Reinventing Philosophy
© 2008
Aleksandar Kandić
Abstract: Modern era (particularly the 20th century), brought an
increase in number of philosophical and scientific disciplines, an increase whoose
intensity is constantly increasing itself. At first, the natural sciences
declared their independence from the philosophy of nature. Later, the
ramification of natural sciences lead to foundation of many new scientific
disciplines. Analogical developments might be observed in philosophy. What has
been a simple division of philosophical disciplines into physics, logic and
ethics turned into a labyrinth of disciplines. This makes the comprehension of unity of philosophy an extremely
difficult task. These disciplines have to share certain common form: it is in the objects of enquiry, as well as
terminology and methods of investigation where the differences emerge. We claim
here that the unity of philosophy, as
well as science, consists in the mathematical
organization of disciplines and acquired knowledge. In all philosophical
disciplines, such as metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, or even ethics and
aesthetics, as well as all theoretical and practical disciplines aiming to
acquire systematic, justified knowledge, we tend to sort our facts in such a
manner that principles and axioms (which represent the universal, absolute and
self-evident) constitute a foundation of our factual material. Any discipline
which lacks this characteristic cannot properly be called a discipline, but a
pile of unsorted facts, opinions and notions. The current tendencies in science
and philosophy are almost anti-intellectual: multiplicity is being described, not explained. What we need to do is reinvent philosophy.
Key words: unity of philosophy, mathematics, discipline
Modern era (particularly the 20th century),
brought an increase in number of philosophical and scientific disciplines, an
increase whoose intensity is constantly increasing itself. At first, the
natural sciences declared their independence from the philosophy of nature. Later,
the ramification of natural sciences lead to foundation of many new scientific
disciplines, some of which seem to be quite exotic - even for a hard
science-fiction fan. Exobiology, or astrobiology, we are told, is the interdisciplinary
study of life in space, combining aspects of astronomy, biology and geology[1].
Also, there exist a tendency to study each type of empirical phenomena within
the terminological and methodological framework of particular scientific
discipline. For example, limnology (in
brief) is the study of inland waters, both fresh and saline, such as lakes,
rivers, wetlands, etc[2].
The bigger the number of –ologies,
the more difficult is for a man to grasp the interconnectedness of these
disciplines, the common form reappearing through all of them. Providing they
really are scientific disciplines,
they have to share certain common form:
it is in the objects of enquiry, as well as terminology and methods of
investigation where the differences emerge.
Analogical developments might be observed in philosophy, or,
should we say, in what is understood by “philosophy” today. What has been a
simple division of philosophical disciplines into physics, logic (sometimes
identified with epistemology) and, of course, ethics – a division prominent
since the ancient times - turned into a labyrinth of disciplines, some of which
sprung from the need to resolve problems in already established branches of
philosophy, and some of which are spontaneously created in order to provide necessary
criticism as well as terminological and methodological framework to many
new-born scientific disciplines. So, not only that we have philosophy of
science, philosophy of mathematics, physics, language, history, art, etc, but
we also have philosophy of biology, anthropology, psychology, education, we
have bioethics, metaethics, and even philosophy of philosophy, or
metaphilosophy[3]. It
seems that the emergence of “philosophy of exobiology” would not make such a
great surprise anymore. I think this very much answers the provocative question
“Why still philosophy?”, since philosophy is proved to be needed more than
ever. Proportionally, the amount of publications in philosophy has to be the
highest ever: papers, books, studies, they occupy tons of paper. A few
centuries back, it was possible to get hold of any significant publication,
today it’s difficult to follow even those in the branch which is your main
field of interest.
However, quantity does not imply quality! As I have already
pointed out in the first paragraph, such a great number of disciplines and
publications makes the comprehension of unity
of philosophy an extremely difficult task. A professional philosopher is expected
to be updated with publications in his branch, which, on the other hand,
usually prevents him to satisfy his interests in other fields of philosophy, or
science. Simply, he’s short of time. As a consequence, the system produces a
narrow-minded thinker (an oxymoron, that is): while he has gained a respectable
level of understanding and information within his own branch, or discipline, he
is not able to correlate this information to the findings of other disciplines.
Inevitably, he becomes a link in the
chain, without grasping the meaning of the whole chain.
