It is impossible to lodge a reasoned objection to philosophy without doing philosophy. This should be considered irrefutable evidence that we can’t rationally reject philosophy. However, interestingly enough, I’ve found this to be the least effective response to objections to philosophy. How is it possible that such strong evidence convince so few? Watch the video!
After the video, see a little expounding below.
In this episode, I say objections to philosophy are self-refuting, and you may have felt a little confused by this. To say a claim is ‘self-refuting’ means that it is false by its own standards. Here are some examples.
- “Never listen to what a philosopher says.” Making a claim includes wanting others to listen to you, but this claim tells you not to listen to me. It says something like this: “Listen: don’t listen.”
- “I can’t type a word!” I made this claim by typing, so if the claim were true, I couldn’t have made it.
- Finally, “I don’t speak a word of English.” I mentioned this claim in the episode. I made this claim in English, so it can’t be the case that I don’t speak a word of English.
But—hold on! Surely you can truly say, «No hablo español,» right? Maybe someone would say you were wrong or lying or making nonsense, but imagine the following scenario. You are walking down the street and someone stops you who only speaks Spanish. The only three Spanish words you know are no, hablo, and español. Should you not say «No hablo español»? Would it be a lie? Or, false? Few would say you shouldn’t say it, but they might not all agree as to why. Some might say it is false, but you should still say it because it will be helpful. Some might say language is used because it elicits a desired action, not because it is meaningful, so there is no problem in the first place.
One interesting solution is to say that almost all claims we make include assumed but unspoken qualifications. For example, we might say, “There’s nothing to eat!” but we don’t mean there is literally nothing to eat. When we make this claim, all interlocutors assume qualifications like in this house or that I want to eat. When we say «No hablo español,» we are assuming qualifications like aside from these words or enough to communicate with you. So, just because a claim is literally self-refuting doesn’t necessarily mean it is self-refuting. Instead, we have to determine what the speaker intends to communicate first, and then determine if it’s self-refuting.
and alcohol abuse amongst the homeless and I was afraid I might be enabling an epidemic. On this particular day, however, I was running late for something very important. I couldn’t stop to buy something—but I did have a $20 bill in my pocket. I thought quickly: this money could really help someone trying to get back on his feet, or it could really do a lot of damage to someone struggling with addiction. Should I give it to him and hope for the best? Should I withhold it and risk letting someone go hungry? What choice should I make? What would you choose?
acting purely on desire and without any thought. Such a person (a ‘wanton,’ to use Harry Frankfurt’s term) would be little better than a wild animal: giving or keeping, helping or harming, hugging or strangling with whatever whim happens upon her. Such a capricious life has never been attractive to me, so this wasn’t really a choice. I needed a thoughtful decision.
