EVOLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY
Throughout history, the study of philosophy has impacted
every culture around the globe, ranging from the ancient
Egyptians, to the founding fathers of the United States of
America. Often debated as a worthless cause, and highly
unscientific, it prevails nonetheless; and
while the many contributors to the recognized sciences are
remembered for what they have done or discovered, their
theories are often laid to rest, and their names are all
that remain as a testament to their greatness. This is not
so with philosophy, for while it too evolves and new methods
are deemed more advantageous to discovery, the basic
questions and fundamental dilemmas that plagued Socrates,
still elude scholars today. The one and only
true difference is, how one goes about searching for the
answers. Whether or not the current methods are indeed
superior,
is
a question that only a
philosopher may answer, or
perhaps
ask.
Socrates was, in his time, considered a
menace
to
society. He challenged people to
question the
ideals
and thoughts that were often
taken as a given truth. Although
no work has
been found that can be said to have been penned by his own
hand, we rely upon scripts most often written by
his pupil Plato, to discover the genius that was
Socrates.
The Socratic Method was that of the dialogue. An
example of this would >be his dialogue with a young
man named Euthyphro who sought to charge his father with the
crime of murder. When questioned as to why Euthyphro
believes it the rightand pious thing to do, to turn his
father in, he responds by saying it is what the gods
command. As the dialogue ensues, Socrates essentially asks
ifsomething>is right because the Gods command it, or do the
Gods command it >because it is right? To agree with the
former is to admit that anything can be deemed right or
wrong at any moment, and that morality then, is arbitrary.
To agree with the latter is to say that there is something
greater than the Gods themselves, for obviously there is a
law that supercedes even them.
As Wikipedia defines it, the Socratic Method
attempts to find truth by eliminating possible
contradictions. While the Socratic method does
allow one to eliminate answers that seem to be faulty, it
does not actually answer any questions
It can be argued that philosophers such as Descartes were
some of the first to attempt what would later be termed
“Analytic Philosophy”, an empirical approach to
questions, for Descartes sought to remove himself from any
idea that could be doubted, and instead search for answers
that could
somehow be proven or could not by
any means be
doubted
(Descartes, 291-297).
Unfortunately, attempts such
as
these to prove
for example, the existence of God, also
fell
short.
They too, were unable to
reconcile their theories without
appealing to a
higher, unknown, or unseen power, leading inevitably into a
circular argument.
Perhaps no true distinction was ever clearly made until
the
time of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
For Kant, the
necessary
thing for
something to be true was that it was
always
the
case. This new definition of truth
spawned a movement that would be called Analytic Philosophy,
forever separating itself from the previous, more
speculative form of inquiry that is now referred to as
Continental Philosophy.
Continental Philosophy most commonly refers to
philosophers from the French and German speaking
countries of the nineteenth and twentieth century, however,
many philosophers associated with Analytic Philosophy
originated from the same countries. Far from dead, both
philosophical methods prevail today, but the Analytic school
of thought is
now
a
decidedly western method.
The greatest indicator of this iss the 20th
century
movement
in America, spawned by
philoosophers such as Frege
and Bertrand Russell, logic.
While neither where of
American
heritage, their ideas spread like wild fire
through
the
western world. Philosophers became entranced
with
the
search for logical language, something that
could
universally communicate and break the barriers
of
misinterpretation.
Logical Positivism, a movement based on the
writings
of
Wittgenstein, took over the philosophical world
nearly
eliminating metaphysics entirely. It demanded
that
all
statements be empirically proven, or be
tautological.
Eventually, as is the case with almost every
movement in
philosophy, Logical Positivism also came to an
end
when
the
question arose, “How can one prove such
statements
true
themselves?” By their own method, logical
positivists
were
discredited.
What remained was the ideal that empiricism
should
fuel
philosophical inquiry. This belief is what
still
defines
Analytic Philosophy today. While the difference
between
Continental and Analytic methods often seems
blurred
and
difficult to find, it is still commonly believed
that
such a
difference exists. The Analytic philosophers
accuse
the
Continentalists of being too vague and too
abstract,
while
in contrast, the continentalists believe the
Analytic
philosophers to be too narrow minded and
restricted.
It
is
a debate that rages on even today.
It is difficult to see which method may actually
be
superior
to the other, and indeed one wonders if there is
any
true
distinction at all. Maybe, it is all really the
same
thing.
Perhaps Socrates was on to something, and the
truth
is,
all
we can really do is continue to ask questions
and
eliminate
the least likely suspects.