Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Ryan Mitchell Wittingslow's avatar
  2. Jason Stanley's avatar
  3. Daniel Greco's avatar
  4. Nobody's avatar
  5. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  6. Santa Monica's avatar
  7. Optimistic about LLM's avatar

Steve Pyke’s “Philosophers” on Philosophy

Brian Leiter

The book is now out, and OUP has done a lovely production job on it, and the photos are as distinctive and memorable as anyone familiar with Pyke's work would expect.  But new to me were a number of quotes about philosophy from the photographic subjects.  We've touched on this topic before, but here's a few from the new volume that caught my attention.   (I should add that I strongly disagree with some of these, but find them all interesting and striking nonetheless.)

Malcolm Budd (UCL):

As I understand it, philosophy is the transformation of one's understanding of the world and everything of value within it by means of reflection on the nature of human life, the findings of science, and the great ethical, social, and artistic achievements of humanity.

Stephen Darwall (Yale):

What first attracted me to philosophy, and holds me still, is its universality.  Philosophy is the great equalizer:  anyone can do it, alone or with anyone else, anywhere, anytime.  It requires no special equipment of expertise.  It concerns issues everyone faces, and once they grab you, they don't let go.

Dorothy Edgington (Birkbeck/Oxford):

I was captivated by philosophy as soon as I discovered it.  It's a wonderfully anti-authoritarian subject, making you figure things out for yourself from the start, and to subject all ideas to to severe criticism, including your own.  It stretches the imagination to the limit.  And it is an everlasting source of puzzles.  The downside is that even on the rare occasions when you think you have managed to solve a problem, you never convince many others.

Elizabeth Harman (Princeton):

Philosophy can illuminate and vindicate our attachments and commitments.

Joshua Knobe (Yale):

What first drew me to philosophy was my admiration for those traditional thinkers–Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche–who had no respect for disciplinary boundaries and just tried to think broadly about the questions of human life.  My recent work in "experimental philosophy" is an attempt to go back to this more traditional conception of what philosophical thinking is all about, only this time to do so by conducting actual experimental studie using all the methods of contemporary cognitive science.


John MacFarlane (Berkeley):

Philosophy is sculpture in the medium of questions.  By chipping away what is irrelevant and distinguishing what is confused, it strives to transform intractable muddles into questions that might have answers.

Sidney Morgenbesser (late of Columbia):

Philosophy is the way we have of reinventing ourselves.

Peter Railton (Michigan):

Certain inconvenient questions bugged me, and drew me to philosophy:  Do I have free will?  Can I know anything?  I morality real?  Stumbling on Sartre's Being and Nothingness as a teenager, I felt a great sense of liberation and responsibility.  The mind can make progress un understanding things!  But understanding cannot replace action:  if values are to come to life, we will have to have a hand in it.  I worry:  Other's sacrifices have given me the privilege of pursuing thoughts where they lead–will I have something to give in return?

Mark Schroeder (USC):

Doing philosophy well is as much about creativity, preparation, and imagination as about rigor and argument, as important as those are.  If you want to see something different from what others have already seen, you need to stand someplace different.

Michael Strevens (NYU):

The point of philosophy is to defy common sense.

Crispin Wright (Aberdeen/NYU):

I have never understood Wittgenstein's idea that philosophy should leave ordinary thought and talk alone.  Just as well that the evolutionary penalties for the muddle, schisms, and contradictions that pervade our conceptual lives seem to have been so much milder than they would be for matching levels of bodily dysfunction!  But I agree that it is when it focuses on trying to unravel this heritage of 'knots of the understanding,' rather than indulge in the strange conceit of armchair super-explanations, that philosophy stands to advance our understanding.

So what do readers think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 responses to “Steve Pyke’s “Philosophers” on Philosophy”

  1. Eddy Nahmias

    Perhaps this betrays my Moorean sympathies, but why on earth would the point of philosophy be to "defy common sense" (Strevens)? Question common sense, check common sense, sure. See where common sense is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with what science or other enterprises tell us, yes. But aiming to *defy* common sense seems more likely to lead us astray.

    I love MacFarlane's sculpture metaphor, and lots of the other descriptions of philosophy which indicate the diversity of methods and views of our discipline.

    Reply
  2. Edward Abrams

    I really admire Railton's and Wright's comments. In particular, I like to be reminded that I should think about how I can use what I've learned to give something valuable back to the world, and I think it's insightful (and controversial) to note that evolution seems to have chosen for very different kinds of mental vs physical abilities.

    Reply
  3. Jonathan M. Cohen

    It's fun to hear so many philosophers try to define their vocation when so many of them think that so many others of them are pursuing it in such fundamentally misguided ways. The effect of this is heightened in audio: http://philosophybites.com/2010/11/what-is-philosophy.html.

    For myself, I can only reliably detect philosophy by a certain intuited recognition, as with "redness or the taste of a pineapple" (Russell). In this way, I perceive that much of what philosophers do is not really philosophy, though it is often practically necessary for the philosophy it surrounds; and a little of what non-philosophers do really is philosophy, though these practitioners usually don't recognize that and may even go to pains to deny it. It's a peculiar fate for philosophers, and its nature has a sharply philosophical flavor itself.

    Reply
  4. marty

    Prof. Nahmias,

    "Defy" doesn't exactly mean "contradict." In fact, "defying" implies "challenging" and "refusing to obey", which goes hand in hand with meaningful questioning.

    Reply
  5. Martin Lin

    Marty, I don't think that really captures the meaning of 'defy'. To defy is to declare war against or renounce allegiance to (someone or something). Declaring war or hostility doesn't really go hand in hand with meaningful questioning.

    Reply
  6. anongradstudent

    Common sense is invoked in ordinary contexts as a truth-tracking body of thought whose dictates require no further investigation. Perhaps it is in light of this that we should read Professor Strevens' quotation.

    There is no contradiction in defying common sense by questioning its claim to authority and, on the balance of reasons, agreeing with what common sense is committed to (or agreeing with the "common sense" answer to a question of a community at some place and time).

    Reply
  7. other anon grad

    I've only met Peter Railton once, but I love his answer. I think it captures his philosophical sensibility beautifully.

    Reply
  8. Michael Drake

    Philosophy is what all these comments are about. (Apologies to Moore and/or his detractors.)

    Reply
  9. D.P. O'Connell

    I appreciated Mark Schroeder's comment. I think often students with a strong imagination are passed over for spots in one of the better doctoral programs because, although they have a strong intuitive sense, their skills in logic and argumentation are somewhat lacking. You can teach the latter, but not the former. Down the road, this leads to a lot of dull philosophy and much ink being spilled defending poor intuitions.

    Visiting friends in Brooklyn for the holiday weekend, I had a chance yesterday to hike over to the Flowers Gallery on W. 20th. Although they only have about ten of the photos in large format up on the walls, the most interesting part was a wall of smaller test sheets, where one gets to see the various attempts made (oftentimes ten or twenty or more), to capture the various philosophers. It's well worth seeing if you are in town and have an hour or so.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress