THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY

by Isaiah Berlin
[1] WHAT IS the subject-matter of philosophy? There is no uni ersally accepte! ans"er to this #uestion$ %pinions !iffer& from those "ho re'ar! it as contemplation of all time an! all e(istence - the #ueen of the sciences& the )eystone of the entire arch of human )no"le!'e - to those "ho "ish to !ismiss it as a pseu!o-science e(ploitin' erbal confusions& a symptom of intellectual immaturity& !ue to be consi'ne! to'ether "ith theolo'y an! other speculati e !isciplines to the museum of curious anti#uities& as astrolo'y an! alchemy ha e lon' a'o been rele'ate! by the ictorious march of tile natural sciences$ [*] +erhaps the best "ay of approachin' this topic is to as) "hat constitutes the fiel! of other !isciplines$ Ho" !o "e !emarcate the pro ince of& say& chemistry or history or anthropolo'y? Here it seems clear that subjects or fiel!s of stu!y are !etermine! by the )in! of #uestions to "hich they ha e been in ente! to pro i!e the ans"ers$ The #uestions themsel es are intelli'ible if& an! only if& "e )no" "here to loo) for the ans"ers$ [,] If you as) someone an or!inary #uestion& say -Where is my coat?-& -Why "as .enne!y electe! +resi!ent of the /nite! States?-& -What is the So iet system of criminal la"?-& he "oul! normally )no" ho" to set about fin!in' all ans"er$ We may not )no" the ans"ers oursel es& but "e )no" that& in the case of the #uestion about the coat& the proper proce!ure is to loo) on the chair& in the cupboar!& an! so forth$ In the case of .enne!y-s election or the So iet system of la" "e consult "ritin's or specialists for the )in! of empirical e i!ence "hich lea!s to the rele ant conclusions an! ren!ers them& if not certain& at any rate probable$ [0] In other "or!s& "e )no" "here to loo) for the ans"er1 "e )no" "hat ma)es some ans"ers plausible an! others not$ What ma)es this type of #uestion intelli'ible in the first place is that "e thin) that the ans"er can be !isco ere! by empirical means& that is& by or!erly obser ation or e(periment& or metho!s compoun!e! of these& namely those of common sense or the natural sciences$ There is another class of #uestions "here "e are no less clear about the proper route by "hich the ans"ers are to be sou'ht& namely the formal !isciplines1 mathematics& for e(ample& or lo'ic& or 'rammar& or chess or heral!ry& !efine! in terms of certain fi(e! a(ioms an! certain rules of !e!uction an! so on& "here the ans"er to problems is to be foun! by applyin' these rules in the manner prescribe! as correct$ [2] We !o not )no" the correct proof of 3ermat-s Theorem& for e(ample - no one is )no"n to ha e foun! it - but "e )no" alon' "hat lines to procee!4 "e )no" "hat )in! of metho!s "ill& an! "hat )in! of metho!s "ill not& be rele ant to the ans"er$1 If anyone thin)s that ans"ers to mathematical problems can be obtaine! by loo)in' at 'reen fiel!s or the beha iour of bees& or that ans"ers to empirical problems can be obtaine! by pure calculation "ithout any factual content at all& "e "oul! to!ay thin) them mista)en to the point of insanity$ 5ach of these major types of #uestion - tile factual an! the formal - possesses its o"n specialise! techni#ues1 !isco eries by men of 'enius in these fiel!s& once they are establishe!& can be use! by men of no 'enius at all in a semi-mechanical manner in or!er to obtain correct results$ [6] The hallmar) of these pro inces of human thou'ht is that once the #uestion is put "e )no" in "hich !irection to procee! to try to obtain the ans"er$ The history of systematic human thou'ht is lar'ely a sustaine! effort to formulate all the #uestions that occur to man)in! in such a "ay that the ans"ers to them "ill fall into one or other of t"o 'reat bas)ets1 the empirical& that is&

#uestions "hose ans"ers !epen!& in the en!& on the !ata of obser ation4 an! the formal& that is& #uestions "hose ans"ers !epen! on pure calculation& untrammelle! by factual )no"le!'e$ This !ichotomy is a !rastically o er-simple formulation - empirical an! formal elements are not so easily !isentan'le! - but it contains enou'h truth not to be seriously mislea!in'$ The !istinction bet"een these t"o 'reat sources of human )no"le!'e has been reco'nise! since the first be'innin's of self-conscious thin)in'$ [7] 8et there are certain #uestions that !o not easily fit into this simple classification$ -What is an o)api?- is ans"ere! easily enou'h by an act of empirical obser ation$ Similarly -What is the cube root of 7*9?- is settle! by a piece of calculation in accor!ance "ith accepte! rules$ But if I as) -What is time?-& -Are all men truly brothers?-& ho" !o I set about loo)in' for the ans"er? If I as) -Where is my coat?- a possible ans"er :"hether correct or not; "oul! be -In the cupboar!-& an! "e "oul! all )no" "here to loo)$ But if a chil! as)e! me -Where is the ima'e in the mirror?- it "oul! be little use to in ite it to loo) insi!e the mirror& "hich it "oul! fin! to consist of soli! 'lass4 or on the surface of the mirror& for the ima'e is certainly not on its surface in the sense in "hich a posta'e stamp stuc) on it mi'ht be4 or behin! the mirror :"hich is "here the ima'e loo)s as if it "ere;& for if you loo) behin! the mirror you "ill fin! no ima'e there - an! so on$ [<] =any "ho thin) lon' enou'h& an! intensely enou'h& about such #uestions as -What is time?or ->an time stan! still?-& -When I see !ouble& "hat is there t"o of?-& -Ho" !o I )no" that other human bein's :or material objects; are not mere fi'ments of my o"n min!?-& 'et into a state of hopeless frustration$ -What is the meanin' of ?the future tense??- can be ans"ere! by 'rammarians by mechanically applyin' formal rules4 but if I as) -What is the meanin' of ?the future??-& "here are "e to loo) for the ans"er? [9] There seems to be somethin' #ueer about all these #uestions - as "i!e apart as those about !ouble ision& or number& or the brotherhoo! of men& or the purposes of life4 they !iffer from the #uestions in the t"o bas)ets in that the #uestion itself !oes not seem to contain a pointer to the "ay in "hich the ans"er to it is to be foun!$ The other& more or!inary& #uestions contain precisely such pointers - built-in techni#ues for fin!in' the ans"ers to them$ The #uestions about time& the e(istence of others an! so on re!uce the #uestioner to perple(ity& an! annoy practical people precisely because they !o not seem to lea! to clear ans"ers or useful )no"le!'e of any )in!$ [1@] This sho"s that bet"een the t"o ori'inal bas)ets& the empirical an! the formal& there is at least one interme!iate bas)et& in "hich all those #uestions li e "hich cannot easily be fitte! into the other t"o$ These #uestions are of the most !i erse nature4 some appear to be #uestions of fact& others of alue4 some are #uestions about "or!s an! a fe" symbols4 others are about metho!s pursue! by those "ho use them1 scientists& artists& critics& common men in the or!inary affairs of life4 still others are about the relations bet"een arious pro inces of )no"le!'e4 some !eal "ith the presuppositions of thin)in'& some "ith the nature an! en!s of moral or social or political action$ [11] The only common characteristic "hich all these #uestions appear to ha e is that they cannot be ans"ere! by either obser ation or calculation& by either in!ucti e metho!s or !e!ucti e4 an!& as a crucial corollary of this& that those "ho as) them are face! "ith a perple(ity from the ery be'innin' - they !o not )no" "here to loo) for the ans"ers4 there are no !ictionaries& encyclopae!ias& compen!ia of )no"le!'e& no e(perts& no ortho!o(ies "hich can be referre! to "ith confi!ence as possessin' un#uestionable authority or )no"le!'e in these matters$ =oreo er some of these #uestions are !istin'uishe! by bein' 'eneral an! by !ealin' "ith matters of

