glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Friday, 27th January 2006
How would I explain to a business person the point of philosophy?
We are looking at the concept of 'philosophy' or of what it is to philosophize. Philosophy involves thinking. But thinking about what? To think is an action with an outcome. The outcome of software designer Joe Bloggs thinking about the problem of how to calculate the tax on item B is a formula which can be written in to the program he is designing which will calculate the tax on item B.
Thinking when it is successful leads one way or another to a positive outcome. Thinking is always to some purpose. So what is the purpose of philosophical thinking?
Suppose you said, 'The purpose of philosophical thinking is to understand.' At the end of the day when I have been hard at thinking about some problem, I can say that I 'understand' better than I did before. But we can still raise the same question about understanding. What is that for? what is its outcome? The accountant explains a difficult point to Joe and finally he understands. Now he can use that understanding as part of his purposeful thinking activity, e.g. to write down the correct formula.
One of the big debates in philosophy is whether philosophy is ultimately justified by its practical results. I personally don't believe this. My justification for philosophy would be the sheer fact that we are gripped by philosophical questions. For someone who feels impelled to philosophize, who feels the need to 'understand' in a philosophical way, no more justification is needed. That is my experience. However, I believe that philosophers have a duty to apply their understanding to make the world a better place.
Notice the difference between these two views: the first says that the only justification for philosophy lies in is its practical results, while the second merely says that philosophers have a duty to apply their thinking to practical problems.
That is one aspect of the problem. You could call this the ethical question regarding philosophy.
The other aspect is the question of what it is to think purely for the sake of thinking, or understand purely for the sake of understanding. What do philosophers actually do? One definition of philosophy is 'thinking about thinking'. But what is it to do that? Why isn't that idea completely circular? This is a question, not about the justification of philosophy or the duties of the philosopher, but about the very nature of philosophy itself, about the concept of 'philosophy', or the relation between 'reason' and 'reality'.
You could call this the metaphysical question regarding philosophy.
One of the things that makes Ancient Greek philosophy so fascinating is that these issues were still 'hot questions'. In the Phaedo, Socrates explains his decision to focus on the question of man, thus taking a radically different road from that of his predecessors the 'physical philosophers' whose primary interest was the nature of the cosmos. The clash between Socrates and the Sophists illustrates radically different approaches the question of the relation between theory and practice, and the nature of the 'truth' which philosophers seek.
Marx had something to say about this. In his famous 11th thesis on Feuerbach he wrote:
Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.
(Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert, es kommt darauf an, sie zu verändern.)
To fully judge this statement you have to see it in context (theses 1-10). But let's just look at the words. The point of interpreting the world is to change it. That doesn't mean that we must always be in a position in every case to say what 'practical difference' a given interpretation makes. Our seeking interpretations is merely guided by our practical interests. Sometimes our understanding will lead to a practical result and sometimes not. 'The point' is that we wouldn't be doing this if we were not actively seeking practical results.
Marx is saying something stronger than, 'The philosopher's duty is to make a practical difference,' but weaker than, 'Every philosophical statement makes a practical difference.' Marx is more than just a philosopher with a conscience. But he does not go so far as to embrace crude pragmatism.
So what? how does that help me?
On 5th January, I wrote:I have no axe to grind. I don't have a recipe for business success, nor am I trying to rally people to a cause. I just want to understand what is going on. Because it doesn't make sense to me. I feel as if I am an alien who has just landed from Mars, seeing human beings scurrying about in hectic activity, who just hasn't a clue about its meaning or purpose.
If you were feeling generous you could say that the point I made then is still valid, because I was merely emphasizing the 'strangeness' of the business world. I wasn't saying, 'I only want to understand, nothing more.'
But since then something has changed in my view of these things, quite profoundly. I hit on the idea of the Irenic Corporation. Maybe it was when I started thinking about greed. What would it be to play the business game, not out of the desire for personal gain but just for the fun of it?
Would such a thing be possible?
That's what I want to find out.
Here are just some random thoughts. I will use the terms 'reformed capitalist' and 'unreformed capitalist':
- A reformed capitalist is like a fisherman who throws the fish back after he has caught it. His main motivation is the thrill of competition in the business arena.
- Reformed capitalists have a distaste for the accumulation of wealth, in just the same way as vegetarians have a distaste for meat.
- Like the vegetarian (or, a certain kind of vegetarian) reformed capitalists don't take a 'moral position'. Instead they employ the approach of seduction: 'Come on in, the water's lovely!' So in this respect, it would be inaccurate to describe them as 'taking the moral high ground'. I mean something more subtle than this.
- One of the great compensations for joining the Irenic Corporation is knowing that no-one will be eyeing your job, because everyone is equal.
- Everyone in the Irenic Corporation goes through a process of initiation, a bonding exercise. This is part of the recruitment process. It makes HR management a 'whole new ball game'.
- My objection to the socialist ideal of a society of brotherly and sisterly love (see The Business Arena) does not apply to an organization like the Irenic Corporation where people freely join a 'band of sisters and brothers'.
- The Irenic Corporation is in many ways like the early Christian communities. The Christians believed in Jesus. They believe in 'the Good'.
- On a level playing field, who would win in a battle between reformed capitalists and unreformed capitalists? Why?
Send me your answer.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!