Philosophers Provoked

I was startled to learn from your last issue that the Philosophy Department of the University should be abolished, and not less surprised to learn that Mr. B. Sutton-Smith urged its death. From "Salient," Volume 10, Number 8, I had been interested to see that if one wanted to help start a Philosophical Society at the University one should get in touch with Mr. Sutton-Smith. From "Salient," Volume 10, Number 9, I was dismayed to learn that Mr. Sutton-Smith was going to throw my philosophy teachers out of work.

What are philosophers to do for a Job if the Philosophy Departments of the Universities are abolished? Some may find a place in the Church (one of my fellow students entered a monastery), and some philosophical students have already found quiet berths in the Civil Service. But should philosophers be denied the ambition of one day enjoying the dignity of a post at the University, and all that is meant by academic freedom?

There are thousands of jobs for education graduates, and it is unkind of one of them to suggest "no jobs for philosophers." As it is, philosophers are forced to compete with psychologists for only four academic chairs in New Zealand.

I gather that Mr. Sutton-Smith would have philosophers work their way as scientists, He points to the examples of Whitehead and Bussell, hut I think that even in their work on the fundamental ideas of natural science and on the foundation of mathematics, they were engaged in genuinely philosophical tasks. Doing away with professional philosophers, and leaving philosophy to natural scientists in the strict sense, and educationists (and, I suppose, businessmen and politicians), is unfortunately more likely to leave the way open to philosopher scientists like Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Addington, and Philosopher-politicians like Field-Marshal Smuts, than to produce a new Locke or Hume.

Professors of Philosophy (including Whitehead, Russell and Ortega y Gasset) might resign their jobs as philosophically as Mr. Sutton-Smith recommends if they could be convinced that the results would be as good as he suggests. But are they really to believe that if the philosophy department is abolished, the outlook of students will be broadened (proposition I) and the social sciences will be more closely related to contemporary problems—better vehicles of content directed to the solution of pressing contemporary problems (proposition 2)?

The most serious charge, levelled by Mr. Sutton-Smith is that philosophy has retreated into syntax and should be left Jo the English Department. This is doing less than justice to the study of the logical syntax of language, and ignoring, for the sake an epigram, the speculative philosophy of Whitehead. Since he is so interested in the solution of contemporary social problems, I should like to refer Mr. Sutton-Smith to Sommerville's recent book on "Soviet Philosophy." Sommerville describes a very vigorous school of philosophy which is not restricted to logical analysis, in a country where the University departments of philosophy have not been abolished.

Dear Sir.—If the primary aim of Mr. Sutton-Smith was provocation, he has succeeded, it is reassuring to believe that the main theme of his article, namely, the abolition of the Philosophy Department, was not really his first consideration but merely incidental to his purpose. A moment's reflection on Mr. Sutton-Smith's proposals and the reasons he gives in support of them will show that he has failed to convince even himself of their validity.

In order to overcome the lack of general orientation in our various university courses he would reject any idea of an integrating organisation, and rely on the co-operative efforts of specialists who, by some mysterious means, come to realise that they have a common body of problems, and accordingly widen the scope of their specialist areas so that all the gaps between the disciplines will be automatically closed, and the patchwork quilt completed. Perhaps Mr. Sutton-Smith does not realise that the student cannot take all these specialist subjects; hence his knowledge of philosophy will be confined to the philosophy of those subjects which he studies. This will lead to a bias in the attempt to solve the contemporary problems, for the specialist cannot avoid losing sight of the whole in his detailed study and subsequent knowledge of the parts as covered by his particular science. The aim of any science, as Mr. Sutton-Smith should know if he has made even a cursory study of philosophy, is to achieve as great a generalisation as possible of the phenomena that fall within its sphere of reference. If we have a philosophy for each department of knowledge, this generalisation will certainly not be achieved, for each department will be interested only in those aspects of philosophy that apply to its own interests and there will cease to be any integration. True philosophy will incorporate all the sciences, being not so much concerned with their details as with their fundamental bases, and its practical task will be to relate these bases to the real world and its contemporary problems. This would never accrue if each discipline were left to pursue its own self-guided, self-centred way, but would result in a body of those beings, so obnoxious to the nostrils of Mr. Sutton-Smith, the "learned ignoramus"—the specialists.

