I label myself a 'philosopher'. Philosophy I liken to a thinker's toolbox, and Objectivity (as an example, not directing this thread specifically at Objectivists) as just one tool, of the array we have available. I use any/all of them, according to the subject I'm considering. Why would I restrict myself to a hammer for all jobs, when I have an array of tools available, and can choose the best one to address my current needs/interests? — Pattern-chaser

I have used the tool box metaphor myself. I guess that's pragmatism. Use what works.

R.G. Collingwood in "An Essay on Metaphysics" says this - "Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or group of persons, on this or that occasion or group of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking." What he calls absolute presuppositions are what I usually call underlying assumptions. The important point about this to me is the idea that the way we choose to approach a question can vary from person to person, time to time, and situation to situation. It's a choice.

I should note that despite the following, I wouldn't say I follow a single school of philosophy, I often find myself in agreement with incompatible views.

Essentially, it's for the sake of consistency. Consistency is a theoretical virtue, that is, most of the time consistency is a property of a theory which makes the good or better relative to a theory which is otherwise identical save a for a contradiction amongst its assumptions or entailments. The more you pick views and assumptions between schools, the more likely you are to introduce contradictions into your set of beliefs. Of course, one can still find themselves in a school of thought who's tenets are inconsistent or results in a belief system with some other unwanted feature (ad hoc-ness, poor explanatory power, lack of fruitfulness, etc.)

The important point about this to me is the idea that the way we choose to approach a question can vary from person to person, time to time, and situation to situation. It's a choice. — T Clark

Indeed it is. But I wonder why anyone would deny themselves the whole toolbox to choose from? Each person, for each problem (or problem type) might choose differently from the toolbox, but why would anyone deliberately restrict their own choice of tools?

Indeed it is. But I wonder why anyone would deny themselves the whole toolbox to choose from? Each person, for each problem (or problem type) might choose differently from the toolbox, but why would anyone deliberately restrict their own choice of tools? — Pattern-chaser

Here are some of my thoughts, since I have been struggling a lot recently with the question you are posing. My underlying issue is this: Are you sure it's an either/or? Can we not support a tradition or even individual philosopher while also drawing from the toolbox? It's a bit of a rant; sorry about that.

1. Depth: If I believe a certain philosophical outlook to be the most consistently appropriate (meta-philosophically, phenomenologically, etc.) then it behooves me to focus on studying those thinkers within the tradition which espouses that outlook. And this does not mean that I have to shut my eyes and be insular. Rather, this support gives me a strong perspective, and an historical grounding, from which I can continue to study in a way which leads to meaningful progress for me. To use an analogy, it's like building a home from which I can travel, rather than remaining peripatetic and homeless.

Let's take an example. There is a deep philosophical kinship between virtue ethics, existentialism, phenomenology, and French post-modern political thought (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze). I take it that real philosophical issues are at stake in the way in which these 'schools' broadly contrast with: Deontological ethics, neo-Kantianism, and analytic political thought (e.g. Rawls and Habermas).

Now think about the number of arguments at stake in epistemology, meta-ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy, etc. etc. No human being can understand all sides of these issues with equal seriousness and rigour. (Nor would this be philosophically desirable.) So, after a while, you have to pick the sources you plan to study within this big debate, and it behooves you put aside this 'meta' debate to make some progress on your own thought. This is why it's impossible to achieve any nuanced philosophical thought without either implicitly or explicitly siding with a school of thought. That's why every original thinker can be retrospectively labeled -- consider how angry Heidegger was at being labeled an existentialist.

2. Mentorship and Friendship: I have struggled a lot with the question you are posing, because I love philosophy and want to continue in academic philosophy. But what I started to notice about a year ago is that a really particular type of person succeeds in graduate school and academia: people with shockingly narrow, straight-forwards interests, who are not bogged down by calling these interests into question. For example, I have a friend who has published like crazy because Nietzsche is his favorite philosopher, he's been reading all of his works backwards and forwards since he was 15 years old, subsequently read all the secondary literature in undergrad, and now publishes about him often. So if someone asks what his interests and publications are it's very straight-forward. Now, it would be one thing if I could say - aha! I'm better read and more imaginative than my friend! -- but I'm not. He's just managed to sublimate his interests better than I have. Again, the house metaphor: he accepts a strong core of belief which opens him up to brilliant mentors and friends, then he uses this to give him the intellectual and material support that let's him read/think widely from there.

