Philosophy in time has been regarded as the most abstract and abstruse of all disciplines. Worst of it is the question “what is philosophy?” which is in itself a controversial question both to philosophers and the lay man. “But though many people have come to think of philosophy as a remote discipline that is far from normal interest and beyond comprehension, nearly all of us have some philosophical view of life. Consciously or unconsciously, whether we accept it or not most of us even as we are vague about what philosophy is, the term usually appear in our conversation.” In this essay review, what is philosophy, by H.S. Staniland, we shall come to discover that philosophy is more practical to life. And that its supposed abstract nature -which may be true due to the engagement of the early Ionian philosophers in cosmological speculation, provides only a distorted image of what professional philosophy really is. In this review, we shall first examine the activities of some people who have since been regarded as philosophers. Next we shall give a definition of philosophy as seen by Staniland. Furthermore we shall highlight, evaluate and elaborate on various arguments in Staniland’s essay. Finally we shall conclude. “At different ages and accross distant places and culture, various people who have been regarded as philosophers, and who have engaged very seriously in philosophizing have had varying aims. Some like Saint Augustine of Hippo have been religious leaders, who have tried in various ways to explain and justify certain religious point of view. Some also have been scientists, like Rene Descartes, who have also attempted and tried to interpret so as to make clear, the meaning and importance of various scientific discoveries and theories. While others like John Locke and Karl Marx, have philosophized in other to bring about certain changes in the political organization of societies. Again, many have shown great interest and have devoted themselfs in justifying and making known some ideas which they are convinced of to be of great help to humanity. Furthermore, others have really not had any well grounded purpose, but with a curious mind, they merely wished to gain proper understanding of some certain features of the world in which they live, and again to gain proper understanding of some certain belief that is held by various people.” Note that regardless of the aims and occupations or vocations of the philosophers mentioned above, they shared a common conviction, which is that “thoughtful or rational examination and analysis of our views and ideas and our evidences for them is very important and worthwhile .” All that has been said so far points to the fact that Staniland’s definition of philosophy as “criticism of the ideas we live by” can be justified. This is what professor D.D. Raphael implies when he wrote in his book, problems of political philosophy, that “ philosophy lives by constant criticism. It arises from doubt and criticism of existing ideas, and that it remains rigorous and healthy only if it is self critical .” This is also what one of the foremost African philosopher, Kwasi Wiredu, emphases when he wrote in his book, philosophy and an African culture, that;
The primary function of philosophy, at all time and in every places, is to subject into close examination the intellectual foundation of life, making use of the best available mode of knowledge for proper reflection which will then bring about human well being.
From all said and done, it becomes clear that philosophy as a discipline is not as abstract and abstruse as many has come to thing, but it is a discipline that aims at human well being and therefore becomes more practical to life. We have been able to show that philosophy is not as abstract and abstruse as many has come to think, and we have shown that Staniland’s definition of philosophy can be justified by considering the activities of various philosophers through the ages and across cultures. But then, for us to come to a fuller or proper understanding of Staniland’s definition of philosophy, certain terms needs to be elaborated . The two basic terms that appeared in her definition is “criticism” and “ideas”. The word “criticism” as conceived by staniland and as implied in the discipline of philosophy, does not signify a negative assessment of our ideas, but simply connotes showing lack of favoritism, that is, treating all rivals or disputants equally, free from undue bias or preconceived opinions. Furthermore, to be “critical” of receive ideas is accordingly not the same thing as rejecting those ideas. Rather, it entails the application of one’s entire capacity for intellectual and imaginative intelligence to search for an answer whether the idea in question should be accepted, rejected, or improved (modify). Now the term “idea” according to Staniland, is best explained by examples. Ideas people live by may include “destiny”, “God”. “reincarnation”, “faith”, “freedom”, “justice”, “equality”, “development”, “reason”, “science”, “art”, “reality” and so fort. Therefore philosophy as conceived by Staniland seek to subject these ideas into proper criticism to see if they should be accepted, rejected or improved (modify). In the essay, Staniland further made an assertion that “it is not convenient to describe every person who philosophizes as a philosopher, or every community in which philosophizing sometimes occur as possessing a tradition of philosophizing” In this regard, Staniland did not give us a proper explanation of what she meant by what she said, and this makes her assertion a problematic, because if we are to literarily examine what she said, then what she said may turn out to be contradictory, considering it in the context of her essay. For us to gain proper understanding of what is amiss in Staniland’s assertion, it will be proper to first examine it literarily in the context of her essay before considering the truth she intended to pass but of which she did not do clearly. In this literal examination , let us at first consider her argument in the paragraph preceding this one on which she made her assertion . Here, Staniland argues that “philosophizing only occur when one is engaged in a train of though with the ultimate purpose of criticism of certain vitally important ideas.” And if this is so, taking her by her word, it then follows that the person(s) who engages himself/ herself in the practice of criticism of basic ideas of his/her time , is definitely philosophizing. Again, inferring from her definition of philosophy as “criticism of the ideas we live by” It implies that the person who philosophizes