Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 259–269 | Cite as

Is Philosophy a Humanistic Discipline?

  • Carlo CellucciEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to Bernard Williams, philosophy is a humanistic discipline essentially different from the sciences. While the sciences describe the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective, philosophy tries to make sense of ourselves and of our activities. Only the humanistic disciplines, in particular philosophy, can do this, the sciences have nothing to say about it. In this note I point out some limitations of Williams’ view and outline an alternative view.

Keywords

The nature of philosophy The character of scientism The absolute conception of the world Philosophy and the sciences Philosophy and the humanistic disciplines Philosophy and history 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Reuben Hersh, Stephen Schwartz, Fabio Sterpetti, Semir Zeki, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions. I also wish to thank Arlette Dupuis who kindly copyedited the final draft delivered to Philosophia.

Funding

This study received no funding from any external source.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bacon, F. (1961–1963). Works. Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt: Frommann Holzboog.Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, S. (1996). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn, S. (2010). Practical tortoise raising and other philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvino, I. (1988). Six memos for the next millennium. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Calvino, I. (2010). Palomar. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  6. Carnap, R. (1935). Philosophy and logical syntax. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Cellucci, C. (2014a). Rethinking philosophy. Philosophia, 42, 271–288.Google Scholar
  8. Cellucci, C. (2014b). Knowledge, Truth and Plausibility. Axiomathes, 24, 517–532.Google Scholar
  9. Descartes, R. (1996). Œuvres. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (2004). Reconstruction in philosophy. Mineola: Dover.Google Scholar
  11. Dummett, M. (2010). The nature and future of philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dyson, F. (2012). What can you really know? The New York Review of Books, 59, No. 17 (November 8), 18–20.Google Scholar
  13. Galilei, G. (1968). Opere. Florence: Barbera.Google Scholar
  14. Glymour, C. (1997). Thinking things through: An introduction to philosophical issues and achievements. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hawking, S. W., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The grand design. London: Bantham.Google Scholar
  16. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McGinn, C. (2015). The science of philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 46, 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Newton, I. (1972). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. The third edition (1726) with variant readings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, H. (1992). Renewing philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Putnam, H. (2001). Reply to Bernard Williams’ “Philosophy as a humanistic discipline”. Philosophy, 76, 605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quine, W. O. (1981). Theories and things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rota, G. C. (2008). Indiscrete thoughts. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  29. Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Santayana, G. (1948). The life of reason: Reason in common sense. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz, S. (2012). A brief history of analytic philosophy: From Russell to Rawls. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, B. (2002). Truth & truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, B. (2006). Philosophy as a humanistic discipline. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Williams, B. (2014). Essays and reviews 1959–2002. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wisdom, J. (1934). Problems of mind and matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Zeki, S. (2014). Neurobiology and the humanities. Neuron, 84, 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations