What is Philosophy?

To ask what philosophy is necessitates one to ask what is philosophy becoming. The nature of philosophy has greatly evolved over time, yet what persists throughout its evolution is an attempt to somehow transcend one’s subjective limitations and know the world as God knows it. Philosophy constitutes a synthesis between the particular and the universal, the subjective and the objective, opinion and Truth. My problem with much philosophy, particularly Platonic and Christian, is that it creates dichotomies between the good and the bad, heaven and hell, true and false, when in reality we live in a single world. The truth is more complex than black or white. This becomes the danger of abstract philosophizing, which seems to believe, for instance, the Plato’s Forms exist independent of the reality in which they are pursued. Thus, to Plato, in order to discover the truth one must be prepared to abandon one’s world and as an atomized individual transcend this world into some higher more universal realm.
This process of pursuing truth has two sides, albeit one is typically severely neglected. We look at the rise of modernity as if it was an autonomous creation of Europe’s superior intellect, yet it was only after 1492 that Europe became the center of the world system (Immanuel Wallerstein). This is an issue that I explored in some depth during my Latin Philosophy Class last semester. Through the readings of such philosophers as Walter Mignolo and Enrique Dussel, our class explored some of the overwhelmingly Eurocentric biases of such great German philosophers as Kant, Hegel and Habermas. Since Germany is the home to much of what we call philosophy it seems quite necessary to expose the context in which such philosophy was actually created. In short, without the radical transformation in material conditions afforded by the seemingly infinite abundance of resources and labor in the New World, the rise of modernity never would have taken place. This illuminates my problem with analytic philosophy. On one side, their focus on logic is necessary, however, it is in no way sufficient as it frequently neglects the time and space in and through which any philosophical work is created.
Another problem I have with the way much philosophy has been conducted is that it has relied on the assumption that the most objective philosophy is the product of atomized individuals. Given the problem of induction, the difficulties of transitioning from a subjective to an objective understanding of the world are quite considerable. How can one know the whole if one’s perspective is limited to but a particular part? Broadening one’s perspective by actively collaborating with other members of a community is necessary albeit still insufficient to gaining a completely objective understanding of the world. Nonetheless, this is a necessary step, in that in a sense, it allows one to transcend the confines of one’s own biases and insufficiencies of experience, in order to not only know the world more objectively, but perhaps even more importantly to live more ethically and thus peacefully within both one’s local community and the global community. Perhaps Kant was right and we can never know the noumena, yet life does not necessitate us to know so much as it necessitates us to live. By creating an absolutely inclusive dialogue between all members of one’s community and also between different communities, one is able to facilitate a democratic epistemology and ethics. This epistemology and ethics must be reciprocal and allow for constructive criticism that transcends the traditional hierarchy of knowledge production in which knowledge is seen as being passed down, vessel to vessel, from the teacher to the student. The teacher can also learn and the student can also teach for both have a subjectively limited worldview and thus both can mutually benefit from a truly open communal approach to both knowing and living ethically.
In my opinion, philosophy needs to abandon its pursuit of any fixed essences (such as Plato’s Forms or Hegel’s Spirit). Immanuel Kant introduced philosophy as a method of critiquing current epistemologies and metaphysics. This critical application of philosophy is absolutely necessary and illuminates the need for philosophy even in 2007. Philosophy can serve to check and balance the dogma of Christianity, Islam, Communism and Capitalism just as it can serve to preserve these dogmatic forces. The fact remains that philosophy does not evolve in some abstract vacuum but in a particular socio-historical context. Thus to understand any given philosopher’s ideas requires one to take stock of the history and culture that so envelopes any philosopher. Nonetheless, existentialist thought demonstrates that we are more than the products of our time and space and that in the end we have the great power and responsibility to choose where we stand and not just what we philosophize about but for whom we philosophize as well.
By far the most influential philosopher in my life is Watsuji Tetsuro. Despite Watsuji’s active and conscious participation in some of the horrid atrocities committed by Imperialist Japan during World War Two of which I wrote my term paper about last semester for my Sociology of Knowledge class, Watsuji’s synthesis of Eastern and Western ideas is utterly enlightening. Watsuji’s early philosophical education was confined to Western philosophy, which introduces an interesting topic explored both in my Watsuji class and in my Latin American Philosophy class, that is, is there even such a thing as Japanese or Latin American philosophy respectively. The very framing of this question demonstrates the Eurocentric sickness of what many of us seem to exclusively consider philosophy. The argument can be made that only European’s actively sought to answer universal questions, whereas Japanese thought was insufficiently critical (as if this wasn’t the case during the middle ages in Europe) and culturally isolated and Latin American thought too particular and political (as if such profoundly influential thinkers as Locke and Hobbes weren’t strongly influenced by the political context of their place and age).
Watsuji’s own socio-historical context of a Western education coupled with Buddhist teachings and a distinctly unique Japanese culture parallels the east-west synthesis in his own philosophy. In short, Watsuji believes that to be truly human necessitates us to be both an individual and a member of a community (environmental, political, cultural, and of course being part of one’s family. Herein, we see Watsuji’s refusal to succumb to the binary logic so rampant in Western thought (particularly in the sciences). One must incessantly negotiate and renegotiate seeing oneself both as an autonomous individual and as part of a greater whole. Watsuji’s ideas are expressed through concrete examples such as to be a teacher their must also be students just as to be a husband requires that their be a wife, without the one the other ceases to exist. Furthermore, it is not as though we evolve into communitarian beings (as asserted by Rousseau’s original state of nature), for we have always identified ourselves in relation to others. The most clear example of this is the existence of language. We think in language and language’s intention is necessarily to communicate. While we may communicate without language we cannot use language and continue to perceive ourselves as isolated, atomized individuals. Watsuji gives an example to explain this in which he notes that even a philosopher thinking alone in his room as he or she merely stairs at a blank wall is thinking through language and since this language could not have been formed or evolved on an exclusively individual level, one’s philosophy is always necessarily a community endeavor. The ethical ramifications of Watsuji’s philosophy are absolutely remarkable as they synthesize many Western ideas of liberalism such as human rights and a community responsibility historically embedded in Japanese and Eastern culture.
In conclusion, philosophy is seeking a mirage if it continues to seek essences. The truth lies in relations, in the betweeness between the myriad parts, and thus to know is a two fold process whereby we must study the whole and the part. This epistemological method is reveled through Japanese, Latin American and Feminist Philosophy, in addition to complexity studies in the sciences and cultural studies in the humanities. To know one we must know the other. Furthermore, we must recognize that reality is constantly moving. Therefore, to know the truth we must move with it.