Thinking philosophically

Students every year report some disappointments with their grades (as well as some excellent results). Part of the problem may be a failure to practise thinking like a philosopher. Too often when I read these essays, they read as a list of assertions or loosely related points. Philosophy (literally ‘love of wisdom’) is a discipline of thinking as much as it is a subject to study. Let me explain.

We all inhabit a worldview which we have difficulty recognising. In Britain we share a liberal, democratic tradition with broadly Christian foundations which means, for example, that most of us accept it is a good thing to help a neighbour in difficulty, to respect parents, and to keep promises. But we also have assumptions upon which our worldview is based. Philosophical analysis involves the skill of identifying assumptions and then testing whether they are valid or invalid. 

Classical utilitarians like Bentham argued that pleasure was the only intrinsic good. This is an assumption rather than something you can prove: after all, how would you prove it? John Stuart Mill offered this proof: the only proof he said, that happiness is good is that most people desire it. But is this enough of an argument to establish the validity of the assumption that pleasure is the only intrinsic good? Many people argue not: if you tell me you are popping a legal high because it makes you happy, I am going to challenge you as to whether this is morally a good idea. Clck below to read more…

Secondly, as well as trying to uncover assumptions, philosophy tries to analyse arguments. Arguments can be strong or weak. Moreover, a position like “we should intervene in Syria to punish president Assad” needs to be justified with reasons. Sometimes those reasons are matters of fact. For example, it is either true or false whether President Assad authorised the nerve gas shells which killed 1,400 people. Sometimes they are matters of judgement: for example, “the world we be a less safe place if we don’t intervene” involves a judgement about consequences, rather than facts.

Sometimes people argue by analogy. An analogy proceeds by comparison: John Kerry, US defence secretary, stated that “we are facing a moment like the appeasement of Hitler in 1938”. But is this analogy strong or weak? On the strong side, you could argue that dictators who go unpunished will do even more terrible things (the failure to defend Czechoslovakia against Nazi invasion meant that the invasion of Poland became more likely). But a weakness in the analogy is that President Assad is not threatening Europe or the USA directly (or any of our allies in the Middle East), as Hitler was threatening neighbouring states. Indeed, our ally Israel fears that they could become a target if we attack Syria.

So back to how to get an A grade. Students who receive disappointing grades often provide me with a copy of their papers. A main reason (not the only one – you need to read my book How to Get an A Grade for the whole list!) is that they have not presented an argument which addresses the issues raised by the question. An argument, and the convincing development of an argument, is an analytical skill to do with building sequences of thought. It starts somewhere (with assumptions) and concludes somewhere, and along the way takes various steps. Get to know the arguments of the philosophers you study and disentangle the sequencing and you will go a long way towards getting that A grade. Especially if you have the courage, along the way, to present arguments of your own.