The future of philosophy

Future of Philosophy

I am tremendously skeptical of academic philosophy. In a sense it is dying. It can no longer claim to possess or “discover” objective certainties. As Gianni Vattimo asserts, philosophy exists now without “metaphysics”, that is sufficient systems of philosophy which yield “Truths” with a capital T. As Vattimo reminds us, when Nietzsche said “God is dead” he wasn’t just talking about institutionalized religion. He was talking about the death of all objective truths that can be applied universally across all times and all spaces.

I must stress, however, that this does not mean “throwing the baby out with bathwater” and by baby I mean such things as reason, truth (albeit with a lower case t) and objectivity. Many postmodernists and even some feminist philosophers seem to have made this mistake as they plunge into an indecisive and ironic absolute relativism. Eske Moellegaard’s visit to our metaphilosophy class in addition to the writings of Alain Badiou have instilled in me a profound conviction that philosophy can still serve a vital and most necessary function in our present predicament. Philosophy is about seeking the universal. Therefore, philosophy must strive to derive from the universal, that is, from a multiplicity of diverse positions. Just as importantly, it must strive to answer those questions that apply to us all and refuse to be confined to particular, albeit oppressed, positions. The present political and philosophical predicament we are in is commonly refered to as Identity Politics. Women fight for women’s issues, minorities fight for minority issues, gays fight for gay issues. This is not to say that many of such social movements and philosophies are unaware of the interdependence inherit these nexuses of oppression, yet I believe they could be making greater efforts to address the reality that they are all oppressed, and while the reasons and contexts of such oppression may vary greatly at times, the success of any progressive movement rests in solidarity. This means that the left needs to build more and more coalitions between such groups. I believe philosophy can significantly contribute to the materialization of this idealization by acting as both a mediator and active participant. Philosophy must act to bridge these bridges between various social movements, granting focus to the universality of this oppression. Philosophy will not provide a view from nowhere, however, I am firmly convinced that it is capable of a certain “disinterested interest” (Alain Badiou) whereby it can take a step back and provide constructive (and often critical) suggestions for future action. What this all implies of course is that philosophy become more political. More specifically, all of philosophy must become more political not just its still marginalized subdisciplines, such as feminist and Latin American philosophies.

Philosophy must adapt or it will not survive. It must choose to politicize itself, and be honest with itself. Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is wonderfully intoxicating as just about any philosopher could tell you, but this is not sufficient for enacting any change. As Marx once said, “Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it” (11^th Thesis on Feuerbach). Contrary to this statement, philosophers have greatly changed the world, albeit in many instances this change has come about by simply impeding or confining progressive social changes. Philosophers have served most indispensable roles in upholding the status quo for as long as philosophy has exists. They have limited our options to the individualism, parlementarianism, and capitalism, but philosophers have also forced us to think beyond and herein lies the future mission of philosophy. Philosophy allows for the presence of political and explicitly subversive subdisciplines yet it segregates them and marginalizes them within academia (think feminism and any non-western philosophies). Philosophy must allow the totality of its discipline (if one must call it a discipline) to be transformed into means for progressivism to universalize both its participants and its audience. This obviously requires that philosophy break down the boundaries between analytic and continental, between logical and ethical, and between what is esteemed as logically superior philosophy and what is written off as Heideggarian nonsense. Analytic philosophy has much to offer the discipline, yet it must explicitly politicize itself and actively facilitate the construction of a dialogue between itself and other sub disciplines in philosophy.

I am both optimistic and pessimistic in these prescriptions for philosophy. I am not in academia so I am not fully aware of how complex such internal divisions really are, and thus am unsure of what exactly it will take to transform philosophy before it joins theology on the endangered disciplines list. What I can say is that philosophy has all the tools to actively contribute, and perhaps even lead, the progressive movement through its critical (and especially self-critical abilities, thus humility) and universal orientation by addressing questions that apply to us all. The key will be whether philosophy itself allows these universal addresses to be constructive by all and not just a few elitist philosophers. The future of philosophy is thus ambiguous, yet my faith in its ability to adapt and strive to think both through and beyond our present predicament persists.