Louis Althusser's "What is Philosophy" (Summary)

 

The contradiction regarding the understanding of philosophy arises from two distinct perspectives. On one hand, there's the common notion that everyone is, to some extent, a philosopher, as expressed by Gramsci. This idea suggests that even in everyday situations, individuals exhibit philosophical attitudes, such as rationalizing events and acknowledging their necessity. However, this attitude can also entail passivity and resignation, waiting for circumstances to settle without actively engaging with them.

 

On the other hand, there's a popular caricature of philosophers as detached individuals lost in abstract thought, symbolized by the figure of the philosopher who "falls down wells" because they keep their gaze fixed on the heavens of ideas. This caricature reflects both an ironic criticism and an acknowledgment of the perceived incomprehensibility of philosophy to ordinary people.

 

Gramsci focuses on the resignation aspect of the popular conception of philosophy but overlooks the notion of philosophy as a discipline beyond the understanding of common individuals. However, both aspects are essential to consider. While the everyday expression "to take things philosophically" may initially imply resignation to necessity, it also hints at a deeper understanding of rational necessity or historical evolution.

 

This distinction leads to the recognition of two types of philosophy: common-sense philosophy, characterized by passive resignation and acceptance of the status quo, and Philosophy (with a capital "P"), which entails active engagement with the world based on rational knowledge. For instance, Stoic philosophers adapt to the rational order of the world through reason, while communist militants strive to bring about historical change based on their understanding of social evolution.

 

It's crucial to distinguish between common-sense philosophy and Philosophy in the strong sense, which is elaborated by philosophers like Plato, the Stoics, Marx, and Lenin. While common-sense philosophy may be prevalent among the masses, it should not be conflated with the more complex and abstract nature of Philosophy. Additionally, the popular conception of Philosophy often portrays philosophers as detached from practical concerns, residing in a realm of abstract ideas inaccessible to ordinary people.

 

This irony reflects the acknowledgment that true philosophers operate in a different sphere of understanding, dealing with concepts and knowledge beyond the grasp of common consciousness. Unlike common-sense philosophy, which pertains to everyday rationalization, Philosophy requires navigating abstract realms and engaging with complex ideas.

 

This leads us to the fundamental question: What is philosophy? But in answering this, we must also explore the nature of common-sense philosophy. By systematically developing certain theses, we can uncover the realities behind these conceptions and provide clarity to our understanding.

 

One significant observation is that while common-sense philosophy seems ubiquitous, Philosophy itself has not always existed. It emerges in societies characterized by the presence of social classes and the development of scientific disciplines. In ancient Greece, for example, Philosophy arose alongside the existence of social classes and the establishment of mathematics as a demonstrative science.

 

Plato's Philosophy exemplifies this combination, as he integrated geometric principles into his philosophical discourse, reflecting both the social hierarchies of his time and the development of mathematical thought. This integration underscores the intricate relationship between Philosophy, social structures, and scientific advancements, highlighting the contextual nature of philosophical inquiry.

 

 

However, let us proceed with caution and observe another significant fact. Class societies existed long before fifth-century Greece, yet they did not possess the concept of demonstrative science or Philosophy as we understand it. Examples of such societies include pre-fifth-century Greece, the great Near Eastern kingdoms, and Egypt. It appears that for Philosophy to emerge, two conditions must be met: the necessary condition of the existence of social classes and the sufficient condition of the existence of a science.

2

Some may object that there were individuals who identified as "philosophers" before Plato, such as the Seven Sages and the Ionian philosophers. The discipline of Philosophy, established by Plato, did not vanish with his passing but endured and evolved over time. It seems almost necessary for Philosophy to persist and perpetuate itself uniquely, as if repeating something essential through its transformations. Why does Philosophy persist and transform in this manner?

 

We note that Philosophy continued to develop in what we refer to as the Western world, characterized by the presence of social classes, scientific advancements, and transformations in class struggle. Notably, Philosophy's evolution corresponds to significant changes in class relations, state structures, and scientific developments.

 

Consider Descartes as an example. His Philosophy, marking a pivotal moment in the history of Philosophy, emerged amidst notable shifts in class relations and the state, as well as significant advancements in the sciences. These political-economic and scientific conjunctions shaped the context in which Descartes formulated his philosophical ideas.

 

In terms of class relations, the development of bourgeois law and commodity relations under the absolute monarchy played a crucial role. Simultaneously, Galileo's groundbreaking work in physics marked a significant scientific advancement during Descartes' time.

 

It's essential to clarify that we are not suggesting that Descartes' philosophy directly resulted from these events. Rather, the conjunction of these political-economic and scientific developments characterized the context in which Descartes operated, distinguishing it from previous periods.

 

Examining other examples in a similar light, we observe that Philosophy's transformations correspond to an intricate interplay between changes in class relations and significant events in scientific history. While we present these conditions as plausible, we invite further exploration into the complex relationship between Philosophy, class dynamics, and scientific progress.

 

 

Descartes' Philosophy represents a significant milestone in the history of Philosophy, marking the inception of what we term "Modern Philosophy." Its emergence coincides with significant changes in class relations and state structures, as well as advancements in scientific understanding.

 

In terms of class relations, this period saw the development of bourgeois law, facilitating the rise of commodity relations under the absolute monarchy, which represented a transitional form of state between feudalism and capitalism.

 

Regarding the history of the sciences, Galileo's groundbreaking work in physics during the modern period is comparable in importance to two other seminal discoveries: the foundation of mathematics in the fifth century and Marx's contributions to the science of history in the mid-nineteenth century.

 

It's crucial to clarify that we do not assert Descartes' philosophy can be derived directly from these events. Instead, we propose that the context in which Descartes formulated his ideas was shaped by this conjunction, distinguishing it from previous periods.

 

Considering other examples in a similar manner, we observe that Philosophy's transformations correlate with a complex interplay between changes in class relations and significant developments in scientific history.

There are societies where Philosophy as we understand it has never arisen, such as certain "primitive" societies. These societies lack social classes and scientific knowledge, thus precluding the emergence of Philosophy.

 

For instance, nineteenth-century India or China had social classes but lacked science as we recognize it. While people may speak of Hindu or Chinese philosophy, these may resemble theoretical disciplines superficially. It might be more appropriate to categorize them differently until further examination.