Philosophy Essay Prize
2016 Prize Essay CompetitionThe Royal Institute of Philosophy and Cambridge University Press are pleased to announce the 2016 Philosophy Essay Prize. The winner of the Prize will receive £2,500 with his or her essay being published in Philosophy and identified as the essay prize winner.
The topic for the 2016 essay competition is:
Can there be a credible philosophy of history?
Many thinkers from classical times onwards have seen history as having a predetermined direction. Some have seen it in terms of inevitable decline, others in terms of progress to a utopian future. The idea that history has a predetermined direction has been criticised by many, who stress the unpredictability of the future in general or the effects of human freedom, creativity and ingenuity, or other ways in which the course of events may change radically. Are these or other criticisms conclusive, or is it still possible to hold a deterministic or evolutionary view, either despite the criticisms or by refuting them directly? Even given historical unpredictability in detail, are there still trends in history which can be discerned? If history has no direction, is there anything left to be said about the philosophy of history? Authors may address the question by considering some of the issues raised above or by attempting other approaches of their own.
In assessing entries priority will be given to originality, clarity of expression, breadth of interest, and potential for advancing discussion. All entries will be deemed to be submissions to Philosophy and more than one may be published. In exceptional circumstances the prize may be awarded jointly in which case the financial component will be divided, but the aim is to select a single prize-winner.
Entries should be prepared in line with standard Philosophy guidelines for submission (see http://royalinstitutephilosophy.org/publications/philosophy-information-for-authors/). They should be submitted electronically in Word, with PRIZE ESSAY in the subject heading, to assistant@royalinstitutephilosophy.org.
The closing date for receipt of entries is 3rd October 2016.
Entries will be considered by a committee of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and the winner announced by the end 2016. The winning entry will be published in Philosophy in April 2017.
Can there be a credible philosophy of
history?
Quite a mouthful to write an essay
about. The days that something plain and simple like “lecture on ethics” would
do are obvious definitely gone, history. In view of the circumstantial question
I will submit no less than three different essays to answer.
The first essay consists of one word:
‘Yes’.
The second one is even a letter shorter:
‘No’.
The third one is the one you are
currently reading.
Although it would be fun to have written
the shortest award winning essay in the history of philosophy, I believe that
none of the first two essays will get rewarded. Nevertheless, they serve a
purpose. They try to make clear in a flash - an insight occurs always in a
flash – that the question asked is a kind of a rhetorical question. It makes
clear that the one who asks the question expects an argument. A single ‘yes’ or
‘no’ does not correspond with the meaning that the one who asks the question
has given to ‘credible’. If there would be no such expectation, there would be
no obstruction at all to reward a one-word essay. It would only be important to
know what the jury is favorable of. Never take a chance with something so
volatile like a personal preference! The only thing left to do is to leave no
option open.
Yes.
No.
Still, I believe that there is a link in
the question asked that cannot be broken, a link between ‘credibility’ and
‘argument’. I have to admit that this
‘believe’ is a blind believe, it is not based on an ‘argument’. So, in
contradiction with what is normally the case, ‘believable’ and ‘credible’ are
not synonyms in this context, they are antonyms.
Can there be a credible philosophy of
history?
Even if I should be inclined to answer
the question with a simple ‘no’, he who asks the question is secretly demanding
an argument. It seems to me that I can do nothing but go along in this ruthless
logic. But by giving possible arguments for my “no”, I am undermining my own
point of view. In the end, I will have to admit that by arguing that there
cannot be credible philosophy of history, I’m doing quite the opposite of what
I’m saying. So the conclusion has to be that there can be a credible philosophy
of history. We have made a successful transition from ‘can there be a credible
philosophy of history?’ to ‘there can be a credible philosophy of history’.
It remains however fascinating how a
possible argument for the ‘no’ would look like. Only for the sake of curiosity
of course. In order to do this, I would like to extend the subject from ‘philosophy
of history’ to philosophy in general. Because why on earth would there be a
difference between philosophy of history, philosophy of language, philosophy of
medicine or philosophy of whatever regarding the credibility?
If you want to answer ‘can there be a
credible philosophy of history?’, you have to answer ‘can there be a credible
philosophy?’
A philosophy, any philosophy is credible
if it is based on a valid argument.
Considering this, the remark must be
made that there is something strange about the argument in the former paragraph.
In retrospect (!), there are no ‘possible’ arguments, there are only ‘valid’
arguments and ‘invalid’ arguments.
Can there be a credible philosophy?
No. There ‘can’ not be a credible
philosophy because there are no ‘possible’ arguments. Either there is a
credible philosophy, a philosophy that is based on a valid argument, or there
is no credible philosophy, a philosophy that is based on an invalid argument.
This conclusion however can hardly be
called a satisfying breakthrough.
The question ‘Is there a credible
philosophy?’ remains unanswered.
In order to find an answer, we have to
investigate the essence of ‘a valid argument’.
What is a valid argument?
I’m aware of the danger of getting
suspected. Getting suspected of shamelessly trying to change the subject from
philosophy of history to philosophy of language, but please continue to read.
What is a valid argument?
An argument is valid when it is based on
‘that which is’.
You might take a detour. You might take
a detour to ‘truth’ or you might take a detour to ‘reality’. You might say that an argument is valid when
it is based on the truth or you might say that an argument is valid when it is
based on reality. But then I will ask ‘what is truth’ or ‘what is reality’. And
sooner or later, I can be rather persistent, you will have to answer ‘truth is
that which is’ or ‘reality is that which is’.
Philosophy is credible if it is based on
that which is.
With that in mind, we can try to narrow
our investigation back to the philosophy of history.
There cannot be a credible philosophy of
history because there cannot be a credible philosophy.
Is there a credible philosophy of
history?
There is a credible philosophy of
history if it is based on a valid argument
Philosophy of history is credible if it
is based on that which is.
On the other hand, there can be little
discussion that history is ‘that which was’.
History cannot be ‘that which is’, it
would be in contradiction of the definition of history itself.
Philosophy of history, it’s like humor
in seriousness.
Humor cannot be found in seriousness. If
so, the humor would not be called ‘humor’ but ‘seriousness’.
However, looking for it cannot be
ridiculed.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten