The purpose of phisolosophy is problems resolving, but all this problems that are submitted to it's study, are they philosophical ? Determining the extent of the investigation field of philosphy implies questions about it's means. We will study sciences as a middleground and the limits we apply to en action of philosophy. We'll try to see how the philosophia perenis
adage works and the difficulties for philosophy to embrace the whole.
Back when philosophy emerges in antic Greece, it does so in terms of essence. For philosophers like Socrates and Plato, the metaphysical questioning that is laid down is a quest of the very nature of things. Their "things" are not only the perception of material phenomenums but also elements that belong to the universe of ideas.
This synthesis between the senssible world and the intelligible world is the milestone of the antic greek thinking. As a matter of fact, it does the synthesis of the two first stems of thinking systems ellaborated in the course of history, the indian school of brahames that headed towards near abstract problems beyound the human nature, and the chinesse school with the confusciusian tradition that leads to pragmatic thinking, research of day-to-day issues, material or human.
As the starting postulate of greek thinking school is "philosophia perenis", philosophy embraces everything and the whole as such. That's why followers of Socrate will build systems at it's image, whose purpose will be the presentation of a certain vision of the world. Bergson said about this that philosophers have only one thing to say and that they spend their entire life explaining and justifying it. With such a postulate, anyone will have the ambition to embrace every area of knowledge as we can recall the case of many people who embraced at the same time the career of philosopher and scientist.
When Plato says it's the philosopher's duty to question everything, he places the fundamental doubt as the engine of philosophy. Thus, philosophy comes to the rescue to question every single discovery that comes as a surprise or raises doubts. The Hegelian dialectic imposes a new engine, the opposition of ideas. It's trinary scheme system of ideas, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, leads to the last phase of Aufhebung (overcominig), emancipation of the both sides that fight in a manichean world. For him, philosophy is of "polemic essence". This emplies that any new achievement in science or intelligence, as it contradicts the former knowledge, gives way to a meme fight that must lead to the overcoming of the topic to get a further, wider, learning and understanding, more philosophical.
To lay emphasis on this phenomenum, let's take the example of the Copernician revolution. In antic Greece, geocentrism, thet theory that the earth is the center of the universe and admits all the stars as satellites such as the sun, dominates general ideology. Zenon d'Elee goes to the point of wondering if clouds can do anything else than circulating around the earth as stars do. Then comes Copernic whose works demonstrate that the earth is not the center of the universe, and so, that there is indeed heliocentrism because the earth is only a satellite of the sun and resolves around it. With geocentrism, we were led as a matter of consequence to anthropocentrism, so both system collapse at the same time. This epistemologic break (as said Auguste Comte) resulted as a depreciation of the role of mankind in the univers, as man shifts from actor to spectator. The scientific problem of the understanding of the organisation of the universe is philosophical because it involves a quest on the essence of manking, it's role, it's place in it's context. Today, the Chaos theory strikes philosophically against this depreciation of the position of mankind.
This theory has emerged from observations from scientists, cyberneticians, such as Lorentz, the major meteorologist specialist. He was working on computerized mathematical model of long term weather forcasting, and became aware in an empirical accidental way of the influence of minimal parameters shifts in non linear iteration intensive systems. Complex calculations based on measurements of physical observations differing by the omission of the last 3 digits out of 9 degrees of decimality, ended up with a fundamental disorder of the situation, resultets completely different and not an approximation as would have been logicially expected. Afterwards, studies have shown that it was no mistake or coincidence but a major scientific discovery, way beyound weather forecast, because similar natured mathematical models are used in many domains. The systematisation of the influence of tiny parameters on global systems is usually translate in the aphorism : the flutter of a butterfly's wing in Hong-Kong can lead to a hurricane in New-York
. This theory contradicts the conclusions of the heliocentrism shift because it demonstrates that man, how tiny he may be compared to his universe, has an important influence on his environment, beyound his scope but in a complex and seamingly random way. Globalization of the chaos theory is then a philosophical problem because it challenges the way we view and enlight mankind in it's essence.
