CLASSIFYING PHILOSOPHIES:
A ROAD MAP FOR A PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr.
INTRODUCTION
The sheer innumerability of the different philosophical views, schools of thought, or
approaches, which often compete with one another, can be a cause of discouragement for those
who are considering of exploring the discipline of philosophy, or a source of frustration for those
who have already started such an exploration. I think this is due to a failure to see some order in
the great diversity of philosophical thoughts, which can serve as a guide for navigating the
philosophical landscape. What is lacking, as it were, is an idea of the big picture in which the
various details and particulars of the said landscape fit into some structure or design. In this
essay, I aim to provide one such idea. This idea consists in an overview of the major classifications
of philosophical thoughts and an examination of how such classifications come about. Hopefully,
this can serve as some kind of a road map for one who intends to travel through the often crisscrossing and winding roads towards the attainment of what philosophy offers: wisdom—or the
incomparable joy that goes with an insight into the fundamental nature of things.
Let us begin with a neutral but very general description of the structure of the activity of
philosophizing: as an activity in which one seeks to resolve a particular type of issue using a
particular type of method, and which transpires in a particular place and at a particular time. It is
neutral in the sense that it does not cling to, and thus is not biased to, a particular philosophical
tradition or way of doing philosophy. It is very general, on the other hand, in the sense that it can
accommodate any philosophical tradition or way of doing philosophy. It is, in fact, too general
that it may even accommodate other disciplines as well. In this connection, it may be raised that
this description does not capture what is unique about the philosophical activity. This is correct,
but this description is not intended to specify what is unique about the philosophical activity. It
is only intended to describe its structure. If ever this structure also works for other disciplines, it
only means that this structure has universal validity. The uniqueness of the philosophical activity,
and perhaps of the activity of other disciplines that may have the same structure as well, lies in
the kind of issues that it tackles and the way it tries to resolve these issues. Thus, it is when we
examine the aspects of topic and method of the philosophical activity that we shall touch on what
is distinct about the philosophical activity.
In any case, from the said description we can extract the following general bases for
classifying philosophies. The first is according to topic, which concerns the type of issues or
questions being addressed in a given philosophical activity. The second, which is a necessary
correlate of the first, is according to position, which concerns the kind of solution proposed or
1
put forward for the issue being addressed in given philosophical activity. The third is according
to method, which concerns the particular way by which a certain proposed solution is arrived at
or is argued for in a given philosophical activity. The fourth is according to region, which concerns
the geographical location in which a given philosophical activity transpires or flourishes. And the
fifth is according to historical period, which concerns the time frame of the occurrence of a given
philosophical activity. In what follows, we shall elaborate on these five general bases for
classifying philosophies, examine their ramifications and interrelationships, and identify some
examples of philosophies that fall under each of them.
1. ACCORDING TO TOPIC
Philosophy exists as we ask questions of a certain kind. For present purposes, we can
describe philosophical questions, following John Searle (1999), as framework questions in that
they deal with the concepts that serve as our framework for understanding phenomena.
Consider, for instance, the difference between the question “What is the cause of earthquakes?”
and the question “What is the nature of causation?” The first question uses the concept of
causation to understand the nature of the phenomenon of earthquakes, whereas the second one
seeks to understand the nature of the said concept. The first question is a scientific question but
the second question is a philosophical one.
The distinction made by Rudolf Carnap (1992) between internal and external questions
regarding linguistic frameworks can further illuminate the nature of philosophical questions as
framework questions. Linguistic frameworks generally correspond to what we call theories, belief
systems, or conceptual schemes. The “linguistic” qualifier is only meant to emphasize the critical
role of language in how frameworks are formed—that words and rules for their usage are
introduced to enable us to talk about the entities that a given framework accepts or requires. On
the one hand, there are questions that we ask in the course of using or applying a framework to
explain some phenomena. Such questions are considered internal to the framework; and they
are answerable using the rules and concepts of the framework. On the other hand, there are
questions that we ask about the framework itself, like whether it is a correct framework or
whether its beliefs objectively represent how things are in the world. Such questions are
regarded as external to the framework; and they are not answerable using the rules and concepts
of the framework.1
Take again the questions “What is the cause of earthquakes” and “What is the nature of
causation?” Within the scientific framework (or, in particular, the framework of geology), the first
question results from applying the scientific concept of causation to explain the occurrence of
earthquakes. This question is an internal question, and is answerable using the concepts and rules
of the scientific framework. Such rules, for instance, may specify the relevant data to be gathered
or observed and the types of experiments to be performed. On the other hand, the second
question inquires into how the belief in causal relations among objects or events in the world is
2
formed: whether, for instance, such a belief is based on concrete relations among events or on
mere psychological associations among such events.
In raising this question, one in effect also asks whether the scientific framework, which
uses such a concept to explain events in the world, is a correct framework. This question is
therefore an external question. As external questions, unlike the internal ones, are framework
questions, they thus constitute the philosophical type of questions. For further illustration,
consider the following questions typically regarded as philosophical: “Does God exist?” and “Are
humans free?” In what way are these philosophical questions framework questions? Raising the
question “Does God exist?” can be intended to determine whether a certain framework or
system of beliefs accepts the existence of God. On the other hand, it can also be intended to
determine the correctness of a certain framework or system of beliefs that accepts the existence
of God. More simply, in the first instance, we are just asking whether God’s existence is part of a
framework’s system of beliefs; while in the second instance, we are asking whether the
framework’s belief in the existence of God is a correct belief—that is, whether it is indeed true
that God exists. It seems obvious that it is in the second instance that we take the said question
to be philosophical; and in this instance, it is raised as a framework question, for in asking
whether the framework’s belief in the existence of God is a correct belief we are in effect asking
also whether this framework is a correct framework.
Let us now consider the second question, “Are humans free?” Asking this philosophically
would mean that we are asking whether the framework that allows us to attribute responsibility
to humans for performing certain actions is a correct framework. Here, we understand the
question “Are humans free?” as the same or as significantly related to the question “Are humans
responsible for their actions?”—for freedom of choice is what gives rise to responsibility. Simply,
if humans are free then it is correct to attribute responsibility to them for performing certain
actions; but if they are not free then it is not correct to do so. Now contrast this question to the
question “Is the mayor responsible for wasting the money allotted by the government to his
office to help the flood victims in his city? This question does not put into question the
correctness of the framework of responsibility attribution but simply asks how the rules and
concepts of this framework should apply in the specified case. This is a question internal to the
framework of responsibility attribution (if taken in the legal sense, such a framework may refer
to the set of legal rules specifying, among others, the conditions for a responsible use of
government funds given to government officials); and it is not a philosophical question.
The nature of philosophical questions as framework questions is assumed in the manner
by which Thomas Nagel contrasts philosophical questions with non-philosophical ones. He (1987,
5) writes:
A historian may ask what happened at some time in the past, but a philosopher will ask,
"What is time?" A mathematician may investigate the relations among numbers, but a
philosopher will ask, "What is a number?" A physicist will ask what atoms are made of or
3
what explains gravity, but a philosopher will ask how we can know there is anything
outside of our own minds. A psychologist may investigate how children learn a language,
but a philosopher will ask, "What makes a word mean anything?" Anyone can ask whether
it’s wrong to sneak into a movie without paying, but a philosopher will ask, "What makes
an action right or wrong?"
Now, as our lives and the world we live in has many dimensions, such as, among others,
the physical, spiritual, ethical, social and political, metaphysical (generally concerning our view
of reality), and epistemological (generally concerning what we claim to know), we use a manifold
of frameworks. And consequently, the inquiry into the foundations or correctness of these
various frameworks brings about various types of philosophies. This class of philosophies refers
to what has traditionally been called branches of philosophy, but for the purposes of this essay I
shall also refer to them as the thematic types of philosophies. This is to emphasize the fact that
philosophies belonging to this class are distinguished according to their topics or themes.
The various areas of human knowledge, scientific or otherwise, academic or not,
obviously are frameworks that we use or can use in dealing with the world. Consequently, we
have a philosophy for each of these areas; for instance, we have, among others, philosophy of
science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of myth, philosophy of literature, philosophy of
education, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of law, philosophy of artificial intelligence or
computer science, philosophy of history, philosophy of the social sciences, philosophy of
psychology, philosophy of music, philosophy of sports, and philosophy of economics. Incidentally,
this consideration, that philosophy investigates the foundations of all the other disciplines or
areas of human knowledge and that therefore there is a philosophy for each of these areas must
surely be one of the senses in which philosophy is said to be the queen or mother of the sciences.
