The purpose of philosophy

I read some posts over at Tufts Philosophy blog, The Web of Belief, and some of them got me thinking about why I want to do philosophy. Here's what I have so far.

Dustin argues that ethics is the center of philosophy, since philosophy is the love of wisdom and wisdom involves the proper assignment of value (which then can lead to proper action). This assumes that philosophy has a "central" or "more basic" field, and it's not clear to me that it does. But I do agree that questions of value must factor into any answer about the purpose of philosophy.

I'm happy with the general gist of Blakely's approach, which focuses on the methodology of philosophy. She pins the purpose of philosophy down as: "making one's beliefs consistent in areas in which it's not clear what to believe."

A relevant problem I see here is that there are usually multiple ways to make one's beliefs consistent, and it is often unclear which way is best. Suppose you and I agree that "If A then B". We might still disagree on whether "A" or "not-B" is more plausible.

Example: Consider the possibility that you were abducted last night, your brain removed and placed into a machine which keeps it alive while also feeding in a completely convincing computer-generated reality, a la The Matrix. In such a scenario, you have been made into a "brain-in-a-vat": you are alive, but you have no body, even though it seems to you that you have a body. Now consider this "If A then B" claim: If I know I have a body, then I know I'm not a brain-in-a-vat (BIV). The Moorean takes "I know I have a body" to be more plausible, and concludes from this that he knows he's not a BIV. The skeptic takes "I don't know I'm not a BIV" to be more plausible, and therefore concludes he does not know he has a body.

When confronted with such a situation, one knows exactly what it takes to make one's beliefs consistent, but it can sometimes be hard to see what's the best way to achieve consistency. To figure out what to believe, it seems we'll have to figure out what claims we feel are more important to preserve. And that seems to take us back to Dustin's point about values....

Here is my take on the purpose and value of philosophy, which really is a statement of the reasons I have for wanting to work in the field. These are ordered, beginning from concrete points and leading to more airy, fuzzy and idealistic points:

1. Much philosophical work is concerned with demonstrating statements of the form "If A then B": that given certain presuppositions, you reach certain conclusions
2. Learning and engaging in such philosophical argumentation has a certain "fun factor" (I find it enjoyable to engage in it), and this is a central reason I do philosophy.
3. Also, philosophical work builds up our ability to examine our own presuppositions critically and to consider seriously the possibilities that are opened up when we modify those presuppositions.
4. It seems possible that, with sufficient activity, we might hit upon a way to reframe our perspective in a way which is significantly more "satisfying" than our current perspective.
5. So another central reason I do philosophy is founded on a) an underlying sense of dissatisfaction with my current understanding of and perspective on the world and b) a hope that by poking around enough I'll hit on ways to improve it.
6. Finally, I find that many of the barriers to our ability, as humans, to live together well have to do with fundamental differences in the way that we understand ourselves and the world we live in.
7. I have a hope that the sort of rationally-based exploration of perspectives and ideas can, when done well, improve our capacity to flourish in human community. Hence, I want to do what I can, as a philosopher, to contribute to this.