Introduction
Philosophers are known to be a breed of thinkers who tend to ask critical questions regarding the world within which we live. They are known to be critical perceivers, seldom taking anything at face value.
Philosophers may be engrossed in criticizing and reviewing the world outside their academic realm. They are known to critically look at matter, human’s brain functionality, religion and general existence of the human being in the society. It is perhaps this overemphasis on the world without that had made some philosophers forget or abandon critical aspects within their academic discipline.
Perhaps it is about time that philosophers woke up to this fact and started looking critically at their discipline. Since they are known to operate by asking questions, they can pose the same to address obvious problems cropping up in their realm.
Recent developments in philosophy have raised many questions than answers. This has led people like Bunge (1) to pose questions like: is philosophy really dead? This is the question at the mind of many contemporary thinkers who have taken the time to reflect on the internal dynamics of their profession.
Some philosophers, those referred to by Corazzon as “philosophical prophets of doom” (3) declare that philosophy is in fact dead. This is an argument that is taken as a fact by any person in the society who has their reasoning faculties intact.
This is especially so given the mental gymnastics that post-modern theorists seem to prefer so much. Scholars in this school of thought have already started drafting the contents of the obituary for philosophy in contemporary society. They are of the view that, if philosophy is not already dead as some pacifists seem to argue, then it is on its way there; it is already on its death bed and life is surely ebbing out of it.
However, voices of reason among the so called reasonable members of society quip that the obituary is “immature” (Bunge 4). These are philosophers such as Mario Bunge, who contend that the current state of philosophy is nothing more than a stage on its cycle.
Historical analysis will prove that philosophy has undergone period of relapse at various points in time. Never did it die at such times; rather, some thinker or some event came along and shook it out of the self-induced slumber (Bunge 8).
According to Cooper (4), philosophy cannot die. As long as people keep on philosophizing, as long as they keep on critically analyzing the world around them and the space occupied by the human in this world, philosophy will keep on living.
This being the case, one is left wondering, what is the actual state of academic philosophy in contemporary society? Is the summation that the discipline is afflicted by deep, systemic problems correct?
Mario Bunge steps in to answer these questions. The crisis bedevilling academic philosophy is the main theme of his book Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction. This book was published by Prometheus Books in 2001.
This paper is going to review this book, looking critically at the various arguments that are fronted by Bunge. This paper is going to look at the structure of the book, a thematic analysis of the book, criticisms levelled at Bunge and his arguments among other issues.
Philosophy in Crisis: Structure and Organization of the Book
Structural Overview
In 241 pages, Bunge lays puts forth his argument to the effect that philosophy is currently undergoing a crisis. The book is organized into ten sections, or ten chapters depending on how one looks at it. The following is a highlight of the sections in this book:
Section 1: Humanism in the Information Revolution
In this section, Bunge addresses the various aspects of humanism within the context of information revolution (13-24). He starts by acknowledging the fact that today, the society is undergoing a “technological revolution (that is) as radical as the one that was initiated by the steam engine (and the) pill” (Bunge 13).
This is information revolution which is characterized by the rise of the internet and such other factors that affect how people interact with each other and with the world around them (Cline 5). He is of the view that this development has affected many aspects of the human society, and of special interest to philosophers is the way people utilize knowledge available to them (Bunge 19: Quine 67).
Each section in the book is further sub-divided into several subsections dealing with various aspects of the topic being reviewed in the chapter.
To this end, Bunge has subdivided section 1 into six subsections addressing secular humanism as a whole worldview, religious humanism and antisocial thinking, humanists and information revolution, information and knowledge, the information highway and finally the progress towards a virtual society (Bunge 13-24).
Section 2: (the) Ten Cosmological Paradigms
In this section, Bunge (27-47) takes a closer look at the ten cosmological paradigms in philosophy. The section is subdivided into 11 subsections that address this topic.
He looks at a sketch of ten paradigms, holism as the cosmic animal, hierarchism as the cosmic ladder, tychism as the world casino, dynamicism as the grand river, dialectics as the universal conflagration, atomism as the cosmic cloud, mechanism as the cosmic clock, sacralism as the cosmic temple, textualism as the book of the world, systemism as the system of all systems, and finally, epistemological consequences (Bunge 27-43).
Section 3: Materialism Triumphant
Here, Bunge (49-77) looks at the whole issue of matter and the universe. He looks at the issues of matter as an inert phenomenon and as a dematerialised phenomenon (Adeloitte 77). The quanta and the life immaterial are some of the other issues that are discussed in this chapter. Bunge, in this chapter, conceptualises science as the study of matter, and he sketches the path to a new materialism in the universe (Bunge 77: Mahner 74).
Section 4: From Neuron to Mind
Bunge (79-93) takes a closer look at the human actor in this chapter. He elaborates on the five approaches use to study humans, as well as the seven models of man (Bunge 81-83: Kilov & Sack 23). The author also seeks to explain behaviour and mentation in humans in this chapter.
Section 5: Two Trilemmas about Social Matter
Bunge (99-106) addresses the issue of micro and macro links in the universe, social dynamics and definition of various phenomena in this chapter.
Section 6: Interpretation and Hypothesis in Social Studies
As the title of the section indicates, Bunge (117-134) deals with the issue of how the social studies interpret and hypothesise about the universe and the existence on man within the same. He looks at how meaning, goal, function and indicators are created by social studies in the universe.
He discusses hypothesis as interpretation and inference of the social reality, as well as addressing the issue of why problems in the social science realm appear to be intractable (Bunge 128: Matthews 30).
Section 7: Doubts and Skepticism
Bunge (139-158) looks at how dogmatism in the universe together with scepticism comes in varying degrees of intensity. He also looks at the question of whether anything in this world is possible, together with negativism in the society. He argues that all conjectures in philosophy and other thinking are anything but equal in plausibility (Bunge 148).
Section 8: Diagnosing Pseudoscience
Bunge has always been known to be against intellectual dispositions that he terms as pseudoscience (Andy 10). This is what he addresses in this chapter (Bunge 161-189). In this chapter, he tries to highlight the boundary between science and pseudoscience, two fields that he says are usually confused with each other but which are totally different from each other (Andy 11: Bunge 170).
He criticises what he refers as parapsychology, as a pseudoscience that involves “chasing (of) ghosts” (Bunge 176). He criticises psychoanalysis in this chapter, looking at it as another manifestation of pseudoscience involving conjuring up of wild fantasies (Bunge 179).
Section 9: Values and Morals in a Materialist and Realist Perspective
Bunge (191-203) addresses issues to do with facts and values, law and rule, right and duty and such others in this section. He also takes a closer look at agathonism as a humanist ethics, as well as technoholodemocracy, a realm of humanist social philosophy (Bunge 200).
Section 10: Crisis and Reconstruction in Philosophy
In this chapter, Bunge (207-224) addresses the major issue that he introduces in the forward of the book. This is the issue of the crisis that academic philosophy is currently facing and the need to reconstruct the discipline in order for it to remain relevant. He identifies the crisis, root causes of the crisis as well as the possible options for reconstructing and reviving the discipline.
Critique of the Structure and Organisation of the Book
It is obvious that the structure and organisation that Bunge adopted for his book makes it easy to read through. The preface was a good idea, as it sets the pace and tone of the whole book. It acts like an abstract, and it gives the reader an idea of not only what to expect inside the book, but also the context within which the book was written.
Bunge authors the preface of the book himself. I just wish he gave the opportunity of writing the forward or the preface to another authority. This would have gone a long way in enhancing the credibility of the book by introducing a third perspective on the books content (Spitzberg 22).
At the end of the book, Bunge provides the reader with a list of the note on the sources used in the book, references and indexes of names and subjects therein (Weingartner & Georg 12). This lends the book a halo of credibility, a halo that would have been otherwise dimmed by the self-authored preface.
It is an indication of the fact that Bunge has consulted many sources in coming up with his book. This shows that the book is a synthesis of many perspectives in the field of philosophy, perspectives that have been meshed together to create a cohesive argument on the crisis afflicting contemporary philosophical thinking.
The idea of dividing the book into several sections and subsections was also great. It makes the book appear organised, and makes it easy to read. This is especially so given the fact that each of the sections has a conclusion part that ties together the arguments that have been forwarded in the chapter.
However, Bunge tends to overdo the division of the book into several subsections. The subsections are just too many; making the book to appear cluttered and segmented at the same time. This is especially so considering the fact that some of the subsections are so brief, occupying a page or less.
Philosophy in Crisis: Thematic Analysis
Philosophy in Crisis
The central theme of the book, as the title suggests, is the crisis that is faced by philosophy in contemporary society. The author admits that a crisis does exist, and as the subtitle of the book suggests, he tries to draw the attention of the reader to the need to come up with a reconstruction strategy for the discipline (Agassi & Cohen 99).
As earlier indicated, Bunge refutes the fact that philosophy is on the threshold of its demise. He views this argument as both extremist and unreal. He asserts that academic philosophy is merely transiting through a rough patch, a developmental crisis that is not unique to our times (Cooper 4: Cline 8).
Bunge argues that the crisis in academic philosophy is undergirded by the fact that few, if any, philosophical ideas are coming up today, ideas that could help man understand their existence and their place in the universe (45). He is of the view that scholars in this field have actively elevated the decadence in the discipline.
They have done this, through design or otherwise, by shunning “deep problems, comprehensive systems (and)…… reason itself” (Bunge 230).
Contemporary philosophical thinking is moribund, undergoing a stagnant phase. Like stagnant water, this state of affairs, if not addressed, would breed decay and rotting in the discipline. Like a stagnant pool of water, current academic philosophy is in dire need of a fresh breeze to churn the murky waters and stimulate life from within.
Scholars that are regarded by Bunge as “insulated academics” (45) have played a significant role in creating this crisis. These scholars only speak to another in their academic cocoons. They use technical jargon in addressing issues in the society, and have failed to address the issues that are affecting the common man in the society.
The scholars fail to address the world as it is today and the real life problems that are encountered by contemporary man (Cline 4). Instead of looking beyond the walls of their discipline, contemporary philosophers have turned their attention to philosophy itself.
They have ignored all the concerns that modern man, faced by a society that is perpetually change, require answered (Agassi & Cohen 100: Mahner 76). This is for example issues to do with globalisation, global warming, and economic instability among others.
To make matters worse, Bunge (34) is of the view that tools that are needed in philosophical thinking, tools like reason, one of the central pillars in philosophy, have been forsaken by some of contemporary philosophy scholars.
Factors Contributing to the Crisis
Having identified and acknowledged the fact that a crisis does in fact exist in academic philosophy today, it becomes important to ask oneself the reason why this is so. What are some of the causes to this problem?
As earlier indicated, scholars within the field have been cited as the major contributors to the moribund status of the discipline. Along this line, Bunge, in this book, highlights some of the factors that he is convinced have significantly contributed to this.
Most of the factors, as Quine (64) and Cline (3) note, are endemic to contemporary structural and organisational aspects of academic philosophy in the society. One of them is the fact that academics have extremely professionalised the discipline (Cline 4). For example, today’s scholars attach a great deal of importance to the number of publications.
This is regardless of the fact that some of the publications add no value to the discipline. The scholars also seem to be averse to the generation of “……new (and) challenging ideas… (even at) the risk of being wrong” (Cline 9). Obscurity in thinking and analysis of issues in the field has become fashionable, given the appearance of profundity (Cline 9).
It also appears that most of the scholars have become obsessed with the use of language, rather than on the message that is conveyed by the language. This is why they tend to use technical terms that are made to appear professional, obscuring their thoughts in the process. The scholars also have a penchant to blowing minor issues out of proportion, giving them a larger than life appearance.
Philosophy in Crisis: Is there any Hope?
As indicated in this paper, Bunge is optimistic that the discipline can weather the crisis. History has shown that it is just a matter of time before the discipline recovers (Bunge 56: Corazzon 9).
History has shown that at times, academic philosophy has turned “moribund and inward-looking” (Cline 9). Many assumptions are made, and most of the scholars are contented with the status quo.
However, just when people have given up on the discipline, an individual reformer shows up, bringing with them a new way to look at things. They challenge the assumptions that have made the discipline stagnant, reigniting it, giving it a force of its own. This is what will happen in this case, or Bunge (67) so hopes.
Conclusion
Philosophy in Crisis: A Critique
Many critics are of the view that Bunge has done a fairly good job in explaining the problem faced by academic philosophy today. The consistent scepticism that Bunge assumes throughout the text is a refreshingly new look at a discipline that seems archaic to many in the society.
He adapts a materialistic view of philosophy as a discipline, making the book more relevant to the common man. He does not shy away from highlighting, with remarkable honesty, what he feels is wrong with the discipline and what he thinks should be done to address the problem.
However, the book is not without its own weaknesses, weaknesses that significantly affect the credibility of the text. For example, Bunge accuses contemporary philosophers of using technical terms that do not make sense to non-philosophers. He seems to fall into this trap too, for the book is not without its own share of technical and philosophical extractions.
Also, Bunge calls for a reconstruction of the discipline. One would have expected that he will go ahead and give some suggestion as to what should be done to address the issue, how to go about the reconstruction. However, this is not the case. Bunge simply analyses the problems, and restates the need for reconstruction. But he fails to give a blue print on this reconstruction.
But he does a good job in drawing the attention of the reader to the problem and the need to come up with a plan. As a result of this, this book becomes indispensable to those who are interested in looking at modern philosophy from a new perspective, and those who are interested in rebuilding the discipline.
Works Cited
Adeloitte, Gregory. The Self and Its Brain. London: Springer International, 2008.
Agassi, John & Cohen, Richard. Scientific Philosophy Today: Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, 2002.
Andy, Richards. From Paradox to Reality: Our Basic Concepts of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Bunge, Mario. Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.
Cline, Austin. “Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction, by Mario Bunge”. Atheism.com. 13 January 2011. Web.
Cooper, William F. “Review of ‘Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction’”. Essays in Philosophy, 7(1), 2006.
Corazzon, Raul. “The Scientific Philosophy of Mario Bunge”. Theory and History of Ontology. August 13 2010. April 17 2011 <https://www.ontology.co/biblio/bungem.htm>
Kilov, Haim & Sack, Ira. “Philosophy-Based Mechanisms for Communication between Business and IT Experts”. McGill Reporter, 28 February 2009.
Mahner, Michael. Scientific Realism: Selected Essays of Mario Bunge. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.
Matthews, Michael R. “Mario Bunge: Physicist, Philosopher and Defender of Science”. Science & Education, 12, 2003.
Quine, Wallace. The Time of My Life: An Autobiography. Cambridge: Bradford Books, 2005.
Spitzberg, Daniel. “Mario Bunge: Philosophy in Flux”. McGill Reporter, 29 January 2010.
Weingartner, Fredrich & Georg, Bruce. Studies on Mario Bunge’s Treatise. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002.