On Philosophical Thinking

This section will introduce you to philosophical thinking. As an introduction, it

will clarify the key concepts as “philosophical” and “thinking.” While
selective, this module will include philosophical thinking as gaining wisdom,
knowledge based on reason, experience, and engaging in rational discussion
that will have an impact on society and thinking itself.
Offhand, how these words are understood now would be nuanced depending
on the inclinations or views of different philosophers. Martin Heidegger, for
instance, considers thinking as “memory, thinking that recalls, thanks.”
(Heidegger, What Is Called Thinking, 244) Put differently, it is a mental
activity that pays homage to a source that makes thought possible. But
thinking as a gerund can just be a generic term for a mental activity as in the
case of imagining, dreaming, analysing, solving puzzles, willing, etc. In
addition, “philosophical” can mean engaging in abstruse or deep thought,
that is, sounding difficult to understand, as when a person remarks on
another’s thinking as “You sound so philosophical.” In all these, one can
notice the difficulty of making sense of the question on philosophical
thinking. In this regard, in this introductory section, it must be borne in mind
that this discussion in no way puts finality to the meaning of these two
words; it offers no claim what philosophical thing should be. It merely
accounts, rather selectively, the possible meanings that can be found in the
tradition among philosophers.
The way to begin is to trace the qualifying word “philosophical,” to go back
to “memory,” to philosophy. As previously encountered in the preparatory
course, philosophy is a combination of Greek root words “philia” (love) and
“sophia” (wisdom). On the one hand, however it is interpreted, love entails a
strong affection, if not devotion, for its object—wisdom in this case. Wisdom,
on the other hand, signifies profound science, learning or knowledge. Thus,
the philosophical aspect manifests a strong inclination for deep and
cultivated knowledge. This strong inclination could have been initiated by the
fascination for the external world.
How does this etymological distinction shed light on philosophical thinking?
We can gain insight into this by understanding how philosophers conduct
their activities. Pythagoras, who was said to have coined the term
philosophy, showed such activity by being constantly preoccupied by the
question concerning the primary principle of things, the basic stuff that
constitutes things. Long before him, early ancient philosophers who
wondered about the same concern associated this ultimate principle to such
elementary substances as earth, air, water, and fire. Meanwhile, Pythagoras
and his followers held that the “infinity and unity itself were the substance of
the things of which they are predicated. This is why the number was the
substance of all things” (see Aristotle, Metaphysics 987a 17-19). For them,
what underlies all things is not sensible; numbers are not objects of sense
perception—things can be numbered; numbers are not things (in this
instance, we consider things as having material or physical existence).
Curiously, the attention expended by these ancient philosophers to look for
the ultimate constitution of things was admirable; they did not settle for
knowledge of the appearance of but the explanation behind things. They
were absorbed in the fundamental question of the appearance of things.
Perhaps, they too wrestled the basic question that still resonates to this day:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?” Whether this tendency to ask
into the nature of things was driven by an inherent inclination on the part of
the inquirer or by the allure of the reason itself was not the point here, rather
the character of that thinking which they qualified as philosophical.
The philosophical thinking, it can be drawn from above, involves seeking for
that knowledge that would explain the existence of the material phenomena.
Of course, these philosophers could not agree on that specific principle as
they provided that varied answers. Nevertheless, they provided justifications
for their answers.
Following on the notion, Aristotle clarified what philosophy is as love of
wisdom. For him, knowledge of wisdom is not that of experience, that is,
knowledge acquired through the senses. Any person who knows through the
senses may gain knowledge that things exist but they may need not know
“why” they exist. Wisdom requires that one knows the “why” of things. For
Aristotle, “wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes”
(Aristotle, Metaphysics 982a 1). The causes Aristotle was referring to are the
material, formal, efficient, and final causes. Briefly, the material cause is the
substance from which a thing exists; the formal cause is the essence or the
substantial characteristics that differentiate a thing from another which may
possess similar substance; efficient cause is the one that effects change in a
thing; and, final cause is the purpose or the end of change. In this respect,
knowledge of these four causes, for Aristotle, would be wisdom.
Based on this Aristotelian claim, philosophical thinking requires the pursuit of
the ultimate causes of things; philosophical activities can be circumscribed in
the search for the causes of reality.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) took differently what philosophical thinking
entails. Although his view appeared sympathetic to the previous idea of
doing philosophy by putting little importance to sensory knowledge, he
differed from it when he held that acceptable knowledge or understanding
must be grasped with certainty by the thinking subject; reason
as cogito recognises only knowledge with clarity and distinctness without
any moment for doubt.
What is unique in Descartes’ thinking is the reversal of focus. Previously,
ancient philosophers placed the point of knowledge and understanding on
something external to the inquiring mind, that the mind beholds what
possible knowledge may be disclosed by the external world. Descartes, on
the contrary, shifted this point of understanding to the inquiring mind itself
or the cogito, that the mind acknowledges possession of knowledge when its
object submits to the conditions of clarity and distinctness as set forth by the
methodic doubt. (Note: this lecture assumes that you are familiar with the
method used by Descartes.) In other words, knowledge is gained when it is
determined as clear and distinct without an occasion for doubt by the
inquiring mind. Reason then is the measure by which wisdom is gained. In
this view, Descartes added a new requirement to philosophical thinking, that
is, it is rational and submits to the rules of reason.
David Hume (1711-1776) would question the presumptions concerning
causes and reason. On the one hand, cause from the tradition of Aristotle up
to Hume’s time seemed to be beyond question and that the human mind by
default accepts causation as a fact. On the other hand, reason was thought
as an overarching principle for knowledge of things. In Hume’s view,
experience, “lively perception,” is an inevitable source of the contents of the
mind and cause is not even before experience—the notion of causation is
drawn from experience.
In Hume’s analysis, philosophy involves a mental activity that values the
sensible world as a source of knowledge or wisdom; philosophical thinking
entails not only discovering the principles or causation and subjecting forms
of analysis to reason, but also valuing and examining experiences, and even
causation and reason.
Sympathetic to Hume’s concern, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) offered his
critiques that would cover the realm of reason and experience. His essay on
“What is Enlightenment?”, however, proposed a different character of
philosophical thinking. By challenging one to think, “Sapere aude!”, Kant
emphasized a different aspect of doing philosophy.
Without devaluing the importance of his critiques, one can notice in this
essay a significant character of philosophical thinking in the societal milieu,
that is, thinking must be free and has the “vocation” to aid others in
achieving the ability to use their own reason; philosophical thinking engages
the public to use reason, to be free, and have the resolve to think and speak
for themselves. (Kant, in Politics of Truth, 35) Put differently, aside from
attaining knowledge and understanding, philosophical thinking has the
critical part in guiding public discourses by expressing, without fear, its
prudent and well-thought ideas. By doing so, it also inspires others to
recognise their ability to think independently for themselves.
Another form of philosophical thinking is suggested by Michel Foucault
(1926-1984). For him, philosophical thinking pursues knowledge but ventures
into exploring other ways of thinking differently. Here, philosophical thinking
is critical thinking, which involves what Foucault calls as the “refusal to be
governed,” that is, it is not obsessed with assimilating knowledge, rather it
ventures into other ways of thinking. Philosophical thinking in this sense
unsettles our everyday life for it casts doubt even on what we already know
just to “explore how it might be possible to think differently” (Foucault 1990,
8-9). In this thinking, knowledge is respected, but it is not regarded as
absolute or certain since often it is arrived at through the competing
relations of interests, concepts, strategies, positions, etc.—relations of
power.
Several aspects can be drawn from these views of philosophical thinking.
First, the object of thought. While thinking may be inspired by the experience
of sensible or conceivable things, philosophical thinking departs from them
to be able to reach what can be regarded as their principles. It is dissatisfied
with merely figuring out the dynamics of the material universe and is
inclined towards discovering the ultimate principles of things. Ultimate
cause, principle of causation, principle of sufficient reason, sufficient
explanation of things—however they are called, the mind, the faculty of
knowing, supposes that “metaphysical” principles can be arrived at. Second,
the manner of knowing. Philosophical thinking seeks to clarify whether we
can know with certainty or whether we are really capable of knowing at all; it
inquires into the principles and categories of knowing. Philosophers argue, in
this respect, about the bases for determining true statements about the
objects of our thought. Third, the nature or properties of our thought. Given
that philosophers can qualify some of the statements about the world as
true, they differ in their view on the status of what we know; they argue
whether our linguistic expressions or knowledge would be reliable enough to
be a guide in what we do. Here, more than our knowledge claims is the
application of philosophical thinking in the various worldly phenomena and
other practical concerns. For instance, philosophical thinking may be used in
analysing how we as human beings relate with and act towards each other
considering that we significantly differ in terms of opinions or views, values,
and concerns.
From these samples of philosophical thinking, we now have the context for
understanding some of the fields in philosophy. Here are some fields of
philosophy:
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that concerns with the ultimate
principles or causes of reality. The word itself suggests a study beyond
physics.
Epistemology as a discipline analyses the conditions and limits of our
knowledge. Its main concern is on how it is possible for us to know and how
can we know that we know.
Ethics, the focus of the whole course, studies what it means to act as a
human being, that is, what actions are proper to being human. This field of
philosophy certainly engages in practical thinking as it examines our
practice.
There are other fields of philosophical thought which vary only depending on
their object of thinking. These fields are obviously focused on their objects:
philosophy of environment, political philosophy, philosophy of science,
philosophy of technology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of education,
philosophy of history, and so on.
In all these discussions, it might give the impression that philosophical
thinking is non-existent in other geographical areas such as Asia, Africa, and
America. It is not to say that philosophy is exclusive to the Greeks, although
undeniably they should be credited for the sturdy philosophical tradition that
thrived in their locale, and the term itself, philosophy, is etymologically
Greek. But if one were to examine the philosophical thinking engaged in by
philosophers in these regions, their philosophies cannot be excluded in the
conversation. For instance, the notions of Tao, Brahman, Atman, Nirvana,
etc. cannot fall outside the field of metaphysics. Other aspects of the ideas in
these areas fall indisputably from other fields in philosophy like epistemology
and ethics. Broadly, philosophising has been going on since human beings
wondered about their existence and their place in the grand scheme of
things. Thus, it must be borne in mind that the discussion herein only serve
to shed light on philosophical thinking and other philosophies need not be
excluded.
In all these forms of philosophical thinking, regardless of divergence in views,
regardless whether they agree on the views that they have arrived at,
philosophers offer arguments, present their explanations, and most
importantly, offer their proofs or supports for their views. The thought that
they have arrived at is not handed down as if they must be taken on
authority. They present arguments that can be accepted, rejected, or even
critiqued based on the soundness and validity of the arguments presented.
In this context, it is worth noting that philosophical thinking entails argument
construction. By argument, we refer to the group of statements one of which,
the conclusion or claim, is deemed to follow from other statements (premises
or proofs). As one will get acquainted with the discussion in this course or as
suggested in the discussion above, philosophical thinking requires that a
thinker or philosopher presents her views which must be examined based on
the soundness of these views. In the chapters that follow, we can view some
of the philosophical claims of these philosophers and the premises or proofs
that they offer for their claim. And when we agree or disagree to their views,
often it is because we consider them to in error, because the claim does not
follow from the premises or the statements are not true, and so on.
In this article, we clarified philosophical thinking by examining the etymology
of philosophy. As love of wisdom, philosophy pursues profound knowledge,
as wisdom suggests. In this respect, philosophical thinking is directed
towards finding the ultimate principles and causes of the object of thought.
This is what Aristotle and other thinkers did in their philosophizing. Moreover,
philosophical thinking shifted to determining knowledge based on the criteria
set forth by thinking mind—and this was initiated by Descartes. Hume,
however, includes in philosophical thinking the analysis of our experiences
which serve as the source for the contents of the mind. This form of
philosophical thinking is, however, given different direction when he
espoused for a thinking that will be unfettered and has practical societal
impact—one which he calls the public use of reason. And, Foucault similarly
advocated for an independent thinking that is not claimed or ordered by
previous knowledge. All these are but samples of philosophical thinking.