My passion for philosophy germinated during high school, when I was on the debate team and began to think about political issues. Then in college I took courses in ethics and logic, and learned how to analyze arguments and how to reduce professors to silence with a few questions asking what they meant by key words they would use. The results of my interactions taught me to use my new critical power sparingly, and I become more interested in interpreting Plato’s dialogues, mastering Husserl’s phenomenology, and probing the complexities of Hegel. Years later, I would plunge into Chinese philosophy and devour writings on the golden rule, all the while expanding my concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness.
The wide variety of courses that I was privileged to teach, together with the freedom to teach courses centered on experiential projects, gave additional opportunity to make this expanding culture understanding real for me and for my students. The overarching question was—and remains—how to live a human life.
The benefit of philosophy that I find central is increased insight into meaning. Many people use big words with little understanding of their meaning; thinking carelessly, they do foolish things and are taken in by sophistry. Despite their knowledge and occasionally fine insights, they take no interest in developing a sturdy network of meanings integrated into excellent concepts. Philosophy protects us from sophistry, gives us a language to identify and explain what is wrong with the bad reasoning that mars much commercial, political, and religious communication. When Socrates talked with people who were thinking poorly, he would not support them by saying, “Everyone has diverse ideas, and that’s your truth.” He would challenge them, provoke them to inquiry, and help them make progress toward better thinking. My method nowadays is more gentle, but I share Socrates’ concern.
A good philosophy provides us with an excellent set of questions for interrogating experience. It enhances self-understanding and leverages growth; it enhances our ability to find the prayer that fits the problem; it deepens our concept of the God we worship. Philosophy empowers us to understand difficult ideas and persons with different perspectives. Philosophy enables us to reformulate worthwhile ideas that are poorly expressed in popular culture. For example, people talk of valuing diversity; but brutal dictators are diverse, but we do not value them for that reason. Rather the point is that we need to affirm our common humanity, work to understand and respond constructively to our differences, and celebrate the unique personality of everyone we meet.
Photo credit: mconnors http://mrg.bz/0AjAsA
I regret that we do not live closer to one another; I would enjoy conversation over lunch. I have grown concerned over many things you have articulated here. One thing in particular is what is now being interpreted as justice, and your example through diversity is a good one. There is no question that there is intolerance, greed, and possibly hatred among some groups of people. But then the rhetoric in response to these people, despite it being in the name of justice, is often confused without a good in mind — the right is always preceding the good, it seems. Words such as diversity, equality, fairness, and justice are taken to be simple and always right to employ, but: diversity without the achievement of harmony is only variety; equality and fairness taken too literally and without a good in mind reduce persons to discrete vessels of holdings; and justice is too often a knee-jerk response to the cause du jour.
I applaud people wishing to do the right thing, but I can’t help feeling that our culture is becoming more and more polarized, and the striving for tolerance among many is quite often very intolerant itself. What is often missed in these blanket social critiques is perhaps the virtue being exercised, and the community being formed. I’ve always felt a certain resonance with Socrates’ sense that no one does wrong wittingly, and that more often than not what is being taken as bad or injustice is an expression of confusion — and perhaps as much on the accuser as on the accused. This seems to be in part the problem of valuing rights neutral among ends rather than thinking about what is our good (or goods).
I do think that your project seems ripe to address these problems. Looking forward to continued engagement.
You see perfectly well my orientation in this regard. Let’s Skype . . . and maybe we can eat simultaneously (smile)! I’ll write you to arrange it.
I regret that we do not live closer to one another; I would enjoy conversation over lunch. I have grown concerned over many things you have articulated here. One thing in particular is what is now being interpreted as justice, and your example through diversity is a good one. There is no question that there is intolerance, greed, and possibly hatred among some groups of people. But then the rhetoric in response to these people, despite it being in the name of justice, is often confused without a good in mind — the right is always preceding the good, it seems. Words such as diversity, equality, fairness, and justice are taken to be simple and always right to employ, but: diversity without the achievement of harmony is only variety; equality and fairness taken too literally and without a good in mind reduce persons to discrete vessels of holdings; and justice is too often a knee-jerk response to the cause du jour.
I applaud people wishing to do the right thing, but I can’t help feeling that our culture is becoming more and more polarized, and the striving for tolerance among many is quite often very intolerant itself. What is often missed in these blanket social critiques is perhaps the virtue being exercised, and the community being formed. I’ve always felt a certain resonance with Socrates’ sense that no one does wrong wittingly, and that more often than not what is being taken as bad or injustice is an expression of confusion — and perhaps as much on the accuser as on the accused. This seems to be in part the problem of valuing rights neutral among ends rather than thinking about what is our good (or goods).
