Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 10, No. 10. July 16, 1947

Philosophers Provoked

Philosophers Provoked

Dear Sir,—

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.

J. Witten-Hannah.