principle4 an! others& "hile not themsel es 'eneral& ery rea!ily raise or lea! to #uestions of principle$ [1*] Such #uestions ten! to be calle! philosophical$ %r!inary men re'ar! them "ith contempt& or a"e& or suspicion& accor!in' to their temperaments$ 3or this reason& if for no other& there is a natural ten!ency to try to reformulate these #uestions in such a "ay that all or at any rate parts of them can be ans"ere! either by empirical or formal statements4 that is to say& efforts& sometimes ery !esperate ones& are ma!e to fit them into either the empirical or the formal bas)et& "here a'ree! metho!s& elaborate! o er the centuries& yiel! !epen!able results "hose truth can be teste! by accepte! means$ [1,] The history of human )no"le!'e is& to a lar'e !e'ree& a sustaine! attempt to shuffle all #uestions into one of the t"o - iable- cate'ories4 for as soon as a puAAlin'& -#ueer- #uestion can be translate! into one that can be treate! by an empirical or a formal !iscipline& it ceases to be philosophical an! becomes part of a reco'nise! science$* Thus it "as no mista)e to re'ar! astronomy in& say& the early =i!!le A'es as a -philosophical- !iscipline1 so lon' as ans"ers to #uestions about stars an! planets "ere not !etermine! by obser ation or e(periment an! calculation& but "ere !ominate! by such non-empirical notions as those& for e(ample& of perfect bo!ies !etermine! to pursue circular paths by their 'oals or inner essences& "ith "hich they "ere en!o"e! by Bo! or nature& e en if this "as ren!ere! improbable by empirical obser ation& it "as not clear ho" astronomical #uestions coul! be settle!1 that is& "hat part "as to be playe! by obser in' actual hea enly bo!ies& an! "hat part by theolo'ical or metaphysical assertions "hich "ere not capable of bein' teste! either by empirical or by formal means$ [10] %nly "hen #uestions in astronomy "ere formulate! in such a manner that clear ans"ers coul! be !isco ere! by usin' an! !epen!in' on the metho!s of obser ation an! e(periment& an! these in their turn coul! be connecte! in a systematic structure the coherence of "hich coul! be teste! by purely lo'ical or mathematical means& "as the mo!ern science of astronomy create!& lea in' behin! it a clou! of obscure metaphysical notions unconnecte! "ith empirical tests an! conse#uently no lon'er rele ant to the ne" science& an! so 'ra!ually rele'ate! an! for'otten$ [12] So& too& in our o"n time& such !isciplines as economics& psycholo'y& semantics& lo'ic itself& are 'ra!ually sha)in' themsel es free from e erythin' that is neither !epen!ent on obser ation nor formal4 if an! "hen they ha e successfully complete! this process they "ill be finally launche! on in!epen!ent careers of their o"n as natural or formal sciences& "ith a rich philosophical past& but an empirical an!Cor formal present an! future$ The history of thou'ht is thus a lon' series of parrici!es& in "hich ne" !isciplines see) to achie e their free!om by )illin' off the parent subjects an! era!icatin' from "ithin themsel es "hate er traces still lin'er there of -philosophical- problems& that is& the )in! of #uestions that !o not carry "ithin their o"n structure clear in!ications of the techni#ues of their o"n solution$ [16] That& at any rate& is the i!eal of such sciences4 in so far as some of their problems :for e(ample& in mo!ern cosmolo'y; are not formulate! in purely empirical or mathematical terms& their fiel! necessarily o erlaps "ith that of philosophy$ In!ee!& it "oul! be rash to say of any !e elope! hi'h-le el science that it has finally era!icate! its philosophical problems$ In physics& for instance& fun!amental #uestions e(ist at the present time "hich in many "ays seem philosophical - #uestions that concern the ery frame"or) of concepts in terms of "hich hypotheses are to be forme! an! obser ations interprete!$ Ho" are "a e-mo!els an! particlemo!els relate! to one another? Is in!eterminacy an ultimate feature of sub-atomic theory? Such #uestions are of a philosophical type4 in particular& no !e!ucti e or obser ational pro'ramme

