In this Issue - Philosophy in Transition

In this Journal’s pilot issue from last March, we mentioned that contemporary culture is facing huge transitions globally. And the practice of philosophy is facing a transition as well. Until sometime in the 20^th century, one thing was pretty clear to its students: understanding the natural world and the nature of “man” was the enterprise of Philosophy, even though philosophers might not agree on which theory would be best. Even when the authority of Plato and Aristotle weakened as the modern era approached (just after the late medieval period), these students could at least be assured as to what the philosophical problems were. By the late 17^th century, “natural philosophy” was seeking to allocate the natural science of the day towards answering these so-called (and still called) “Big Questions” of philosophy.[1]

But these “Big Questions” are modern questions for modern ears, and today many would insist that the era we are now in is no longer modern. Our present era is supposedly “postmodern” – though there is no exact consensus as to what that means. (And as a sign of the confusing times we’re in, there are even those today who want to restore natural philosophy to its venerable former status, and claim that science is doing exactly that – as if the postmodern moment were over before we even began to understand what it was!)

This journal issue follows up on two aspects of this transition. 

(1) The first is the revisionary trend we see happening among today’s philosophers, as old views once generally discarded have been brought to new life in the present moment. As an illustration, we provide here three essays which, in rather different ways, assess the philosophical prospects for that most ancient of “sciences” – astrology. 

Kilaya Ciriello is a practicing astrologer and staunch advocate of Platonism. In his article he  presents us with a distinction within astrology that may help explain its modern disrepute.  Most of us probably think of astrology as the entertaining pastime (or trusty consultant?) that we can draw out from our daily horoscope – conveniently assisted by a teeming industry of (paid) consultants to help us “find happiness with astrology!” Kilaya begins to lay out for our consideration how a rather different astrological approach might prove much more promising.

D.Seiple, on the other hand, begins from his own skeptical attitude towards astrology, but suspends these suspicions with the intention of better understanding and assessing astrology’s prospects for regaining philosophical respectability. This turns out to be a more complicated project than its dismissive critics may have imagined, and raises other matters related to the philosophy of science. (On this, look forward to future issues of this journal.)

Cole Whetstone is a convinced proponent of astrology, but in a unique and surprising way. Cole’s intention is to revive the practice of divination. (Yes, you read that right.) Not however as one might naturally guess: through supernatural or occult means -- but rather by analogy with recent advances in computational efficiency.  A.I. programs have recently shown spectacular progress based on large language models (LLMs) that are trained on vast sets of data, and when applied to natural language are able to predict and generate texts better (some say) than humans themselves. Cole applies this to what he takes to be the semiotic relation between celestial configurations and the well-being of humans. He has also outlined an ambitious empirical test to assess his theory.

(2) The second aspect we have chosen to pursue in this issue is the changing self-portrait we see emerging within philosophy itself.  This is not by any means new to the postmodern era: since ancient times schools of philosophy have been defined by the subject matters and procedures that have arisen. But these days there is a deep disquiet within some precincts of the discipline itself, as some of its practitioners have exerted considerable philosophical skill towards questioning the very usefulness of philosophy.  (You might notice a remarkable irony in this…)

Logan Zelk has channeled both the aphoristic style of Nietzsche and the substance of Martin Heidegger’s later work, to present a challenge not only to philosophy but to the equanimity of those who seek to practice it. Beginning from Socratic assumptions, his discussion proceeds somewhat in the skeptical spirit of Plato’s eventual successors, though with Heidegger’s emphasis on the primal origins of language and with Logan’s own vivid sense of philosophical tragedy.

Grayson McDowell offers us a very different picture of philosophy, which serves to remind us that not everyone has jumped aboard the deconstructionist bandwagon. Grayson retains the traditional faith in philosophy as a progressive discipline – that is, as one in which progress can be made and charted. In such world, it would be a matter of both rationality and commonsense to build upon the achievements of previous experts rather than always reinventing the philosophical wheel.

D.Seiple offers a brief reading of the Socratic project, especially as this might relate to the activities of our Philosophy Club, and invites readers to reflect on their own interest in having the conversations that our weekly sessions make possible. He sees the promise of philosophy not as endless questioning, but as a cleansing exercise in the service of one’s own wellbeing, and not just through our weekly meetings but through the pages of this journal as well.  

(3) And finally, in this issue we have continued our tradition of welcoming literary submissions.  Weiyang Gao has given us a fictionalized biography (but “based on a true story,” and perhaps we can guess whose it might be).  It portrays the early years of Gantin, a Chinese student whose only solace in life has been his love of truth and his work as a visual artist. His encounter with philosophical texts promises a respite from the indignities of adolescent suffering, as he eventually embarks on his new life in America.  We can look forward to following his continuing story in subsequent issues. 

[1] These are said to include “What is the nature of the cosmos?”; “Do we have free will?”; “What is the good?”; “Does God Exist?”? “Are moral rules absolute or relative?”; “What is the nature of the self?” – and others besides.