The Reinvention of Philosophy | ||
It seems to me that traditional
philosophy has a big problem these days the problem is
science. Years ago, before it was called science, natural philosophy
had a fairly minor part in the explanation of the world. It
was, after all a mixture of alchemy and descriptions of how those
machines worked which our ancestors were capable of making. So
then it seemed quite normal for philosophers and theologians
to be
left to try to respond to the big questions of life and they
did it in a purely intellectual manner. Experimentation was
in the distant future. But from the Renaissance onwards we have
seen a radical change in the world. Scientists have succeeded
in describing how the world functions so well that the role of
god has become very limited. Progressively, theologians have
been reduced to postulating a god of ever-narrowing gaps instead
of the old god who was necessary to explain everything, including
how the world continued to turn. Nowadays, his role is confined
to having created the universe billions of years ago and, perhaps,
being responsible for miraculous interventions from time to time. But every
time that science explains something-else these philosophers
are pushed further towards irrelevance. Steven Hawking asserts in his latest book that
philosophy is dead because science has superseded it. I'm
not sure that this is entirely true, but there is less and less
reason to believe that there is a grand philosophical theory
which can explain in grand terms the big questions of life
its meaning, how to justify a moral code, how to explain free-will,
what we mean by a good life, what is the question to which 42
is the answer
Philosophers are even fragmented into different
groups according to their 'faith'. Like theologians. Thus notwithstanding
their impressive words and mind-bending theories, it is reasonable
to assume that the material world is not compatible with the
type of answers given by philosophers or even in many instances
relevant to the questions asked. The great theories which
they have constructed may well turn out to be castles in the
air. Certainly it's looking that way. We have known
for may years now that oxytocin facilitates the creation of the
link between mother and baby. But now we have evidence that it
has a wider effect.. It is a chemical which it is not easy to
study because it has a half life of only 3 minutes in the body,
but a series of experiments* has shown that it also accompanies
a wish to act altruistically in general. The higher its concentration
the greater the degree of altruism which will be engaged in.
Its absence marks an unwillingness so to act. In fact its failure
to appear in response to the stimuli which normally herald its
appearance correlate with that person's having a psychopathic
personality. Now, therefore, we can say that this molecule
in conjunction with our mirror neurones is essential for our
sense of empathy. We feel what others feel and are motivated
to act morally i.e. for the benefit of others. We see
from this that morality is an emotion, or a group of emotions
which interact with each other. The production of oxytocin
is much stimulated by social involvement and is associated with
a higher levels of happiness in general. So then, contrary to
received opinion, both religious and philosophical, to act morally
is, at least in part, an adaptation which makes us contented
when we act for the benefit of others. |
||
|