In this blog post, I will write an overview of the book “Hva er filosofi” (What is philosophy?) by Lars Svendsen.
At a local bookstore, I bought a version that was translated into my native language. The translation isn’t the best, but I still finished the book as I found the content interesting and was able to get past the syntactical issues by ignoring them and merely focusing on the content 🙂 As a matter of fact, I think the syntactical issues were actually a good thing. I mostly write blog posts like this one because it helps me with crystallizing ideas, and when I try to explain parts of the book I can’t just copy/paste, I have to work on paraphrasing using (hopefully, what is) non-broken grammar.
I have read a couple of philosophy books in the past period, and I have to say that this book is probably the most meta of them all. I had one picture in mind as to what philosophy represents (argument+idea), but reading this book extended that view: philosophy is everything and nothing.
The author has a Ph.D. and in the introduction, he talks about how philosophy got boring for him in the academy, as it was “systematized” and only a few methods were accepted as “valid philosophical methods”. This book was a way for him to refresh his love of philosophy.
Philosophy and non-philosophy
Philosophy should not be bound to a specific event, history in time, events, or arguments. Anything can be philosophized about, including philosophy itself. Philosophy is about discussing the abstract over the concrete, though this can also be criticized.
“What is mathematics?” is not a problem that belongs to mathematics. That problem, and even “What is philosophy?” belong in the philosophy domain. Thus, philosophy is a discipline that studies itself.
A more concrete definition would be that philosophy is thinking about thinking or reflecting our understanding. (This gives us a way to understand our limits of reasoning.) Mainly, philosophy should provide us with knowledge of a new way to look at the world, though nobody can agree on a single definition of what philosophy is, or what it should be.
The point of philosophy is to study everything and nothing.
Subjects such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. used to be considered philosophy, though at some point in the past they “moved out” of philosophy and branched on their own. As this branching continued, the domain of philosophy kept shrinking. However, science does not care about philosophical questions, some truths (methods) are taken for granted, and then science builds upon this – this is how science defines progress. Though this can be also noticed in philosophy (esp. academic philosophy). It seems that most people converge to “groupthink”.
Foundations of Philosophy
Philosophy is about intellectual thirst, but also questions such as “who am I”, “what is truth”, and “is the universe finite”. We live our lives by customs, understanding, and preferences adopted from other people but we need to understand our understandings first before trying to understand others. Philosophy encourages us to ask these questions.
It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of – namely, the confession of its originator.
Nietzsche
Besides studying which philosopher said what, we must also come up with our own answers.
Work on philosophy – like work in architecture in many respects – is really more work on oneself. On one’s own conception. On how one sees things.
Wittgenstein
The source of philosophy is “wonder”, jumping from one confusion to another.
The history of philosophy is merely a record of people’s attempts to solve a philosophical problem. A requirement for philosophy is not a book, but rather a spark in the soul after long studies. Experiences cannot be formulated by philosophizing through words. It’s not about adding a new record in a database, it’s simply learning to think differently.
Nowadays logic represents the foundations, but in the past it was metaphysics.
Wittgenstein said something along the lines of “It is the task of philosophy to expose grammatical fiction to show groundlessness”. This can be disappointing for those who turn to philosophy to gain deeper insights. This reminded me of one saying in Sophie’s World: meaning cannot be found in books.
Philosophy and Science
Natural sciences originate from philosophy, that is, they used to be known as the “Philosophy of nature”. Science proves to be stronger after an explosion of scientific research, and philosophy ends up on the periphery. Science suppressed its own spring. In this way, scientific disciplines are created and philosophy automatically loses that area.
Philosophy approaches problems critically, whereas science uses evidence to solve problems.
Bertrand Russell
Science lacks self-reflection, that is, sciences do not look into or question their foundations. This is not to say that these questions are reserved only for philosophers, but that every scientist should be a philosopher from time to time.
Science is based on the scientific method. Noam Chomsky says that we probably learn more about human life through novels than science. Sciences create new problems because they provide knowledge but not wisdom. No scientific research can solve the problem of the meaning of life. Neither can philosophy, but philosophy can be wrong by providing useful information.
Philosophy and Literature
No specific limit can be defined between the two: Literature is usually fiction, but there is fiction in philosophy too. Our language is filled with metaphors (e.g. aphorisms – short ambiguous sayings), a language without metaphors is not possible. Figurative language taints the supposed “pure” thought. The point is not to replace science, but to see that literature also contributes to understanding ourselves and the world.
Platon: Logic is replaced by rhetoric, i.e. Arguments : Truth :: Rhetoric : Persuasion.
Writing without style is not possible, many philosophers can be recognized by their style. There is an inseparable connection between the form and meaning of a work.
Each translation brings a different experience and one language cannot fully capture another language. Not every philosophical thought can be expressed in every language, that is, thought and language are closely related.
Clarity depends on the context and who is used to what style.
Thinking in different languages opens up the possibility to think more thoughts.
Philosophy and History
Philosophy evolved throughout history, e.g. “Philosophy in Greece in the year 347” is different from the “Philosophy in Roman Empire”. Thus, philosophy is tied to its time, and also to a particular culture.
Russell’s “A History of Western Philosophy” is nothing more than a preparation to start reading Russell. History must be included, otherwise, an important part will be missing.
No subject knows more about its history than philosophy, e.g. scientists, and doctors, since they don’t need it to solve a problem (and patients should be glad about that).
The history of philosophy does not accumulate (new rocks on top of old rocks). When a revolution happens in philosophy (Descartes, Kant) it’s not because the old arguments are proven wrong, but because we have a new way to look at things and it again becomes interesting and not boring.
Rather than asking “What is X?”, we should ask “Why is a particular question about X asked in a specific historical event?”, to get more insight.
Continental and Analytic Philosophy
The commonality between both of these philosophies is the fact most of the time the philosopher spends on reading, analyzing, interpreting, and commenting on literature.
Analytical philosophy (focuses on problems) states that all solutions are to be found by “shifting” the language and terms (logic). However, it’s been shown that it’s debatable whether all problems can be solved this way. Continental philosophy (focuses on persons) is closer to the Human sciences, rather than the Natural sciences, and is even more problematic as it captures many different ways of methodologies, thought, tradition, and schools, and continental philosophies have very little in common. However, this distinction is not always clear and things between the two philosophies overlap.
Natural sciences, compared to philosophy, are less affected by culture or geographical origin. The clash between continental and analytic philosophy is unlike any other. For example, empiricists can debate/agree with rationalists despite their differences in opinion, but the systematic differences on “what means what” can destroy the communication between a continental and analytical philosopher. Continental philosophy sort of reminded me of this quote in GEB:
However, there are other systems such as Zen that embrace contradictions, so what can one say more about it?
Whenever some idea from continental philosophy gets formalized (translated to analytical philosophy), information gets lost. Analytical philosophy focuses on the “list of problems” too much, and forgets that it also has a historic tradition.
There is less consensus between philosophers than on any other subject. Disagreements tend to get larger as we approach the present time. The ways to look at the world from different perspectives grew, but so did the number of disagreements, though as long as there’s a will to communicate, this can be productive. Efficient disagreement (mutual respect+communication) is good, as it gives more insight to both parties.
Perspectivism and pluralism in Philosophy
People have different perspectives/experiences (in a specific time in history), and this is what causes disagreements in philosophy. Disagreements can happen in different ways, but the three most common ones are 1) the purpose of philosophy, 2) the problems of philosophy, and 3) how we solve 2 to satisfy 1. There is no non-controversial answer to any of these. Ideally, we should consider all perspectives, but it doesn’t mean that they can be combined into a single theory of everything. According to the author, “Pluralism allows for a richer understanding of the world” by using each perspective as a “scope” to look at the world.
It is often assumed that it must be possible to prove or at least justify all our understandings.
Philosophy can be viewed as a system of perspectives. We mostly use our own perspective when we try to “defend” that very own perspective. No universally valid perspective can be used as an Archimedean point. Kant and Hegel’s systems were mostly syntheses of all subjects (maths, law, culture, history, religion). Nowadays, philosophers mostly focus on precisely defined sets of problems. Some philosophers claim that the time of systematic philosophy has passed, but it is impossible to have a genuinely non-systematic philosophy.
Wittgenstein agrees that he focuses on fragments, but those who understand these fragments can draw a more general view of the world. All of philosophy is systematic, but there are various degrees of systematicness. Russell claimed that philosophy should abandon the systematic way of working, even though he was considered an idealist. The task of philosophy is not only to observe the different perspectives, but also the connections between them.
Philosophy as the study of wisdom
We often relate wisdom with something spiritual or intellectual, when a person has deep insight into self and nature. But one who possesses these things and does not act in accordance with them cannot be called wise.
Kant draws the distinction between philosophy from a school perspective (studying a particular skill), and philosophy from a world sense (studying wisdom). Philosophers nowadays focus on theories, rather than wisdom.
Philosophers have come to envy the philologist and the mathematician, and they have taken over all the inessential elements in those studies—with the result that they know more about devoting care and attention to their speech than about devoting such attention to their lives.
Seneca
“What is good?” is a question with no simple answer. Some philosophers rely on God, but in that case, we “remove” any rational debates. But, do we need to rationalize everything?
[Moral study is] to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way.
Aristotle
We should learn how to use our feelings in such a way that they allow us to realize the state of things as it truly is. As our feelings mature, so does the moral power of judgment.
The misery of academic Philosophy
It’s hard to find a philosopher without an academic (school) background. There are exceptions, but nowadays those exceptions are even smaller.
Today’s academic philosophy focuses on the search for new aspects of looking at problems. This professionalization improves the technical quality of philosophy, but it also makes it sterile and boring. If we see philosophy as a discipline whose goal is to make other people (those who are not philosophers by profession) thoughtful, it should be communicated in a way that is close to others and not just to academic philosophers – this is a key part about the academic legitimacy of philosophy. Any research must be justified. In today’s academic philosophy, emphasis is placed on only one aspect: sustainability. Much attention is paid to logical rigor, that we have taken into account all arguments, that we have demonstrated knowledge of a given area, etc.
Society demands that the resources invested in research are somehow returned in the form of a welfare effect (technology, practice, self-realization). Academic philosophy does not do this well enough. How much one’s work is academically recognized is far more important than whether it conveys substantive ideas. Papers are written not to be understood but to be used as an adjunct when people are applying for a job.
There is a logical obscurantism in Russell’s claim that logic is the core of philosophy. The sentence “The person sings” can be formalized as 
Those philosophers who specialize in a certain area seem “more professional” than synoptic (all-knowing) philosophers because it is widely accepted that the narrower angle of view is more in line with scientific practice.
What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., & if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life.
Wittgenstein
The continuation of Philosophy
Philosophy can’t give insights. It is reflexive, not productive. Bringing order to chaos with our thoughts is something we constantly do, but philosophy creates even more chaos.
Thoughts at peace. That is the goal someone who philosophizes longs for.
Wittgenstein
bor0's blog 