Is Western Philosophy a Failure?

Question

Even though I enjoy and teach philosophy, I cannot help but wonder whether western theoretical thought is a colossal failure. No system of thought in the West seems to pass any truth test (correspondence, coherence or pragmatism). The western systems are untenable and impractical. Plato's Forms are metaphysically incoherent, Kant's distinctions between noumena and phenomena are examples of major question begging. And Nietzsche's thought is shot through with holes. I have yet to find a philosophical system in the West that bears up under analytical scrutiny. What do you think?

LF,

I appreciate your comments. You make some good observations. Nevertheless, we do not generally study unwritten western philosophies in the academy. We teach students about the very individuals I mentioned. Or we teach them Hegel, Schopenhauer or Aristotle. You may have a point about unwritten philosophies. But what you're talking about had very little, if any, impact on my philosophical education.

Searle is a great thinker, but he builds on the work of realists, who went before him. There is much truth in the old observation that western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. I like what Searle has to say about the is-ought problem set forth by Hume or institutional and brute facts. I even find his riposte to Derrida somewhat profitable. Yet, I do not believe his system is tenable as a life philosophy.

What do I suggest as an alternative to western philosophy? For the record, I certainly am not saying that we should stop teaching students about Kant or Plato in American universities or colleges. However, it might benefit us to examine western thought in a new light. Maybe we should analyze it as one might study a cadaver. It is an object of interest from which many things can be learned, maybe even some things of benefit. But we do well to avoid treating western philosophy as a living entity, one that can provide ethico-metaphysical guidance or enlightenment.

Answer 1

Your conclusions will be challenged, I am sure, by philosophers on this site. They are your conclusions. I have made the same conclusion about Eastern philosophy. You complain about finding a philosophical system that holds under analytical scrutiny, without mentioning John Searle, our greatest analytical philosopher. What really gives philosophy a bad name, is those relativistic, post-modern pseudo-intellectuals from France. Foucault, Derrida, Lacan and the like. With this incoherent drivel being still extant, how can one get to actual philosophy?

PS Of course, Searle's philosophy is not tenable as a life philosophy, as it is analytical in nature. A life philosophy is rather personal, to ones self, don't you think? That is why I really hate Derrida and company. They promise a utopia that they have no idea on how to get to and if gotten to, by their ideas, would not work anyway. I guess you need to set your own life philosophy.

Answer 2

The Laws of Nature govern the planet we live on

The Laws of our Sun govern the life on this planet we live on

We are only a product of universal curiosity

Antiquity inquired many ideas and concerns about life

the 21st century has condemned any possible philosophical system, for it brings humankind the ultimate purpose

a long life span that will reach 150 years of age for those who will afford it

even lodges today have become PR clubs

the system you seek for reason will not exist in the west until the poverty reaches the middle classes and pain is felt accross nations after the present economic system fails for them.

In history all great societies died due to lake of philosophical vision

philosophia = Sophi Phili

Answer 3

By you categorizing and somewhat pointedly criticizing Western thought, it sounds that you already have made up your mind or tend to prefer eastern or some other ideal for thought. You should not consider a philosophy a failure only because you do not see its merits. What works for one person doesn't work for all(ie. christianity as opposed to polytheism). You can argue all day about a philosophy, but philosophy does not exist as an absolute, it is given credence and validity when one chooses to accept it and act upon it. Arguing or trying to find a philosophy of absolute wholeness or goodness is like shooting down someones opinion for liking green instead of blue, or even worse, trying to convince them that that because of my experience in philosophy, you should accept my thoughts as absolute truth. There are plenty or alternate philosophies that people have found fault with, not only in western philosophy, but eastern, middle eastern and all forms or religious philosophies.