I do think that your project seems ripe to address these problems. Looking forward to continued engagement.
You see perfectly well my orientation in this regard. Let’s Skype . . . and maybe we can eat simultaneously (smile)! I’ll write you to arrange it.
Dear Jeff: You are a voracious writer! These presentations reek of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Love your progressive lineage. So much to digest. Thank you for sharing such creativity!
Beloved Ray, words like that from a long time friend warm the heart greatly!
Dear Jeff: You are a voracious writer! These presentations reek of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Love your progressive lineage. So much to digest. Thank you for sharing such creativity!
Beloved Ray, words like that from a long time friend warm the heart greatly!
In addition to Socratic dialogue, is there anything you can say about the nuts and bolts of how you go about sharpening your insight into meaning as well as integrating concepts? Does this flow more or less organically from your desire for understanding or do you (at least at times) adopt more or less explicit, formal methods?
Beloved Carl,
I will never forget teaching Michael Scriven’s informal logic text called Reasoning. It was a wonderful text, speaking of clarifying terms and sentences, identifying the conclusion or conclusions, identifying premises, determining how strong was the support given by the premises for the conclusion, making unstated assumptions explicit, diagramming the argument, considering other relevant arguments, and giving an overall evaluation of the argument, being honest about whether your objection was trivial or not–whether the author could easily remedy the objection. I have pasted below the more complex list of pointers that I built around Scriven’s list. The reason I mention this is that at the back of the book he gave answers to many of the practice problems included at the end of each chapter . . . and a high proportion of those problem solutions appealed not to logical principles but to detailed empirical knowledge. In other words, if you know enough, you need less logical sharpness to see through bad reasoning.
So, yet, the more you work on these things, decade by decade, the better is your intuition. Nevertheless, more can be said (and I’m not going to summarize the philosophy chapter in my book here). Even though 20th century analytic philosophy became wary of pressing for definitions of key philosophical concepts in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, people often do speak as though they knew some necessary or sufficient condition. Making those claims explicit is very helpful to detecting bad reasoning. It is surprisingly easy to make mistakes, for example, to write in a kind of high momentum and allow yourself to wander into false empirical generalizations. Moreover, it is very clarifying to outline the overall structure of a chapter. For example: To speak of truths of spiritual experience, we need ways of sorting out truth from error in this domain. We have decent (albeit very imperfect) ways of doing so. Therefore we can speak of truths of spiritual experience.
In addition to ceaseless effort to improve the quality of one’s thinking in a variety of areas, the other thing that strikes me as essential is an unremitting effort to be honest, more honest, ever-more honest. I find that growth in integrity is gradual, and that every step forward helps my clarity, incisiveness, and grasp of meaning.
Please pursue your question if you like.
Reasoning and argument analysis
One of the hallmarks of much philosophic writing is that there is some attempt to give reasons in support of a thesis. Even though this class does not presuppose any training in logic, the student may well begin to consider some ideas about how to examine reasoning.
Philosophy involves asking questions, considering alternative perspectives, reasoning, and articulating our experience/understanding. One of philosophy’s methods is analytic philosophy. This tradition asks persistently, “What does this mean?” “Why do you believe it?” Analytic philosophy emphasizes precise formulation of a question, involvement with the best contemporary philosophy on a given topic, lucid organization of ideas, keen analysis, construction of persuasive arguments, and clear writing.
One commonly suggested sequence of questions to develop your response to reading is: Describe, Interpret, Evaluate. For example, What does the author say? What does the author mean by what s/he says? Is it true?
When considering a piece of reasoning, you may find leverage in asking the following questions.
1. What is my purpose in working with this piece of text (or our purpose, insofar as the inquiry is a team project)? If there are multiple purposes, which purpose is dominant?
2. What does the author’s purpose seem to be?
3. Are there any empirical claims or assumptions which can be confirmed or disconfirmed in daily experience or science?
4. Are there claims or assumptions–positive or negative–about religion or spiritual realities?
5. What words or phrases convey key concepts? (Do not overlook articles, prepositions, verb forms, etc.) Is there any term, phrase, or sentence that is ambiguous? What interpretations are possible? What interpretation is most plausible? Or is it the case that more than one meaning is involved (whether or not the ambiguity is deliberate)? Note that what one finds to be clear depends partly upon the categories one is accustomed to using. Is there any problem with the concepts being used?
6. In the sentences where key affirmations are made (assuming, for the moment, that they are not questions, exclamations, commands, or invocations) is the grammar clear? Are the subject and predicate presented as possibly linked, actually linked, or necessarily linked? Does a sentence express a necessary condition or a sufficient condition? What other possible relationships might obtain between subject and predicate? Do not overlook the interesting structures of paragraphs and groups of paragraphs.
