What Exactly Does Philosophy Study?

Returning home for the Spring Festival inevitably means family gatherings; family gatherings inevitably mean asking after one another, and asking after one another inevitably means asking about me. This time, I was asked: what on earth does philosophy study?

Among this round of relatives, my uncle was a college student, and even now he still occasionally reads books; the rest were all the most ordinary people of the market streets and alleys—that is to say, people who do not read books. My uncle was very concerned about me. He mentioned that last time, in Shanghai Book City, he had specially gone looking for books on philosophy of technology. He said he had searched for quite a while without finding “philosophy of science,” and instead found a book called “philosophy of technology,” which he leafed through. He told me that he had finally understood that philosophy of technology originally meant using technical means to study philosophy. I could only laugh and cry at once, and had no choice but to say that perhaps he had it backwards—that it would be more like using philosophy to study technology.

At the dinner table my uncle chatted about philosophy, saying that philosophy is everywhere in life, and that he had previously read some book about “logic,” from which he learned about “big ideas” and “small ideas.” It made so much sense, he said; logic really does have its uses. In everyday speech, the first thing is to have the general direction right; the small ideas can change, and so on. Then he went on to talk about a few other practical truths, in short saying that philosophy is everywhere. I wondered whether what he was talking about was Aristotle’s syllogistic logic, with its major and minor premises—how did “major premise” turn into “big idea,” and then “big idea” again into “general direction”? What, exactly, was the chain of associations here? … Of course, I was still laughing and crying at the same time.

Seeing my helpless expression, they naturally wanted me to provide a professional explanation. So I had no choice but to admit that philosophy is not merely “practical life truths.” My cousin brought up philosophy as the mother of all sciences, and so I took the opportunity to start from ancient Greek philosophy, introducing the intellectual aim of ancient Greek “natural philosophy” in its search for the nature of things. Then I moved on to the differentiation between philosophy and science, and so on, and after that I could go no further; the “audience” had long since lost patience and immediately began discussing the dishes that had just been served, stocks, and other topics…

Giving a speech in Shanghai dialect felt very awkward to me (but if I had spoken Mandarin at the time, it probably would have seemed even more unnatural), and giving a speech to relatives was even more awkward. But these were not the main reasons the speech failed. The key, in fact, was that my speech was far too far removed from the situation at hand.

Thinking about it now, it is really rather funny: most of them probably had no idea that ancient Greece is the source of Western civilization; they certainly could not possibly care about the origins and development of philosophy, so why was I droning on about those things?

They asked, “What does philosophy study?” But the problem here is that they not only do not understand “philosophy,” they first and foremost do not understand the activity of “study” itself. The reason the question “what does philosophy study?” stands out so prominently is that “philosophy,” unlike “biology,” “political science,” and other disciplines, seems from the literal wording to reveal its object of study at a glance—biology of course studies living things. Yet in fact they have never had any more substantial understanding of biology, political science, or the like either.

Once my father said that the professional articles published by philosophers could hardly be read by many people; this circle is too small, so how much influence could it possibly have? I said, have you ever seen the professional articles of scientists? Which field’s professional articles can have readership as broad as a bestselling novel? Much less, even bestselling novels are never read by them. The fact is, the way of life of a scholar or researcher is unfamiliar to most people, as if it were an activity in another world, with nothing to do with their lives.

But then I asked my father: do you know where our present “everyday” life comes from? Where do this television set, this mobile phone, and this computer come from? For us, perhaps it is enough to know that they come from the shop; at most we think one layer further: they come out of factories. But how is it possible for them to be produced by factories? Ordinary people also know—science and technology. The reason the things that make up our everyday life are possible is because of “science and technology.”

All right, what we must ask is: where on earth does that “science and technology” come from? That is precisely the question of philosophy of technology.

We can all imagine it: if there were only shops and no factories, it would be impossible for us to have television sets. Going further, if there were only factories and no technology, we would still be unable to have television sets; if a factory’s processes had fatal defects, then the television sets in the shops would inevitably be faulty, and if technology itself had defects, then everything that depends on it would inevitably be afflicted as well.

Yet now we cannot make out what exactly “technology” is. Where, after all, does it originate? Clearly this is a question someone must pursue.

Ordinary people on the streets are merely “consumers” who reap the benefits without effort—although many of them also play the role of producers such as “workers,” they have no self-consciousness of this role and cannot face it head-on and take up this responsibility—they are merely screws in the whole production line, slaves of the assembly line, following the commands of the giant machine, and not true “producers” or “creators.”

Their lives take only two forms—unreflective obedience and reaping the benefits without effort.

They know “selfishness,” yet never “self-consciousness.” They think of going to a store to buy a television set, and they can even confidently declare that their possession of the television is by no means “reaping the benefits without effort”; they will say that it was bought with money earned through their labor—how can that be called reaping the benefits without effort?