Answer 4

you are quoting written forms of philosophy, there are others, the philosophy of the working class, the unwritten economic philosophy
of the west. which we all pay lip service to but deny on our tax returns. The wests societies are based on such economic policies.
if it aint broke, dont try fixing it. have you ever wondered in your ivory tower why there are such an abundance of accountants/tax lawers.
ours is a system based on working practice, no matter what is written, trying to find answers to a philosophy of concience will only give you a headache, there are only questions, dont you think if plato knew the answer he would have told us. regards LF

Answer 5

Well, sokrates, I think it's a bit premature to summarily
conclude that Western Philosophy as a whole is "a
colossal failure". This is because Philosophy, like
civilization itself, is still in its infancy. Because of this,
it is somewhat silly to look for perfection in Philosophy,
and then to dismiss it outright because you fail to find
it. In truth, a perfect philosophy may never be achieved
as long as human beings themselves remain imperfect.
Moreover, Sophia has yet to really stand upon Her own
two feet with strength and nobility.
.
Consider Her brief biography as a whole: Philosophy
was born into a world dominated by myths, fears, and
superstitions, and yet somehow managed to invent logic
and science. Soon after this, however, Sophia was made
to act the role of Theology's whore; which could only
have a detrimental effect upon the philosophical
enterprise. For most of Her career, then, She was a
slave; and yet somehow progress was still made (albeit
very slowly). And then, after Descartes, She was able
to regain most of Her stolen independence; and then
philosophers multiplied like mushrooms after a rain-
storm.
.
But then the academics boldly seized Philosophy,
claimed Her as their own, and promptly turned Her
into Science's whore. And that's where we are today!
Therefore, and considering all the abuse that has been
heaped upon the Fair Lady's head over the centuries, I
think that Sophia has acquitted Herself very well indeed.
And once She has been freed from the shackles and
chains of a blind, arrogant, and narrow-minded Science,
She will do remarkable things. In truth, Sophia's full
potential has yet to be realized.
.
> [snipsome] Maybe we should analyze it as one might
> study a cadaver. It is an object of interest from which
> many things can be learned, maybe even some things
> of benefit.
.
Well, sokrates, these statements tell me all I need
to know. The problem is NOT within Philosophy; the
problem is within *you*. Specifically with your attitude.
Philosophy is NOT dead; although the scientific and
analytical academics have certainly done their very best
to kill Sophia by sucking any signs of life right out of
Her. They kill Her slowly by centimeters and inches, and
then berate Her for looking like a cadaver. And never for
a moment will they take responsibility for the evil that
they have committed. No indeed, they would much
rather blame Her for what *they* have done to Her! ...
"an object of interest", you say? "analyze it", you say?
... Analyze this --> [insert extremely rude gesture here]
.
> But we do well to avoid treating western philosophy
> as a living entity, one that can provide ethico-
> metaphysical guidance or enlightenment.
.
Really? Why, sokrates, that's just the sort of statement
I would expect to hear from a thoughtless and brutal
*scientist* who would joyfully kill off the last surviving
member of a unique and astonishing species just so that
he could then *analyze* its internal organs in order to
discover 'what makes it tick'! As for myself, I do indeed
see Philosophy as "a living entity, one that can provide
ethico-metaphysical guidance or enlightenment". I see
Sophia as a large and flourishing garden that holds and
nourishes a wide variety of flowers and plants: roses,
tulips, lemons, apples, peanuts, and yes, the occasional
weed or three.
.
And no philosopher is ever *completely* dead so long as
there is at least one living human mind able to read his
writings with some small measure of understanding. If
human immortality exists anywhere in this sad world, it
is only within the warm bosom of loving Sophia. Treat
Her like the Lady She is, you arrogant baboon, and THEN
you'll see that there is still some life and value in the
old girl after all ... *Maybe!* ... There's an old saying in
computer science that applies equally well to Philosophy:
garbage in, garbage out.
.
P.S. "The goal of Philosophy is not to know the world,
but rather to put men on the right path." -- Heraclitus

Answer 6

I think Dr. Cress-Welding as already answered that question in the "Isis Papers." Though she was specifially referring to westeren psychology, I think what she says is true about all western thought, in that it is a failure because it does not seek to expalin (or sometimes even acknoledge the persistence of) the single biggest intellectual phenomenon in the last 2000 years and that is the developement and perpetuation of white supremacist acculturation.

Answer 7

Eliminate the tendency to pander to Semitic Theology and the technocratic influences of Morbis Mathematicus and the glint of light will show!