Theoria

Lest I gave the impression in my previous post that I think that the work being conducted in philosophy departments, I should point out that I have found much rewarding work that is called “philosophy” (even if I doubt its status as such). The failures of these works point to this importance difference between the technical procedure (“philosophy”) and the love of wisdom, knowing, or knowledge (philosophy). Take, for instance, the most well-known work of a notorious philosopher: Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. The book is simple enough: if you accept that utilitarianism is the best ethical theory and if you accept that ethical principles must be equally applied to interest bearing “things,” then you must accept that animals are owed at least some consideration of their interests. The question then becomes (1) what interests do animals have? and (2) how do we take them into consideration and how far? At all points in the work, Singer applies technical procedures to his questions. That is, he is engaged in “problem solving” throughout the entirety of the book. There is, however, one significant exception: a sole chapter on “the history of specieism.” This chapter and its subject matter does not allow for the application of a technical procedure: he is dealing with the history of thought – a rather messy subject regardless of period. This chapter, running twenty-seven pages in the 2002 paperback edition, claims to provide a coherent overview of the history of specieism – at least in the West – from the Old Testament to Darwin. The effort is, at best, sophomoric and should be an embarassment to all who take thought seriously.