I have also noticed this in the classroom. All of the analytic political philosophers have ready-made answers to every question, because they pick a side in the ongoing debates and memorize all of the normative arguments and counter-arguments the way a chess grandmaster does. So they tend to have full-proof 'positions' from within a school. I hate it -- I think it's dead thought -- but there's no doubt it feeds their feeling that they have key insights into the world.

And in some way they may be right! Because it is very clear why someone applying to write a book, give a talk, etc. will be interesting if their biography reads something like: (Person A's interests are Immigration, environmental ethics and Kantian ethics) and the planned talk is: Person A will make the case for unlimited immigration from a strong perspective.

Now, a really interesting talk will of course be the type someone like (e.g.) Zizek gives -- drawing on Hegel, Japanese Buddhism, 70s grindhouse films, and Lenin -- to talk about immigration, or whatever. But the question is: How does (e.g. Zizek) get to a place, both personally and intellectually, to think and talk like that? And my personal answer would be: Studying with the Hegelians and the Lacanians until he was in his mid-thirties. There is no other way.

↪Pattern-chaser
I should note that despite the following, I wouldn't say I follow a single school of philosophy, I often find myself in agreement with incompatible views.

Essentially, it's for the sake of consistency. Consistency is a theoretical virtue, that is, most of the time consistency is a property of a theory which makes the good or better relative to a theory which is otherwise identical save a for a contradiction amongst its assumptions or entailments. The more you pick views and assumptions between schools, the more likely you are to introduce contradictions into your set of beliefs. Of course, one can still find themselves in a school of thought who's tenets are inconsistent or results in a belief system with some other unwanted feature (ad hoc-ness, poor explanatory power, lack of fruitfulness, etc.) — MindForged

Thank you. I didn't realise that schools of philosophy overlap so often. I thought they considered distinct areas of thought. This being the case, I offer a follow-on question:

Where there are overlaps between schools of philosophy, should we consider them as differing perspectives (valuable), or contradictions (not so valuable :wink:)?

Is either one actually in contradiction of the other? Does one disprove the other, or otherwise show it to be unsuitable for philosophers to use? [These are sincere questions, and I am sincere in asking them, because I don't know the answers!] :grin:

Thanks for that. I don't really have a response, because I see nothing to challenge or argue with. :wink: But I'm learning, and you're helping. Thanks again. :up:

↪Pattern-chaser
I should note that despite the following, I wouldn't say I follow a single school of philosophy, I often find myself in agreement with incompatible views.

Essentially, it's for the sake of consistency. Consistency is a theoretical virtue, that is, most of the time consistency is a property of a theory which makes the good or better relative to a theory which is otherwise identical save a for a contradiction amongst its assumptions or entailments. The more you pick views and assumptions between schools, the more likely you are to introduce contradictions into your set of beliefs. Of course, one can still find themselves in a school of thought who's tenets are inconsistent or results in a belief system with some other unwanted feature (ad hoc-ness, poor explanatory power, lack of fruitfulness, etc.) — MindForged

I'm sorry, I'm not convinced. For a start, I note that most schools of philosophy do not overlap significantly. They consider different areas of thinking and learning. Even when they do overlap, this does not necessarily introduce inconsistency or contradiction. Often it's just a different perspective; a different way of seeing things.

I consider different perspectives to be valuable, to the extent that I seek them out when looking for understanding. I thought I might coin the term Perspectivist for myself, but I found it was already defined, in a way that would be acceptable (to me) if it wasn't so dogmatic. Shame. :confused:

Consistency is nice - and more than just 'nice' in an ideal world - but it isn't as common as we would like. We get by, though. Why do we think God invented cognitive dissonance? :wink:

if I were a mechanic, I suspect the contents of my toolbox would be significantly different than the contents of a carpenter's tool box. And though I might use a carpenter's tool once in a while, I am not expend resources to acquire a complete set of carpenter's tools.

I use philosophy in pursuit of an ever deepening understanding of the nature of being. My philosophy tool box is going to be full of tools that best enable that pursuit. And if most of those tools come from a particular school of philosophy (a particular hardware store? a particular hardware brand? from a particular hardware department?), then those are the tools that are going to be in my tool box.

And I am not young. And I have acquired and discarded various tools over many years. And most of the tools now in my tool box are from a particular school of philosophy. But I did not acquire them because I "subscribed" to that school of philosophy. I acquired them because they facilitate my philosophical pursuit..

