Unit 1 Introduction to Philosophy*

Structure

1.0 Objectives

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Understanding What Philosophy Is: Questions, Confusions, Wonder, Dogma

1.3 Understanding What Philosophy Does: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology

1.4 Doing Philosophy: Doubting the Undoubted, Transcending the Limits of Knowledge

1.5 Let Us Sum Up

1.6 Key Words

1.7 Further Readings and References

1.8 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this unit are

 To provide a general introduction and to orient the learner towards the discipline of
Philosophy.
 Helping the learner engage with philosophical thinking as a means of understanding
what philosophy is.
 Introducing the learner to philosophical questions of Metaphysics, Epistemology,
Axiology etc. and their interrelation.
 Briefly acquainting the learner with some philosophical problems.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

What is Philosophy? What makes Philosophy and Philosophical thinking a discipline distinct
from mathematics, science, history, psychology, linguistics, etc.?

*
Dr. Mahak Uppal, Assistant Professor, Hindu College, University of Delhi.

14
 ―N
P ‖ q ―W P ?‖
themselves philosophical. Suggesting further that the quest for knowing what philosophy is,
and the methods one employs to find a coherent and satisfactory answer to that question, is
itself a philosophical one from the very outset. What makes this observation even more
‘ isanalogy with asking and answering similar questions about other
z ― ‖ ― ‖ ―
‖
respectively. There is therefore something distinctly philosophical about trying to understand
philosophy itself.

Yet answering this question is no simple task. The subject-matter, nature, content, and
methodology of Philosophy have often been regarded as being extremely hard to capture in a
simple concise definition. One reason for this difficulty could be the inherent tendency of
philosophy to be interested in, and interact with, the concepts, subject matter and methods
which otherwise tend to carve the structure and foundations of other specialized disciplines.

Gilber Ryle (1945-1946) drew a distinction between two kinds of knowing— ―

‖ ― ‖ T P
either and/or both of these ways. Following this Rylean distinction one may make an attempt
at understanding Philosophy by having recourse to the multifarious definitions and
descriptions through which it has been explained by thinkers and philosophers; and/or one
may try understanding the nature of philosophy by engaging with philosophising ourselves,
i.e., by actually doing philosophy.

This introductory unit aims at equipping the learners with a working understanding of what
philosophy is. In this attempt the unit will take the learner through a discussion of some
popular descriptions about the nature of philosophy. Even though the selected descriptions
may not be entirely sufficient in explaining to us the true and distinct nature of philosophy,
yet they present themselves as necessary and significant starting points in our current
endeavour. These discussions would simultaneously raise and consider questions which will
help the learner understand the nature of philosophical thinking by means of directly
engaging with some prominent philosophical problems and thinking through them.

15
1.2 UNDERSTANDING WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS:
QUESTIONS, CONFUSIONS, WONDER, AND DOGMA

If we look up the dictionaries and the several internet resources available to us, we would
―P ‖ described as a specialized discipline which
studies basic, fundamental, and general questions concerning the ideas and concepts such as
existence, knowledge, values, reason, etc.

L ― ‖ ― ‖ ―q ‖ S
philosophy is being described as the study of these general and fundamental questions, it
would indeed be worthwhile to first of all understand what they signify.

Every discipline and every specialized area of inquiry usually begins with certain intellectual
presuppositions, which often appear in the form of certain concepts and ideas that constitute
the very foundation and framework of the discipline concerned. Since these concepts are so
fundamental, they tend to remain as unquestioned starting points onto which the
T ― ‖
― ‖
is taken as granted (Prichard 2016, xiii). Questioning and engaging with these conceptual
foundations may be described as a defining characteristic of philosophical inquiries in
general.

