Research on Western Philosophy Problems

Author: Zhang Zhiwei
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-04-01
Features: As a history of Western philosophy from the perspective of problems, Western philosophy history undeniably allows for research and interpretation from various angles or levels. However, the graduate course "Research on Problems in Western Philosophy" is not merely focused on one angle or aspect of Western philosophy. The guiding principle behind the design of this course is based on the idea that the history of Western philosophy is ultimately a "history of problems." Thus, "problems" are not just an angle for studying Western philosophy but rather its living "soul" and source, constituting its basic overall characteristic. In other words, only by viewing the history of philosophy as a "history of problems" can we fundamentally grasp the essence and spirit of Western philosophy. #65533; It is undeniable that philosophy itself is a "problem." Among all human knowledge, philosophy holds a unique position: on one hand, its history is as ancient and enduring as that of other sciences, perhaps even more so, and it is considered the source of all scientific knowledge. Therefore, for a long period, it was revered as the "queen of sciences" and the highest form of knowledge. On the other hand, it has never been able to demonstrate the universal necessity or at least relative universal necessity of other sciences. People have found that almost all aspects of philosophy are filled with debate, with various theories and doctrines offering conflicting views, making it difficult to reach a fundamental consensus. As a result, people often doubt whether philosophy is even a science or a form of knowledge. This awkward position forces philosophers to repeatedly defend the legitimate status and significance of philosophy as a science, yet their defenses, though seemingly reasonable, often fail to dispel the doubts in people's minds. Consequently, we find that philosophy is at most theoretically a science, but practically it never possesses the minimal scientificity that a science should have. This phenomenon suggests that if we still consider philosophy to be a "discipline," we must reinterpret its meaning and status. Based on this, we believe that the significance of philosophy lies not—or not primarily—in "knowledge" but in "problems." In other words, the history of philosophy is not a history of knowledge accumulation but a history of problems. #65533; This situation forces us to reflect on the meaning of philosophy by returning to its origins. Perhaps in the original meaning of the concept of philosophy, we can find the reason. #65533; As is well known, the term "philosophy" originates from the Greek word philosophia, meaning "love" (phileo) "wisdom" (sophia). Although for a long time in later periods, it was regarded as a universally accessible form of scientific knowledge and the highest science, in its original sense, it indicated that the earliest philosophers were not as "arrogant" as they later became. Rather, they were quite humble. Because they knew that human life is finite, while wisdom is infinite. As Plato said in the Phaedrus, speaking through Socrates, "wisdom" is too great a word—it is only suitable for gods, while terms like "love of wisdom" are more fitting for humans. Human finitude determines that they cannot fully possess wisdom, but this has not stopped them from loving and pursuing wisdom. Although we may never reach the ideal realm of wisdom in our lifetime, loving and pursuing wisdom is the responsibility and mission of being human. We should and can make it the highest ideal of our lives. Clearly, the "wisdom" spoken of by the Greeks differs from what we understand as "knowledge." Wisdom is something infinite, free, and supreme, while knowledge usually deals with finite, concrete things. Knowledge, or scientific knowledge in general, is a tool and means of our existence, and its value lies in its "usefulness," whereas the love and pursuit of wisdom have no other purpose or are their own purpose. Therefore, Aristotle said that among all disciplines, philosophy is the only free one. #65533; Both Plato and Aristotle pointed out that philosophy originates from "wonder" (thaumazein), which can also be understood as philosophy originating from "problems." It is undeniable that not only philosophy but all our knowledge arises from problems. If we do not feel curious about something or realize our own ignorance, we would not pursue knowledge. However, general scientific knowledge is aimed at specific, finite, and definite objects, and therefore, through some specific, finite, and definite methods, at least a relatively definite answer can always be found, forming our knowledge. The history of science is a process of knowledge accumulation, and acquiring knowledge is the main purpose of science. If a science gives us more problems than knowledge, it must violate the nature of science and thus lose its meaning and value. Philosophy is different. The purpose of pursuing wisdom is not to understand finite, concrete things but to transcend them and even our own finitude. Therefore, philosophical problems are often fundamental, basic, and sometimes even transcendent. Since these problems often transcend our experiential boundaries, they are usually not solvable through general scientific methods. In a sense, they may be considered to have no ultimate answers. Of course, philosophers have once dreamed of finding a scientific method for philosophy, but this ideal is doomed to be unattainable. Generally speaking, scientific problems have relatively definite answers, sometimes even a unique one. Although the progress of knowledge is also boundless, scientific problems cannot have an ultimate answer either. However, theoretically, if humanity could continue infinitely, we would gradually approach "truth" through the accumulation of knowledge. Unlike this, although philosophy also progresses and develops, its movement is not a "linear movement" of