Once given the list: logic, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics and politics, many people acknowledge that they have heard of, at least, three out of the five core areas of philosophy. Knowledge of the core areas is thus prerequisite for analysis of famous authors in the history of philosophy or for doing philosophy oneself. Just the mere attempt to to read an academic journal of philosophy or browse any encyclopedia of philosophy will make this clear. Whatever one chooses to read from Aquinas or Avicenna, Berkeley or Bacon, Confucius or Cicero, Descartes or Dewey and so on from A to Z, the ability to analyze any of that assumes a knowledge of the core areas.
For those just getting started, an historical approach to the study of philosophy would be easier. This approach represents a concern with who came first and said what. Who has responded to whom about what? This approach, which is also prerequisite knowledge for modern philosophy, shows that philosophical knowledge has been advancing and, like experts in any other discipline, philosophers do make discoveries. In the area of logic, syllogisms were early discoveries. One doesn't study modern symbolic logic without first learning about valid argument forms from Aristotle. The creation of truth tables, from the last century led to binary logic which in turn led to circuit logic and computer science. Science itself is based largely on understanding knowledge acquisition through inductive logic which is a subject in epistemology. One eventually learns what contemporary philosophers are doing and why.
Besides the historical approach, there is the topical approach. Rationalism vs. Empiricism, for example, is a common core course in most any philosophy program. In fact, given the broad range of topics available, univerisities can specialize with offerings in branch areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of religion, the foundations of mathematics, the philosophy of law, the philosophy of education and so on.
But among the five core areas of philosophy, metaphysics arguably deserves special mention because this is the area that has led to the most stereotypes of what philosophy is or what philosophers do. Is philosophy an arm chair activity--the contemplation of obtuse conundrums, of no practical consequence? There is more to metaphysics than a source of good jokes like:
For those just getting started, an historical approach to the study of philosophy would be easier. This approach represents a concern with who came first and said what. Who has responded to whom about what? This approach, which is also prerequisite knowledge for modern philosophy, shows that philosophical knowledge has been advancing and, like experts in any other discipline, philosophers do make discoveries. In the area of logic, syllogisms were early discoveries. One doesn't study modern symbolic logic without first learning about valid argument forms from Aristotle. The creation of truth tables, from the last century led to binary logic which in turn led to circuit logic and computer science. Science itself is based largely on understanding knowledge acquisition through inductive logic which is a subject in epistemology. One eventually learns what contemporary philosophers are doing and why.
Besides the historical approach, there is the topical approach. Rationalism vs. Empiricism, for example, is a common core course in most any philosophy program. In fact, given the broad range of topics available, univerisities can specialize with offerings in branch areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of religion, the foundations of mathematics, the philosophy of law, the philosophy of education and so on.
But among the five core areas of philosophy, metaphysics arguably deserves special mention because this is the area that has led to the most stereotypes of what philosophy is or what philosophers do. Is philosophy an arm chair activity--the contemplation of obtuse conundrums, of no practical consequence? There is more to metaphysics than a source of good jokes like:
René Descartes sits in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would care for another. “I think not,” he says, and disappears.
The topics of metaphysical are admittedly obtuse being concerned with, among other things, the mind/body problem, free will vs. determinism, realism vs. anti-realism, and natural law vs. legal positivism. But one's ethics and politics are directly affected by which side of these debates one settles on. If, for example, one agrees with determinists that one has no free will, then whether intentionally or not, one has unavoidably committed oneself to the belief that one is not responsible for anything one does and one has to explain moral responsibility away as an illusion along with the need for laws, police and entire justice systems. As obtuse as these contemplations might be, they are not without very far reaching and serious practical consequences.
From this, one should see that the very question of whether philosophy should be studied is tantamount to asking whether a person should learn critical thinking skills--not just how to recognize formal and informal fallacies in editorials or in one's own rhetoric, but also how to spot the implications and anticipate the consequences of any line of thought. And what one should do is, incidentally, a fundamental concern of ethics and politics.
The purview of philosophy’s critical eye extends to traditional beliefs and nothing and no one is too sacred to be questioned. Not even the statements made here are uncontroversial, beyond challenge or qualification. But the rhetorical skills and persuasive power that may be acquired through training in philosophy are like weapons with which one’s beliefs can be defended, if not refuted. We all think something. And what we think or believe is exclusive of what we don’t believe. And no one's opinions of other beliefs are imperceptible. Knowledge claims are unavoidable. But taking responsibility for one’s own knowledge claims is required before one may earn the right to criticize the knowledge claims of others.
Read a philosophy journal or two or even an article from a dictionary or encyclopedia of philosophy. Try a wiki article on a specific area topic or on a specific philosopher. Be patient. And, with time and effort, you will understand and appreciate the sophistication and significance of what others have thought about. Develop your own beliefs along the way or, at least, discover how to defend what you’ve believed all along. You could become a famous comedian like Woody Allen or Steve Martin, both philosophy majors.
From this, one should see that the very question of whether philosophy should be studied is tantamount to asking whether a person should learn critical thinking skills--not just how to recognize formal and informal fallacies in editorials or in one's own rhetoric, but also how to spot the implications and anticipate the consequences of any line of thought. And what one should do is, incidentally, a fundamental concern of ethics and politics.
Read a philosophy journal or two or even an article from a dictionary or encyclopedia of philosophy. Try a wiki article on a specific area topic or on a specific philosopher. Be patient. And, with time and effort, you will understand and appreciate the sophistication and significance of what others have thought about. Develop your own beliefs along the way or, at least, discover how to defend what you’ve believed all along. You could become a famous comedian like Woody Allen or Steve Martin, both philosophy majors.
