Nice posting. As a complete outsider/dilettante, I suppose I am allowed to make suggestions …
How do we tell the difference between a discipline that doesn’t really seek answers and a discipline which honestly seeks answers but just can’t agree within itself?
First, I would ask whether the discipline has an agreed set of criteria which it uses to distinguish correct proposed answers from incorrect ones. Then, if the answer to that question is “no”, I would ask whether the discipline is devoting the bulk of its effort toward coming up with such a set of criteria. If the answer to the second question is “no” as well, then I fear my view on the question of whether philosophy really seeks answers should be obvious.
And how can philosophy do something about its level of internal disagreement without having to apply the “kick out everyone who disagrees with [us]” solution?
Well, one approach suggested by my answer to the first question would be to embark on a crash program to find that set of criteria for correctness (and then kick out everyone who disagrees with the choices).
A better approach might be to abandon the pose that philosophers seek correct answers to precisely formulated questions. Instead take an approach which is both more holistic and more pluralistic (an approach which, incidentally, is actually not too far from what philosophy really does.) Instead of trying to systematically generate true facts about the world, philosophers should instead generate competing coherent systems of assumptions—systems which provide fruitful viewpoints toward the world. “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend”. That is, it is not the philosopher’s role to find truth, it is instead his role to suggest methodology.
As I see it, there can be no universally good set of criteria for correctness of philosophical answers. The reason being that both questions and answers are inevitably theory-laden. So, abandon the conceit that good answers exist to good questions simpliciter. Accept the fact that both questions and answers grow out of theories, and that there is no such thing as a correct theory—only more and less fruitful theories.
Nice posting. As a complete outsider/dilettante, I suppose I am allowed to make suggestions …
First, I would ask whether the discipline has an agreed set of criteria which it uses to distinguish correct proposed answers from incorrect ones. Then, if the answer to that question is “no”, I would ask whether the discipline is devoting the bulk of its effort toward coming up with such a set of criteria. If the answer to the second question is “no” as well, then I fear my view on the question of whether philosophy really seeks answers should be obvious.
Well, one approach suggested by my answer to the first question would be to embark on a crash program to find that set of criteria for correctness (and then kick out everyone who disagrees with the choices).
A better approach might be to abandon the pose that philosophers seek correct answers to precisely formulated questions. Instead take an approach which is both more holistic and more pluralistic (an approach which, incidentally, is actually not too far from what philosophy really does.) Instead of trying to systematically generate true facts about the world, philosophers should instead generate competing coherent systems of assumptions—systems which provide fruitful viewpoints toward the world. “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend”. That is, it is not the philosopher’s role to find truth, it is instead his role to suggest methodology.
As I see it, there can be no universally good set of criteria for correctness of philosophical answers. The reason being that both questions and answers are inevitably theory-laden. So, abandon the conceit that good answers exist to good questions simpliciter. Accept the fact that both questions and answers grow out of theories, and that there is no such thing as a correct theory—only more and less fruitful theories.