David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the Times, recently published an article entitled "The End of Philosophy." The apocalyptic title must have struck a nerve, especially after the Fukuyama debacle, because his article shot to the top of the most emailed list.
The most interesting thing about this article, at least for me, was the author. Here's a writer who some would describe as an errant conservative, who attended the University of Chicago, who even advocated military intervention in the Middle East. But here's the funny thing: his conception of human nature is very different from most conservatives, the majority of which draw inspiration from Burke or Hobbes. I think that's fascinating.
In a way, both of the thinkers are responding to the headlines. After all, Brooks is saying that even with the best intentions, the most intricate and well-reasoned of arguments, there are times when our world view crumbles. We occasionally take a wrong path. We justify our fallacies. We err. The financial crisis, the election, a surge in global violence - these events make us question whether our underlying beliefs are flawed.
Hilzoy would probably argue that recent events simply reinforce the fact that moral philosophy has a place in academia and the public sphere. In fact, the principal reason he attacks Brooks with such vigor is he believes that Brooks is trying to kill philosophy outright. But I don't think that Hilzoy really get underlying argument behind Brooks' article. Back in the day, I was taught by one my professors that the division between the science and the humanities stems back to the Renaissance, when intellectuals reinforced the division between inductive logic and deductive logic. Today, scientists approach world deductively: they make observations, develop hypothesis, and test theories. Humanists prefer a more inductive approach, one which attempts to capture the multiplicity of the human experience. But philosophy is an odd duck, for philosophers tend to work within a circumscribed system of logic: A + B = C. They, like scientists, enjoy the hard stuff - theories, laws, etc. In others words, philosophers often end up being humanists masquerading as scientists, or vice-a-versa.
Interestingly enought, Brooks isn't trying to kill philosophy, one of the oldest disciplines in the humanities. Instead, he's trying to reconcile the humanities with science by binding them tighter together. Far from arguing that philosophy is dead, Brooks is attempt to revive it, at least in a sense, by arguing that it is time to move in a new direction. He's arguing that philisophy, taking a cue from science, should embrace the humanities.
And again, given his political background, I think the whole thing is fascinating.