Let us think about mathematics for instance. One critical concept that mathematics rely upon
― ‖ Yet inquiring about the nature and status of numbers themselves, and
q ― ?‖ ― ?‖
no longer remain the subject of mathematics itself. Any attempt at coherently answering these
q ― q ‖ R
questions as— are numbers real or tangible entities like trees, chairs and tables? If they are
― ‖ ‘ jects? Or are numbers
imaginary like unicorns and mythological characters? But if they are imaginary, then how is
it that most humans are able to conceptualize and use them in a strikingly similar manner,
irrespective of cultural social, geographical, distinctions; etc.— are instead constitutive of a
proper philosophical investigation. Similar observations can be made about the sciences too,
which tend to take as foundational the conceptions of Spatiality, Temporality, Causation, the
Physical nature of Reality, etc. among others. If the scientists were to entertain the possibility

16
of the world being imaginary, or even non-physical, then they would hardly be able to
discover or make any certain claims about the nature of reality on the basis of physical laws
and principles. Furthermore, if they were to start questioning the very idea of causation, on
the basis of which reliable predictions are made regarding underlying causes and possible
effects, then they would hardly be engaging in science; rather they would be venturing into
philosophical investigations. Engaging with general and fundamental questions like— ―
?‖ ― ?‖ ― ?‖ ― ?‖
scientific quests per say; they become matters of philosophical theorization. Likewise, we
would observe that if a psychologist begins to investigate questions such as What is Mind?
O W E ?; L ―W M ‖ ― L ‖;
S ―W S ‖ P T ―W
J ‖ ― ‖ q
linguistics, sociology, or political science respectively; instead these foundational
investigations would traverse into the more generalized domain of philosophizing. This also
provides an explanation of why a deeper more foundational study of any discipline is called a
―P ‖ ― P ‖

W 968) ― ? q ‖
aiming to emphasize a crucial aspect of philosophy and philosophizing which helps us
distinguish it from other disciplines. He was comparing foundational investigations like
― ‖ q ― ‖
q ―W P ?‖
question, as in raising and addressing it we do not end up transcending disciplinary
boundaries. Rather in asking and addressin ― ‖
and understand the theoretical and conceptual presuppositions of philosophizing itself, and
that exercise falls within the purview of philosophical thinking, as it is nothing but a bona-
fide philosophical query.

S ?P q ―P
W ‖
‗ ‘ ‗ ‘
something? Do we wonder about everything? Are we really curious about everything? The
‗ ‘ S q
what determines when our curiosity gets ignited and engages us in wonder? We find
ourselves being perplexed about things and events which are either unexpected, or novel, or

17
unfamiliar. Imagine that you are out on an excursion trip in a dense forest, and you end up
being left behind by your fellow travellers who have gone ahead with the guide. You start
following the trodden path in an attempt to catch up with the group. You are unfazed as you
march alone, since there is just one pathway leading ahead. But now out of a sudden you
approach a point where the pathway diverges into two directions. It is now that you are
perplexed. Till there was a singular path you were hardly thinking about which way to go
(Dewey 1910). But the moment another alternative appeared, you found yourself compelled
to think, reflect, wonder, and decide which way to choose and why. Similar is the case with
W ― + =4‖ S
other alternative answer, we hardly ever find ourselves mulling over or wondering about this
for ― + ‖ q 5
your mind would be perplexed as this novel possibility and begin wondering. You would be
curious to know, why and under what circumstances can 2 and 2 add up to 5 and not 4. So,
we find that the availability of alternatives and possibilities (which may be novel, or even yet
un-discovered) is what provokes a sense of wonder, demand us to think, reflect, philosophise
and make sense of the yet un-explained.

Similarly, one would observe that the endeavour of thinking through foundational concepts
and ideas reveals that there are numerous theories and numerous perspectives (more often
dissimilar and only sometimes alike in certain respects) that can be adopted with regard to the
exact sense and significance of the concepts under question. There is an obvious lack of
clarity or certainty; instead, what one lands up with is, opacity, ambiguity, and a lot of
disagreement. So, each time we raise and try to address a fundamental question, one
― ‖
gradually starts engaging with the available/plausible alternative interpretations; with the aim
of gaining clarity, coherence, and consistency in our thoughts, ideas and understanding; one
finds oneself engaging in philosophizing.

This brings us to another way of characterizing the Nature of Philosophy. Dayakrishna, a

contemporary Indian Philosopher in his “N u e of Philo oph ”(2009), opined that
Philoso ― par excellence‖ j
― ‖
― ‖ ― al
‖ H ―P
[ ] ‖ 9 3 9)

18
Concepts are the most fundamental currency of thought, and philosophical thinking tends to
― ‖ ― ‖

The above discussion further highlights how questions reveal and make us realize the nature
and extent of these conceptual confusions. Raising questions, tackling the evident ambiguity,
confusion and apparent contradiction is definitely unsettling, for the moment a question is
raised an alternative opens up a possibility of things views states of affairs being other than
what we had earlier presumed them to be T ― ‖
or an idea, in order to gain clarity, coherence and consistency we end up doing philosophy.
Philosophical thinking therefore, can also be said to begin with the motivation of removing
opacity and gaining clarity.