7. Examine the arguments. The term “argument,” as used in philosophy, does not connote an angry dispute between persons; it simply means that a conclusion is being proposed on the basis of one or more reasons or premises. In reasoning it is common to use words called inference markers. “Therefore” indicates a conclusion. “Because” indicates a reason for a conclusion. Other conclusion indicators include “thus” and “hence.” Other reason indicators include “since,” and (in some uses) “for.”
Argument is not the only way to achieve a strategic sequence in writing. Authors also use descriptions, accounts, and narratives.
8. Identify the conclusion(s), stated and unstated. What is the text driving at? What is the main point? There may be several arguments in the text. Having summarized the text as a whole, you may focus on just one line of argument.
9. Identify the reason(s) or premise(s) for each conclusion. Are the premises true?
10. Identify any unstated assumptions. Attribute to the author only those assumptions that you may reasonably expect him or her to be assuming (on the basis of the text). These are not necessarily the same as the assumptions that are logically required in order for the argument to be valid. Are the assumptions true?
11. Construct a diagram of the argument.
12. Do the premises and unstated assumptions, IF TRUE, constitute strong evidence for the conclusion?
13. Consider other arguments that are relevant but not mentioned in the argument you are examining.
14. Give the argument an overall evaluation. It’s easy to pick flaws. Were your criticisms significant or minor? Could the author easily fix the argument and make it strong?
15. What can you do constructively with your analysis that goes beyond the immediate assignment in class?
Thank you Jeff for that very generous response! I have printed a copy out for deeper reflection and to have handy in order to refer to in my studies. It will take a while to fully assimilate, but I will certainly be the better for it. Again, many thanks!
In addition to Socratic dialogue, is there anything you can say about the nuts and bolts of how you go about sharpening your insight into meaning as well as integrating concepts? Does this flow more or less organically from your desire for understanding or do you (at least at times) adopt more or less explicit, formal methods?
Beloved Carl,
I will never forget teaching Michael Scriven’s informal logic text called Reasoning. It was a wonderful text, speaking of clarifying terms and sentences, identifying the conclusion or conclusions, identifying premises, determining how strong was the support given by the premises for the conclusion, making unstated assumptions explicit, diagramming the argument, considering other relevant arguments, and giving an overall evaluation of the argument, being honest about whether your objection was trivial or not–whether the author could easily remedy the objection. I have pasted below the more complex list of pointers that I built around Scriven’s list. The reason I mention this is that at the back of the book he gave answers to many of the practice problems included at the end of each chapter . . . and a high proportion of those problem solutions appealed not to logical principles but to detailed empirical knowledge. In other words, if you know enough, you need less logical sharpness to see through bad reasoning.
So, yet, the more you work on these things, decade by decade, the better is your intuition. Nevertheless, more can be said (and I’m not going to summarize the philosophy chapter in my book here). Even though 20th century analytic philosophy became wary of pressing for definitions of key philosophical concepts in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, people often do speak as though they knew some necessary or sufficient condition. Making those claims explicit is very helpful to detecting bad reasoning. It is surprisingly easy to make mistakes, for example, to write in a kind of high momentum and allow yourself to wander into false empirical generalizations. Moreover, it is very clarifying to outline the overall structure of a chapter. For example: To speak of truths of spiritual experience, we need ways of sorting out truth from error in this domain. We have decent (albeit very imperfect) ways of doing so. Therefore we can speak of truths of spiritual experience.
In addition to ceaseless effort to improve the quality of one’s thinking in a variety of areas, the other thing that strikes me as essential is an unremitting effort to be honest, more honest, ever-more honest. I find that growth in integrity is gradual, and that every step forward helps my clarity, incisiveness, and grasp of meaning.
Please pursue your question if you like.
Reasoning and argument analysis
One of the hallmarks of much philosophic writing is that there is some attempt to give reasons in support of a thesis. Even though this class does not presuppose any training in logic, the student may well begin to consider some ideas about how to examine reasoning.
Philosophy involves asking questions, considering alternative perspectives, reasoning, and articulating our experience/understanding. One of philosophy’s methods is analytic philosophy. This tradition asks persistently, “What does this mean?” “Why do you believe it?” Analytic philosophy emphasizes precise formulation of a question, involvement with the best contemporary philosophy on a given topic, lucid organization of ideas, keen analysis, construction of persuasive arguments, and clear writing.
One commonly suggested sequence of questions to develop your response to reading is: Describe, Interpret, Evaluate. For example, What does the author say? What does the author mean by what s/he says? Is it true?
When considering a piece of reasoning, you may find leverage in asking the following questions.
