The Uses and Misuses of Philosophy

“I wanted to take this opportunity to consider some of the ways philosophy has been used and misused in contemporary political debates to justify a broad range of positions.”

Far-right activist Stefan Molyneux recently called himself the “most influential modern philosopher,” likely referring to both the impact of his various media presentations and the publication of his recent book Essential Philosophy: How to Know What On Earth is Going On. The book itself has very serious limitations, as my frequent collaborator Ben Burgis and I intend to point out in a forthcoming review. One of the most glaring is Molyneux defines philosophy in a huge number of ways. To give a partial list of definitions given in one short book: philosophy is “the study of truth,” and it is a “methodology that helps you determine the difference between subjective experiences and facts.” Later Molyneux claims that “the heart of philosophy…is morality” and that “the purpose of philosophy is to get you to change your moral habits.” At one point we get the contention that “very essence of philosophy is to differentiate between various states, to point to the best preferred” and that “philosophy is the rational hypothesis of empirical action.” Philosophy is apparently the “largest circle of mental disciplines,” is “founded on hostility to authority,” is a “practice (involving) the creation of arguments.” And, of course, at one point Molyneux claims that “philosophy is like exercise.”

To avoid spoiling the full review, I will refrain from extensive criticisms of these definitional problems here. Instead, I wanted to take this opportunity to consider some of the ways philosophy has been used and misused in contemporary political debates to justify a broad range of positions. I will then put forward my own speculations on what the proper use of philosophy in public discourse should be. However, I will follow the sound advice of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their classic What is Philosophy? and will refrain from putting forward a definition of the philosophical enterprise. This is, in part, because I agree with Deleuze and Guattari that a rich understanding of the philosophical enterprise can only come near the end of a life spent examined. To put forward a definition prematurely would only cheapen philosophy, and the intention of this article is partly to rescue it from such debasement. It will also draw in part from my earlier article on the purposes of a post-secondary education in the humanities and social sciences.

Philosophy Should be the Handmaiden of Tradition

For some, the purposes of philosophy should be the elaboration upon and justification of settled traditions. This conservative interpretation has deep roots in various traditions. One can arguably connect it to the thinking of both Confucius and Aristotle in very different parts of the world. Both men stressed that—at least—moral philosophy had to be embedded in a rich set of traditions and practices, which outlined what characteristics a moral individual would embody. This approach carried down through the work of conservative thinkers such as David Hume and Edmund Burke and finds expression today in the work of aestheticians like Roger Scruton, political theorists like Yoram Hazony, and (problematically) pundits like Ben Shapiro (whose book I reviewed here). More theologically inclined philosophers may even aspire to take up the Miltonian challenge of “[justifying] the ways of God to men” through philosophical speculation on the nature of various religious beliefs.