Summarily, the above discussions characterize Philosophy as a cognitive activity of thinking

through things thoroughly and rigorously. It thrives on questioning aimed at gaining
conceptual clarifications. The tools that philosophy utilizes to accomplish this task thorough
thinking are Reasoning, Argumentation, Explanation and most importantly Logic, which aids
us with ways and means of engaging in correct reasoning thereby also distinguishing correct
from in-correct reasoning. Philosophy is triggered and propelled by a deep sense of wonder,
curiosity, and the desire to know. This desire should, however, not to be conflated with the
otherwise more common instinct of gathering information. Rather it needs to be understood
as a more nuanced urge of arriving at answers which give clarity, coherence, and certainty to
our thoughts, concepts, and ideas. As learners and practitioners of philosophy, we would tend
― ‖ j
thorough questioning-thinking-reflecting process before being admitted/accepted/imbibed.

Finally, the critical and questioning spirit inherent in philosophy is what also makes it Anti-
― z ndeniably
‖ ― ‖
q ― ‖
― ‖ ― ‖ ―W - ‖ - ‖ E q ioning, argumentation
gets discouraged or disallowed, one can be sure that one is dealing with a dogma. Completely
opposed to dogmatism is philosophizing which thrives upon and inculcates a questioning,
reflective, and critical approach. It enables individuals to develop as free, curious, and
P ― ‘‖ ‘ ‘ S

19
 j ― ‖ j
and supporting arguments regarding why that assertion is plausible.

Know Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. W ―W ?‖ q ion?

…………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

1.3 Understanding What Philosophy Does: Metaphysics,

Epistemology, Axiology

A Philosophical Inquiry can be directed onto a variety of subject matter. In fact, there are
numerous specialized sub-fields that philosophers engage with—philosophy of science,
Philosophy of biology, Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of language, Philosophy of
mathematics, Political Philosophy, Social Philosophy, Philosophy of history, Philosophy of
love, Philosophy of culture, Philosophy of morality, Philosophy of human person, Philosophy
of religion, etc. Apart from these, the philosophical developments appearing in certain
geographical regions, and in certain historical periods, have also been identified and studied
as specialized fields of inquiry, for instance Classical/ Contemporary Indian Philosophy;
Ancient Philosophy, Greek Philosophy, Continental Philosophy; Ancient/ Modern/
Contemporary Western Philosophy; Chinese Philosophy, etc.

Together with these, most philosophical enquiries usually get classified either as being
― ‖ ― ‖ ― ‖

Metaphysics encompasses investigations concerning the nature of Reality, including (but not
) q ― ‖ ―W
R ?‖; ―W ?‖; ―I
ultimately material or is it non-material and s ?‖; ―W

20
 ?‖; ―W G S
etc.? are they as real as the pen and paper in our hands, if yes then how, and if not then
?‖; ― )/standard(s)/characteristic(s) allow us to draw a distinction being
R U ?‖; ―W R
E ?‖; ― R ?‖;

Epistemology, concerns itself with investigations regarding the nature of knowledge,

including the means, the origin, the validity of the same. Some significant epistemological
― ?‖; ―H
?‖; ―H ?‖; ―W
?‖; ―W ?
?‖; ― ?‖;
―W e between perceiving something, believing something, understanding
?‖;

Axiology refers to investigations concerning the nature of values. Valuational judgments

―T ‖ ―F ‖ L ; ―M ‖
―I ‖ ― ‖ ― ‖ E ;
regarding the value of Beauty come under Aesthetics. Axiology concerns itself with
questions like: What is the metaphysical status of these values? i.e., are they real are they
unreal? Are these values same for everyone or do they differ across people and groups? i.e.,
are they subjective, objective, or intersubjective?; Are these values learned, can they be
taught or are they instinctively present?; etc.