1. What is my purpose in working with this piece of text (or our purpose, insofar as the inquiry is a team project)? If there are multiple purposes, which purpose is dominant?
2. What does the author’s purpose seem to be?
3. Are there any empirical claims or assumptions which can be confirmed or disconfirmed in daily experience or science?
4. Are there claims or assumptions–positive or negative–about religion or spiritual realities?
5. What words or phrases convey key concepts? (Do not overlook articles, prepositions, verb forms, etc.) Is there any term, phrase, or sentence that is ambiguous? What interpretations are possible? What interpretation is most plausible? Or is it the case that more than one meaning is involved (whether or not the ambiguity is deliberate)? Note that what one finds to be clear depends partly upon the categories one is accustomed to using. Is there any problem with the concepts being used?
6. In the sentences where key affirmations are made (assuming, for the moment, that they are not questions, exclamations, commands, or invocations) is the grammar clear? Are the subject and predicate presented as possibly linked, actually linked, or necessarily linked? Does a sentence express a necessary condition or a sufficient condition? What other possible relationships might obtain between subject and predicate? Do not overlook the interesting structures of paragraphs and groups of paragraphs.
7. Examine the arguments. The term “argument,” as used in philosophy, does not connote an angry dispute between persons; it simply means that a conclusion is being proposed on the basis of one or more reasons or premises. In reasoning it is common to use words called inference markers. “Therefore” indicates a conclusion. “Because” indicates a reason for a conclusion. Other conclusion indicators include “thus” and “hence.” Other reason indicators include “since,” and (in some uses) “for.”
Argument is not the only way to achieve a strategic sequence in writing. Authors also use descriptions, accounts, and narratives.
8. Identify the conclusion(s), stated and unstated. What is the text driving at? What is the main point? There may be several arguments in the text. Having summarized the text as a whole, you may focus on just one line of argument.
9. Identify the reason(s) or premise(s) for each conclusion. Are the premises true?
10. Identify any unstated assumptions. Attribute to the author only those assumptions that you may reasonably expect him or her to be assuming (on the basis of the text). These are not necessarily the same as the assumptions that are logically required in order for the argument to be valid. Are the assumptions true?
11. Construct a diagram of the argument.
12. Do the premises and unstated assumptions, IF TRUE, constitute strong evidence for the conclusion?
13. Consider other arguments that are relevant but not mentioned in the argument you are examining.
14. Give the argument an overall evaluation. It’s easy to pick flaws. Were your criticisms significant or minor? Could the author easily fix the argument and make it strong?
15. What can you do constructively with your analysis that goes beyond the immediate assignment in class?
Thank you Jeff for that very generous response! I have printed a copy out for deeper reflection and to have handy in order to refer to in my studies. It will take a while to fully assimilate, but I will certainly be the better for it. Again, many thanks!
I marvel at the depth and scope of your amazing intellect. Thanks for sharing it with us.
If scientists observe and formulate theories and laws governing the material universe, and philosophy examines the observations of these observations of the scientists, do you think that there will ever be something for lack of a better description a super philosophy, a discipline that systematically examines the observations of philosophy or does such a discipline already exists?
As all things evolve, what do you think will be the end form of philosophy if it should ever complete its evolution?
Dr. Perry
Beloved brother Dr. Perry, thank you for injecting such a profound question. There are various things to say in response, but I would offer this. When you evaluate philosophy, you need a higher perspective that transcends philosophy. In my opinion–and in your experience, I expect, knowing you!–there are times when we are in a higher and deeper place, in the soul, where we can look at the mind’s ideas and thinking and discourse and put it in a silent perspective. Sometime, we should talk about entering into that place of the soul. All good to you, sturdy one, as you proclaim the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man in thought, word, and deed!
I marvel at the depth and scope of your amazing intellect. Thanks for sharing it with us.
If scientists observe and formulate theories and laws governing the material universe, and philosophy examines the observations of these observations of the scientists, do you think that there will ever be something for lack of a better description a super philosophy, a discipline that systematically examines the observations of philosophy or does such a discipline already exists?
As all things evolve, what do you think will be the end form of philosophy if it should ever complete its evolution?
Dr. Perry
Beloved brother Dr. Perry, thank you for injecting such a profound question. There are various things to say in response, but I would offer this. When you evaluate philosophy, you need a higher perspective that transcends philosophy. In my opinion–and in your experience, I expect, knowing you!–there are times when we are in a higher and deeper place, in the soul, where we can look at the mind’s ideas and thinking and discourse and put it in a silent perspective. Sometime, we should talk about entering into that place of the soul. All good to you, sturdy one, as you proclaim the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man in thought, word, and deed!