When a new problem arises, it doesn't always involve a philosophical problematic at first sight. Sciences can emerge as a middle ground to the paradigm shift towards a philosophical problematic. However, some questions remains forever in the exclusive field of investigation of the science they belong to. The philosophical process is then the study of science for it's sake, philosophy as a phenomenology of science, so to speak.
This way, even if it's not the straightest, philosophy happens to take over all the problems, is appears as a legit process of questioning the whole. This nice harmony is contested by Nietzsche who informs against the hegemony of logic over life, and so, stands against all thoses philosophers who build their own ideological worlds (he mentions the term "castle") on great systems that declare themselves as being omniscient. He return to pre-socratic thinking leads him down to the act of standing against syllogism, the logical scheme that is the root of Aristote's organon. Even if he denies classical philosophy, critisizes it's tools, shapes and history, he doesn't stand against it's existence (even though he was accused of nihilism), philosophy is there as a problem solving attitude. The political myth of the philosopher-king shows it's ability to dominate knowledge, rule as a mediator of problems, the ideas that are involved and the solutions that emerge as a consequence.
To postulate that every single problem is philosophical is not saying that it is necessary to the resolution or treatment because it's not the case. One problem can find it's solution in the straigth and stricly limited application of the scientifical laws of the domain, not philosophy. Nevertheless, as soon as a contradiction or novelty arises, there is philosophy. Newness leads to platonician dialectic, opposition leads to hegelian dialectic.
If a problem can be confined in a specific science field, dialectic cannot emerge as far as no controversy arises, polmetic being the essence of philosophy. The agreement between the problem and the science has to be understood as the recognition inside science of problem solving means. The apory that can appear from the inexistance of a specific science to a specific problem is lifted by the ellaboration of a new scientific branch, as when Comte created sociology to explain internal relations to human societies or, closer to us, the science of the chaos theory.
Though, some problems remain. Many philosophers try to work it out but the problems remains without becoming apories because the difficulty of the task seams impossible to overcome. Let's take the example of the question of the existence of a God. Legions of philosophers will come up with arguments in favor or against this theory. Beyond the post-platonicians who fight paganism, we find St Thomas d'Aquin, Kant and his revealed religion
on the side oh philosophers convinced of the existence of God. Dogmatic they were, but they tried to come up with tangible arguments. They talked about the extraordinary coincidence by which almost all isolated group of people we are aware of have established some kind of a monotheist or polytheist cult. Such a coincidence is so improbable that it prooves the existence of at least one God. In the same direction, they were unable to explain the creation of the world in a process that didn't involve a God. On that point, the theory of chaos answers that from the chaos of matter in the Big Bang has emerged a pathern of order that has lead to cellular life, chaos and order going always hand in hand. Philosophers such as Feurebach sstood against god and proposed a cult of mankind. Comte fougth really hard against the religion of god before, at the end of his life, trying to establish a religion of science to which he would be the guide and grand father. He announced that he would preach positivism in Notre Dame de Paris by 1860 but he died in 1857. The positist church still remains today, most notably in Brazil.
Well, both positions have found echos througout the ages and the great philosophers, and the question has been settled but the problem remains. Philosophy using doubt as a tool, it stands against dogmatism and, as a matter of consequence, to any form of religion; However, the questions of the existence of god is a philosophical problem that doesn't find a true final solution. As an example, it demonstrates a limitation in the scope of action of philosophy.
To conclude, we can say that every problem is philosphical if it presents novelty or doubt in the universal knowledge. The polemical dimension leads to a problematic treatment of questions that are not philosophical at first sight because they belong to the sphere of a specific science that
Text written in 1991 during an exam for french baccalauréat with a major in science.
The text is aborted due to time limitations of the exam.