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

Philosophy and Science: The Methodological Function of Philosophy

The question of the relationship between philosophy and science, and the "scientific nature" of philosophy itself, has sparked intense debates over the past century and a half. To gain some clarity on this issue, it is crucial to examine the historical interactions between philosophy and science.

In Ancient Greece, the term "philosophy" was essentially synonymous with "science." Philosophy was understood as the entirety of emerging scientific knowledge, and philosophers were those who carried this knowledge. This was not an exaggeration. It is no coincidence that Thales, the father of ancient Greek philosophy, was counted among the seven sages. According to Diogenes Laertius, Thales discovered the length of the year, dividing it into three hundred sixty-five days; he was the first to predict a solar eclipse, measured the height of the Egyptian pyramids by their shadows, and initiated discussions about the nature of the world. Another renowned Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, is famed for his contributions to geometry. Greek philosophers were highly respected by their contemporaries for their achievements in both philosophy and science. At that time, alongside purely philosophical inquiries, philosophy also addressed specific scientific questions. This blending of philosophy and science persisted for a long time, even into the modern era, when the terms "philosopher" and "scientist" were largely interchangeable. Descartes, one of the founders of modern science, is well-known for his work in mathematics and geometry, and is credited with the discovery of the conditioned reflex. Leibniz was a distinguished mathematician, and Kant made undeniable contributions to cosmology. The list of names respected in both philosophy and science could easily be extended.

However, even in Ancient Greece, there was a growing trend toward distinguishing purely philosophical problems from scientific ones, a trend that intensified as scientific knowledge expanded. Aristotle already made efforts to separate philosophical knowledge from other forms of knowledge, contrasting philosophy (which he termed "first philosophy") with the particular sciences. In his view, philosophy should be regarded as the study of first causes, first principles, and the most general foundations of being. It is higher than all other sciences because it seeks truth for its own sake, while other sciences are guided by utility. Therefore, philosophy is the "queen of the sciences," and its principles cannot be contradicted by the particular sciences; rather, these sciences must adhere to the principles set forth by philosophy.

This "royal" status of philosophy in the hierarchy of knowledge persisted for a long time, even until the 19th century. In the early modern period (17th-18th centuries), when scientific knowledge experienced a rapid expansion and many modern sciences were born, philosophy remained the "queen of the sciences." This is not surprising. During this period, scientific knowledge was often primarily experimental and descriptive, and could not yet rival philosophy in terms of intellectual power, theoretical generalizations, or the ability to perceive the connections between various phenomena.

The situation changed dramatically in the 19th century, when particular sciences "matured" into theoretical disciplines. Now, they were capable of creating their own theories to explain the body of known facts, discerning developmental tendencies, and devising their own methods of inquiry. Philosophy's claim to primacy was called into question. Among scientists, a slogan became widespread: "Science, beware of metaphysics!" (Metaphysics, since Aristotle, has referred to "first philosophy," though for Hegel and Marx it refers to a doctrine opposed to dialectics, one that views the world and phenomena in isolation and without development.) Scientists were dissatisfied with the speculative nature of many philosophical principles, especially when they contradicted the findings of empirical science. Alongside its brilliant contributions to science, philosophy had also generated many ideas that did not align with empirical facts. The view that philosophy had exhausted its role, like King Lear left without a kingdom, gained traction, with some claiming it had no place in modern science. Many 19th-century scientists believed that science could solve not only its own problems but also those traditionally considered philosophical. This view even found adherents among philosophers, leading to the emergence of philosophical schools in the 19th and 20th centuries whose proponents did not regard philosophy as a "full-fledged" science, or even as a science at all.

Nevertheless, today, the majority of philosophers and scientists do not deny philosophy’s scientific status, nor do they share the view that it has outlived its usefulness. This raises the question: "What is the scientific value of philosophical knowledge and generalizations, and why is philosophy still regarded as a science today?"

It has been previously emphasized that philosophy shares with science a method of inquiry grounded in reason. Like science, philosophy approaches its specific problems through rational argumentation. Furthermore, these problems, while of intrinsic interest to philosophy, are also of great importance to science. Today, there is a desire to integrate scientific knowledge and comprehend it as a whole, and only philosophy can achieve this synthesis. No particular science can fulfill this function. In fact, contemporary science faces problems that it cannot explain, and here philosophy steps in to assist. This assistance does not consist in directly solving scientific problems, but in suggesting possible approaches to their resolution based on its broader principles of understanding. Philosophy attempts to peer beyond the horizon reached by science, indicating potential paths forward. On this foundation, science constructs its hypotheses.

By synthesizing scientific and practical knowledge, philosophy develops a categorical framework (categories being the most general concepts reflecting the universal connections of reality and cognition), which all sciences rely on and without which they cannot function. Commenting on the significance of ancient Greek philosophy for European science, Karl Jaspers rightly pointed out that it was the efforts of the ancient Greek philosophers that produced the categorical framework at the foundation of all science.

Discussing the role of philosophy in the system of scientific knowledge, it is important to highlight its contribution to the study of the cognitive process itself. Philosophy not only generalizes the results of scientific inquiry but also reflects on the process of cognition, its patterns and connections. From this reflection, it develops the most general methods (methodology) of scientific inquiry, thereby providing science with a powerful tool for further exploration of nature and society. It is no accident that Francis Bacon, in emphasizing the role of method in scientific inquiry, noted that even a blind man, if on the right path, will overtake a sighted man who wanders without a road. In this regard, it is worth noting that there are two main methods for investigating reality: the dialectical and the metaphysical. The dialectical method requires us to view the phenomena of the world in their universal interconnections, change, and development, while the metaphysical method examines phenomena in isolation and without development.

Finally, philosophy plays a vital role in clarifying the most general foundations of science itself. Science needs to understand its own place and role in society, to examine its nature and potential. Today, this need is more evident than ever before, and it is philosophy that helps science to understand itself.