On the Faults of Modern Philosophy

Vladyslav Nazarchuk

Once, while visiting Yale after having been accepted, I, being vaguely interested in philosophy, sat in on a philosophy class, where the professor was putting forth some mildly interesting theories about the source of ethical behavior. At the end, in assigning his students an essay, he told them, “Write about what you think the correct theory is”; this is what I have done as a freshman later on, as well.

Naively, I used to think that philosophy was the search for truth; moreover, historically, philosophy was the search for truth, to the great men like Plato and Aristotle, as they rested their thoughts on a bedrock of intuitive first principles, and built upon them collectively into a body of beautiful Truth. However, as we begin to diverge into the modern day, we see philosophy spreading out into the realms of many dissenting authors, with the claims of one directly contradicting the claims of all the rest, each with lower scope and aspirations as the years progress. And in the modern day, in college and in academia, students are not even trying to find truth, but rather simply create an intelligent-sounding argument.

I cannot deny that all throughout history, philosophers have contended among each other. However, truth is one, and it shall always be one. When a group of things all stand directly opposite each other, then at least all but one must be false; hence, when many people disagree, only a tiny fraction speaks the truth in its entirety. Thus, the majority of the philosophical writings are false, and no one even attempts to sort out the truth!

If one disagrees, I will ask the academicians why Plato’s works still have unsolved controversies, or why Parmenides is still not directly refuted or supported to this day, and why there is not a single philosophical authority today that could tell us who is right and who is wrong. Could it be that the discipline of philosophy is so difficult that the whole efforts of humanity for over two thousand years have failed to answer some of philosophy’s most fundamental and basic questions? Literally every other discipline seems to have fared significantly better.

Furthermore, while past philosophers at least aspired to capture the highest mysteries of life in thought, modern philosophers focus on base “problems,” many of which are simply poorly-defined mathematical considerations, at best, and the rest simply bear no resemblance to the real world, being bare models and simplifications. After all, human life is so rich and beautiful and shrouded in such mystery and music, and philosophy, being the highest discipline, should be concerned with it, no? And yet in the modern day, this noble study has degenerated into something dry, low, and impractical.

Many people, in fact, will not even contend that, by pursuing philosophy, one can find truths about life; rather, a prevailing opinion is that we study philosophy today to learn to think critically and to be able to carry ourselves well in argument. This opinion, although probably true, still doesn’t explain why the discipline of philosophy ought not to be rightly called “rhetoric” or “logic” or “history of philosophy” or something of the like, areas of decent legitimacy which actually present themselves as they truly are. On the other hand, what we now call “philosophy” seems to me to call to the ancients, yet fail to produce anything of the like to which they aspired.

Well, what, then, are we to do; how shall we find truth in life, if the logical constructions of so many men seem to only lead us in circles and contradictions? I shall give my opinion, and like Plato, conclude with a myth. To me, philosophy seems to be a pyramid of gray mass, with golden vines dispersed within it, all leading to the top. The apex of the pyramid is the key to the world, the Philosopher’s stone, the revelations of Christianity, shining so bright yet so hidden to regular perception; the vines are divine truths, perceptible through earnestness of the soul. Logic allows us to wade from one vine to the other along a horizontal plane though the gray matter, filling what is in between the vines quite effectively. However, to climb up, we still need to trust the base truths and intuitions we have implanted deep within us, like objective morality and senses of what is right and decent and beautiful, and build upon them into a body of consistent thought.

For the world is much higher than logic, as logic and rationality can never fully encompass things like emotion, literature, beauty, religion, and music. Philosophy must be rigorous to the extent that it can, since mathematics is a great tool of humanity, but it also cannot be confined to artificial principles and definitions, which many philosophers employ in their quest to fit the world neatly within their minds. After all, just because the universe exceeds the confines of human reason, that does not mean it has no right to exist!

Instead, I think that as philosophers, we must be as ruthless and vigilant as inquisitors in finding the truth and separating it from falsity, and at least try to confidently assert something. Else, I fear that, instead of continuing in the philosophical tradition by thinking of something even bolder and greater than what those before us have thought, we will only tiptoe around fundamental questions and stagnate the course of this proud discipline.

Therefore, friends, let’s aim for complete and beautiful Truth in our philosophical thinking, and thereby make philosophy great again.