Last week I discussed the Principle of
Charity, especially the version developed by Donald Davidson. It says – to put
it in another way – that “in seeking to understand a point of view ... we seek
to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before
subjecting the view to evaluation.” (1) Such a principle is a methodological
rule. It is a rule for cogent philosophy in order to get the best philosophical
results. A methodological rule like this “represents a guideline to be followed
if error is to be avoided.” “It is not a philosophical thesis or doctrine that
purports to answer to some substantive philosophical question, [but] a rule of
procedure that specifies a modus operandi, a way of proceeding in the course of
philosophizing.” (2) Such a philosophical thesis says for example, “Ought
implies can” (Kant), or “that it is fine for the rich to get richer only if the
poor always become richer than they would have done had the wealthy been held
back.” (the difference principle, formulated by John Rawls) (3)
Nicholas Rescher distinguishes several
kinds of methodological principles of philosophy (4), which I’ll ignore here.
Instead I want to put forward a few principles by way of illustration. The
selection is arbitrary, and reflects more what I consider interesting than
philosophical significance.
- Occam’s
Razor. This principle has different formulations, but basically it says
that you must remove everything that is superfluous in your argumentation. The principle
has been named after William of Ockham, a medieval philosopher who lived from
1288-1348. However, the principle was already known before Ockham, and it has
also been worded by philosophers after him. Strangely enough, the principle
cannot be found in Ockham’s writings, although the idea is present, so it is to
be wondered why the principle has been named just after him.
- Nothing is without a reason, better known
as the principle of sufficient reason. This principle has been formulated
by G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716) and says that nothing must be maintained without a
substantive reason. Don’t state what hasn’t a sound basis. There is also an
ontological version of this principle, saying that everything in the world has
a reason why it is. (5)
- The
falsification principle, brought forward by Karl R. Popper. It says that
you must look for arguments that undermine your views and the views developed
by others and not for arguments that sustain them. The latter can always be
found and will not make a view better, but the former lead to scientific and
philosophical progress. If your theory is that all swans are white and you have
seen already ten white swans, then the eleventh white swan that you observe
will not make your theory better, but a black swan will do.
- Never
explain what is obscure by something yet more so. If you replace in this
principle the word “explain” by its synonym “make clear”, it becomes a tautology.
It’s the purpose of philosophy to elucidate, not to obfuscate. (6) David Hume
(1711-1776) formulated a related principle, the
principle of evidence. This says that a weaker evidence can never destroy a
stronger.
Voilà some methodological principles of
philosophy. Principles like these help solve philosophical problems and they
provide powerful rules of thought. What remains, however, is how to choose our
problems. There can be many reasons to consider a topic relevant for
philosophical discussion, but at least one principle must guide your choice: Never flog a dead horse, that is don’t argue
against that which nobody maintains. (7)
Notes
(2) Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialects. An Essay on Metaphilosophy. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2006. Quoted from https://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61262.pdf
, p. 2
(3) As worded by Julian Baggini on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1279320/Ten-greatest-Philosophical-principles.html
(4) p. 3 (see note 1). – (5) id. p.5. – (6) id. p.8. –
(7) id. p.15.
No comments:
Post a Comment