knowledge accumulation but a "circular movement" that constantly changes its "base points" while pointing toward the same "center." Therefore, strictly speaking, philosophical problems are not "problems" but "dilemmas," because we cannot have an answer to them but can only adopt various different solutions. #65533; Of course, not all philosophical problems are purely speculative, abstract, or transcendent. We might broadly divide them into two categories: one involves questions about the unity of the universe, nature, or the world, and similar issues, such as metaphysics, philosophy of religion, etc. Regardless of how we view or answer these problems, they are always purely speculative, abstract, and fundamental. The other category is relatively more concrete, such as epistemology, ethics, historical perspective, etc. However, because the latter category of problems is also "meta-problems" or "fundamental problems" in philosophy, they cannot be solved through general scientific methods to obtain some universally necessary, definite answers. In Western philosophy, classical philosophy is primarily concerned with the former category of problems, while modern philosophy is more concerned with the latter. However, regardless of which category, they have not yet reached a conclusion to this day and have never achieved a universal consensus among philosophers. Obviously, all this reflects the special nature of philosophy that differs from scientific knowledge. #65533; Nevertheless, inspired by the great achievements of natural science, the idea of making philosophy a science has been extremely tempting for philosophers for thousands of years. For millennia, philosophers have devoted their wisdom to transforming "the love of wisdom" into "the study of wisdom," forming an indelible "scientific complex." The depth of this influence is evident in the fact that people to this day have not abandoned the ideal of making philosophy a science. Of course, all their efforts have ended in failure. This historical scene has provided critics of philosophy with the strongest weapon, while it has also been a great humiliation for defenders of philosophy to strive to redeem. In fact, they may have misunderstood the nature of philosophy. The objects and problems of philosophy are not on the same level as those of science. It is meaningless to measure philosophy by the standards of science, and it is equally meaningless to desperately maintain philosophy's scientific status. #65533; Some might ask, since philosophy is more about problems than knowledge, and its problems are largely dilemmas without ultimate answers, why must we keep asking them? #65533; In a sense, philosophy or the love and pursuit of wisdom originates from humanity's awareness of its own finitude and the desire to transcend it. When humans emerged from nature and acquired reason, intellect, or self-awareness, a seemingly insurmountable gap appeared before them between finitude and infinity, relative and absolute, reality and ideal, and the mundane and the transcendent. Fundamentally, philosophy embodies humanity's attempt to transcend this boundary. Although as finite natural beings, humans can never realistically reach the infinite ideal realm, as rational beings, this ideal realm is crucial to them, and thus they regard it as the highest ideal of life and remain steadfastly devoted to and pursue it. In this regard, infinity and finitude have a qualitative difference, so we cannot cross the boundary between them through the accumulation of finite knowledge or the continuation of generations. Additionally, because the "essence" of human rational existence lies in its infinite openness, always being in the process of becoming, the ideal realm of wisdom is also infinitely open, and we can never fully or completely concretize or limit it. Therefore, the significance of philosophy does not lie in providing, like science, some definite knowledge, solving some specific problems, or giving us the power to improve our living conditions. In short, the significance of philosophy does not lie in its usefulness. Philosophy primarily embodies humanity's pursuit of a supreme ideal realm, representing the "ultimate concern" of life. Thus, what is considered the great flaw of philosophy—its uselessness—may actually be its superiority. If philosophy were to possess a practical value like science, it would no longer be philosophy. Obviously, there is no need to sacrifice philosophy's own meaning to make it a science. In other words, philosophy as a "discipline" is not a science, and this is not its flaw. On the contrary, this is precisely its extraordinary advantage. #65533; Therefore, philosophy is different from science or knowledge in general. Today, people certainly possess more knowledge than ancient times. A medical student has far more knowledge than Hippocrates, the founder of medicine, yet no one dares to claim that we are wiser in philosophical thinking than Plato or Aristotle. In summary, for us, philosophy is and can only be a manifestation of many "problems," not a form of universally necessary "knowledge." In other words, philosophical problems are "dilemmas" that humans have eternally pursued but cannot obtain ultimate answers to. We can only propose or adopt various solutions to philosophical problems, never giving a definitive, irrefutable ultimate answer. This seemingly fatal weakness of philosophy is actually where its eternal charm lies. #65533; Therefore, learning philosophy is different from learning scientific knowledge. The history of science is a history of knowledge accumulation. Generally, we only need to understand its new achievements without knowing its history to utilize it for our benefit. However, philosophy loses all meaning without its history. Because philosophy is composed of problems and various different solutions, no single theory or doctrine can represent the entire philosophy. Only by "synthesizing" all past, present, and future solutions to philosophical problems can we paint a relatively complete picture