1

DOES PHILOSOPHY HAVE FUTURE?

Prof. Ivan Kaltchev

President of the Bulgarian Philosophical Association

I.I.I.I. ININININ WHATWHATWHATWHAT SENSESENSESENSESENSE CANCANCANCAN WEWEWEWE SPEAKSPEAKSPEAKSPEAK ABOUTABOUTABOUTABOUT THETHETHETHE FUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTURE OFOFOFOF

PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?PHILOSOPHY?

It seems that the development of philosophy would not be possible to predict due

to four reasons at least.

First.First.First.First. Looking back to the experience of the history of philosophy we see that in

many aspects it is built up as a history of the ideas of the "great philosophers". It is

almost impossible to predict the advent of a new, great thinker, and what is more, to

predict the direction into which his philosophy will move. After he has appeared we can

find some explanation of his ideas in the cultural and social context, but this is with

back date and the explanatory potential of a theory turned to the past only, is quite low. 1

Second.Second.Second.Second. The philosophy is a science, which affects the knowledge and generally

the whole spiritual sphere of society. But the knowledge itself is a result of free creative

activity and is difficult to forecast. That should be valid for philosophy even in a higher

extent.

ThirdThirdThirdThird. A number of criteria, used to refute one or another scientific theory and its

development, do not work with regard to philosophy — it cannot be verified or falsified

in the way that happens with science. Its sociocultural determination leads to this that in

its prognostic possibilities it is determined by the cultural peculiarities of its epoch and

2

that brings respective limitations.

Fourth.Fourth.Fourth.Fourth. It seems that in philosophy there is no progress in the sense, in which we

can find it in the development of scientific knowledge, where cumulatively or in leaps,

there is greater reason to talk about a respective movement. In philosophy certain trends

and theoretical decisions are much more steady and continuously existing in history,

than in science.

In fact the problem about the progress in philosophy is perceived differently in the

different types of philosophizing depending on that in what extent philosophy is built up

on models, similar or contradictory to science. In the systematic and built up on the

analogy of the scientific knowledge with the respective stages of development and

attracting of cumulative ides philosophic tendency, emerge idea for progress or

development. Today this is typical of a great part of the English-American philosophers.

And vice-versa, in the non-symmetric, existential-anthropological, hermeneutic

philosophy, built up over the model of culture, often arising as introduction of a new

discourse, we can meet expectations for a lack of progress in philosophy, for accepting

every philosophical theory as a cultural product, which has the right to exist, for

arguments of the type that as it is not possible to say that War and Peace of Tolstoy isprogress compared to Homer's Iliad, so we cannot state also that the works of Habermasis progress in comparison to that of Aristotle. 2

II.II.II.II. OPTIMISTICOPTIMISTICOPTIMISTICOPTIMISTIC CONCEPTIONCONCEPTIONCONCEPTIONCONCEPTION FORFORFORFOR THETHETHETHE FUTUREFUTUREFUTUREFUTURE OFOFOFOFPHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHY

The worldwide advance of magic, religions and astrology during the last few

decades is connected to the fact that philosophers do not manage to create new

paradigms for increasingly complex, changing and risky world. But the necessity of

them remains and will increase. We can expect a brilliant future for philosophy. The

social necessities of philosophy will increase its significance. The brilliant future of

philosophy is in the future, not in the past. And in order to realize it successfully it

should stop concentrating on the past mainly, but turn to the problematic situations of

3

today and in future. Which are my main arguments for this conclusion?

FirstFirstFirstFirst. The problematic field of philosophy is preserved — analysis of the

fundamentals of science and culture; criticism of the existing status of things; building

up of positive or negative utopias. Both science and culture have a constant need of

critical reflexion of their content. And the dynamisation of one and the other sphere

impose again and again the giving of a new meaning to their grounds, meanings and

legitimating of one or another social system. And with the acceleration of all public

processes, including the changes in science and culture, these functions attain greater

importance. There, where the creation of new cultural and social forms is accelerated,

the grounds of cognition and the people's evaluation are transformed more often than

ever before in the past, which also requires intensification of the philosophical activity

as well.

Second.Second.Second.Second. But at the same time philosophy becomes needed at time ofcrisis and

increasing situations of risk, complication of societies and individual life, which is what

we observe now. It is not necessary insocieties, which are slightly mobile for a long

period. When the society is dynamic, when significant social changes occur, the

necessity of it appears and becomes stronger in order to be discovered new foundations

of human activity. And today we live in a society of gigantic risks and aggravation of

global crises. All this increases the necessity of theoretical thinking and of philosophy in

particular.

ThirdThirdThirdThird. The increasing interdisciplinary interactions are a clearly marked tendency

in the development of philosophical cognition. The construction of "societies based on

cognition" is connected with the increasing quantity of information and interpretations,

with necessity for constant rethinking of the pictures in the world, which can be done by

philosophies and religions. In this sense the social and methodological role of

philosophy increases. Scientific theories, destroying previous grounds and requiring

philosophic rationalization are born constantly. The accelerated development of

scientific knowledge is impossible without full-scale and powerful philosophic

4

rationalization of the changes.

As things are the interdisciplinarity as characteristic of philosophy quickly and

suddenly increases. Philosophy at increased rate combines with different branches of

knowledge and together with their representatives looks for the answers of the questions

standing before it.

FourthFourthFourthFourth. The increasing dynamics and high degree of uncertainty of all processes

will strengthen the feeling for "exposure" of the social reality, for uncertainty of the

individual and collective forms of the future. The principle of uncertainty, which

Heisenberg defined once about the quantum mechanic description of the physical reality,

turned into a principle characterizing the social reality. It presupposes multiple types of

possible social realities, whose inventing and playing turns into a constant task, much

more complicated than the tasks of philosophy during the modern epoch, when it serves

for a basis of the relatively stable ideological matrix, in which the visions of society

move from left to right and from different kinds of conservatism to different types of

socialism and liberalism. This, for its part will increase strongly the role of the active

beginning in philosophy, of the different utopias, which it can create and will feed up

the advance of different forms of the experimental philosophy.

In this sense we may suppose that unlike the thesis of Hegel that philosophy like the

bird of Minerva comes at the end of a certain process and is turned backwards, it will

look more and more forward and together with the complex of social sciences will play

possible future types on the grounds of different ideological, normative and value

premises. But there, where there is uncertainty, the risk phenomenon also appears and

different alternatives of risk and catastrophe inevitably will stand and have to stand

before the eyes of the philosophers.

Fifth.Fifth.Fifth.Fifth. The increasing number of educated people and people residing in cities has

always been a precondition for increasing the interest in the philosophical problems.

Never before in history so many people have lived in cities and have such possibilities

5

to develop their education and culture. At the same time the degree of uncertainty, the

multiple alternatives of their lives, the necessity of different choices, the constant risks

are and will be as they have never been in history before. So many people have never

lived in a state of exposure and uncertainty of their existence, imposing a heavy burden

of their motivation structure connected with different extent of freedom, points of

intensity and bifurcation, increasing the necessity of looking for landmarks for these

choices. This is an appropriate nutrition medium for the advance of the individual,

psychological necessity of philosophy for a great mass of people.

Sixth.Sixth.Sixth.Sixth. But the high degree of uncertainty and exposure of all processes does not

mean that it will depend on philosophy and on the philosophers in which direction and

how will move these processes. In this aspect the active beginning in philosophy, its role

for a definite direction of changing the world will also depend in a great extent on the

philosophers themselves, on the fact to what extent they will be able to react to the

existing necessities of philosophic realization of the processes around them and of what

is in store. If they remain captive of the vision that the future of philosophy is in its past,

i.e. reduce it mainly to realization of past philosophical texts, but not to analysis of the

problematic situations of tomorrow, the philosophers will remain simple spokesmen of

the past, but not sensible analizers of the present.

In an increasingly dynamic world, like the one in which we live, more than ever can

be realized the idea, that the possible is richer than the real, because it contains in it

different directions and multiple alternatives. Both philosophy and social sciences may

discuss and offer these alternatives, to help for turning the different possibilities into

realities.

The future world does not depend only on philosophers. The forces that drive us to it

are much stronger than the philosophic reflexion on them. We are driven there by

economical, political, technological, religious and any other processes, which are more

powerful than the texts of tens of thousands of philosophers living in the modern world.

Their professional community is relatively small compared to the more than six billion

people living on Earth. And despite of this the future of philosophy depends on them.

6

And the changing philosophy has played and is playing its role for passing of some or

other processes. In normal times this role may be relatively weak, but in periods of

change and crises, of uncertainty it will grow and become stronger, turning into a main

of body of visions, of instrument of rational grounding where and how we must go.

Today humanity is up against a number of global problems: risk of ecological

disaster, world warm, demographic boom, problem with the energy, food, raw materials,

etc., in the base of which is scientific and technical progress. Question arising is: where

we will go following the way we chose? This necessitates rationalizing the future of

science and technics and especially of technics. Because not new achievements

themselves but accomplished on its base technical complex may have unforeseen effects

for humanity and for our planet. To survive humanity should have clear vision about

technical development and about the effects of this development.3

The progress, unlike the expectations of the philosophers of the Enlightenment, is

not inevitable. But that does not mean that it is impossible. But the implementation of

this philosophy will depend on the philosophers, on what rational nuclei of social

thinking and visions of future will be created by them, around which will be constructed

the thinking of what is in store and the activities to create it. In this sense what will be

the world in XXI c. depends both on philosophy and philosophers.

【Reference】

1. See Leaman, Oliver. The Future of Philosophy, London: Routledge, 1998, p. 1.2. See Leaman, Oliver. Op. cit. pp 3-5.3. See Radulov, Georgi. Istoriya na tehnikata — evolyutsiya na tehnicheskite idei

(History of technics — evolution of technical ideas). p.328.