And this problem of unity
of philosophy is what concerns me most. If we all inhabit the same world,
there has to be a principle by which all individuals and their subjective
perspectives are correlated. How could there be two or more first principles?
How could there be two or more true explanations, two or more true
philosophies? For example, Descartes strongly believed that there could be only
one true philosophy. Naturally, there could be infinite ways to express and
formulate such fundamental principles, but it is erroneous to think of such formulations
as principles themselves. This, I believe, is the source of all confusion. It
appears that there could be many solutions to one problem, as well as that many
existing philosophies and philosophical disciplines provide conflicted and
opposed solutions to the same problem. However, in reality, the problem doesn’t know it is a problem.
It is only in our minds, in our subjective, limited perspectives that simple
becomes complicated, and unity becomes multiplicity. Today’s conception of
philosophy is very much different from the genuine: instead to look for some
kind of unifying, a priori principle,
it merely describes and arbitrarily systematizes our numerous experiences. More
and more, philosophy tends to work in the service of empirical, natural
sciences, and - as a consequence - we end up with a growing number of terms,
notions, disciplines, publications etc. This is the situation we have
previously discussed. Everything is
problematized, nothing is solved.
At this point, it would be useful to remind ourselves of what
philosophy is. In my opinion, if one wants to learn about specific concept, the best way to begin is to look for the earliest evidence, particularly
before the subsequent and contemporary developments take effect on one's
understanding of given concept. Among the first thinkers who begun to value
proof and the powers of reasoning, who disregarded mythical thinking, were
Thales, Heraclitus, Zeno of Elea, and the most influential of all, Pyhtagoras.
Therefore, if one wants to learn about philosophy,
one should try to dig out as much evidence as possible on the thinkers
mentioned: that includes their own writings, if available, and the writings of
their criticists, commentators, biographers, etc. Philosophy is what Pythagoras
thought it to be, not an empty word which may be given any meaning that pleases
us mostly, in particular moment. Etymologically, philosophy is love for wisdom.
But, to say that philosophy is love for wisdom seems very implausible and
insufficient. If by wisdom we understand the highest kind of knowledge, what could
be the methods of acquiring such knowledge, and even more important, what could
be its objects? In certain manner, the word philosophy denies that philosophers
can achieve such kind of knowledge: they are nothing but the lovers (or
friends) of wisdom, they do not actually posses it. Still, their reasoning
should imitate – in higher or lesser degree – the structure of true, divine
knowledge. This structure is entirely mathematical.
In this sense, the philosophical method is nothing else but mathematical method
applied to the study of things, and Nature.
What does this mean? One of the most important
concepts in philosophy, mathematics, and generally, science, is the concept of axiom. The word axiom comes from the
Greek word axioma, which means “that
which is deemed worthy”, or “that which is considered self-evident”. In Republic VI, Plato used the term archen anupotheton to denote such
unhypothetical first principle[4].
Axiom is a proposition which is accepted without any proof. In contemporary
mathematics, the concept of axiom is very loose. Any proposition might be
considered an axiom, as long as it’s properly defined in terms of the formal
language we employ, and integrated into the formal system through the rules of
derivation. On the other hand, in ancient
mathematics, axiomatic propositions represent certain universal principles,
things which are abstracted from experience and aren’t a mere product of human
imagination. They are real. They could be utilized as starting points in
explanation. However, is it really appropriate to speak of axioms, of plurality
of principles? Whenever we deal with a plurality of things which are of the
same kind, we feel the need to postulate one thing by which they become what
they are. A plurality of principles would require an explanation of a higher
order, a principle by which these principles are principles. So, instead of
inferring from particular towards universal, we should rather infer from
universal towards particular. We should descend from the first principle. It is
the goal of metaphysician to discover the
first principle of reality.
In all philosophical disciplines, such as metaphysics,
ontology, epistemology, or even ethics and aesthetics, as well as all
theoretical and practical disciplines aiming to acquire systematic, justified
knowledge, we tend to sort facts in such a manner that principles and axioms (which
represent the universal, absolute and self-evident) constitute a foundation of
our factual material. Thus, relative, contingent facts become deducible from the first principles.
Aristotle thought that each science has its own principles, or archai[5].
Our knowledge, then - providing it is systematic - might be represented in the
form of the chain of deductions:
A -> A’ -> A’’
-> A’’’ -> A’’’’ -> A’’’’’ -> ...