lea!s at all !irectly to their solution$ %n the other han!& it is of course true that those "ho try to ans"er such #uestions nee! to be traine! an! 'ifte! in physics& an! that any ans"ers to these #uestions "oul! constitute a! ances in the science of physics itself$ Althou'h& "ith the pro'ressi e separation of the positi e sciences& no philosophers- #uestions are physical& some physicists- #uestions are still philosophical$ [17] This is one reason& but only one& "hy the scope an! content of philosophy !oes not seem 'reatly !iminishe! by this process of attrition$ 3or no matter ho" many #uestions can be so transforme! as to be capable of empirical or formal treatment& the number of #uestions that seem incapable of bein' so treate! !oes not appear to 'ro" less$ This fact "oul! ha e !istresse! the philosophers of the 5nli'htenment& "ho "ere con ince! that all 'enuine #uestions coul! be sol e! by the metho!s that ha! achie e! so ma'nificent a triumph in the han!s of the natural scientists of the se enteenth an! early ei'hteenth centuries$ [1<] It is true that e en in that clear !ay men still appeare! no nearer to the solution of such central& in!ubitably philosophical& because apparently unans"erable& #uestions as "hether men an! thin's ha! been create! to fulfil a purpose by Bo! or by nature& an! if so "hat purpose4 "hether men "ere free to choose bet"een alternati es& or on the contrary "ere ri'orously& !etermine! by the causal la"s that 'o erne! inanimate nature4 "hether ethical an! aesthetic truths "ere uni ersal an! objecti e or relati e an! subjecti e4 "hether men "ere only bun!les of flesh an! bloo! an! bone an! ner ous tissue& or the earthly habitations of immortal souls4 "hether human history ha! a !iscernible pattern& or "as a repetiti e causal se#uence or a succession of casual an! unintelli'ible acci!ents$ These ancient #uestions tormente! them as they ha! their ancestors in Breece an! Dome an! +alestine an! the me!ie al West$ [19] +hysics an! chemistry !i! not tell one "hy some men "ere obli'e! to obey other men an! un!er "hat circumstances& an! "hat "as the nature of such obli'ations4 "hat "as 'oo! an! "hat "as e il4 "hether happiness an! )no"le!'e& justice an! mercy& liberty an! e#uality& efficiency an! in!i i!ual in!epen!ence& "ere e#ually ali! 'oals of human action& an!& if so& "hether they "ere compatible "ith one another& an! if not& "hich of them "ere to be chosen& an! "hat "ere ali! criteria for such choices& an! ho" "e coul! be certain about their ali!ity& an! "hat "as meant by the notion of ali!ity itself4 an! many more #uestions of this type$ [*@] 8et - so a 'oo! many ei'hteenth-century philosophers ar'ue! -a similar state of chaos an! !oubt ha! once pre aile! in the realm of the natural sciences too4 yet there human 'enius ha! finally pre aile! an! create! or!er$
Eature& an! Eature-s la"s lay hi! in ni'ht$ Bo! sai!& Let Newton be! an! all "as li'ht$,

[*1] If Ee"ton coul!& "ith a small number of basic la"s& enable us& at least in theory& to !etermine the position an! motion of e ery physical entity in the uni erse& an! in this "ay abolish at one blo" a ast& shapeless mass of conflictin'& obscure an! only half-intelli'ible rules of thumb "hich ha! hitherto passe! for natural )no"le!'e& "as it not reasonable to e(pect that& by applyin' similar principles to human con!uct an! the analysis of the nature of man& "e shoul! be able to obtain similar clarification an! establish the human sciences upon e#ually firm foun!ations? [**] +hilosophy fe! on the mu!!les an! obscurities of lan'ua'e4 if these "ere cleare! a"ay& it "oul! surely be foun! that the only #uestions left "oul! be concerne! "ith testable human beliefs& or e(pressions of i!entifiable& e ery!ay human nee!s or hopes or fears or interests$ These

