Why Philosophy is Important

Today more than ever the serious-minded are convinced that philosophy has practical tasks.

~ Nicolai Hartmann

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental questions of existence. It is an extremely broad subject, including fields such as ontology (the study of being) and epistemology (the theory of knowledge), to political philosophy and philosophy of language. Many people in my personal circle, who are experts in finance, political science, and such subjects, denigrate philosophy. They have stated three reasons in particular for doing so:

A) The subversiveness of most philosophers.

B) The inaccessibility of the philosophical texts that they have come across.

C) The supposed impracticality or irrelevance of philosophy to the real problems of life.

There is no doubt that much of contemporary philosophy—and much of the philosophical canon as well—is trivial, impractical, obviously wrong, remote from life, and put to subversive ends. However, this goes for many fields: physical anthropology, in which the importance of race is denied by many prominent representatives; political science, which takes for granted that liberal democracy is the best possible form of government; and neoclassical economics, which works from an incorrect picture of the human being and deduces (with impeccable logic) an array of equally absurd conclusions that are seldom if ever corroborated by the facts.

Yet we need these fields to survive in some form. Just because the “experts” in these fields have taken them in the wrong direction, this does not mean that the fields should be discarded entirely. Rather, they need to be reformed. Current paradigms, with their outdated assumptions and methodologies, have to be replaced. It is therefore clear that the lamentable state of contemporary philosophy can’t be used against philosophy as such. But perhaps the importance of these other subjects is more obvious than that of philosophy, because there is less of an ingrained prejudice against them. Thus, more needs to be said about why philosophy is important.

I would like to start by trying to put philosophy on a level with certain other disciplines, by pointing out the diversity of the subject. Certain forms of philosophy can be very technical, and even inaccessible to people who haven’t been formally trained in philosophy. The work of Gottlob Frege in philosophy of mathematics,¹ or of Saul Kripke in the philosophy of language,² is unlikely to enthuse people who haven’t made philosophy their special area of study. But the same is true of original work in quantum mechanics, or advanced chemistry, which would be inaccessible and even intolerably dull to most. Such works are aimed at professionals who have a special interest in the subject. It is no wonder then that non-professionals rarely want to read them. And yet everyone should concede that natural science is of enormous importance for everyone, because it is behind the great advances in medicine and the development of various technologies used by ordinary people, that in many cases improve and prolong life.

Fortunately, for both natural science and philosophy, popularisers provide books, podcasts, and documentaries for the layman, which don’t make such strong demands on him as the original sources, yet can communicate something of the importance and depth of their respective subjects. Today, technicality is no reason for not being interested in a subject in some form. Philosophy has an advantage here, in that its broadness, the sheer number of questions and problems that it touches on, as well as the different approaches to the subject that exist, have given it a strange intermediate position between the natural sciences and the humanities. One might just as well express a philosophy in a treatise like Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as in a novel like Sartre’s La Nausée (Nausea). Similarly, philosophy could be written in a seemingly impenetrable or obscure style like that of Hegel:

This is a light that breaks forth on spiritual substance, and shows absolute content and absolute form to be identical; — substance is in itself identical with knowledge. Self-consciousness thus, in the third place, recognizes its positive relation as its negative, and its negative as its positive, - or, in other words, recognizes these opposite activities as the same i.e. it recognizes pure Thought or Being as self-identity, and this again as separation. This is intellectual perception; but it is requisite in order that it should be in truth intellectual, that it should not be that merely immediate perception of the eternal and the divine which we hear of, but should be absolute knowledge. This intuitive perception which does not recognize itself is taken as starting-point as if it were absolutely presupposed; it has in itself intuitive perception only as immediate knowledge, and what it perceives it does not really know, — for, taken at its best, it consists of beautiful thoughts, but not knowledge.

On the other hand, it could be written in the wonderfully clear style of David Hume:

Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment. The utmost we say of them, even when they operate with greatest vigour, is, that they represent their object in so lively a manner, that we could almost say we feel or see it: But, except the mind be disordered by disease or madness, they never can arrive at such a pitch of vivacity, as to render these perceptions altogether undistinguishable. All the colours of poetry, however splendid, can never paint natural objects in such a manner as to make the description be taken for a real landskip. The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.

Philosophical schools, as well as individual philosophers, have different writing styles, concerns, formats in which they offer their work, and so on. Because of this, philosophy will always be able to offer something to people of different dispositions and talents. The wordcel and the man of action can both be satisfied. So much for the inaccessibility of philosophy.

But what of the alleged uselessness of philosophy for life? It is true that for the average person, debates over the nature of time or the question of what language is are unlikely to be of interest or any obvious use. However, these often very technical debates are only part of philosophy, and in any case they could certainly be of use to quantum physicists or linguists. Leaving them aside, let us focus on one branch of philosophy that obviously does have immediate practical importance to everyone, namely ethics. Ethics ultimately concerns how one should live. Is there a question of greater importance than this? It touches on every aspect of life. Is the life of my nation of greater value than my own? How should I treat my wife and children? Should I even have a family in the first place? Is giving to charity a moral obligation? Are there limits to what the state should be allowed to do? Is experimentation on human beings for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge immoral? This selection of questions should be sufficient to show the comprehensiveness of the subject, and the fact that nobody, no matter how remote from academic philosophy they consider themselves to be, can escape the essentially philosophical questions of ethics. Almost everyone, educated or uneducated, will have considered questions like these at some point, and in doing so, they have been philosophising. I would argue that by studying philosophy to some extent, they could better understand the nature of the problems and come to understand their solutions.³

However, since we are concerned here with the practical importance of philosophy, let’s consider why philosophy might matter to my readers in particular, i.e. people of a particular political persuasion. The basic point is this: whether one likes it or not, philosophers do have a massive influence on every aspect of society. This influence may often be indirect, but it exists nonetheless. I will sketch out a few ways in which this influence is felt.

Various kinds of political systems and institutions have been inspired and shaped by philosophical ideas: the Soviet Union depended as much on the philosophy of dialectical materialism as it did on a critique of the capitalist system; Giovanni Gentile’s Actual Idealism was prominent in Fascist Italy; and utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill had a concrete impact on British government policy in the 19^th century.

Our TV series and films are filled with references to philosophers, and in some cases are intended to express some philosophical point of view or provoke questions.⁴ Although people may often be in a passive mode when watching films or TV shows, the ideas expressed in them will tend to sink in and influence their subsequent thinking. If this wasn’t so, our opponents wouldn’t go to such lengths to inject their ideology into the media we watch.

Many people who think of themselves as unconcerned with philosophy are in fact taking for granted a number of ideas which were developed by philosophers. For example, an American politician who has never read John Locke in his life will probably find himself parroting his ideas, and his supporters will often do the same.⁵ Or a Christian may console himself on his deathbed with the thought that it is only his body, and not his soul, that will be destroyed.⁶

Now, the reader might well note that in some of the examples I have just cited, the effect of philosophers has been detrimental. I have already said in the beginning of this article why I don’t think that this observation can be used to undermine philosophy as such. The real question is: given the obvious importance of philosophy, are we going to use it for our own ends or not? An anti-intellectual current has long existed in what I will reluctantly call “the right”, which exhibits characteristics such as an aversion to systematic thinking, and a stance which focuses too much on critique and too little on construction. As a result, the right has produced fewer philosophers over time. Why is this a problem? It is a problem because if we don’t do the thinking, we will have the thinking done for us by other people. As is clear today, these other people might not have our best interests at heart.

If we want to understand the nature of the system we are opposed to, and to critique it effectively, we would do best to understand its ideological underpinnings, and to equip ourselves with the intellectual tools necessary to take it apart. The system is total, touching on every aspect of life—economics, literature, music, politics, the natural and social sciences, history, and more. A reform of all of the intellectual disciplines is required, as they have all been distorted over time. We have to develop our own coherent worldview to replace the dominant one. Philosophy, due to the facts that it touches on all of the other disciplines, that it can develop one’s critical thinking skills, that it engenders a sceptical stance that can be used just as much against liberalism as against traditional ideas, and due to the ability to think systematically that one learns through a disciplined study of it, will have an important role in the reform of these disciplines, and consequently in the general struggle for the life and independence of the folk.

1. German philosopher, born November 1848, died 1925; known for his highly technical work in the philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of language. For examples, see his book “Foundations of Arithmetic” and his essay “On Sense and Reference”.

2. American philosopher and logician, born November 1940, died September 2022; known for his book “Naming and Necessity” and his interpretation of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his book “Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language”.

3. Due to lack of time, I won’t go into other branches of philosophy such as epistemology here, but I think it has been made clear that one can’t discount the usefulness of all of philosophy.

4. To take a few examples, Blade Runner, The Matrix, and Groundhog Day all have philosophical as well as scientific themes, including personhood, illusion, fate, and others.

5. The Founding Fathers expressed essentially Lockean ideas about rights in the Declaration of Independence.

6. The contemporary Christian concept of the soul has of course been heavily influenced by philosophical debates over the nature of the soul, and its relation to the body.