I use philosophy in pursuit of an ever deepening understanding of the nature of being. My philosophy tool box is going to be full of tools that best enable that pursuit. And if most of those tools come from a particular school of philosophy (a particular hardware store? a particular hardware brand? from a particular hardware department?), then those are the tools that are going to be in my tool box. — Arne

Yes, but I was equating each school of philosophy with a single tool, and philosophy as a whole as all of the tools, packed together into a toolbox. If Ethics isn't your thing, I can see how you wouldn't include it in your toolbox, but to limit ourselves to just one tool, when there are others available that might also prove useful? Not me. :wink:

I was equating each school of philosophy with a single tool, — Pattern-chaser

I know. I extended your metaphor.

Metaphor's invite that.

In my tool box there are only four tools: reason, logic, intuition, and common sense.

I don't know who has other tools in their tool boxes. Some have dogma; some have an affinity to some school of philosophy (such as to solipsism, or to realism, or to Platonism). I reject all that break my tools of reason, logic, intuition and common sense and accept those that can be worked with my tools.

-----------------

Ask me what tools I never use. I never use fallacies. Fallacies are tools of deception. They seem to appeal to logic, but they are in fact counter-logical.

If Ethics isn't your thing, I can see how you wouldn't include it in your toolbox — Pattern-chaser

Ethics is not a tool. It is a branch of philosophy, and many different schools of ethics may exist. Much like aesthetics may have different schools, and one ethic may be the part of the same school as one aesthetic.

Sorry to be splitting hairs.

Then surely ethics is not a tool, but a collection of tools? My sentiment still applies, I think.

...but to limit ourselves to just one tool, when there are others available that might also prove useful? Not me. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

That (above) was the useful and meaningful bit. :up:

I think ethics could be manipulated with one tool (if you only subscribe to one school's teachings) and with the same one tool you'd manipulate, say, aesthetics; or there could be many tools (if you accept more than one school's teachings and apply them as needed.)

I wouldn't say I adhere to any "school"--as the number of claims that someone else makes increase, the chances that I disagree with some of their claims contingently increases, too, but there are certainly labels that fit me. And in that case it's simply that I believe that the view in question is correct; that it gets right something about what the world is really like.

Then surely ethics is not a tool, but a collection of tools? My sentiment still applies, I think. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, it does. I agree. The metaphor still applies.

Yes, thank you. But this (below) is still the relevant bit of what I posted:

...but to limit ourselves to just one tool, when there are others available that might also prove useful? Not me. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Right. I have no arguments against that.

I don't really look at ethics as a "tool" (or set of tools), by the way. I look at it as phenomena to be described. In general, I approach philosophy in a descriptivist manner. I'm not fond of normative focuses, especially as I don't believe that normatives can be true or false, and I don't believe that norms should be followed just because they're norms. My interest is in correctly identifying and describing what is, in a non-judgmental manner (re value judgments).

My interest is in correctly identifying and describing what is. — Terrapin Station

A worthy aspiration! :smile: ... :chin:

I don't really look at ethics as a "tool" (or set of tools), by the way. I look at it as phenomena to be described. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and don't we then follow on by using that description as a tool of understanding?

Yes, and don't we then follow on by using that description as a tool of understanding? — Pattern-chaser

Sure, you could say that descriptions are "tools for understanding" --although maybe more often they're tools for misunderstanding, especially because there are so many wrong descriptions, but a description of what ethics is isn't itself ethics.

a description of what ethics is isn't itself ethics. — Terrapin Station

No, of course not. But when we wish to *apply* ethics, we need to understand what it is that we're applying, and such a description is (at the least) a handy first step toward understanding.

Why support only one school of philosophy?

Officially people may support only one school, but in practice pretty much everyone is eclectic. They will use a number of different epistemologies to arrive at beliefs they will act on (as if those beliefs are true). They will use some mish mash of deontology and consequentialism (and subdivisions therein), to arrive at actions (and that's when they ar being actively rational about it.) They will internally at the very least, see themselves as determined in certain situations, and having free will in others. They will talk about it these differing ways. Discussions will reveal all sorts of ideas, implicit mostly, about ontology. People present unified fronts with themselves and the guy up there in the observation tower will claim to be this or that, but if you follow them, over time, in situ, they will most be all over the place. And the ones who are not - I would guess they would scare me a bit.

Sounds right! :smile: