You Probably Don't Know If You're Bad At Philosophy

Most people are bad at philosophy

Most people know if they’re bad at math. Those who are bad at math get the wrong answers to math problems, take less advanced math classes, and find themselves generally lost when trying to figure out math. There are few people who think that there’s nothing that they could possibly learn from math because either the field is bullshit or their naive intuitions about it are enough to capture all the deep truths that the field has uncovered.

Unfortuately, that is the way that most people approach philosophy.

Most members of the public have a completely warped view of philosophy—that its just about endless posturing over vagueries, wondering about the meaning of life and getting distressed over the fact that we can’t rule out being in a skeptical scenario. In fact, these subjects aren’t much discussed by philosophers, and most philosophers think that you can be extremely confident that you’re not in a skeptical scenario.

Whenever people discuss many of life’s interesting questions—what should be done in some particular case, whether particular actions like abortion and meat-eating are wrong, whether God exists, whether we have free will, whether morality is objective, what sorts of things make a person’s life go well, whether gender is biological, whether consciousness is physical—they’re doing philosophy. Philosophy is about discussing these ideas—and many more interesting ones that don’t occur to laypeople but turn out to be important and endlessly fascinating—by way of giving arguments for the various positions.

Normal non-philosophers discuss these topics too. Most everyone talks about abortion. The difference is that when most people do it, they say extremely confused things. They don’t reflect much nor even try to produce arguments that mind convince someone who disagrees.

I recently watched this debate between Charlie Kirk and a bunch of liberal college students about abortion. Even though I think abortion is permissible in the early stages, it was enraging—the students’ positions were so poorly thought out, yet the students were all so smug. They didn’t seem to recognize that abortion is complicated, and thought that the fact that abortion can take significant burdens off of women who get pregnant settles the question of whether it’s permissible. Infanticide may relieve burdens for some women, but obviously, it isn’t permissible.

One person went so far as to claim that a fetus isn’t alive because it’s a parasite—dependent on the mother to survive. Now, first of all, that’s obviously not morally relevant—both a fetus and a baby outside the womb can’t survive without their parents. Why would it matter if they are physically dependent or just dependent in taking care of their needs. (Of course, it could be that the fetus’s dependence is relevant for bodily autonomy reasons, but that’s not the point that she was making, claiming instead that whether the fetus had rights depended on whether it was physically dependent).

But also, that’s obviously not what life means! It tends to be hard to define most terms, but a pretty good definition of life is provided by google in the form of “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” Clearly the fetus is alive—it’s neither inanimate nor dead. Even if the fetus were a parasite, parasites are alive! If there’s a parasitic worm living in your intestine, it’s not some sort of inorganic matter.

Everyone else—including Kirk—was deeply confused. Obviously, the fetus is alive! This is a trivial biological fact. But not everything alive has rights or moral significance—bacteria are alive but they’re not deserving of rights. The permissibility of abortion is about whether the fetus is the sort of thing deserving of moral consideration, not whether it is alive.

Normal people discuss abortion very frequently. But it’s only a slight exaggeration to say that if the typical philosopher got a lobotomy, they’d be about evenly matched in an abortion debate against the typical layperson. The discrepancy in sophistication between the way philosophers think about these extremely important and contentious subjects and the way lay people do is about as big as the discrepancy in size between the sun and a particularly small mouse.

This isn’t just true of abortion. While normal people often have strong beliefs about either God or atheism, their level of confusion is really staggering. It’s no exaggeration to say that most people’s beliefs on most philosophical subjects—including the ones they spend a lot of time discussing—are so ill-informed that if they’re right, it’s entirely by accident.

When most people discuss veganism, for instance, they’ll open with some braindead platitude—e.g. animals eat other animals—ignore the arguments for veganism, and then just act like they’ve done something to refute your case. While the argument for veganism is extremely simple and powerful, it’s apparently not simple enough for people to actually listen carefully to the things that you’re saying—preferring to spout off irrelevant platitudes that they learned from nature documentaries and The Lion King.

The problem is that, while philosophy is an enterprise by which people discover the truth, good philosophy mostly occurs by thinking clearly and carefully following where arguments lead. But when people are not thinking clearly or ignoring arguments, they’re generally unaware of this fact. Philosophy, unlike mathematics, is a field where people who are bad at it don’t know that they’re bad at it.

Most people are very bad at philosophy. I used to be very bad at philosophy, and I think almost everyone is prior to studying it. Like writing, it’s a skill that you have to learn—not something you’re born with (though innate ability does determine how good at philosophy a person starts out being and eventually will become). But when you’re bad at philosophy, you don’t realize that you’re bad at philosophy.

There are right answers in philosophy. But those right answers are hard to figure out. You can’t, in philosophy, grade people on whether they get the right answers to philosophical questions. When people do philosophy, they mostly don’t realize that there’s a serious academic field dedicated to the things that they’re doing. Not realizing that it’s a field in which expertise is possible and the answers are hard, people think that the random thoughts they’ve picked up from listening to those they disagree with and infrequently thinking about some subject are sufficient to guarantee they have the right answer.

Philosophy mostly involves giving arguments. Not reiterating one’s position or providing soundbites, but giving real, genuine arguments. Most people, however, aren’t very moved by arguments. I’d be the richest many in America if I had a penny for every time I’ve been talking with someone about philosophy, I’ve given an argument for my position, and they’ve responded by simply reiterating their position, or saying some random other thought that the argument prompted without addressing the argument.

Physicalists are those who think that consciousness is physical. Now, as it happens, there are plenty of arguments against physicalism. These arguments have premises, one of which must be wrong if physicalism is to be true. Yet nearly everytime you talk to a physicalist who isn’t deep in philosophy, they just flatly ignore the arguments, preferring to, in response to them, reiterate their position in different terms.

I’m not confused about what physicalism means!! I think that it’s false! If I provide a reason to think that, reiterating your position again isn’t helpful.

The other problem is that most people don’t seem very interested in learning what’s true about philosophical topics. Would most non-vegans like to know if eating meat was wrong? If so, why do they willfully close their ears and eyes and noses and thraots so that they don’t have know goes on in a factory farm? Why do such people, even after hearing vegans discuss the case for veganism, ignore the arguments—trying desperately to remain ignorant about the hellish conditions animals undergo?

Or consider, in the Kirk debate, the woman at 23:50. Does she seem like she’d want to know if abortion was murder? When Kirk brings up that abortion is murder, she expresses that she isn’t concerned about that, but only about the harms to the mother. She sees the position that abortion should be restricted not as a serious philosophical view but as a way that psychopathic men force rape victims to carry their rapists babies. Of course she’s not open-minded—and I doubt she would even see being open-minded on this topic as virtuous.

When most laypeople discuss philosophical topics—especially abortion—they get highly emotional and don’t even consider it as a serious philosophical question. They see it as a basic test of sanity and decency, and regard those who disagree as morons or monsters. It’s no surprise they don’t change their mind.

The debate regarding abortions among philosophers bears almost no resemblance to the debate that occurs commonly in the public square. Philosophers mostly think that it comes down to the right theory of personal identity—if the fetus is a person, then abortion is probably wrong. Then they spend a lot of time arguing against the others’ view on personal identity, and much less time name calling or calling others psychopaths for their positions.

Note, the tendency to be unaware of your philosophical ineptitude likely applies to you reading this. While the typical substack reader is certainly much better at philosophy than the average member of the public, neither is very good. If you don’t have any formal training in philosophy, but have gotten your philosophical views mostly by reading blogs—especially from non-philosophers—odds are you are deeply confused. If you find yourself thinking that arguments made by qualified philosophers are just obviously stupid and can’t see why anyone who has a basic understanding of the world would adopt lots of philosophical positions that you disagree with, odds are that you’re deeply confused.

And, of course, if you find yourself ever thinking I’m wrong, well, that’s sure proof that what you say is mistaken!