Yet what I mean by “reaping the benefits without effort” is not “gaining without effort,” but “possessing without responsibility.” Modern people possess the achievements of civilization, yet forget their sources. And this is a double forgetting: not only have they forgotten, they have forgotten that they have forgotten. That is to say, they not only do not know where the achievements of civilization come from, they also simply no longer care about this question at all. Whether it be television sets, mobile phones, and other technological products; water, electricity, and other resources; rice, bread, and other foodstuffs; or welfare, rights, and so on—they will care about gains and losses in these things. They know how to buy television sets, buy food; if the power is cut off, the water is shut off, or their rights are stripped away, they also know how to shout and make a fuss. But they never know to pursue the sources of these things. That is to say, they possess them, but they are governed by them. They have never tried to “understand” them, “take responsibility for” them, and thereby “master” them; they merely react in a daze to the stimulation of their gains and losses. They become excited because they have bought a little novelty, and they also become excited because they have been deprived of a little right; they work hard to buy products, and they also shout loudly to fight for rights. In other words, from spirit to action, the whole of their being is extremely simply governed and controlled by these things; they revolve around them, yet can never take them into their arms.

What is called doing scholarship, doing research, has precisely this mission: this “questioning,” this “pursuit.” We must trace these “ready-made” things to their root: where on earth do they come from? We must clearly understand that no matter how “everyday” a thing may be, it will never just be “there” for no reason at all. A television set will not simply be placed in a shopping mall for no reason, waiting for someone to buy it. If we cannot be “responsible” for some thing, then it can never truly be “owned” by me. It is like dragging a woman back from the street and placing her in your home; she does not thereby become “your person.” You may “possess” her in this way, but you cannot truly “own” her. Only when you have deeply understood her, and have taken on your responsibility, and then pursued her and won her, only then can she be counted as truly yours.

The situation now is this: people want to be masters of things, but instead become slaves of things. The dialectic of master and slave.

Some people realize the bad situation of being enslaved by things, while others realize human domination and feel ashamed. They want to break free from this state—what some call “modernity”—so they think of escaping, retreating to primitive ways of life, fantasizing about a “return to nature.” Yet they do not realize that this escape is still “irresponsibility.” Merely because they loathe rape, they deny love.

Whether they are the dazed, or the escapists, they do not understand “pursuit”—to pursue, to inquire, to seek. The former enjoy civilization’s achievements, the latter despise them, yet both are unwilling to take responsibility and bear them.

Of course, my words were still difficult for those ordinary people to understand. In fact, at times they even take “not understanding” as a source of pride.

I once pressed my father, in an atmosphere that was not very harmonious: where does the meaning of money lie? My father said money can be exchanged for “power.” Then I asked, where does the meaning of “power” lie? He said power can be exchanged for money. I asked, after money is exchanged for power and power for money, what exactly is it all meant to exchange for in the end? My father said he did not know. In fact, he really did not know, and I knew that in reality he was not a fanatic in pursuit of fame and profit, but only an ordinary, kind little townsman. But when I said that this was merely the level of an ordinary vulgar petty-bourgeois value system and that one should continue asking further, my father’s suggestion was: I only hope your views can be a bit more mediocre.

“Mediocrity” has become the “virtue” of this age. In ancient society people said, “A woman without talent is virtuous”; modern people denounce this as feudal ignorance. Yet modern people say this not only of women, but of everyone: mediocrity is virtue! Terms like “little women” and “little townsmen” are even increasingly worn with considerable “pride” as self-identifications. Those who stand out above the crowd instead become targets of all criticism (on these matters, one might as well look at The Revolt of the Masses).

It should be pointed out that I too praise the ordinary—the ordinary life is important, and also the most genuine and real. “Everyday life” is the starting point and endpoint of philosophy, the soil of all the marvelous achievements of philosophy, art, religion, science, technology, and so on. Yet “ordinariness” is not something one needs to “pursue”; it is not something worthy of glory, much less some kind of “virtue”—“virtue,” as its etymology in ancient Greek indicates, refers precisely to “excellence”; the ordinary and virtue are opposed. The “beauty” of the “ordinary” is like the black background of the starry sky: it is supremely important, but in itself it is not the radiance.

Therefore, “ordinary people” cannot truly understand the mission of scholarship. Once you understand it, you will necessarily have to shoulder it; in this way, you can no longer be an “ordinary person.” The difference between the “masses” and the “elite” does not depend on what they “possess,” but on what they “bear.”

February 14, 2008

Latest Comments

• UNIC

  2008-02-16 23:44:02 Anonymous 222.82.79.95

  “In other words, they possess them, but they are governed by them.”
  “Merely because they loathe rape, they deny love.”
  “The ‘beauty’ of the ‘ordinary’ is like the black background of the starry sky: it is supremely important, but in itself it is not the radiance.”
  “.” “The difference between the ‘masses’ and the ‘elite’ does not depend on what they ‘possess,’ but on what they ‘bear.’”
  Nothing else—I just picked out some beautiful sentences. Good article. Your way of explaining your views really is almost, or perhaps already, second nature~

• Wu Zheng Baobao

  2008-12-31 01:47:21 

  Hehe, of course it feels awkward to speak in dialect. Natural science is the same.
  As for the view that the true possession of a woman in fact must go through the process of understanding, responsibility, and then bearing it, I strongly agree. The example you gave of “virtue as excellence” I have also recently come across. The concept of “bearing,” after many transformations and transmissions, has been embodied as the concept of “care” and has appeared in the sight of ordinary intellectuals. To understand, to be excellent, to influence, to change. We are all on the road.
  I am only a beginner; I will come to visit more often in the future!

  Gu: Thank you! I would more much rather that when you visit you leave more comments, and when you comment you criticize more,

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.