of philosophy. Therefore, we say that philosophy is philosophy history, and learning philosophy requires learning philosophy history. Only through studying philosophy history can we truly learn philosophy. #65533; Because the history of philosophy presents us with a seemingly chaotic scene of conflicting views and the "everyone against everyone" of diverse opinions, people often criticize philosophy for lacking the minimal scientificity, dismissing it as outdated and irrelevant on the grounds that all philosophical theories and doctrines are already obsolete. As mentioned earlier, the significance of philosophy lies not in knowledge but in problems. In terms of its content, the thoughts of philosophers in history are indeed outdated. People cannot help but feel discouraged when they mention the philosophical proposition of Thales, the founder of philosophy, that "the earth floats on water," for its simplicity and superficiality. However, the problem he raised, namely the "arche" (origin) problem of where things come from and where they return to, though no longer the main problem of philosophy later, still represents a typical way in which philosophers addressed problems of natural philosophy. We believe that the theories of philosophers may be outdated, but the problems they faced and their different solutions have never been outdated and never will be. Truly speaking, the significance of a philosopher's thought lies in the problems they faced and their extraordinary ways of solving them. Thus, the history of philosophy has never been a linear, knowledge-accumulating history. It presents us with many different "roads" leading to eternal unsolvable problems. Although no single road can reach the other shore, we are inevitably destined to find or choose our own path. In this sense, as Heidegger said, engaging in philosophical thought means "setting out," and the thinking of philosophy is always "on the way" or "in transit." #65533; Therefore, in terms of philosophy being a history of problems, philosophy is not only historical but also entirely realistic; it is "historical thought." When we say that philosophy is "historical thought," the "historicity" here differs from the usual meaning of history. Historicity also carries a meaning of reality in this context. We say it is historical because philosophy, or the history of philosophy, is composed of the many roads walked by predecessors. Without these roads, there would be no philosophy. We say it is realistic because the problems faced by predecessors are still problems for us. Thus, their roads, as different solutions to philosophical problems, each possess an irrecoverable eternal value. Of course, it is undeniable that there are indeed inheritances and developments between different philosophical thoughts. Every philosopher engages in philosophical thinking based on the ideas of predecessors. However, what gives a philosophical thought historical significance does not primarily lie in its inheritance and development from predecessors but in whether it offers us something extraordinary. In this sense, the history of philosophy is not, as Hegel understood, a single path or merely a process of philosophical development, but rather many paths have been walked, and many different paths will yet be taken. Aristotle could not obscure the brilliance of Plato, and Hegel could not replace the position of Kant. The reason is simple: true philosophical problems are forever without ultimate answers, and philosophers can only do their best to offer their unique solutions. #65533; In this regard, learning the history of philosophy is also a "dialogue" and "discussion" with the ancients on the same problems. #65533; Philosophical problems are eternal and unsolvable, so the problems of the ancients are also our problems. Although these problems may change in form under different historical conditions, they are fundamentally. Therefore, in a sense, learning the history of philosophy is standing on the basis of today to engage in a "dialogue" or "discussion" with the ancients on common problems, which is also the "fusion of horizons" mentioned in hermeneutics. Here, what connects our thoughts with those of the ancients is "problems." Learning the history of philosophy is nothing more than retracing the roads walked by the ancients and reflecting once again on their thoughts. The purpose of doing so is not to "revisit the echoes of antiquity" but to continue the path of philosophy, choosing, seeking, or opening our own paths. Thus, in our thoughts, the thoughts of the ancients are "revived," gaining a realistic "life," or rather, they were always "alive" and possessed their own eternal value beyond time. In the "dialogue" between thoughts, reviving the ancients is not "revivalism" but "renewal." From this perspective, the history of philosophy is not a warehouse of dead knowledge or old materials but an organic, living, and ever-open life movement. #65533; Therefore, learning the history of philosophy requires not only grasping the basic ideas of philosophers and the foundational knowledge of relevant fields but more importantly, grasping the living "soul" of philosophy, i.e., "problems." In other words, we not only need to know what philosophers said but first and foremost, why they said it and why they said it in that way rather than another. Otherwise, even if we memorize the history of philosophy, we will end up "knowing the what but not the why," and miss the most valuable aspects of philosophy. Therefore, the key to learning the history of philosophy lies in understanding the "problems" faced by philosophers. This can be said to be the gateway or bridge to entering the kingdom of philosophy, as well as the guide that allows us to move freely within the labyrinth of philosophy. In summary, only in this way can we grasp the context of the history of philosophy, and only in this way can we glimpse the inner sanctum of philosophy. #65533; Therefore, learning the history of philosophy should cultivate a "problem consciousness." #65533;