Philosophy by its nature pervades all human thought. That does not mean that every argument than can be made from a philosophical standpoint is immediately helpful or applicable to any particular question, any more than the fact that air pervades the surface of the Earth demands that every observation we make consider the effect of air. Philosophy is universal because it defines itself to be, not because it is equally helpful in all cases.
Obviously our study, for example, of conspiracist rhetoric and reason falls more squarely into philosophy than does, say, metallurgy. But I'm not opposed to the use of philosophy where it may be justly applied; I'm opposed to the obfuscation of what are (or ought to be) straightforward questions by the unnecessary and evasive invocation of esoteric philosophical arguments. Philosophy of language, for example, has its value. But to deploy a philosophy of language argument to avoid having to answer an uncomfortable question smells of evasion. It is not the application of philosophy were it belongs that frustrates us; it is the application of it where it doesn't belong.
|