[This is a portion of an essay I've written for my applications to graduate schools. All schools that I'm applying to so far require that applicants submit an essay on why they want to study philosophy. Here's a portion of my essay so far. I'd be happy to receive any advice from philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Those who might consider pointing out that I do not present a Christo-centric view of philosophy should take into account that I'm applying to secular philosophy programs. It's unwise to put one's faith on parade in an application.]
In his preface to Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein states that the work of philosophy as a discipline is to function as a sort of therapy for the traditional way of thinking about such subjects as language, truth, thought, intentionality and even philosophy itself. This therapeutical work aims, as he says in Culture and Value, to produce thoughts that are at peace with one another. This is, however, only one side of the work of philosophy. Wittgenstein’s understanding of the role of philosophy primarily concerns the contribution that philosophy has to make to other fields. As therapists, philosophers have a great deal of listening and learning that they must do in order to have anything to offer. Philosophy must not be concerned exclusively with the business of shaping researchers and scholars in other fields, but must also be concerned with how philosophy may benefit from the findings and developments of those in other fields. In this way, the discipline of philosophy does not stand isolated from the influence of non-philosophers and is not simply the grand shaper of all other forms of thought, but is also grandly shaped itself by the thoughts of others. Given the collective size and scope of all other disciplines, philosophy has more to receive than it has to give. As therapy, philosophy has no message of its own, but is dependent on the work of those outside of formal philosophy before it can articulate its own message.
No discipline gets to do all the talking (qua therapist) while the others do all of the listening (qua patient). But not everyone agrees with this. By way of example, much of the philosophy in the twentieth century held science to be the defining discipline for reality.
As Richard Rorty writes,
“Just as Plato was content to leave the world of appearances to the philodoxers, so many of the logical empiricists were, implicitly or explicitly, content to leave the rest of culture to itself. On their view, once the job of demarcation had been accomplished, once the distinctive nature of science had been accurately described, there was no need to say much about the other activities of human beings. For since man was a rational animal, and science the acme of rationality, science was the paradigmatic human activity. What little there was to say about other areas of culture amounted to a wistful hope that some of them (e.g., philosophy) might themselves become more ’scientific’” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers [Cambridge, 1990], 46).
Over time many philosophers have come to see that drawing the line in the sand between science and the rest of culture is not so easy or objective. For what we consider to be “science” depends largely on what we believe about the rest of culture. Thus, all of science does not have a “givenness” about it that allows for such a tidy detachment from the input of other disciplines. For some philosophers, philosophy was the work of defending the autonomy of science and ensuring its elevation to the place of authoritarian in the hierarchy of disciplines. But philosophy involves all of culture and cannot be isolated to the promotion of one discipline. We know this because the attempt to demarcate the line between science and non-science is itself not a scientific maneuver but a philosophical one. Even understanding the relation of science’s many subdisciplines must be considered an employment of philosophy and not primarily scientific. How we talk about science, the vocabulary we use, and the significance of scientific discoveries are not ahistorical or acultural, but can only take place because of culture and cultural sensibilities.
Of course philosophers have sometimes moved to the opposite end of the spectrum reducing scientific knowledge to the role of feeling or inuition by claiming that the truth of science is not grounded in the facts of the universe.
Philosophy must avoid the temptation to oscillate between the dual extremes of placing a scientific expectation on other disciplines and reducing scientific discovery to cultural whim. It must maintain that scientific discovery can only operate on the basis of a certain set of philosophical assumptions, but it’s discoveries can never be identified with these assumptions.
As philosophers engage in listening to such voices as those in the fields of psychology, the sciences, history, and religion they can formulate their unique contribution to these conversation partners. This significance of this reciprocal relationship of philosophy with that of other disciplines requires that philosophers respect a measure of autonomy in the other disciplines. Philosophy must never be about the task of “baby-sitting” other thinkers by deciding what the message of other disciplines must be. Philosophy minds its business when it respects its own work along with the work in other fields. Philosophers demarcate the parameters of non-philosophers only by recognizing the limits of their own study. Since philosophy does have a definite role to play, philosophers can rightly stipulate how far another’s ideas can go when those ideas encroach on the domain of philosophy. It is not the work of any other discipline to provide a holistic picture of reality, and philosophy can rightly correct this common temptation in scholars from one discipline as it reminds them of what thinkers from other disciplines have discovered and demonstrates the import of ideas it has learned from other disciplines. In this way philosophy has a work like no other. It is fitting to offer theories of metaphysics, knowledge, aesthetics, ethics, etc. by incorporating and relating the findings of non-philosophers. Philosophy takes concepts which are rooted in reality and wards off false beliefs that may develop about it (Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy, 244).
To do their work well, philosophers then must take interest in everything, not as “know-it-alls” but as students of others. Recognizing this approach to philosophy has produced respect for the work of non-philosophers and fueled my interest in the study of “everything.” One need not have a complicated motivation for the study of philosophy. In fact, it need go no further than an accute interest in what fascinates all of us. A broad appreciation for many disciplines is a sufficient motivation. I study philosophy because my fascination is too broad to settle on the study of one particular thing. My desire to study philosophy is, therefore, rather plain and simple: I study philosophy because I enjoy the privilege of the study of everything.
My thesis on the subject started out, “I hope to develop the skill to win an argument with a woman.” I got into graduate school, but at the time there didn’t happen to be many women on the faculty of my department.
The snippet from your essay that you share recognizes that philosophy has a specific role within our various fields of thought, though it’s a bit unclear to me what you see this role to be. Discussing your line in the sand beyond which philosophy should not go will want more development – most of us are inclined to be deeply invasive about ethics.
Yep, I enjoy a dangerous sampling of knowledge from many fields, too. Wasn’t it a lovely time when philosophy was the king of sciences.
Barelysage,
Thanks for your input. I’m cautious to define more specifically what the role of philosophy is because I don’t want to come across too dogmatic in my essay for application, though perhaps in some strange irony that could benefit me.
I’m not sure what era and culture you are referring to when you speak of the lovely time when philosophy was king of sciences. I don’t think that philosophy was ever viewed as king of the sciences by anyone other than a philosopher. Nevertheless, calling philosophy king of the sciences goes against my point. Philosophy is not king. It doesn’t place everything under its authority. Philosophy must receive before it can give.
Good luck on your fresh, young blog.
John,
Sorry to have been away from your blog for so long. It’s been a tough month for me, and–though I have wanted to–I just haven’t gotten around to interacting with your posts.
I like your approach and have nothing to add to it, really. You do a good job of showing–through your use of sources, that you have familiarity with the thoughts of philosphers about philosophy. I would hope that would go a long way to show your seriousness about the discipline. Also, the philosopher as a learner approach works very well in this kind of an essay–it communicates your interest in philosophy without sounding challenging or intimidating.
The only critique I would have is a small one, and I am rather ambivalent about it. While I myself would prefer it to be more clearly written (you probably knew that before I said it), I understand that the ego of the academic is often most effectively stroked by abstruse language about ordinary things. Since those evaluating your application will almost certainly be academics, I suppose it is better not to say things too plainly.
Perhaps, once you have secured acceptance to the program of your choice, you could develop the practice of writing two versions of everything: one designed to actually be helpful (written in plain language); the other designed to appease the academics around you (the less clarity the better)!
KWR