What have we learned from philosophy?

At the last World Philosophical Congress, held in Boston in 1998, the theme was "What have we learned from philosophy in the 20th century?" I have been pondering that question ever since.

The most prominent philosopher at the Congress was Willard Van Orman Quine of Harvard. He died at the age of 92 in December 2000. His philosophy was naturalism, which believes that philosophy is part of science. One of the most poignant remarks he ever made was "philosophy of science is philosophy enough", meaning that the most important philosophical questions arise from scientific activity and scientific knowledge should be able to answer them. Perhaps, then, the question at the conference should have been "What have we learned from science in the 20th century" because Quine evaded the original question, as did all the other participants, as though it was impertinent or irrelevant.

One reason given for why that question was not answered was the ambiguity of the word "we". One participant, Mr. Strawson, an Oxford metaphysician and philosophy of logic asked rhetorically, "is the question about what we have learned collectively or what each of us has learned individually". He answered, "If it's the former, the possibility of any reply seems remote. And if it's the latter there is no shortage of replies." Except, none were offered. One philosopher who was also reluctant or incapable of answering the question asked what kind of philosophy are we talking about? Does it include Eastern philosophy?

I would think that the question was intended to be in the context of the whole world, not east or west. It was asked in the collective sense because philosophy is basically a collective subject, chiefly to benefit the collective. Nevertheless, philosophies that are tailored to the individual, like individualism, free will and self-interest, are also extremely important. After all, the individual should also be philosophically cultivated because he/she is a prime element of the collective, its chief source of inspiration and innovation. However, the first among equals should be collective philosophy because it cultivates the cohesive unit in which we individuals live and coexist. So perhaps one thing we learned from philosophy in the last century is that a delicate balance exists between the individual and the collective and both should be cultivated because neither can exist without the other. They are mutually dependent on each other. I think that in the past century we really began to understand the philosophical axiom "all for one and one for all" because during the 20th century the world grew closer together, more politically united and economically interdependent.

Philosophy is basically about discussing situations and trying to figure them out. One big philosophical question during the 20th century was about human relations and how we ought to treat each other. The most obvious such discussion, especially in the West, has been about the relationship between the sexes. In the 20th century women demanded to be treated equal. That demand brought on the philosophical debate about sexual harassment in the work place, that it should no longer be tolerated as it once was. Through philosophical debate the 20th century also tackled the issues of racism in society and discrimination in the work place. From these philosophical debates we learned that having diversity of people in society and in the work place is a big plus and has an advantage. We learned that diversity makes life richer and more fluid. In the 20th century we learned that suppressing diversity and minorities could lead to social upheaval, like that which occurred in the 1960s when minorities and women became serious about demanding their rights.

If that question was asked about philosophy in the 20th century, we might as well ask whether we have ever learned from philosophy? Sure we have. Philosophy gave birth to the natural and social sciences, from which we have derived the tools to enable and facilitate civilization. From those sciences we have learned what is mutually good for humankind and what isn't. Philosophy was the first to discover the natural forces of the world and then science, its offspring, transformed them so as to benefit us. From political science we have learned that democracy is the best means to achieve and preserve peace in the world. As Kant rightly speculated more than 200 years ago, democratic nations don't go to war with each other. That philosophy grained momentum during the 20th century, hence its popularity today. In the 20th century we learned that democracy is the best form of governance to meet the needs and aspirations of individuals, and contain the collective.

Some philosophers think philosophy should remain mysterious and complex, so as not to be easily understood. I think that is one reason why the question at the World Philosophical Congress in Boston was not answered, so philosophy might preserve its mystery, and philosophers keep their jobs.