Philosophy
Philosophy(“love of wisdom”) is considered to be the study of general and fundamental questions about ourselves and the world, such as those about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
To philosophize, then, we must first try to understand exactly how these words are used and what they mean, to try to study them systematically by isolating the common and fixed elements of their meanings. We should try to give a definition that will allow us not to confuse one with the other, without a clear understanding of the meanings expressed by these words, it is not possible to proceed to the investigation of philosophical problems.
Philosophy as an activity
Philosophy we could say is an activity, and to understand what it is, you must engage with the different kinds of philosophical problems, questions and arguments.
We can characterize philosophy as the activity of working out the right way to think about things.
Philosophy in that sense is thought on thought itself and its possibilities, it’s to learn how to think.
It is thought (actively engaging with these questions), self-dialogue (puzzling on them, articulating your own thoughts about them) and dialogue (considering how you can defend these thoughts in response to those who disagree with you).
Philosophy needs understanding, critical evaluation and dispute.
It does not stay at the level of simple curiosity but becomes a serious, methodical and systematic engagement.
Philosophy, questioning and logic
Philosophers, invite us to try to justify even our most basic beliefs, those we have gained from our experience or from our family, our school, our teachers and friends, but also those we accept as preconditions when we begin the study of science. As paradoxical and extreme as their request for justification sometimes sounds, we must try to satisfy it. Even if we fail, it is good to know why we failed. We need to see how far we can go and thus detect the limits of our rational abilities.
The critical attitude that philosophers adopt towards key issues is considered by many to be dangerous, as it shakes our certainties and possibly undermines our faith in religion, traditions and the political institutions of our society.
For this reason philosophy is hard precisely because it asks questions about things that we usually take for granted while we get on with our lives.
Philosophy is the process of trying to find answers, using reasoning rather than accepting without question conventional views or traditional authority.
The very first philosophers, in ancient Greece and China, were thinkers who were not satisfied with the established explanations provided by religion, tradition and customs and sought answers which had rational justifications.
Throughout history the way people have lived in the world has presupposed particular ways of thinking about things that, once they have been brought out into the open and examined, look clearly and disastrously wrong.
We should also wonder whether we might be thinking about, and acting in, the world in ways that will seem crazy to future generations.
Philosophy and science
Philosophers do not hesitate to remind us that our senses, but also our logic, often err and that what we accept as obvious in our daily lives may change, as the principles that guide scientific research often change.
Philosophy therefore comes “before” the sciences – to help them establish their principles, to better define their concepts and to organize their methods, in order to facilitate their work – but also “after” them – to summarize and interpret the findings of their research.
Often the relationship between science and philosophy is a back-and-forth affair, with ideas from one informing the other.
Philosophy is not simply about ideas—it’s a way of thinking. There are frequently no right or wrong
answers, and different philosophers often come to radically different conclusions in their investigations into questions that science cannot explain.
Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge, “natural philosophy” encompassed astronomy, medicine, and physics which now are sciences.
The growth of modern research universities led academic philosophy and other disciplines to specialize. Since then, various areas of investigation that were traditionally part of philosophy have become separate academic disciplines and namely the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and economics.
Philosophy and its occasional subject-matter
It seems that in any field we can always take a step back from our research, try to have a clear picture of the framework or the set of conditions that shape our research and wonder if this framework is the best for the subject under research.
This is the distinction between actually doing something and doing the philosophy of it.
The challenges to our way of thinking can either come from inside, as in cases when we realize that the framework we’re using to think about things is unstable or knotty, or from outside, as when the puzzles and unexplained events with which the world confronts our current way of thinking become so widespread that we’re forced to look for a new framework that makes better sense of things, that is to try to identify the presuppositions that inform our investigation, and think about whether they’re the best ones.
The relationship between the findings that provide us with food for thought, and the subsequent thinking that feeds off them, is an intricate one – and it’s this kind of relationship that can make the boundaries between philosophy and other subjects blurry.
Philosophical dialogue
In philosophy, we make a special effort to make our thinking about the evidence, the reasons for thinking and acting that the evidence suggests, the conclusion we draw from weighing up those reasons, and the transition between each of these stages and the next, as clear and uncontroversial as we can.
Philosophers spend their time trying to come up with evidence and chains of reasoning that point us toward the right way of thinking about something, when having a philosophical dialogue they don’t try to “win” a debate in the eyes of the world or insult their opponent.
In response to someones arguments, they might be moved to defend, clarify, or modify their own views. When doing philosophy, the conversation partners whom we’re trying to get to share our views needn’t be real, or present, we might instead be trying to clarify or convince ourselves of a view in response to some doubts or questions that we ourselves have, or we might be considering how a past philosopher or some other figure might react to the views we hold and our reasons for holding them. This process of shaping and articulating our views in response to real or imagined others, such that we not only understand our own views better, but can explain to others why they’re the right ones, is central to philosophy.
David Hume on philosophy
David Hume had a sceptical view of the prospects of philosophy, for Hume the most important constraint on philosophy is that it should stay completely faithful to what our experience of the world tells us,
but he argued that philosophy can only show how we happen to think of the world, not whether this corresponds to the way the world is.
Hume thought that when we consider things carefully, our experience of the world doesn’t tell us nearly as much as we think. Our thinking can only ever reveal the particular habits that we happen to have of associating ideas and drawing conclusions, based on our impressions of the world(as involving space, time and causation). Whether these habits of thinking correspond well to the way the world actually is, that’s simply something we can never know.
So for him the project of trying to work our way towards the ‘best’ way of thinking about things is futile. Although we might be able to come to a clear view of the way in which we do in fact think about things, Hume thought we simply couldn’t address the question of whether that way of thinking was doing a good or a bad job of representing the world.
Immanuel Kant on philosophy
Immanuel Kant famously said that Hume’s philosophy awoke him from his dogmatic slumbers, he set himself the task of showing that philosophy could reveal more than just the arbitrary rules and patterns that our thought happens to follow, his important claim is that the rules and patterns that our thought follows are also the rules and patterns that the world which we are thinking about follows, he thinks that this is the case because the very idea of a world that doesn’t conform to the rules and patterns of our mind is nonsensical. The world must conform to the rules that our thought follows, because it turns out that the same rules express what it takes for a world to be present for us to think. What does it mean for a world to exist? It means that rules (such as space, time, and causality) necessarily exist in reality and not just in the way we perceive the world, because once we try to articulate the possibility of a world without them, we no longer think something we can call a world, a world without them is unthinkable, it can not exist, so, only by experiencing a world, the existence of these rules is presupposed, because of this, the right way of thinking about things, for Kant, is the way that rational thinking would ultimately lead us to if we followed it to its proper conclusions, many of the important patterns in our ways of thinking about the world are just the right ones to put us in touch with the world.
Hilary Putnam on philosophy
Hilary Putnam says, philosophy needs vision and argument. There is something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains arguments, however good, which were not inspired by some genuine vision. And something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains a vision, however inspiring, which is unsupported by arguments.
We need to do more than just try and identify and assess the premises that it’s using, and see if it’s a valid argument. I think we also need to think about the vision, the big picture that inspires that argument. What’s the person who’s putting forward the argument really trying to say? What are they really trying to get at? And can we even perhaps do a better job of trying to articulate that and get at what they’re trying to say than they can.
Karl Jaspers on philosophy
Karl Jaspers said “Philosophy is: to be on the move towards. “Its questions are more substantial than its answers, and each answer turns into a new question.”
The branches of philosophy
Today, major branches/subfields of academic philosophy include:
1.Metaphysics which is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and its general features such as existence, time, the objects and their properties, wholes and their parts, events, processes, causation and the relationship between mind and body.
Metaphysics include cosmology, the study of the world in its entirety and ontology, the study of being.
Trys to answer questions like, What is the nature of whatever it is that exists? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there such a thing as a soul?
2.Epistemology which studies the nature of knowledge and belief
so it examines knowledge, if it’s even possible, the kinds and the sources of knowledge including perceptual experience, reason, memory, and testimony. It also investigates questions about the nature of truth, belief, justification, and rationality.
Trys to answer questions like, What is knowledge? What is the nature of knowledge? What is it that determines whether or not someone knows something? Do we have any knowledge? Can we have any knowledge?
3.Logic which is the study of reasoning and argument, the rules of inference that allow one to derive conclusions from premises which is like a mathematical proof.
Types of reasoning include deductive, inductive, and abductive
and types of logic include among others mathematical logic, philosophical logic, modal logic, computational logic, propositional logic and non-classical logics.
Logic could be considered a separate branch of philosophy, but for most philosophers it is mainly the instrument of sound intellect, which is necessary not only for every form of philosophical activity, but also for all sciences.