"ere the proper stu!y of psycholo'ists& anthropolo'ists& sociolo'ists& economists4 all that "as nee!e! "as a Ee"ton& or series of Ee"tons& for the sciences of man4 in this "ay the perple(ities of metaphysics coul! once an! for all be remo e!& the i!le tribe of philosophical speculators era!icate! an!& on the 'roun! thus cleare!& a clear an! firm e!ifice of natural science built$ [*,] This "as the hope of all the best-)no"n philosophers of the 5nli'htenment& from Hobbes an! Hume to Hel etius& Holbach& >on!orcet& Bentham& Saint-Simon& >omte& an! their successors$ 8et this pro'ramme "as !oome! to failure$ The realm of philosophy "as not partitione! into a series of scientific successor states$ +hilosophical #uestions continue! :an! continue; to fascinate an! torment en#uirin' min!s$ [*0] Why is this so? An illuminatin' ans"er to this problem "as 'i en by .ant& the first thin)er to !ra" a clear !istinction bet"een& on the one han!& #uestions of fact& an!& on the other& #uestions about the patterns in "hich these facts presente! themsel es to us -patterns that "ere not themsel es altere! ho"e er much the facts themsel es& or our )no"le!'e of them& mi'ht alter$ These patterns or cate'ories or forms of e(perience "ere themsel es not the subject-matter of any possible natural science$ [*2] .ant "as the first to !ra" the crucial !istinction bet"een facts -the !ata of e(perience& as it "ere& the thin's& persons& e ents& #ualities& relations that "e obser e! or inferre! or thou'ht about -an! the cate'ories in terms of "hich "e sense! an! ima'ine! an! reflecte! about them$ These "ere& for him& in!epen!ent of the !ifferent cosmic attitu!es - the reli'ious or metaphysical frame"or)s that belon'e! to arious a'es an! ci ilisations$ Thus the majority of Bree) philosophers& an! most of all Aristotle& thou'ht that all thin's ha! purposes built into them by nature - en!s or 'oals "hich they coul! not but see) to fulfil$ The me!ie al >hristians sa" the "orl! as a hierarchy in "hich e ery object an! person "as calle! upon to fulfil a specific function by the Fi ine >reator4 he alone un!erstoo! the purpose of the entire pattern& an! ma!e the happiness an! misery of his creatures !epen! upon the !e'ree to "hich they follo"e! the comman!ments that "ere entaile! by the !ifferin' purposes for "hich each entity ha! been create! - the purposes that in fulfillin' themsel es realise! the uni ersal harmony& the supreme pattern& the totality of "hich "as )ept from the creatures& an! un!erstoo! by the >reator alone$ [*6] Tile rationalists of the ei'hteenth an! nineteenth centuries sa" no purpose in anythin' but "hat man himself ha! create! to ser e his o"n nee!s& an! re'ar!e! all else as !etermine! by the la"s of cause an! effect& so that most thin's pursue! no purposes& but "ere as they "ere& an! mo e! an! chan'e! as they !i!& as a matter of -brute- fact$ [*7] These "ere profoun!ly !ifferent outloo)s$ 8et those "ho hel! them sa" ery similar items in the uni erse& similar colours& tastes& shapes& forms of motion an! rest& e(perience! similar feelin's& pursue! similar 'oals& acte! in similar fashions$ [*<] .ant& in his !octrine of our )no"le!'e of the e(ternal "orl!& tau'ht that the cate'ories throu'h "hich "e sa" it "ere i!entical for all sentient bein's& permanent an! unalterable4 in!ee! this is "hat ma!e our "orl! one& an! communication possible$ But some of those "ho thou'ht about history& morals& aesthetics& !i! see chan'e an! !ifferences4 "hat !iffere! "as not so much the empirical content of "hat these successi e ci ilisations sa" or hear! or thou'ht as the basic patterns in "hich they percei e! them& the mo!els in terms of "hich they concei e! them& the cate'ory-spectacles throu'h "hich they ie"e! them$ [*9] The "orl! of a man "ho belie es that Bo! create! him for a specific purpose& that he has an immortal soul& that there is an afterlife in "hich his sins "ill be isite! upon him& is ra!ically

