Philosophy, Its Range of Problems, and Its Role in Society

The introductory topic in any scientific field presents significant challenges both for teaching and for understanding. This arises from the fact that students, just beginning their study of the discipline, are expected to grasp concepts that they can only fully comprehend after completing the entire course, provided they engage with diligence and active independent study. For the lecturer, the difficulty lies in the fact that the first lecture is addressed to young minds for whom the language of science is unfamiliar, and yet the lecturer must convey both the essence and the purpose of the discipline.

In the case of an introductory lecture on philosophy, these general difficulties are compounded, as it is nearly impossible to provide a clear, universally accepted definition of philosophy. The challenge is not simply that the conception of philosophy has evolved over the course of history—this is true of all sciences—but rather that at any given time, including today, various philosophical schools and individual philosophers hold differing views on the nature and purpose of philosophy, a phenomenon not characteristic of other sciences. Hence, many come to the belief, or rather the prejudice, that philosophy is of little relation to science.

Moreover, when students embark on their study of philosophy, they encounter what may be described as a familiar stranger. On one hand, the abstract nature of philosophical language makes it difficult for students to assimilate, and for lecturers to present, the material. On the other hand, students often believe, first, that they already know all there is to know, and that the lecturer is merely casting shadows over a clear day, speaking grandiloquent words about mundane things. Second, they hold the conviction that everything the lecturer discusses bears no practical significance, and that philosophizing, if of interest at all, is only so for the idle mind, having no bearing on their future careers as engineers, economists, and the like. On this point, it is worth noting that such a judgment is both true and false in equal measure.

The 21st century is, by its very nature, pragmatic. Science has vastly expanded the scope of human capability, enabling humanity to solve many of its problems. The establishment of industrial social relations in the 19th century, in turn, formed a new ideal of humanity and human happiness, centered on success in practical endeavors, wealth, and social status (image). It is no coincidence that pragmatism arose in the United States, a country that for many serves as a model of development in our time, where such notions of success are most widespread.

Yet, the 21st century, with its dynamism verging on restlessness, with humanity’s expanded capacities approaching the brink of self-destruction, has raised once again, and in a new light, the age-old question (as ancient as myth) of the meaning of human existence and the "meaning" of the world itself. It has become clear, and increasingly so, that no one can, nor likely ever will, escape these "accursed" questions, and we are fated to offer our own answers to them. The demand for such answers grows especially urgent in times of societal crisis and revolution, when the familiar conditions of life are destroyed, new social relations are established, and the individual finds themselves at the mercy of the relentless, unforgiving gears of history. The world begins to seem meaningless, absurd, as Albert Camus suggested.

Thus, the need for philosophy, for a philosophical understanding of the world, not only does not diminish in our time, but continues to grow. No matter how much we may try to distance ourselves from philosophy, we cannot rid ourselves of it, just as no individual can escape the act of philosophizing.