How Can We Use Philosophy to Learn About Happiness?

An introduction to the methods and characteristics of the philosophical method.

In our last article, we talked about the scientific approach and some of the ways it falls short in considering happiness. Since science is our society’s default tool for investigating problems, we’re left wondering what method we can use instead. We proposed philosophy as an alternative. Now, it’s time to consider just what this means.

If philosophy is our approach, then we should take some time to consider what it means to consider these problems philosophically. What sort of methods does philosophy use? What tools does philosophy offer to consider these problems?

What are the Tools of Philosophy?

To start, one of the most basic notions of philosophy is the division between two types of reason: inductive and deductive. These two notions might be familiar. They are the essential parts of all reasoning and all inquiry.

Inductive Reasoning: Knowledge Through Experience

Inductive reasoning is based on experience, taking observations and turning them into conclusions. The most basic example of inductive reasoning is something like observing the sun rise every day and concluding that it will rise again tomorrow. In this case, experience has shown you something that you can then turn into a general law for the world.

Inductive reasoning is today most often associated with science. The scientific method is based on using inductive reasoning to test certain hypotheses. The goal here is to find certain laws of nature. (Though it’s a topic of debate whether these laws are created or found.) A simple example is something like the law of gravity: Observations show that objects tend to fall to earth in a predictable way, and we can therefore make a law that allows us to predict how things will fall.

Importantly, it seems that inductive reasoning can’t offer us definitive proof that things are true. It’s clear that observations and experience can be misleading. Someone might reasonably see only red roses in their life and think that all roses are red. However, they’ll be forced to think otherwise if they ever observe a non-red rose.

For this reason, inductive reasoning is very good at disproving things: All it takes is one contrary observation to show that something isn’t true. However, it’s hard to say that inductive reasoning proves things. Seeing a hundred red roses doesn’t prove that all roses are red. It just gives you a reason to believe it’s true.

The Power of Deductive Reasoning

If we want certain proof, deductive reasoning may be better. Deductive reasoning takes a series of premises (in the context of logic, premises are anything the argument takes to be true from the start) and uses logic to draw conclusions based on them. A simple deductive argument might be something like the following: Phillip is a bachelor, and every bachelor must be unmarried, so Phillip is unmarried. As long as the premises are true and the logic is valid, this must be true.

However, deductive reasoning can be hard to apply to the real world. Importantly, it’s easy to argue about whether our premises are true. If we don’t begin from indisputable facts, there’s no way to reach a conclusion everyone will find agreeable.

Think of an argument in ethics as an example: Someone might say that killing is always wrong unless it’s in self-defense, and further that the death penalty is not in self-defense, and therefore that the death penalty is wrong.

The logic here is valid: If the two premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. However, many would argue against the premises. Some might argue that there are cases where killing is justified even if it’s not self-defense. Others might argue that the death penalty can be a form of self-defense. In this case, there’s no clear agreement on what the premises should be, and therefore there can be no definitively true conclusion.

The Problem of Skepticism

It seems that both inductive and deductive reasoning struggle to offer any definitive truth about the world. Inductive reasoning offers useful predictions about the future, but it never says for certain that its conclusions are true. Deductive reasoning offers the absolute truth we’re after but only in a limited set of circumstances.

Today, some degree of skepticism seems to be the dominant position among most people. The average person would likely agree that it’s impossible to know anything for certain. We have essentially taken this to be the default understanding of epistemology.

Despite this common acceptance of skepticism, it’s clear that we are still capable of knowing things in practice. Many theories exist to try to explain how it is that we can overcome these concerns of skepticism. We’ll talk about some of those later. But regardless of any skeptical concerns, it’s clear that we can trust these tools of inquiry to lead us to useful knowledge. Even if we don’t have a way to “prove” that the sun will rise tomorrow, it’s clear that we’re safe to act as though that’s true.

The Journey of Philosophy

Now, these basic tools aren’t the only important thing to understand about philosophy. Philosophy is also unique for what sort of knowledge it produces.

The German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel argued that philosophy is unique because unlike other fields of study, it does not produce a separable “product” at the end. In math, an equation can produce an answer that can be taken on its own without going through the whole proof once more. We don’t need to prove the Pythagorean theorem to teach it. In science, a theory can be taught without going through the whole process of discovery again. You don’t need to see the whole proof to know that E=MC².

In philosophy, Hegel argues it’s not the same. You can’t simply tell someone an ethical principle and expect them to understand it properly. To learn these principles, we have to go through the process of discovering them again.

Philosophy in Dialogue

Plato famously presented his ideas through a series of dialogues depicting his teacher, Socrates, discussing philosophy with the people of Athens. In these dialogues, Socrates generally tries to start from an intuitive or popular position and demonstrate the contradictions in that position, ultimately getting closer to the truth.

Importantly, Socrates can’t simply tell these people the correct position. It’s not enough to just say what he believes to be true: He has to walk his opponents (and the reader) through the process of discovering why this is true.

Philosophy, then, isn’t simply trying to find answers. It’s trying to find paths. It can lead people to truth, but it relies on them to take the steps on their own.

This gives philosophical projects a unique sort of character. Some critics of philosophy have argued that philosophy has made no progress because we seem to be asking the same questions after thousands of years. But this is the exact character of philosophy. Philosophy can’t simply close problems. It can’t offer a simple solution that you can learn and be done with. Philosophy can only show you how to make your way through the problem yourself.

This is what makes philosophy a journey. There’s nobody else out there finding the answers for you: If you want to find what philosophy has to offer, you have to follow the path yourself.

Now, our next step is clear. We need to start laying this path by asking the question of what happiness is. We have the tools and the direction—let’s take the next step forward.

-Patrick Koroly

The Vocation Project is a reader-supported publication. Subscribe to help us continue to make content and to become a member of our community.