A large part of the problem is that philosophical logic, unlike mathematics, is expressed in words rather than numbers or symbols, and is subject to all the ambiguities and subtleties inherent in language. Constructing a reasoned argument involves using language carefully and accurately, examining our statements and arguments to make sure they mean what we think they mean; and when we study other people’s arguments, we have to analyze not only the logical steps they take, but also the language they use.
The next three branches are linked subjects, under the general headings of value theory and practical philosophy as they involve a normative or evaluative aspect, searching and evaluating values that will regulate our actions and guide us in the organization of our lives.
4.Morality(Ethics) studies what constitutes good and bad conduct, right and wrong moral values, and good and evil. Its primary investigations include how to live a good life and identifying standards of morality. It also includes investigating whether or not there is a best way to live. The main branches of ethics are normative ethics, meta-ethics and applied ethics.
5.Aesthetics which studies the nature of art, beauty, taste, enjoyment, emotional values, perception and the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more precisely defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. Its major divisions are art theory, literary theory, film theory and music theory.
6.Political philosophy which is the study of government, organization and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state.It includes questions about justice, law, property and the rights and obligations of the citizen.
Other notable subfields include philosophy of science, philosophy of language, philosophy of religion, philosophy of history and philosophy of mind.
The branches/subfields of philosophy sometimes can overlap with each other and overlap with other fields such as science, religion or mathematics.
When we are trying to explain what philosophy is we unavoidably talk metaphilosophicaly.
Metaphilosophy
Metaphilosophy, sometimes called the philosophy of philosophy, is considered to be “the investigation of the nature of philosophy”. Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods. Metaphilosophy is asking what is philosophy itself, what sorts of questions it should ask, how it might pose and answer them, and what it can achieve in doing so.
Part of philosophy or above it?
It is considered by some to be a subject apart or prior and preparatory to philosophy, above or beyond it, some think it’s a more fundamental undertaking than philosophy itself, others see metaphilosophy as inherently a part of philosophy, or automatically a part of it and prefer the term ‘philosophy of philosophy’ instead of ‘metaphilosophy’ as it avoids the connotation of a superior activity that looks down on philosophy, while others adopt some combination of these views.
Branches of metaphilosophy
Many sub-disciplines of philosophy have their own branch of ‘metaphilosophy’, examples being meta-aesthetics, meta-epistemology, meta-ethics, and metametaphysics (meta-ontology).
What are the aims of philosophy?
Some philosophers like existentialists and pragmatists think philosophy is ultimately a practical discipline that should help us lead meaningful and happy lives, others like analytic philosophers think that it should help us find truth and knowledge, they see philosophy as a technical, formal, and entirely theoretical discipline, with goals such as “the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake”, others think the aim is to help us find goodness and justice, others think the aim is to help us have understanding or wisdom, others might say that all of the above are aims philosophy should have and others disagree with all these aims, some even say that it makes no sense to talk about the aim of philosophy at all.
What are the boundaries of philosophy?
While there is some agreement that philosophy involves general or fundamental topics, there is no clear agreement about a series of demarcation issues, including:
1.Some authors say that philosophical inquiry is second-order, having concepts, theories and presupposition as its subject matter; that it is “thinking about thinking”, that philosophers study, rather than use, the concepts that structure our thinking.
However, others warn that this is not always clear: philosophical problems may be tamed by the advance of a discipline, and the conduct of a discipline may be swayed by philosophical reflection.
Second order means analysis and critique of theories and the presuppositions of the theories
while first order means use of theories uncritically.
2.Some philosophers like analytical philosophers argue that philosophy is distinct from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, that is, by observation or experiment and empirical questions are to be answered by science, not philosophy, this is a kind of metaphilosophical non-naturalism.
However, some schools of contemporary philosophy such as the pragmatists and naturalistic epistemologists argue that philosophy should be linked to science and should be scientific in the broad sense of that term, “preferring to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry” or that at least philosophers should pay attention to the science because it can tell us a lot about traditional philosophical debates, this is the weak version of metaphilosophical naturalism, the strong version says that science can supplant philosophy in some philosophical debates and the other debates, that science can’t help, aren’t even worth pursuing.
3.Some argue that philosophy is distinct from religion in that it allows no place for faith or revelation: that philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but instead uses reason. However, philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Peter Damian have argued that philosophy is the “handmaiden of theology”.
What are the methods of philosophy?
Philosophical method or methodology is the study of how to do philosophy. A common view among philosophers is that philosophy is distinguished by the ways that philosophers follow in addressing philosophical questions. There is not just one method that philosophers use to answer philosophical questions, different methods are appropriate for different goals, so it depends on what question you are trying to answer.
