A Bear – Poles Apart

Philosophy is pure thought. All other sciences (except one) rely on some sort of observation of the world and the universe. They perform experiments and pursue physical evidence for their theories. That is the basic difference.

However, it is scarcely possible to draw a strict line between philosophy and the other sciences. It is also a matter of degree and somewhat arbitrary conventions.

In ancient times all sciences were counted as philosophy, even the most physical ones. Among the ancient Greeks everything was the subject of pure speculation rather than physical involvement, so it made no sense to separate anything out. As in the course of history (and especially after the renaissance) more fields of knowledge were to be targeted for concrete experimentation, the domain of philosophy became smaller, and what remains after all the science have been subtracted is now considered philosophy proper.

However, a great deal of philosophy remain in many sciences, especially the humanities, social sciences and psychology. And vice versa, within certain branches of philosophy there are strong elements of physical observation. Practical philosophy, that is ethics and political theory, is naturally based on some experience of the world, which makes the thought less “pure”.

The only pure and undeniable form of philosophy is metaphysics. It is not based on anything physical whatsoever, but exactly that has made some deny its entire relevance and express the wish to exclude the most philosophical branch from the realm of philosophy.

Still, although we cannot expect to find a full-proof denomination, we must retain the notion of purity of thought as the distinguishing factor. The point is not to designate an absolute label, but to give an idea about the subject matter.

One odd science escapes categorization within this scheme: That of mathematics. It is pure thought as it doesn’t rely on any observations of the world and there are indeed good reasons to include it in philosophy. But what makes mathematics special even in that field, is the possibility for absolute proof. Philosophy, on the other hand, though it is the search for truth can never yield certainty. Even after it has been stated that two plus two equals four, doubt remains and speculation persists.

A good man can’t be a politician. Politics is a dirty business, and whoever touches it will get his fingers soiled. It’s rather inevitable because there’s too much at stake.

It’s almost unfair to expect anything but lies and deception from those who are fighting for power. If that’s the only way to get into a position where they can have what they consider a good influence on society, it’s practically their duty to be crooks.

What is more important one may ask, to make the country a better place for all its citizens, or to go keep one’s own personal purity? Isn’t it supposed to be honorable to sacrifice yourself for your country?

If that was so, we would reach the contradictory conclusion that for a politician a bad person is a good person. Since basic logic makes that impossible, we must assume that there can’t be any good people among politicians.

The real fault is in the system that makes dishonesty a necessity. To get elected the candidates are required to slander their opponents and make shady deals to secure support. If they don’t do it, they will never get into a position where they can do all those wonderful things that they promise to do for society.

In the historical past power was gained at the point of a gun or the edge of a sword. At least there’s a certain honesty to brute force; whoever won the battle won the kingdom, and it wasn’t really possible to cheat.

Of course I’m not advocating a return to that way of choosing a government, our bloodless methods are much preferable, but politics is still not a gentleman’s sport, and it really shouldn’t be. Candidates are not fighting for honor like athletes in the field. They are (supposedly) fighting for what is best for the country, and if they are really convinced that they have the ultimate solution, it’s reasonable to expect them to use all dirty tools available. They are not doing it for their own sake, are they?

Well, I for one think they are, but who am I to say. Their followers believe in them and condone everything.

The ends don’t justify the means, but once someone has entered the battle, the means are already accepted.

There can be no progress in philosophy. The accumulation of scientific knowledge, the increased understanding of the physical world, can contribute nothing significant to the pure thought of philosophy. Science may certainly inspire free thinking, just as art and any other social phenomenon can do, but nothing could conceivable be discovered that would fundamentally prove or disprove any philosophical system.

Philosophy proper is pure thought, and as such it is not dependent on any physical basis. The physical structure of the brain can provide no clue about what it really means to think and a deeper knowledge about biology and chemistry gives us no idea about the true identity of life.

No discovery could ever prove Plato wrong (or any other of the great philosophers). One may certainly disagree with him and use the instruments of logic to refute his ideas, but we are in no better position to do that now than we would have been in 400 BC.

Sure, as time has passed the corpus of philosophers has increased and simply the added numbers may make it more likely that one of them has hit upon the great Truth, but there’s no reason to believe that a later philosopher is more likely to be right than his predecessors.

It’s even possible to make the argument that there has been a deterioration of sound ideas since ancient time as modern thinkers may have allowed themselves to be confused by the increasing volume of less relevant noise.

However it may be, philosophical systems don’t rely on their forerunners in the same sense as science does. The history of ideas recounts the story of the ebb and flow of influencing theories, but they don’t build on each other. The history of science, although it too has its detours and dead ends, is quite linear since there is a relative acceptance of what might count as a proof.

Philosophy has no standard outside of itself; there’s no practical experimentation that could measure the likelihood of a theory’s truth value. It is free to speculate away from past achievements or failures with no independent arbiter to correct its mistakes.

We can only strive for the Truth without knowing if we have gotten closer to it.