Most of the discussions in philosophy tend to get classified as one or the other of these
abovementioned inquiries. Most of the themes that the learners would be familiarized with in
the upcoming units of this course would deal with problems associated with these themes
directly or indirectly. Yet, as far as these three categories of philosophical queries and
investigations are concerned, there are certain clarifications that need to be kept in mind. Like
most classifications the boundaries of these categories; i.e., metaphysics, epistemology,
axiology; are not watertight, rather they are blurry, and even porous. It is not the case that a
metaphysical inquiry is completely disconnected from epistemological concerns or vice-
versa; or that an inquiry in ethics is isolated from metaphysics and epistemology. Neither of
these categories should be taken to signify rigid distinctions, because at a deeper level of
analysis they are essentially interdependent, and intertwined through shared concerns. This

21
may be demonstrated as follows. Every inquiry presumes a sort of a relation between the
subject, the knower, the inquirer; and the object which the knower is trying to inquire about.
And in so far as it is relational every inquiry depends as much upon the nature of the knower
as it depends upon and reveals the nature of the subject matter. In so far as this is the case,
every inquiry ends up being a concern which is at the same time metaphysical (since it needs
to decipher the nature of the object under scrutiny) and epistemological (since it needs to
decipher the nature of the knower and the knowing process). For instance, enhancing or
changing our visual apparatus reveals a completely different reality to us, be it with the use of
the microscope or the telescope, or even spectacles. Had these instruments not enhanced to
our epistemic apparatus, our understanding of reality and its constitutions would have been
very different. Any change in either of the constitutive elements has a direct impact on the
nature of the inquiry and the findings that result from it.

Know Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. What is Epistemology?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.4 Doing Philosophy: Doubting the Indubitable, Transcending

the limits of knowledge

Philosophical problems and inquiries often begin with simple questions and doubts— Is there
anything that we can know with absolute certainty? Is there anything which cannot be
doubted? Can the really real even be known? Is reality exactly how things appear to us? Can
reality be known by us? If there is really a God, then why is there suffering in the world?
Getting an overview of what doing philosophy involves, and amounts to, can be

22
demonstrated by showing how a simple query can open up other correlated issues which at
times do not cohere, create confusions and therefore, demand further clarifications.

1.4.1 Doubting the Indubitable

All academic disciplines, be it the sciences or the arts, tend to be propelled by the impetus of
seeking clarity and certainty in our understanding, whether it is about the nature of the world
we inhabit, or about the nature of our own selves. But is there anything which cannot be
doubted and negated, about which we can be absolutely certain. Is there anything which is
indubitably true? Adi Sankaracarya, the propounder of Advaita Vedanta, observed that
irrespective of the experiences one has—be it wakefulness, dream, or deep sleep— the
z ‘ -sublatable and
undeniable. Mulling over similar queries, Rene Descartes in hi ―Meditations‖ 1978)
stumbled upon the observation that even though we may raise cogent doubts about
everything, yet in the whole process of doubting and thinking, something which presents
itself as an indubitable fact is the very existence of the doubter or the doubting self. The fact
that I am thinking and or raising a doubt, by implication, proves my own existence. And
moment the existence of the knowing self is proved, the existence of many other things can
― ‖ G E M ―Defence of Common Sense‖ 9 5)
showed how if we believe that we exist and if we believe in evolution and reproduction, then
by implication we can prove the existence of the external world and the existence of other
persons and other minds.

But the question still remains as to whether my existence is as simple and certain a fact as
Shankaracarya and Descartes thought it to be, is it really impossible to doubt our very
existence? Whatever we know of ourselves has to do with the memories we have of our past
and current experiences. What if we are nothing more than an artificial brain kept in a vat
(Putnam, 1999) connected with a computer program which artificially feeds us experiences
and memories. Since we have to ultimately rely on our experiences and memories to be sure
of our existence, and since these memories and experiences may be artificially fed to us, then
it may be validly asked –how, if at all, can we ever be certain of whether we are real persons
with flesh and blood or merely computer programs fed with experiences and memories of a
person with flesh and blood. It is hard to tell. Perhaps everything can in fact be reasonably
doubted; perhaps we cannot be certain even of our own existences either.