Nevertheless there are methods discarded by some philosophers and some that are being deemed more useful or important.
Philosophical methods include:
1.Rational argument, which is widely accepted.
2.Conceptual analysis which is mainly the process of breaking a complex topic into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it, for example instead of saying x is a triangle, we are saying x is a shape with exactly three angles, we can tell whether a given analysis is right usually by using “the method of cases” where we are trying to find a case which the analysis fails and if so the analysis is wrong otherwise it’s right, for example if an analysis says that all fruits have seeds and we find a case of a fruit without seeds we debunk that analysis, so by generating a case where, intuitively, we recognize that a claim of a theory is false. This of course makes use of another philosophical method which is intuition.
One objection to this method is that the assumption of conceptual analysis is that concepts work like definitions but other views say that a concept applies to an item just in case the item shares a sufficient but vague number of properties with typical cases of that concept,
for example apples and oranges are typical cases of the concept fruit, we all immediately recognize those as fruits, other items are then judged to be fruits on the basis of relevant similarities with those typical cases of fruits or on the basis of relevant differences with those fruits, this generates unclear cases such as the tomato.
Another objection is that every proposed analysis seems to face counterexamples, the more we analyze something it’s easy to find a case where it’s mistaken for example justified true belief used to be considered the definition of knowledge but not anymore since many cases have been presented in which this definition fails.
3.Conceptual engineering which focuses on how to best assess and improve our conceptual schemes. It’s the design, implementation and evaluation of concepts, it involves designing new concepts or revising old concepts. Whereas conceptual analysis is descriptive and concerned with revealing the logical relations between our concepts as they currently are, tries to answer the question, is this definition correct or incorrect? Conceptual engineering is revisionary and trys to answer the question, is this definition useful for our concept, is it satisfactory and simple? Does it help us to systematize our knowledge? Concepts we currently use may be vague, incoherent or problematic so we should try to develop a revised concept, a concept that can play all of the important roles that the current concept plays without all the incoherencies the current concept had which will be more useful depending on what our goal is, for example the concept of knowledge
can be problematic so it may be more appropriate to fragment the concept to provide one account of the abstract scientific knowlege like in general relativity and one account of the basic perceptual knowledge like when a dog knows there is a cat on the tree. The argument in favor of conceptual engineering from Cappelen called the master argument goes like this:
If a word has a specific meaning, there are similar meanings it could have.
There is no reason to suppose that the current meaning is the best meaning this word could have.(Given our goals)
It is important to ensure that our words have the best meanings possible.
As a corollary, when doing philosophy, we should try to find the best meanings for philosophical terms.
Therefore philosophers should do conceptual enginnering.
4.Intuition which is the power of obtaining knowledge that cannot be acquired either by inference or observation, neither by reason nor experience. It’s in a sense automatic or instictively recognizing features of our ideas about the world such as that a square is not a circle without needing systematic reasoning.
Some philosophers have cast doubt about intuition as a basic tool in philosophical inquiry, they discard intuition as it is often affected by irrelevant factors, can be relative, unreliable and often wrong.
5.Experimental philosophy which is a form of philosophical inquiry that makes at least partial use of empirical research—especially opinion polling—in order to address persistent philosophical questions. This is in contrast with the methods found in analytic philosophy, whereby some say philosophers will sometimes begin by appealing to their intuitions on an issue and then form an argument with those intuitions as premises.
6.Empirical philosophy which is the pursuit of knowledge by means of observation and experiment rather than theoretical analysis or speculation.
7.Formal philosophy which is an approach with formalized language and systematic presentation,
the main idea is that by formalization it is possible to infer the truth value and propositional content directly from grammar and syntax. The ultimate goal is a perfect scientific language where equivocations and misunderstandings are impossible (like in mathematics), but still a language.
8.Linguistic philosophy or analysis which is the view that many or all philosophical problems can be solved (or dissolved) by paying closer attention to language, either by reforming language or by understanding the everyday language that we presently use better.
9.Computational philosophy which is the use of mechanized computational techniques to instantiate, extend, and amplify philosophical research.
10.The genealogical method which is a historical technique in which one questions the commonly understood emergence of various philosophical and social beliefs like tracking the lineages of a concept, not just documenting its changing meaning (etymology) but the social basis of its changing meaning, thus extending the possibility of analysis.
11.Thought experiments
12.Questioning and critical discussion
(such as the socratic method)
Is there philosophical progress?
A prominent question in metaphilosophy is that of whether or not philosophical progress occurs and more so, whether such progress in philosophy is even possible.
Many philosophical debates that began in ancient times are still debated today.
Some say that no philosophical progress has occurred since then, or that it’s at least very little.
Others see progress in philosophy similar to that in science. Meanwhile, some, argue that “progress” is the wrong standard by which to judge philosophical activity.
It has even been disputed, most notably by Ludwig Wittgenstein, whether genuine philosophical problems actually exist. The opposite has also been claimed, for example by Karl Popper, who held that such problems do exist, that they are solvable, and that he had actually found definite solutions to some of them.
Friedrich Schlegel’s metaphilosophy
Friedrich Schlegel observed that there was little philosophizing about philosophy (metaphilosophy), implying that we should question both how Western philosophy functions and its assumption that a linear type of argument is the best approach. Schlegel disagrees with the approaches of Aristotle and René Descartes, saying they are wrong to assume that there are solid “first principles” that can form a starting point. He also thinks that it is not possible to reach any final answers, because every conclusion of an argument can be endlessly perfected. Describing his own approach, reflexivity Schlegel says philosophy must always “start in the middle… it is a whole, and the path to recognizing it is no straight line but a circle.” His contemporary, Georg Hegel, took up the cause for
reflexivity—the modern name for applying philosophical methods to the subject of philosophy itself.
Bertrand Russell’s metaphilosophy
Bertrand Russell wrote: “We may note one peculiar feature of philosophy. If someone asks the question what is mathematics, we can give him a dictionary definition, as far as it goes this is an uncontroversial statement… Definitions may be given in this way of any field where a body of definite knowledge exists. But philosophy cannot be so defined. Any definition is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude. The only way to find out what philosophy is, is to do philosophy.“
Martin Heidegger’s metaphilosophy
Martin Heidegger said: When we ask, “What is philosophy?” we are obviously taking a stand above and, therefore, outside of philosophy. But the aim of our question is to enter into philosophy, to tarry in it, to conduct ourselves in its manner, that is, to “philosophize”. The path of our discussion must, therefore, not only have a clear direction, but this direction must at the same time give us the guarantee that we are moving within philosophy and not outside of it and around it.
Gilbert Ryle’s metaphilosophy
Many philosophers have expressed doubts over the value of metaphilosophy. Among them is Gilbert Ryle that said: “preoccupation with questions about methods tends to distract us from prosecuting the methods themselves. We run as a rule, worse, not better, if we think a lot about our feet. So let us … not speak of it all but just do` it.“
Henry Odera Oruka’s metaphilosophy
Henry Odera Oruka looks at why philosophy in sub-Saharan Africa has often been overlooked, and concludes that it is because it is primarily an oral tradition, while
philosophers in general tend to work with written texts. Some people have claimed that philosophy is necessarily connected with written recording, but Oruka disagrees. In order to explore philosophy
within the oral traditions of Africa, Oruka proposed an approach that he called “philosophic sagacity”.His metaphilosophical approach is ethnography he borrowed the ethnographic approach of anthropology, where people are observed in their everyday settings, and their thoughts and actions recorded in context. He recorded conversations with people who were considered wise by their local community. Those sages who had critically examined their ideas about traditional philosophical topics, such as God or freedom, and found a rational foundation for them could,
Oruka believes, be considered philosophic sages. These systematic views deserve to be explored in
the light of wider philosophical concerns and questions.
Through metaphilosophical pondering some people reached antiphilosophy.
Antiphilosophy
Antiphilosophy has been used as a denigrating word from people such as anti-intellectuals (even intellectual anti-intellectuals), proponents of radical antiphilosophy that are trying to discredit and outstrip the philosophers relation to truth, some natural scientists that argue for the exclusivity of the scientific method as the only sound method and religious fundamentalists that rely on blind faith
but antiphilosophy has been used also with more neutral or positive connotations as an opposition to traditional philosophy. Antiphilosophy in this sense is anti-theoretical, critical of a priori or preconceived justifications.
The death of philosophy
The antiphilosophers against traditional philosophy argue that, when the need for eternal answers goes then the obsession to pose questions dealing with eternal ideas (philosophic ideas that have tried to escape time and history and focus on eternity and ahistoricity), limits or so-called transcendentals (those that transcend the limits of every possible experience) have ended. It’s a disease we got rid of.
With the need, the wish not to express universal questions or try to think absolute,
one loses the need to search for and devise universally true and absolute answers. This is why the death of philosophy occurred.