The "little dash of psychological insight" to be added to the pottage prepared by the historian or economist will certainly flavour the final product. But if each department looks after its own psychology there will he a great tendency to adopt easy explanations of phenomena which would break down if applied to allied phenomena observable in other departments. Tills tendency can be seen in the way educationalists have seized upon, and still often uphold, simple but outmoded psychological theories, of Adler. Because these theories seem to fit educational problems well enough they are clung to tenaciously and one finds them being advanced in all seriousness by educationalists long after psychologists have found them to be generally inadequate.

Mr. Sutton-Smith obviously underestimates the amount of data that modern psychology has made available. In recent years a new field of study has arisen—a combination of psychology with cultural anthropology which invariably necessitates the co-operation of two specialists, because one man cannot hope to supply the breadth and depth of knowledge required in both fields. How Mr. Sutton-Smith proposes to deal with all this material we do not know.

Abandon Hope . . .

Mr. Sutton-Smith's selection of subjects for abolition seems to be purely arbitrary. He would abandon psychology to economics, but so many subjects have their economic aspect that perhaps we could abandon economics as well. And why not history also? Of course all these subjects involve a knowledge of English composition. Written material should be a method of developing good style and communication of ideas, so the English department becomes unnecessary. (Literature could become absorbed into social history or some other subject.) If this business of dropping subjects because they overlap is taken seriously, what principle is to decide where it will end?

My contention is that in order to achieve Mr. Sutton-Smith's aims, philosophy and psychology should be made compulsory subjects, to be taken in the first year of the university course. No attempt would be made to traverse wide fields of knowledge, but each subject would be limited to fundamental ideas inherent in its subject-matter, and intended as a basis on which to build specialist knowledge according to the interests of the student. Then, and only then, with all students grounded in the fundamental problems of philosophy and psychology (and sociology if Mr. Sutton-Smith desires) each subject can be examined for its contribution to the solution of contemporary problems in relation to the other social sciences.

Dear Sir,—The original caption of my article was: "The Philosophy Department—an Anachronism?" I have no wish to protest against the change you have made but would like to point out that my heading had a some what more moderate tone. This particular question of the abolition of the Philosophy Department was after all, merely a dialectical red herring serving by contrast, to highlight the urgent necessity for the philosophical development of the other disciplines. It is to be hoped that this particular interest-stimulant will not call forth a host of fretful replies from the pseudo-philosophical, but rather that we will be treated to some substantial opinions concerning the prepositions given

Dear Sir,—The University is the only institution in the community which provides for intensive study in any particular field. The cost of such study must inevitably be for the immediate period, a limitation in the comprehension of other subjects.

"Provided the standard of specialisation is to be maintained the innovation of Mr. Sutton-Smith's scheme would mean lengthening all degree courses, which would be undesirable. And isn't a degree course expensive enough already? If the courses were not lengthened then we would have development of culture at the expense of specialist knowledge, which is also undesirable. It is obvious that any philosophy worthy of consideration must at best incorporate, but at least not contradict, the findings of modern science. But the development of a philosophy is not an easy matter and historically appears to be most suitably the province of one person, not a group of people. It is a matter for a person with the requisite knowledge, the time and the inclination. Although our deapartments have the knowledge they most certainly haven't the time and may not have the inclination.

With reference to the other aspect—to attempt to place psychology within the sphere of bodies of knowledge requiring their own techniques and with their own laws is to deny psychology the right to possess its own laws and follow its own methods. This will prohibit any further development of psychology and any systematic application of it.

If psychology and sociology are to be taken seriously they must be granted the right to develop in their own way. It not, all that would remain would be economists, lawyers, etc., attempting to ply their trade with the addition of a little applied common sense, which if perhaps a refreshing change, would not be sufficient to solve contemporary social problems.

Establishing a separate psychology department with more practical training would solve the problem of relevance but for the problem of orientation there can, I think, be no solution.