Analyzing a Philosophical Text as an Example of "Inquiry"
David Hildebrand
It's important that philosophy connect with "real life."
In order to do that, it helps to have a method for understanding
how we reason, how we solve problems, and how we test solutions.
When we discussed some of the problems related to "definition"
we saw that there are some formal constraints on definitions-they
shouldn't bee too broad or two narrow-and we saw that definitions
are important because of the way they affect the world. If "death"
is defined as "the cessation of heart and lung activity"
it's possible that we may declare as dead someone who still has
brain activity. When we change the definition of "death"
to reflect our belief that mental activity is crucial to life,
we stop making a very serious medical error-and make organs available
to save lives.
But most of the time, we don't just find ourselves making up definitions.
Rather, we find ourselves stuck with a problem that we need an
answer to.
We may come up with definitions that help us with these problems-what is "friendship"? what is "justified military intervention"? what is "love"? -but chances are we will consider other things, too.
What else enters into the decision making process? What's the
difference between a good-decision making process and a bad one?
Is there basic structure common to good decision making processes?
Inquiry as a Five Phase Process
I would like to suggest that, contrary to popular belief, philosophical problems can be approached with the same commonsense procedure that many people use to deal with everyday problems. The procedure might be called "Pragmatic Inquiry" or, just "Inquiry" for short.
By making this procedure more explicit, we can make ourselves more aware of what we do when we're reasoning well, and can then use the procedure intentionally when we find ourselves faced with difficult problems, whether or not those problems are "philosophical" ones.
In order to make use of Inquiry, we need to
First Phase understand what it is
Second Phase see how it works in simpler cases
Third Phase practice applying it to more difficult cases.
We will practice on Plato's Crito.
THE INQUIRY PROCEDURE
Everyone knows what a problem is, and most of us recognize a solution when we hit upon one. Looking at the process of problem solving analytically, we can find at least five distinguishable phases of inquiry:
Inquiry Phase 1. a felt problem
Inquiry Phase 2. location and definition of problem
Inquiry Phase 3. suggestion of a possible solution (i.e., a hypotheses)
Inquiry Phase 4. development by reasoning of the bearings of the
proposed solutions;
Inquiry Phase 5. further observation and experiment leading to
a proposed solution's acceptance or rejection
1. A felt problem. In any situation where there is a problem, something is felt as well as known to be wrong. Usually, we will feel something is wrong before we know it is. That initial feeling is important because it can act as a guide later on. (Consider, for example, difficult situations you've been in where the only way to decide between choices seemed to be checking back with what "feels right.") When evaluating an issue, it's important to try to empathize with what is distinctively felt to be problematic.
2. location and definition of problem Once a problem has been felt, we attempt to state or characterize the problem precisely. This usually happens immediately. Often, this phase is not left behind once and for all, but is returned to periodically, as inquiry proceeds. What we at first determine to be the problem changes, and it is necessary to reformulate what the problem is. Finally, as a solution looms into view, the exact character of the problem becomes sharpest.
3. suggestion of a possible solution (i.e., a hypotheses) Using the provisional characterization of the problem in phase (ii), inquiry now proceeds by suggestion, conjecture, or hypothesis beyond what is immediately present in the situation to something abstract. This is a risky process, without fixed rules, and requires courage and imagination. Like any creative skill, however, it can be cultivated to some degree, and given the need for solutions, it must be. As was the case with definition, constructing an adequate hypothesis will often require that we go back to an earlier phase, either to make new observations or to reconsider what is there.
4. development by reasoning of the bearings of the proposed solutions; In this phase one might do a number of analytical things: check whether inferences are valid or invalid forms, project the possible consequences of a hypothesis, or perhaps project whether a hypothesis could actually be tested. In this phase, the ability to think abstractly is of paramount importance.
5. further observation and experiment leading to a proposed solution's acceptance or rejection This final phase of inquiry is concerned with actual testing and confirmation of those hypotheses not eliminated at an earlier phase. Depending on the nature of the problem, simple observation may be enough to confirm a hypothesis; often, more complicated experimentation is needed.
EXAMPLE of Inquiry Procedure In Action: "Dave Nearly Electrocutes Himself, By Accident"
PHASE ONE: a felt problem
While sleeping peacefully early one morning, I'm jolted out of bed by a loud boom and a mechanical groaning noise. (I) FELT DIFFICULTY is startlement, alarm, confusion, loudness. "Huh!" Overriding feeling is sense that something is wrong in the apartment.
PHASE TWO: location and definition of problem
Immediately, I spring out of bed. "What's going on?" I throw on my robe and race out of the bedroom. (ii) I LOCATE the problem in the kitchen, where the noise is, and vaguely DEFINE the problem in the water heater, which is spraying hot water everywhere. PROBLEM: How do I stop the water?
PHASE THREE: suggestion of a possible solution (i.e., a hypotheses)
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: turn off the water. I turn the handle next to the water heater. I get a strong electric shock. My solution was too simplistic-and too dangerous. I am thrown back to phase (ii) and I realize that I need to redefine the problem more carefully.
PHASE FOUR: development by reasoning of the bearings of the proposed solutions;
I consider what I know about water, electricity, and heating equipment. I come up with a NEW DEFINITION of the problem: it is at the very least a "water pressure and electrical problem" not just a "water spilling on the floor problem." From what I know about the laws of nature, I now also know that I must devise a NEW SOLUTION: I must go outside and turn off the master breaker switch to the whole apartment's electricity before I turn off the water.
PHASE FIVE: further observation and experiment leading to a proposed solution's acceptance or rejection
I am confident that this hypothesis will work and take the next step, EXPERIMENTATION. My power goes off and I am able to turn off my water without electrocuting myself. I have resolved the initial emergency.
ASSIGNMENT: Analyze the Crito by thinking of it as an inquiry. Answer these questions:
First Phase A felt problem. What general feelings and worries underlie this dialogue?
Second Phase The location and definition of problem: What is taken to be the central problem or problems of the dialogue? Is the basic problem redefined in the course of the dialogue?
Third Phase The suggestion of a possible solution (i.e., a hypotheses): What solutions are proposed in the dialogue to the problem as defined in (2)?
Fourth Phase The development by reasoning of the bearings of the proposed solutions; What are the consequences and implications of the solutions proposed? What arguments are used by Socrates to show Crito that his solution isn't the best?
Fifth Phase Further observation and experiment leading to a proposed solution's acceptance or rejection: What tests might be used to evaluate the solutions proposed? What questions might we ask to find out if the solutions actually did what Socrates said they would?