An Overview of Philosophical Reasoning
Making philosophy a less daunting subject and offering some reasons to get involved
It’s not as scary as you think…
In my introductory post, I said that philosophical reasoning can be a great benefit to our lives. It can make us more persuasive, be more resilient to setbacks, make us less polarised and provides many other benefits. However, it can seem like a daunting subject, with so many great thinkers to study from. The good news is that the strategies used in reasoning are quite easy to understand in their own right, if difficult to apply to complicated subjects. They are skills which can be used in daily life, whether you have hours to dedicate to deep research and contemplation or not; a skilled labourer may understand how to construct an entire house, but that does not make your ability to replace a door handle any less valuable.
The following will collate advice from those who are far more learned in philosophy than I, crediting in particular this excellent video on philosophical reasoning by Joe Folley (AKA. Unsolicited Advice). I will not hide that in large parts I will be parroting him, but I will include my own thoughts and broader insights.
The foundation
The foundation of philosophy, put simply, is finding flaws in reasoning and removing or replacing them, until you are left with the strongest assertion possible. It shares the essence of this well-known statement:
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
This piece is just an overview, so I am not going to dive deep into the specific mechanics of philosophical arguments, but it is good to have a superficial familiarity with them. The important thing to know is that conclusions are built on premises (assertions about reality), and the most solid conclusions are those built on true premises. E.g. All humans are mortal, you are a human (probably), therefore you are mortal. The more certain the truth value of a premise, the more sturdy a conclusion you can make. However, proving premises true is the difficult part. Crash course’s videos on how to argue #2 and #3, have concise examples of how to use different types of premises. They are not necessary to understand the following information, but are useful resources nonetheless.
Be an architect of Ideas
Architects will produce a prototype of a building and expose it to simulations of earthquakes, to test the integrity of their design. Similarly, watching, or participating in debates is a great way to improve thought, for it allows us to test our ideas and see if they survive under scrutiny. The more effectively debaters wrestle with an idea, the more rigorously its structural integrity is tested.
Unfortunately, debate is not always treated as a battle of ideas, but a battle of people, with a winner and a loser. Each strikes blows against the other in order to expose them as clueless or morally corrupt. This can be entertaining, and a genuinely important part of screening for people in positions of power, but is not the optimal strategy on a societal scale. To overt this bad faith approach to debate, we can employ a powerful framework which can be summarised by the popular philosophy phrase:
“Let’s get specific”
Use specificity. Ensure that everyone is working within the same definitions. Where someone uses a word which is unclear, ask for clarification on their interpretation of that word. The deeper into metaphysics (discussing the basic structures of reality) the more precise these definitions will need to be. Knowing your own definitions is also useful to avoid confusing yourself.
Alongside concrete definitions, it is additionally important to understand the type of reasoning each person is employing:
Logical reasoning is about whether something is possible. Can God exist in a world where suffering is abundant? One might concede that their perception of the world has too many blind spots to be absolutely certain that suffering is incompatible with the plan of an all powerful deity. This says little of the probability that this is factual.
Evidential reasoning is about whether this is likely to be the case. Is God likely to exist in a world where suffering is abundant? In the conception of God as a benevolent ruler, every instance of suffering would be counterintuitive and count for evidence against the existence of this particular deity.
Build systems (or don’t)
Friedrich Nietzsche saw an overreliance on systems as an impediment to a philosopher’s ability to be courageous with their ideas. He saw nothing as inherently sacred, and was therefore able to interrogate the universe under no laws of engagement. Though there is most certainly value in this view, it appears to suit better those who are trying to be revolutionary and reassess our views on the world. As someone who typically prefers to use philosophy for its grounding applications, I would exercise great care when employing this approach.
Further, taking presuppositions as wrote can be very useful, especially where they have observable, practical applications and do not seem tarnished by conflicting doctrines. Engineers have to use certain principles to construct aeroplanes. If new formulas for aerodynamics were released and mandated every week, it would be impossible for anyone to complete a development cycle. Inversely, scientists who went against the grain revolutionised our understanding of the universe.
Carefulness and originality
As with the scientific example, originality has its benefits and setbacks. These can be further illustrated by repurposing the fork in the road analogy: You come to a crossroads with two paths well marked. One is a fairy-tale path, lined with flowers and marked by a sign saying “Gingerbread House”. Anyone familiar with the tale of Hansel and Gretel will understand that this is the path of dogma and that the destination is a trap. Another pass leads over hills and is less colourful, but the sign tells you it will take you in the right direction. There is a third option, to enter the forest that separates the two paths. Most will agree that the first path is a poor choice and that the forest is an unnecessary peril. However, an adventurous person will no doubt venture into the forest, in search of excitement and new places. It might be dangerous, but the explorer knows the risks and in passing through, carves a new path for their fellow travellers. Equally they may become lost or find nothing of note. We often shower praise on the individual for taking the unique path, ignoring the practicality of following the well trodden one. Sometimes, it is worth adventuring and sometimes it is worth reaching a destination in good time.
All this is to demonstrate that originality is not inherently good, nor bad. It may lead to great leaps in progress, or to nothing, especially if one is not careful with their thought and travels recklessly. Many brilliant philosophers followed the tried and true path, in assuming a premise of God’s existence, yet successfully developed ideas that are resonant with even atheists today.
Lateral thinking
Critical thinking is an illusive term and merits its own article. For now I will call it the ability to form unbiased analysis using a range of sources. Though definitions vary, it does seem to hold a universally positive connotation when used in speech and is something we intuitively understand to be worth striving for, whether we act on that virtue or not. Based on the presented definition, I believe that Lateral thinking is the most actionable method to improve critical thought. Put simply, Lateral thinking is the ability to take two or more seemingly disparate ideas or topics and to test how they interact and correlate to each other. It allows us to look at an article from a news publisher supporting a particular political mandate, identify financial investors for that same publication who would benefit from such a policy, and identify a trend of disingenuity and bias. Simplified, this draws a through line between finance, media and politics, and extracts a conclusion on a case by case basis.
Lateral thinking is a common expression of creative personalities, but it can be developed, like any other skill. My advice would be to choose two of your interests and practice making an analogy between them, one that truly captures their similarities or an idea you wish to express. I speak Spanish to an acceptable level and the phrase “just think in the language” was as impossible to apply in the beginning, as the advice to “just feel the music” when I was jamming with bands on drums. In both cases, the barrier was that I had not honed my intuitive sense of grammar and rhythm respectively. Instead of taking the advice at face value, I drew from previous experience to understand the rationale behind it and in this way divined the utility of this process. Analogies are tricky, but when used well, they become powerful communicative devices and form bridges between ideas which are not obviously related, a great skill for navigating complicated topics.
Doubt
This is the scariest part of philosophy in some ways, yet probably the most important: the controlled application of doubt. You could be extreme in this, doubting everything you know and rebuilding with only undoubtable facts. This is what René Descartes did, and it produced the assertion that “I think, therefore I am”, an idea which has survived the test of time. It was the first belief he could be certain on and he built every other view on that foundation. Not all of us have time to enter a voluntary existential crisis, but Descartes shows us how doubt can lead to one of the most logically unshakable assertions in human history. If we can harness just a fraction of the power of doubt, we may rid ourselves of the opinions that draw us away from truth.
Additionally, to be certain of an idea, without any possibility of changing one’s mind, invites only physical retaliation or appeasement. A thief with no intention of stopping, will offer little recourse but to restrain and incarcerate them. In short, to doubt is the first and last defence against the deployment of physical aggression from both sides. The following excerpt from the video that primarily inspired this overview feels pertinent:
“Dogma is around every corner and doubt is seen as a sign of weakness, rather than intellectual honesty.” Joe Folley
Practically, this means that we shouldn’t hold opinions as sacred and indestructible. It is better to examine the flaws of our ideas and decide whether they are still tenable. When looking to consolidate an idea, we should look for counter arguments and play devil’s advocate to test it in a controlled environment. This is not an invitation to be consumed by doubt and rid yourself of all opinions, but a call to harness it for its utility.
Courage
Reaching a logical conclusion can be difficult, if it undermines your current worldviews. One of the most important skills in philosophy is in some ways the most difficult: to separate your opinions and ideas from your identity. We have all struggled to apologise for having hurt someone or been wrong, and it can be a difficult process; to accept whole heartedly that we are wrong and then to admit it to the world. Even worse, an idea might uproot our value structure, as seen when one learns that the system that they believe in, whether religious, political, communal etc. Is not the bastion of virtue or truth that they previously believed.
When you engage in deep reasoning, you will often have “ah ha” moments, but just as often you will face difficult revelations. It might seem scary to invite them, but it is far better than letting life take you unaware and being hit by the full weight of adversity. During the research and development of ideas, you are able to come to realisations in a controlled environment, with a buoyancy aid on hand. You can draw from the collective wisdom of the past for navigation and become more resilient through the endeavour.
Application and practice
Whether you want to contemplate the meaning of life, or simply become a better communicator, reason is your ally. There are many ways to improve your reasoning skills, here is a non-exhaustive list:
Listen to philosophical and informative podcasts and videos. It's a great way to learn without having to take productive time out of your day
Find someone to speak with who challenges you, and is equally open to discovering truth. You will get instant feedback on your ideas and you might notice how smart (or not) you feel when saying them out loud
Write your thoughts. Writing improves thinking, which improves speaking, which improves communication, which improves the world
Read. Reading improves writing (see point above)
Test the ideas in reality. Have you concluded that lying is NEVER appropriate. Try going a month without lying once, to test your hypothesis… At your own risk!
This is at best a preliminary reading of philosophy. If you want to dig deeper into the subject, there are plenty of useful video resources and I will likely produce more on this subject too. You can subscribe below if my particular style resonates with you.