What is wrong with philosophy? It’s the
way of dealing (often not logical, ‘philosophical’thinking and reasoning) with subject-matter.
The purpose of philosophy is not to discover or
develop new or more factual information or knowledge as is the case with the sciences, humanities, linguistics etc. The purpose of philosophy is to clarify things we think and say, to identify misleading notions, misleading ways of expressing and employing ideas, misleading and confused reasons for doing such things, to become clear about the reasons for philosophizing, to be aware when misleading speculations and generalizations are made, not to become involved in making such generalizations and speculations in the name of philosophy, as this discourse is unable to make such things.
The thinkers must be clear about the discourse they wish to employ and the transcendentals of the discourse (assumptions, frames of reference, terms, aims, etc), and not acting like those are philosophical.
Anti-academia
Some antiphilosophers against traditional philosophy argue that, academic thinkers who work in philosophy and who employ this discourse for motives of their own, for example for their professional lives, such individuals who live off philosophy use this practice to produce articles,books etc as part of their professional role, to add to their status, to their names and professional qualifications. Such individuals find an endless list of possible topics, they become involved in fields that cross into other disciplines, they imagine that they work in the discourse of philosophy while in fact they already crossed into another discourse and involved in socio-cultural practices that are no longer philosophical. They are more concerned with working within their uncritically accepted notion of what philosophy is, what it must be and what it should be. We find such ideological notions of philosophy underlying most if not all academic philosophy, by paid to think ‘philosophers’ do not ask questions that shatters, destroy, revolutionize and transform philosophy.
From knowledge to wisdom
Some antiphilosophers against traditional philosophy argue that, original and creative thinkers in the philosophical discourse transform the discourse itself by their
philosophizing. This type of thinkers questions the nature of the discourse
itself. They ask questions about the basis, the origin, the nature and other transcendentals of this
socio-cultural practice. They question existence, human existence, culture, philosophy itself, even themselves and their own life and existence, what are the rational of such things, what is the purpose and the point and meaning of these things.
Some of the transcendentals that are questioned by this type of in-depth, original enquiry concerns underlying assumptions and pre-suppositions.
We need a revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry, so that the basic aim
becomes to promote wisdom by rational means, instead of just to acquire knowledge, data and information.
An Example of antiphilosophical positions on Ethics
The antiphilosophers could argue that, with regard to ethics, there is only practical, ordinary reasoning. Therefore, it is wrong to a priori impose overarching ideas of what is good for philosophical reasons. For example, it is wrong to blanketly assume that only happiness matters, as in utilitarianism. This is not to say though that some utilitarian-like argument can’t be valid when it comes to what is right in some particular case.
This is a type of particularism.
An Example of antiphilosophical positions on Metaphysics (Ontology)
The antiphilosophers could argue that they do not subscribe to or commit themselves to
one ontological position, for example idealist, realist, naturalist, etc., therefore do not have an
ontology, but they employ ontologies in a functional manner, so a functional ontologism. They employ, merely temporarily the appropriate ontology for a particular context so as to make sense of the contents of that context, of what the writer, actor or creator of a context wishes to express, depict or communicate. This is obviously only a temporary commitment, a functional tool, and it depends on the context that the author uses. Therefore can employ multiple, context related ontologies, in a temporary manner for their functionality, as if they are tools. Then after having made sense ‘empathically’ of the contents of the context, they can suspend these ontologies so as to be able to view and deal with the context more objectively.
This is a type of ontological anarchism.
An Example of antiphilosophical positions on Epistemology
The antiphilosophers could argue that they are not particularly concerned about truth, beliefs being justified or not and more interested if something has meaning or not, if what someone says or does is meaningful when taken in the context it is expressed in.
Ludwig Wittgenstein‘s antiphilosophy
The views of Ludwig Wittgenstein, specifically his metaphilosophy, could be said to be antiphilosophy.
Wittgenstein claims that there are no realms of phenomena whose study is the special business of a philosopher, and about which he or she should devise profound apriori theories (apriori is something that can be acquired independently of experience) and sophisticated supporting arguments. There are no startling discoveries to be made of facts, not open to the methods of science, yet accessible “from the armchair” through some blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis.
Other antiphilosophies
Other schools of thought that have also been considered to be an antiphilosophy are the ancient skeptics, pyrrhonism, radical empiricists, naive realists, some existentialists, some pragmatists and some Marxists.
To do the test press on the link bellow:
