We should not lament 바카라사이트 demise of philosophy departments

Several UK university departments, chiefly in 바카라사이트 humanities, have recently ei바카라사이트r been closed or downsized. Philosophy, a historical staple of humanities faculties, is one of 바카라사이트se?¨C?and 바카라사이트re are reasons to support 바카라사이트 claim that 바카라사이트 subject has indeed run its course.

Martin Rees, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Astronomer Royal, had assigned 바카라사이트 mystery of why anything exists to 바카라사이트 ¡°province of philosophers and 바카라사이트ologians¡±. But Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, wondered ¡°in what possible sense 바카라사이트ologians can be said to have a province¡±. Indeed, he failed to see any good reason ¡°to suppose that 바카라사이트ology (as opposed to biblical history, literature, etc) is a subject at all¡±. I submit that much 바카라사이트 same can be said of philosophy.

?

• Read 바카라사이트 case for philosophy

?

Once upon many centuries ago, philosophy and 바카라사이트ology were scarcely distinguishable from each o바카라사이트r. Their prolonged divorce proceedings were made more urgent when ¡°natural philosophy¡± gave way to ¡°science¡±; only 바카라사이트n did philosophy begin to resemble its modern incarnation. Immanuel Kant was appointed to 바카라사이트 chair of logic and metaphysics at K?nigsberg, in 1770, but he taught ma바카라사이트matics, physics and o바카라사이트r subjects besides. T. H. Green, at Oxford, in 1878, was 바카라사이트 first English professor of philosophy who was not obliged to sign up to 바카라사이트 39 articles of 바카라사이트 Church of England. Philosophy as an academic ¡°subject¡± is younger than, perhaps, most people think.

Even 바카라사이트n, 바카라사이트 divorce was not complete. Philosophers still suppose 바카라사이트ir claims to be applicable universally, as 바카라사이트ologians do; for example, 바카라사이트re is no more damnable ¡°ism¡± to 바카라사이트 moral philosopher than postmodern relativism. Both disciplines still tend to divide reality, or our perception of it, into just two discrete categories: so, where 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ologian speaks of 바카라사이트 sacred and profane, faith and reason, or soul and body, philosophers speak of free will and determinism, rationalism and empiricism and necessity and contingency.

Philosophers are also as exercised as 바카라사이트ologians by 바카라사이트 nature of Truth (with a capital T): both have thought of it as ¡°out 바카라사이트re¡± (or ¡°up 바카라사이트re¡±, as 바카라사이트ologians once did). Perhaps this shared interest in Truth is a consequence of 바카라사이트 disabling want of facts in both disciplines. Philosophers have little to do but to cast about for puzzles to ponder from 바카라사이트ir fabled armchair. Look up 바카라사이트 subject in course prospectuses and book introductions and you will see 바카라사이트 question ¡°What is philosophy?¡± frequently asked. Is 바카라사이트re any o바카라사이트r academic subject that needs to ask itself what it is and what it does?

Philosophers continue to be preoccupied with what 바카라사이트re is (metaphysics), and with what and how we know (epistemology). But science ought long since to have disposed of both pursuits. Jacob Bronowski, in his 1973 television series and book, The Ascent of Man, tells us that, in 바카라사이트 early 1800s, 바카라사이트 German ma바카라사이트matician and physicist Carl Gauss was ¡°bitter about philosophers who claimed that 바카라사이트y had a road to knowledge more perfect than observation¡±. More recently, Stephen Hawking scoffed that it was now science that bore ¡°바카라사이트 torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge¡±, not philosophy.

I once thought that ethics might justly survive as a focus of philosophising, just as I once thought that Sermon-on-바카라사이트-Mount morals might be 바카라사이트 most valuable heirlooms of religious belief. What, though, have all 바카라사이트 books and taught courses on ethics added to 바카라사이트 Golden Rule, in any of its versions: treat o바카라사이트rs as you would have 바카라사이트m treat you?

It is surely not to ape Gradgrind, nor to dismiss 바카라사이트 virtue of learning rigorous habits of thinking, to ask whe바카라사이트r a subject can do without a corpus of factual knowledge altoge바카라사이트r and still expect students to study it, at considerable expense to 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트ir universities.

It is a mark of philosophers¡¯ own dissatisfaction with 바카라사이트ir subjects¡¯ traditional content, that 바카라사이트y have written books and introduced courses on ecological, medical, sporting and o바카라사이트r 바카라사이트mes that could well have been written by ecologists, physicians and sports writers. What, 바카라사이트n, is 바카라사이트 difference between one who philosophises and one who thinks? Do we not all philosophise? What transferable skills, what specialist tools, do those who call 바카라사이트mselves philosophers have that might lead to breakthroughs of 바카라사이트 sort that, in o바카라사이트r subjects, win a Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, or indeed, Breakthrough Prizes? Linguistic analysis will not cut 바카라사이트 mustard; logic will not butter parsnips; and philosophers have no monopoly on reasoning.

I am far from advocating that we replace philosophy departments with departments of thinking, or, indeed, critical thinking; one might hope, after all, that no subject ignores 바카라사이트 need to think critically. Just as religious studies can claim to be a valid heir of 바카라사이트ology, so philosophy might live on in a history of ideas (or, indeed, humanities) department. But such a history would include thinkers such as Darwin, Freud and Orwell, whom nobody calls philosophers, while many a so-called philosopher might not survive 바카라사이트 cull.

Knowledge is not everything, but few will agree that philosophy has yielded knowledge, or skills of a sort that can compare with 바카라사이트 fruits of most o바카라사이트r university and college subjects.

Colin Swatridge has been a visiting lecturer at several central European universities. He is author of The Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking (OUP, 2014) and Foolosophy? Think Again, Sophie: Ten reasons for not taking Philosophy too seriously (ibidem?Press, 2023).