Philosophers disagree on almost everything and there
is no hard core of philosophical thinking. That was my conclusion last week.
However, lack of consensus is one thing, lack of progress is something else. As
Chalmers states in his paper quoted last week (p. 9): “Despite this lack of
convergence, it is hard to deny that the insights of Plato and Aristotle, Hume
and Kant, Frege and Russell, Kripke and Lewis have involved significant
philosophical progress.” Now I can examine what this progress involves, but I
think that the result will be anyway that there is no progress comparable with
the progress made in hard sciences like physics, chemistry and biology. But is
the comparison right?
***
Once upon a time there was a field behind my house. It
gave me plenty of space for sitting in the sun and reading a book, but it was
empty. Or so it seemed to me, for actually it was full of weeds and the
insects, butterflies and birds loved it, and the mice and voles liked it, too. However,
it didn’t satisfy my mind and I wanted to change it. So I bought a spade, and
bags of seed and some little trees and fertilizer as well. I made a design and
I started to dig and to sow, and I planted the trees, and I built also a pond.
I looked how others made their gardens, and I copied them or let myself inspire
by their ideas. After a few years I had a beautiful garden with a good
structure and every plant had its place and everything fitted together in a
harmonious way. The insects and butterflies and birds loved my garden even more
than before and the mice and the voles loved it, too, as did the frogs
attracted by the pond and the slugs attracted by the sappy plants. They all
were very satisfied with my garden, but I wasn’t. Or rather, I thought that it
wasn’t bad but it could be better, for everything that is good can be improved,
and so I thought “Let’s make things better”. I restructured my garden, I
removed plants and I replaced them by even more beautiful plants. I replaced
the trees by yet more beautiful trees that even better fitted my garden. After some
time I saw that it had really improved and that I had made a lot of progress in
gardening as well. I had got a lot of knowledge how to make a garden and everybody
praised my expertise. And the insects, butterflies, birds, mice and voles and
also the frogs and slugs praised me by their deeds, for they came in increasingly
bigger quantities to my garden and they were even more pleased with this piece
of land than before.
However, better is not good enough, and although I
thought that my garden was not bad and that it was even better than before, I
got the idea that here a plant should be removed, there one had to be replaced;
elsewhere a plant had to added, and I saw also that the structure of the paths
had to be changed yet a bit. Of course, some time was spent on weeding, too. Again
everyone praised my expertise and insight and the garden became better and
better. And also the wild life in my garden thought so and it came there in still
bigger quantities.
But each person becomes older, and after many years I sold
my garden and I started to philosophize, since it takes less effort. I sold also
my house and moved to the other side of the street and I saw how the new owner
of the garden found it a good place for taking a sunbath and for reading. However,
although he wasn’t really dissatisfied with the garden, he saw some weak points
in it, and since good is not good enough, he thought “let’s make things better”
and so he did and cleared the garden, built it up anew and he liked it, at
least for some time, and everybody else who saw it liked it as well. The
animals in the garden loved it even more than mine, or at least most of them
did. But since better is not good enough ...
***
Once I wrote a blog about
the relation between gardening and philosophizing. Philosophizing can be seen,
I said there, as weeding the thoughts that you have developed till you have an
ordered whole. It is sowing and planting the ideas in your head and structuring
them in the right way. If the result is not satisfactory in some way, you try
to improve it, even when others say that what you did is beautiful. But most of
us – the gardeners – don’t breed the plants and seed ourselves but we leave it
to specialists. And so the quality of our plants improves and they become more
beautiful and they fit better our soil and they are less vulnerable to pests
and weeds, and we call it plant improvement. But they who improve the plants
don’t put them in a garden. That’s what the gardeners do. We the gardeners give
each plant its place and puts it in the structure of the garden so that it
comes out best and fits in the whole. If we are not satisfied with what we made,
we try to do it better, till we become old and leave the job to young gardeners.
I think that this is what philosophers do and what philosophizing involves. Philosophizing is cultivating the fields left and
ignored by the branches of science and giving everything it’s meaningful place
– a place that gives sense to those who see it. As long as we are pleased with
it, we think that we have made things better. But people come and people go and
everyone his mind, for better is not good enough.
2 comments:
I like your blog and am curious about how people consider extreme forms of logic and philosophy. What is your opinion about Solipsism? If Solipsism posits that life, death and anything in between is made manifest as a part of my mind (either conscious or subconscious), then there should be no accidental death. If by no measure of my own intent, do I experience death (murder, rogue bus, poison mushroom, etc.), how does that NOT invalidate the entire theory? Any thoughts?
Hello,
Thank you for your reaction. I must say that I don’t believe that solipsism is true. Cf. Wittgenstein, for example. But if it were true, why to ask this question to me? You could or should answer it yourself, since you are the only mind that exists. If I would give you an answer, it would be your answer, for you are the only mind you can communicate with. So, if I do believe in solipsism, I cannot answer you, and if you don’t, I cannot answer it either, because I don’t agree with your supposition “If Solipsism posits etc.”.
Besides that, I don’t understand well what your question is. What’s an accidental death? Why should it not be possible that it happens? Even if there is only one mind, your mind, i.e. the mind of the thinking and observing person, then it’s still possible that it dies. It would be the end of the world, or anyway of the world of the thinking subject. Whether the thinking solipsistic subject can experience it and whether it would invalidate the idea of solipsism are different questions. Death is an ontological phenomenon, but invalidating a theory is a matter of methodology. In case of the death of solipsistic consciousness, nobody would be there to see whether it really happened and whehter it invalidates solipsism or doesn’t.
I hope that this reply satisfies a bit your question. Anyway, thanks for your reaction.
Henk
Post a Comment