!ifferent from the "orl! of a man "ho belie es in none of these thin's4 an! the reasons for action& the moral co!es& the political beliefs& the tastes& the personal relationships of the former "ill !eeply an! systematically !iffer from those of the latter$ [,@] =en-s ie"s of one another "ill !iffer profoun!ly as a ery conse#uence of their 'eneral conception of the "orl!1 the notions of cause an! purpose& 'oo! an! e il& free!om an! sla ery& thin's an! persons& ri'hts& !uties& la"s& justice& truth& falsehoo!& to ta)e some central i!eas completely at ran!om& !epen! !irectly upon the 'eneral frame"or) "ithin "hich they form& as it "ere& no!al points$ Althou'h the facts "hich are classifie! an! arran'e! un!er these notions are not at all i!entical for all men at all times& yet these !ifferences - "hich the sciences e(amine are not the same as the profoun!er !ifferences "hich "earin' !ifferent sets of spectacles& usin' !ifferent cate'ories& thin)in' in terms of !ifferent mo!els& must ma)e to men of !ifferent times an! places an! cultures an! outloo)s$ [,1] +hilosophy& then& is not an empirical stu!y1 not the critical e(amination of "hat e(ists or has e(iste! or "ill e(ist - this is !ealt "ith by common-sense )no"le!'e an! belief& an! the metho!s of the natural sciences$ Eor is it a )in! of formal !e!uction& as mathematics or lo'ic is$ Its subject-matter is to a lar'e !e'ree not the items of e(perience& but the "ays in "hich they are ie"e!& the permanent or semi-permanent cate'ories in terms of "hich e(perience is concei e! an! classifie!$ +urpose ersus mechanical causality4 or'anism ersus mere amal'ams4 systems ersus mere to'etherness4 spatiotemporal or!er ersus timeless bein'4 !uty ersus appetite4 alue ersus fact - these are cate'ories& mo!els& spectacles$ Some of these are as ol! as human e(perience itself4 others are more transient$ With the more transient& the philosopher-s problems ta)e on a more !ynamic an! historical aspect$ Fifferent mo!els an! frame"or)s& "ith their atten!ant obscurities an! !ifficulties& arise at !ifferent times$ The case of contemporary problems in the e(planatory frame"or) of physics& alrea!y mentione!& is one e(ample of this$ But there are other e(amples& "hich affect the thou'ht not just of physicists or other specialists& but of reflecti e men in 'eneral$ [,*] In politics& for e(ample& men trie! to concei e of their social e(istence by analo'y "ith arious mo!els1 +lato at one sta'e& perhaps follo"in' +ytha'oras& trie! to frame his system of human nature& its attributes an! 'oals& follo"in' a 'eometrical pattern& since he thou'ht it "oul! e(plain all there "as$ There follo"e! the biolo'ical pattern of Aristotle4 the many >hristian ima'es "ith "hich the "ritin's of the 3athers as "ell as the %l! an! Ee" Testaments aboun!4 the analo'y of the family& "hich casts li'ht upon human relations not pro i!e! by a mechanical mo!el :say that of Hobbes;4 the notion of an army on the march "ith its emphasis on such irtues as loyalty& !e!ication& obe!ience& nee!e! to o erta)e an! crush the enemy :"ith "hich so much play "as ma!e in the So iet /nion;4 the notion of the State as a traffic policeman an! ni'ht"atchman pre entin' collisions an! loo)in' after property& "hich is at the bac) of much in!i i!ualist an! liberal thou'ht4 the notion of the State as much more than this - as a 'reat cooperati e en!ea our of in!i i!uals see)in' to fulfil a common en!& an! therefore as entitle! to enter into e ery noo) an! cranny of human e(perience& that animates much of the -or'anicthou'ht of the nineteenth century4 the systems borro"e! from psycholo'y& or from theories of 'ames& that are in o'ue at present - all these are mo!els in terms of "hich human bein's& 'roups an! societies an! cultures& ha e concei e! of their e(perience$ [,,] These mo!els often colli!e4 some are ren!ere! ina!e#uate by failin' to account for too many aspects of e(perience& an! are in their turn replace! by other mo!els "hich emphasise "hat these last ha e omitte!& but in their turn may obscure "hat the others ha e ren!ere! clear$

