5

There are some scientists who claim that philosophy is useless: Lawrence Krauss, Lewis Wolpert, Stephen Hawking and so on. Science is a better method for our quest for knowledge, they said. Some answer that science cannot justify itself, because it would using circular reasoning. Then this moment philosophy comes.

However, what justify philosophy? Saying that philosophy justify itself is not a circular reasoning too?

Clarifying a little bit. By "justify" I mean philosophy having a status on our quest for knowledge, as science have. And, to give another example, astrology doesn't have any status on our inquiry for knowledge, because it doesn't have any justification to be so.

Vinicius Rodrigues
  • 59
  • 3
  • I clarified at I think you meant -- you may roll back the edit if it isn't. But perhaps you could clarify: you say that "philosophy cannot justify philosophy without using circular reasoning", and your question is "how can philosophy justify itself without using circular reasoning?". So, you're asking how something impossible may be done? –  Jan 03 '16 at 17:27
  • Yes. You got the idea, despite it's a little bit different. I was not saying that philosophy cannot justify philosophy, I heard some people saying that philosophy can justify philosophy, but I don't understand how can it be possible once, for instance, science cannot justify science. Thanks for editing, one of my main reason for being here is improve my english - besides understand what philosophy is. – Vinicius Rodrigues Jan 03 '16 at 17:45
  • Philosophy is justified by logic, is it not? And logic needs no justification. – carb0nshel1 Jan 03 '16 at 17:54
  • I guess you'd have to define "justify" (let alone "philosophy"). But maybe a place to start is to ask "What justifies asking questions?" in the first place. Something about the nature of human thought perhaps (curiosity)? (Or for a less philosophical analogy, "Why do people cry?") – Jeff Y Jan 03 '16 at 17:54
  • @JeffY To answer what means "justifiy something" I have to appeal, at least, to stanford encyclopedia's entry on "justification". However, to give a better understanding of my question, by "justify" I mean philosophy having a status on our quest for knowledge, as science have. And, to give an example, astrology doesn't have any status on our inquiry for knowledge, because it's doesn't have any justification to be so. – Vinicius Rodrigues Jan 03 '16 at 19:00
  • Is there any chance I could persuade you to motivate this a little more? Why is this an interesting or important problem in your study of philosophy? It might help to indicate what you are studying that has made this such an interesting/important/intolerable question for you at this moment; and what exactly it is that you would like someone here to explain to you in a few paragraphs. What are you expecting in an answer? – Joseph Weissman Jan 03 '16 at 19:09
  • @JosephWeissman I did it. I hope it's better. – Vinicius Rodrigues Jan 03 '16 at 20:16
  • @ViniciusRodrigues you may want to read e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology . i suppose that philosophy can furnish us with justification because, unlike science, philosophy asks what it means to know anything at all –  Jan 03 '16 at 21:02
  • Science cannot prove that "philosophy is useless" so the claims of Krauss, Hawking, et al. are self-defeating. –  Jan 04 '16 at 00:46
  • @Vinicius I would answer that Philosophy's status is as a (the) motivator to seek more knowledge, because of its question-asking nature. In a sense, science doesn't ask questions, it only answers them. – Jeff Y Jan 04 '16 at 11:29
  • @carb0nshel1 I would disagree; is that not the same argument a scientist would claim, that they use science to justify itself, through reason and logic, and no further justification is needed? This does not end the debate. – NationWidePants Sep 16 '16 at 12:36

2 Answers2

3

Philosophy is typically "justified" by observing the world. "Justifying" tends to be a term used when you are forcing other alternatives out. However, many of the softer sides of philosophy do not force out other options, so they need less justification.

The approach of needing justification comes from science's ability to cause both harm and good. A scalpel, used properly, can save lives, or it can take them. But, no matter what it does, the effect is decisive. Thus, we need justifications to use this decisive tool, or else we might do too much harm.

The alternative approach is well described by the phrase "do no harm." Acupuncture needles are generally recognized as very safe. Science doesn't find acupuncture does any harm (it just doesn't find any good in it). Acupuncturists feel less need to "justify," in the Western sense, because whether their techniques are true or false, they aren't doing any harm. They permit time to sort out the true and false techniques. As best as I can tell (disclaimer: I am not an acupuncturist) the idea is that as long as you're not doing bad, and patients are walking away happy, and sometimes even fixed (a good thing), then you're at least doing good, and you can afford to wait to know the truthood or the falsehood of your approach.

(It is worth noting that western medicine absolutely abhors the placebo effect, while eastern medicine is more than happy to allow your mind to fix the problem for you. Much of this difference can stem from the differences in approaches.)

This is, of course, a gradient, not an easy grouping of two categories. And TCM is not even perfectly "do no harm," unless you were already comfortable spending your time and money at it. Modern Western medicine is also not entirely justified. There's plenty of cases where we pay doctors to have good instincts part way through an operation. They're not just trained robots.

However, as you start to get down towards the "do no harm" end, where justification becomes less and less essential, you find justification in more places. Sometimes, you may not even be able to put the justification into words. For many westerners, the inability to put the justification into words immediately gets treated as "having no justification." If you accept this policy, then it is entirely reasonable for philosophy to have no justification simply by justifying itself using a billion tiny details absorbed through a lifetime.

Now I am talking about philosophy in general. Western philosophy loves to justify itself all over the place, but even in those cases, you find the circular reasonings you mention. The best of these become softer, until they can be justified through living. Some of those that cannot be justified that way? Well, wars have been fought to defend a belief.

Cort Ammon
  • 17,775
  • 23
  • 59
0

First, logic need not justify itself, and can not -- we use logic because it is of a better quality than the alternatives. Philosophy hinges on logic, and logic justifies philosophy.

carb0nshel1
  • 282
  • 1
  • 6
  • So, we only have a pragmatic reason to use logic: this is the best we can. Instead of having an ontological or epistemological reason for use logic. – Vinicius Rodrigues Jan 03 '16 at 18:47
  • 1
    i don't think this makes sense. by way of analogy is a scientific theory self justifying just because mathematical expressions or entities appear in it –  Jan 03 '16 at 20:52
  • or justified by mathematics, even –  Jan 03 '16 at 21:39
  • I don't know if I'd dare say "philosophy hinges on logic." They strike me as more of a strange loop than a simple hierarchy. – Cort Ammon Jan 04 '16 at 05:28
  • @ViniciusRodrigues Logic is unavoidable. If someone says, "We should not use logic because X is better" they're using logic to show that X is "better." –  Jan 04 '16 at 05:36
  • @BenPiper but if they say "we should use X. You'll see," logic was not required. – Cort Ammon Jan 04 '16 at 05:37
  • 1
    @CortAmmon That still requires logic. Once you reject logic, the statement, "We should use X" is no different than the statement, "We should not use X" –  Jan 04 '16 at 05:43
  • @BenPiper I think you might be confusing "logic" with "language." You are correct, that if any statement involving a predicate is deemed "logic," it is remarkably hard to do philosophy without logic, mostly because it is almost impossible to speak without it. We may need to more clearly define what "logic" means in the context of this question. – Cort Ammon Jan 04 '16 at 05:45
  • @Cort Ammon I must agree with Ben Piper, logic usage is unavoidable. A good source for this argument would be the Meno by Plato. In this case, I do agree, however, it seems you are having a disagreement as to the definition of 'logic'. I would also say, just because logic is the best tool we have does not mean it's the best tool. A hammer is very good at hitting a nail, but not very good at floating in water. Perhaps another species is capable of filling gaps we cannot, ourselves, fulfill. – NationWidePants Sep 16 '16 at 12:54