Whatever You Can Do I Can Do Meta!

How “meta” can metaphilosophy get?  This is an important question in the field.  For, one presumes to answer questions about the philosophy at hand; however, if one is attempting to use the philosophy at hand, it does not appear as if you can do much analysis.  By analogy, think of a physicist trying to design an experiment to discover the nature of science.  Arguably, this is better accomplished by the historian, scientist, and philosopher in serious—probably philosophical—discussion.



Some claim that we cannot really get more “meta” in metaphilosophy.  After all, we are using the tools of philosophy to analyze philosophy.  I think that this approach is a little too simplistic.  I shall save that for another post.  In the mean time, I wonder about the claim that we cannot get more “meta” for metaphilosophy.  Return to the analogy of investigating the nature of science.  One looks to the historian to provide data about the sciences, i.e., what scientists have actually done.  One looks to the scientist to give the best description of what he or she is doing.  One looks to the philosopher to provide an analysis and good reason for this kind of data. Suppose we have the same three providing an analysis of philosophy.  Perhaps adding more disciplines into the fold.  The historian is there to look to the history of philosophy; the scientist is there to provide a description of philosophy from the scientists’ point of view—as well as the mathematician, or whoever might be able to provide an outside view of philosophy.  Of course, these commentators need to be somewhat well-versed in philosophical discourse, but they can provide a view that is not from the field of philosophy.

The philosopher is not left out of the discussion.  The philosopher can still play the role of providing analysis and reason.  This is not to say that historians, mathematicians, scientists, et al., do no reason; only that philosophers regularly practice the broadest kind of reasoning.  With the data provided by “outside” observers, philosophy can go about the business of at least examining these points of view to see what philosophy is doing and how philosophy goes about its business.