The tas) of philosophy& often a !ifficult an! painful one& is to e(tricate an! brin' to li'ht the hi!!en cate'ories an! mo!els in terms of "hich human bein's thin) :that is& their use of "or!s& ima'es an! other symbols;& to re eal "hat is obscure or contra!ictory in them& to !iscern the conflicts bet"een them that pre ent the construction of more a!e#uate "ays of or'anisin' an! !escribin' an! e(plainin' e(perience :for all !escription as "ell as e(planation in ol es some mo!el in terms of "hich the !escribin' an! e(plainin' is !one;4 an! then& at a still -hi'her- le el& to e(amine the nature of this acti ity itself :epistemolo'y& philosophical lo'ic& lin'uistic analysis;& an! to brin' to li'ht the conceale! mo!els that operate in this secon!-or!er& philosophical& acti ity itself$ [,0] If it is objecte! that all this seems ery abstract an! remote from !aily e(perience& somethin' too little concerne! "ith the central interests& the happiness an! unhappiness an! ultimate fate& of or!inary men& the ans"er is that this char'e is false$ =en cannot li e "ithout see)in' to !escribe an! e(plain the uni erse to themsel es$ The mo!els they use in !oin' this must !eeply affect their li es& not least "hen they are unconscious4 much of the misery an! frustration of men is !ue to the mechanical or unconscious& as "ell as !eliberate& application of mo!els "here they !o not "or)$ Who can say ho" much sufferin' has been cause! by the e(uberant use of the or'anic mo!el in politics& or the comparison of the State to a "or) of art& an! the representation of the !ictator as the inspire! moul!er of human li es& by totalitarian theorists in our o"n times? Who shall say ho" much harm an! ho" much 'oo!& in pre ious a'es& came of the e(a''erate! application to social relations of metaphors an! mo!els fashione! after the patterns of paternal authority& especially to the relations of rulers of States to their subjects& or of priests to the laity? [,2] If there is to be any hope of a rational or!er on earth& or of a just appreciation of the many arious interests that !i i!e !i erse 'roups of human bein's - )no"le!'e that is in!ispensable to any attempt to assess their effects& an! the patterns of their interplay an! its conse#uences& in or!er to fin! iable compromises throu'h "hich men may continue to li e an! satisfy their !esires "ithout thereby crushin' the e#ually central !esires an! nee!s of others - it lies in the brin'in' to li'ht of these mo!els& social& moral& political& an! abo e all the un!erlyin' metaphysical patterns in "hich they are roote!& "ith a ie" to e(aminin' "hether they are a!e#uate to their tas)$ [,6] The perennial tas) of philosophers is to e(amine "hate er seems insusceptible to the metho!s of the sciences or e ery!ay obser ation& for e(ample& cate'ories& concepts& mo!els& "ays of thin)in' or actin'& an! particularly "ays in "hich they clash "ith one another& "ith a ie" to constructin' other& less internally contra!ictory an! :thou'h this can ne er be fully attaine!; less per ertible metaphors& ima'es& symbols an! systems of cate'ories$ It is certainly a reasonable hypothesis that one of the principle causes of confusion& misery an! fear is& "hate er may be its psycholo'ical or social roots& blin! a!herence to out"orn notions& patholo'ical suspicion of any form of critical self-e(amination& frantic efforts to pre ent any !e'ree of rational analysis of "hat "e li e by an! for$ [,7] This socially !an'erous& intellectually !ifficult& often a'onisin' an! than)less but al"ays important acti ity is the "or) of philosophers& "hether they !eal "ith the natural sciences or moral or political or purely personal issues$ The 'oal of philosophy is al"ays the same& to assist men to un!erstan! themsel es an! thus operate in the open& an! not "il!ly& in the !ar)$

ENDNOTES

1$ +ierre !e 3ermat !ie! in 1662$ This essay "as "ritten in 196*$ 3ermat-s Gast Theorem "as finally pro e! by An!re" Wiles in 1990$ 5!$ *$ The claims of metaphysics or theolo'y to be sciences must rest on the assumption that intuition or re elation are !irect sources of )no"le!'e of facts about the "orl!4 since they claim to be forms of !irect e(perience& their !ata& if their e(istence is allo"e!& belon'& for our purposes& to the -empircal- bas)et$ ,$ Ale(an!er +ope& -5pitaph1 Inten!e! for Sir Isaac Ee"ton- :17,@;$