“A“ stands for axiom,
the self-evident truth or unhypothetical first principle which constitutes the
foundation of our knowledge. If the causal relations established between the
first principle and all subsequent conclusions are considered necessary, then it is natural to assume
that absolute certainty may be attributed to all of the premises in the chain,
and not only to the first one. And if absolute certainty is transferable
through implication, then any of the subsequent premises might be taken as starting
points in explanation. This is, basically, the idea which distinguishes
philosophical knowledge from ordinary knowledge, dependant on the (highly
unreliable) testimony of the senses.
Historically, this thesis is supported very well. It is
generally accepted that Pythagoras and his followers invented not only the word
“philosophy”, but also the word “mathematics”, which is derived from the Greek
word mathema, and primarily means
learning, study, science. The Pythagoreans also conceived methods, goals and
procedures of the mathematical discipline. They were divided into mathematicians (in ancient Greek, mathematikoi), or those who posses true,
systematic knowledge, and listeners -
as we could translate the Greek word akusmatikoi
- who only transmit information without proper understanding. Furthermore,
Aristotle (in his Metaphysics) stated
that the Pythagoreans thought the principles of mathematics were the principles
of all things[6], and often
compared philosophy to mathematics. And, of course, the great Plato claimed
that “geometry is the knowledge of that which always is, and not of a something
which at some time comes into being and passes away”[7].
As we all know, for ancient Greeks, mathematics was primarily geometry. They
didn’t use algebra, or symbolic representation. Instead, they literally draw
their proofs, they represented them visually.
Having all
this in mind, I conclude that the unity
of philosophy, as well as science, consists in the mathematical organization
of disciplines and acquired knowledge. This is the common form reappearing
through all disciplines. Any discipline which lacks this characteristic cannot
properly be called a discipline, but a pile of unsorted facts, opinions and
notions. The current tendencies in science and philosophy are almost anti-intellectual:
multiplicity is being described, not explained. If
there exists a unique principle, or at least several universal laws necessary
and sufficient to explain the governing of our world, then these laws seem
natural to be rediscovered over and over again by thinkers and great minds of
all times. True knowledge is of that which is unchangeable, timeless, constant,
that which is real in the most
rigorous sense of the word.
What we need
to do is reinvent philosophy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aristotel:
Metafizika; Beograd, Kultura, 1971.
Aristotle:
Metaphysics in The Complete Works of Aristotle;
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton Univeristy Press, 1984.
Barker,
Stefan: Filozofija matematike;
Beograd, Nolit, 1973.
Curley,
E. M: Descartes Against the Skeptics;
Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1978.
Dekart, Rene: Praktična
i jasna pravila rukovođenja duhom u istra˛ivanju istine in
Dekart,
Rene: Rasprava o metodi; Valjevo, PˇM, 1999.
Dekart, Rene: Reč
o metodi dobrog vođenja svoga uma i istra˛ivanja istine u naukama in
Dekart, Rene: Rasprava o metodi,
Valjevo, PˇM, 1999.
Descartes,
René: Discourse
on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason in
Great Books of the
Western World, Vol. 31;
Descartes,
René: Rules for
the Direction of the Mind in Great
Books of the
Western World, Vol. 31;
Guthrie, W. K. C: A History of Greek Philosophy, Vols.
1-6;
Kandić, Aleksandar: Dekartov projekat univerzalne matematike;
http://frag005.com/dekartov-projekat.htm
(30.05.2007.)
Kandić, Aleksandar: Mathematics as a Science of Reality: Pyhtagoras, Plato, Descartes;
http://frag005.com/mathematics-athens.htm
(22.07.2007.)
Kandić, Aleksandar: Mathematics: Modern and Ancient;
http://frag005.com/mathematics-seoul.htm
(21.10.2007.)
Lawlor,
Robert: Sacred Geometry; London,
Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1982.
Pavlović,
Branko: Rasprava o filozofskim osnovama nauka;
Plato:
The Republic in The Collected Dialogues of Plato;
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1989.
Plato:
Timaeus in The Collected Dialogues of Plato;
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1989.
Platon:
Dr˛ava; Beograd, BIGZ, 1993.
Platon:
Timaj; Beograd, Mladost, 1981.