not one of them. “Philosophers as well have attempted to shape the future by changing people’s beliefs and habits of thought, which in turn affect their actions” (Westphal 14). For Westphal, the main difference between philosophy and science exists in the way that the people come to their conclusions. Science uses methods, experiments, hypotheses, and predictions while analyzing data and considering possible outcomes. Philosophy cannot use these methods. It cannot predict or experiment. Philosophy is discovered through careful evaluation and analysis of arguments proposed by previous thinkers (Westphal 14-15). Westphal saw more similarities between philosophy and science than Pieper did.
Philosophy and science have seven main differences. The first is their investigative stance; more simply put, science is solely active while philosophy is both active and passive. Science attempts to actively impose a specific method on reality in order to gather data. Philosophy is both active and passive, however, because it begins by passively experiencing reality, and then culminates in active study on it.
The second difference between the two disciplines is in their focus. Science, as is also argued by Pieper (“Leisure 116-188), is centered on use and application while philosophy is focused on acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowing. The two differ in goals, as well. Science tends to have specific, concrete goals while philosophy has more general, universal goals that are never fully realized. This also seems to incorporate with Pieper’s previously discussed ideas of philosophy being without purpose. As a compromise between the two opinions, philosophy does have purposes, but they are less structured.
Science and philosophy are critical of different things, as well. Science is critical of the material, tangible world. Philosophy is also critical of the material, but it does not limit itself solely to those things which can be known through the senses. By limiting its area of comprehension to the tangible, science is negating the importance of studying the mind and the soul, things which are bigger than the material.
The fifth difference is that while some scientists refuse to recognize the importance of philosophy, philosophy realizes that science is one very important way, but not the only way, to come to an understanding of reality. “Royce raised his critical voice against the sufficiency of science as the final interpreter of things” (“Spirit” 162). The sixth difference is that science uncovers things which were previously unknown while philosophy deals with deepening the understanding of things with which people are already familiar and experienced. The last difference is the way that the two are expressed. Philosophy is explained in common terms and language which all people are able to understand. Science is almost a language within itself, technical and jargon-heavy. This can create a rift between science and people who are just being introduced to it.
Since science is focused on application and use, on having a specific product developed at its end, it seems to fit more logically into the profit-hungry, materialistic world of today than does philosophy. Philosophy should have no “purpose” in the practical or business sense, because philosophy by definition is not thinking towards a goal or thinking for a profit margin, but rather thinking simply for the sake of understanding (“Verteidigungsrede” 112-113). Pieper explains the relationship between philosophy and business in this way: “There is an existential realm (philosophy) in which such categories as ‘profit,’ ‘feasibility,’ ‘usefulness,’ ‘efficiency’ mean nothing, a realm that nevertheless is indispensable for a truly human existence” (“Verteidigungsrede” 112). Materialistic objects guide the world of today; as does pragmatism and the usefulness of some thing or other. Philosophy, since it does not serve a pragmatic purpose, does not mesh with the common idea of useful.
Science undoubtedly seems to serve better functions in present reality, but that should not negate the consequence of philosophy as a discipline. Although philosophy cannot provide a commercial or scientific product, it is still one of the most crucial jobs anyone can undertake. Philosophy is an “inward accomplishment.” By defining purpose and product narrowly through solely tangible, material ways, the entire realm of the mind and the spirit are negated.
Aristotle seemed to say it best, “necessariores omnes, nulla dignior” (“Ã?Â?ber” 111). Simply put, this means that Aristotle believed that philosophy was not as necessary as most other sciences, but was still more important than them. He explained it this way: science is necessary because it provides for the material things that make human survival possible. Philosophy provides nothing to aid these basic needs. Therefore, it is less necessary than the sciences. Philosophy is more important; however, because once survival has been secured and people are living their comfortable lives, only philosophy can evaluate this material existence and ask its meaning (“Ã?Â?ber” 110-11).
Without philosophical consideration, life is without meaning. Philosophy is the only discipline that develops the parts of life that validate it. Without philosophy to uncover or impose order, the world is utter chaos. While science is another way to discover order and banish chaos, it is different from philosophy in a great many ways. Science is usually more profit- or goal-oriented, more materialistically concerned. Philosophy is the only discipline that tackles the really difficult questions, such as the meaning of life or the existence of God. Philosophy, while it can be more specific and concrete than sometimes believed, exists above and beyond purpose; it is pure and theoretical and unassuming. It cannot be driven by want or need, and it cannot be used as a tool of society to gain some other want. It is only the wish to understand and to know.
Pieper, Josef. “Liberal Arts.” Verteidigungsrede fÃ?¼r die Philosophie. KÃ?¶sel-Verlag: Munich, 1966. Pieper, Josef. “The Philosophical Act.” Leisure the Basis of Culture. Pantheon Books, Inc: New York, 1952. 108-109, 116-118. Pieper, Josef. “Ã?Â?ber den Philosophie-Begriff Platons.” Tradition als Herausforderung. KÃ?¶sel-Verlag: Munich, 1963. Smith, John E. The Spirit of American Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York, 1963. Smith, John E. Themes in American Philosophy: Purpose, Experience, and Community. Harper Torchbooks: New York, 1970. Westphal, Fred A. The Activity of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969.