23
1.4.2 Transcending the Limits of Knowledge

Another interesting philosophical problem concerns the limits of knowledge. Imagine being
born with an innate pair of blue spectacles, which you are neither aware of, nor can get rid of.
Everything you ever saw and experienced was always seen through those spectacles. Because
everything you could ever see was always viewed through the glasses you would naturally
have the impression that the world is really as it appears to you. But one fine day a doctor
told you that all this while you had been seeing the world through these blue glasses you were
born with. Now since you cannot take off the glasses either, you continue to experience the
world as you always did, the only difference being that you now begin to wonder and think—
― ‖? Y
― ‖
I ― ‖ ?I ?T
questions th ―
‖ ?
degree of certainty is that what I am able to experience is conditioned on my epistemological
framework; whether it is an exact representation of the real world, or a completely morphed
‘

Know Your Progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. ‗P
‘

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.5 LET US SUM UP

24
The present unit was an attempt at giving a broad Introduction of Philosophy and
Philosophising. It began by engaging the learner in discussions surrounding the nature of
philosophy, which gets characterized in terms of wonderment, conceptual confusions and
clarifications, reflection and a questioning spirit which makes it un-dogmatic. Further the
learner was introduced with some key philosophical questions which get classified as
Metaphysics, Epistemology and Axiology. And finally, the learner was engaged in
discussions surrounding some key philosophical problems, making them understand the
nature of philosophy by means of philosophising.

1.6 KEY WORDS

Metaphysics: Theory of Reality

Epistemology: Theory of Knowledge

Axiology: Theory of Values

Ethics: Moral Philosophy

1.7 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Danto, Arthur C. What Philosophy Is: A Guide to Elements. Harper and Row, New York.
1968.

Dewey, John. How We Think. D. C. Heath and Co., New York. 1910.

Descartes, Rene. Meditations, in The Philosophical Works of Descartes, translated by

Elizabeth S. Haldane, and GRT Ross, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978.

Krishna, Daya. Nature of Philosophy. ICPR, Delhi. 2009.

Moore, B. N. and Bruder, K. Philosophy: Power of Ideas (5th Edition). McGraw-Hill, New
York. 2001.

Moore, G. E. A Defence of Common Sense. In Contemporary British Philosophy (Second

Series). Ed. J. H. Muirhead. 192-233. George Allen and Unwin, London.1925.

Prichard, Duncan. (ed) What is this thing called Philosophy. Routledge, New York. 2016.

25
Putnam, Hilary. Brains in A Vat. In Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology.
(Eds) Bernecker, S. And Dretske, F. 1-21. Oxford University Press, New Yok. 1999.

Russell, Bertrand. Problems of Philosophy. Prabhat Prakashan, Delhi. 2017.

Ryle, Gilbert. Knowing How and Knowing That: The Presidential Address. Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society, New Series. 46, 1-16. 1945-1946.

Shankaracharya, Brahmasutra Bhasya, Advait Ashram, 2000.

Sinha, J. N. Introduction to Philosophy. New Central Book Agency, Kolkata. 1985.

1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I

1. W ― ? q ‖
aiming to emphasize a crucial aspect of philosophy and philosophizing which helps us
distinguish it from other disciplines. He was comparing foundational investigations
― ‖ q ―
‖ q ―W
P ?‖ q
not end up transcending disciplinary boundaries. Rather in asking and addressing
― ‖ nderstand the theoretical and
conceptual presuppositions of philosophizing itself, and that exercise falls within the
purview of philosophical thinking, as it is nothing but a bona-fide philosophical
query.

Check Your Progress II

1. Epistemology concerns itself with investigations regarding the nature of knowledge,
including the means, the origin and the validity of the same. Some significant
― ?‖; ―H
certain knowledge from erroneous knowle ?‖; ―H ?‖;
―W ?‖; ―W
? ?‖; ―
?‖; ―W ference between perceiving
?‖
etc.

26
Check Your Progress III
1. Philosophy is a cognitive exercise which like any other specialized academic
discipline aims at gaining clarity, certainty, and comprehensiveness in out thoughts,
concepts and ideas. It is anti-dogmatic as it thrives on raising questions and thinking
through conceptual presumptions. There is moreover no limit with regard to what one
can philosophically engage with be it the notion of Art, or Science, or Time, or God,
philosophy has an extensive purview which includes itself. Every time we think
through a concept to remove ambiguity and gain clarity, we are philosophising.

27