is doing philosophy, which therefore qualifies him/her to be called a philosopher. However, this is definitely not what Staniland intended to say in her assertion in the essay. We only examined her literarily to see what comes of it. But on the contrary Staniland is trying to prove here that there is indeed something as philosophy in the professional sense as an academic discipline and philosophy in the debased sense as a life view that every person has. To save the stress and time taking for explanations and clarifications , it would not be misleading, in fact, it would be straight to the point and more explicit had Staniland put her claim this way : All philosophers are thinkers but of course, it is not all thinkers that are philosophers. This is so because philosophy and philosophizing carries with it some tools which are in themself very technical in their application. And so ordinary thinkers may themself think about some certain ideas which may of course be of great importance and value to human well being, yet they cannot be referred to as philosophers. The fundamental distinguishing factor between philosophers and ordinary thinkers lies in the application of the tools for philosophizing. These tools include, criticality ( which entails the application of one’s entire capacity for intellectual and imaginative intelligence to search for an answer whether the view point in question should be accepted, rejected, or improved on), rationality ( which entails the ability to justify an action, attitude, ideas, beliefs, etc in such a way as to make it more logical and consistent), conceptual analysis (which entail the clarification of a number of concepts used in an argument, a debates, etcetera by separating compound terms into various parts, analyzing them, and then recombining them more clearly). Staniland is also of the opinion that there are certain questions to which all philosophers know the answers. For example, all philosophers know that fire burns, and that the brain rather than the lungs or liver is the seat of wisdom. These are knowledge that Staniland would describe as belonging to basic common sense of our specie, which all are capable of acquiring, and some, even at early infancy. These types of knowledge cannot be considered philosophical knowledge neither can they give rise to questions that can be considered philosophical questions. All these then lead us to what Staniland would term professional prostitution, which can be found in a case whereby a philosopher is presented with a ready made conclusion and is requested to defend it by taking up the position of the already made conclusion irrespective of whether he believes it or not. Such a philosopher, if he adheres to such a position, will make himself guilty of professional prostitution. “Another unacceptable requirement consist in presenting a philosopher with a problem and requesting him, alone or with colleagues to come up with an authoritative solution.” In all this Staniland is of the opinion, (not as many may be confused to think that philosophers are capable of a God-like impartiality), but on the contrary that philosophers should try as much as possible to be impartial, not consciously or deliberately going in favor of some much desired conclusion. Furthermore, that they should apply criticism to every topic of discussion, trying as much as possible to follow the argument where it leads and do away with undue bias and preconceived opinion. Staniland’s points becomes clearer when she noted that “ everything which a philosopher in his/her full sense knows to be true ( which may include the favoring of some much desired conclusion or putting forward an authoritative solution) belongs either to common sense, to some other discipline or to both.” “This is so not because philosophers are more ignorant than other professionals. But because it is a necessary condition of a question being regarded as philosophical that there is yet no authoritative answer to it. Therefore the mandate to come up with some desired conclusion or an authoritative solution to philosophical questions is one that cannot be complied with.” It will further help to throw more light on all Staniland has been saying about the nature of philosophical questions, by making a comparison between the situation in philosophy and the situation in the more highly developed sciences. In the sciences, Staniland noted, a question is regarded as settled provided that the scientist themselves are in agreement about it, that is, provided their various opinions about such question come to tally. But on the contrary, a question in philosophy may properly be regarded as settled, not when all human beings as such are of one mind about it. Furthermore, Staniland argues that philosophical opinions becomes knowledge only when it becomes part of universal common sense. But in becoming part of universal common sense, it therefore ceases to be distinctively philosophical. These then points to the fact why philosophers need the assent of the layman in a sense in which the scientist does not. Staniland therefore concluded that life is to the philosopher what the laboratory is to the scientist. And that the real test of philosophical position is practical, that is , how do things work if we reform, modify, and conserve our ideas in the way the philosopher suggests? In this review so far, Staniland conception philosophy is justified. It helps us to discover that philosophy is not an abstract or abstruse discipline as many have come to think. But that it is a discipline that adds value to human life and well being. We have also been informed that though philosophizing may have some part to play in the lives of every individuals, yet this is not enough fact for any individual to be properly regarded as philosopher, neither does a community in which philosophizing sometimes occur be properly regarded as possessing a tradition of philosophizing. And this is so because philosophizing carries with it certain tools for applications, without which proper philosophizing cannot occur. Furthermore we came to understand the nature of philosophical questions, which became clearer by the comparison made between situations in philosophy and situations in the advanced sciences: for the sciences a question is settled once scientists themselves are in common agreement about it. While in philosophy, a question can only be regarded as settled when not all philosophers themselves are in common agreement about it. But in the case whereby all comes to a common agreement about any question, then the question ceases to be distinctively philosophical.