Philosophizing is directed not just at particular frameworks assumed in these areas but
also at the various frameworks used in understanding the nature of certain types of phenomena;
and this gives rise to further thematic types of philosophies. For instance, the inquiry into the
foundations of the various frameworks used in understanding the nature of the human person
gives rise to the philosophy of the person, while that of the nature of beauty to aesthetics, that
of the nature of correct reasoning to logic, that of nature of knowledge to epistemology, that of
the nature of human action to the philosophy of action, that of the nature of the mind to the
philosophy of mind, that of the nature of morality or moral judgments to ethics, and that of the
nature of language to the philosophy of language.
Now, among these many branches of philosophy or thematic types of philosophy, a
number have been regarded as the basic or major ones. The list may vary according to time or
period and the philosopher making the list. One contemporary listing includes the following:
logic, which concerns the structure of correct reasoning; epistemology, which concerns the
justification and validity of knowledge-claims; metaphysics, which concerns the nature of reality
4
or existence (metaphysics is sometimes called ontology); ethics, which concerns the nature of
morality or moral judgments; aesthetics, which concerns the nature of beauty or judgments
about beauty; social and political philosophy, which concerns that nature of the state and social
justice; philosophy of science, which concerns the nature of scientific concepts; philosophy of
religion, which concerns the nature of religious concepts and beliefs; philosophy of language,
which concerns the generation of linguistic meanings; and the philosophy of mind, which
concerns the nature of the mind and consciousness.
It may be asked how a branch of philosophy manages to become one of the basic or major
ones. Among possible considerations, a central consideration is the generality of the theme or
main concern of a branch of philosophy in that such a theme or concern is necessarily involved
in the investigations done in many of the other branches. Take, for instance, metaphysics. Its
main concern, which is the nature of reality, is necessarily involved in the investigations done in
most, if not all, of the other branches of philosophy. It is, for instance, involved in the philosophies
of mathematics (in the investigation of the reality of numbers), religion (in the investigation of
the existence of God), mind (in the investigation of the reality of mind as distinct from the reality
of the brain), language (in the investigation of the reality of what language refers to in the world
to be meaningful), ethics (in the inquiry into the status of moral facts), and science (in the
investigation of the reality of theoretical entities). Take another example—the philosophy of
mind. The nature of the mind is necessarily involved, among others, in the investigation of reality
(metaphysics—whether non-physical minds form part of reality), knowledge (epistemology—
how the structures of the mind influence knowing), and morality (ethics—how mental states such
as intentions and qualities of the mind such as freedom factor in defining what a moral action is).
Still another example is philosophy of science. It is a major branch of philosophy simply because
its inquiries are necessarily involved in the investigations done in the philosophies of particular
sciences, both natural and social, such as the philosophies of physics, biology, chemistry, social
sciences in general, history, psychology, and economics.
It is important to note that within these branches of philosophy are further subbranches,
sub-sub-branches, and so forth and so on. Among the sub-sub-branches, we need to specially
mention, because of their current popularity, the areas under applied ethics (or practical ethics),
which are also sometimes called applied philosophies. Applied ethics, along with metaethics and
normative ethics, is a sub-branch of ethics. Normative ethics studies the basic claims of ethical
theories; metaethics basically studies the meanings of ethical terms; while applied ethics studies
the morality of actual practices in certain fields and professions. Foremost among the areas under
applied ethics are: biomedical or bioethics, which studies the morality of certain medical
practices (such as abortion, euthanasia, and cloning); business ethics, which studies the morality
of certain business practices (such as the deceptive techniques in advertising); computer ethics,
which studies the morality of certain practices involving the use of computers (such as hacking,
pornography, and piracy); and environmental ethics, which studies the morality of certain
5
practices involving the natural environment (such as the irresponsible use of the natural
resources and the maltreatment of animals).
2. ACCORDING TO POSITION
Types of philosophies distinguished according to their proposed solutions to philosophical
issues correspond to what are usually called philosophical views, philosophical positions, or
philosophical schools of thought; but for the purposes of this essay I shall refer to them as the
positional types of philosophies. Needless to say, for every branch of philosophy, major or not,
there are competing philosophical views or positions. And considering that there are many
branches of philosophy, one can just imagine how many more philosophical views there are—
and their number is still increasing either as new solutions are being explored to the perennial
philosophical issues or as new philosophical issues arise. It will be observed that some of the
names of these philosophical views directly speak of what these views are, examples of which
are materialism (the view that reality is material), dualism (the view that reality has a dual
nature—material and mental), and idealism (the view that reality is mental or non-material);
while some are patterned after their originators, examples of which are Epicureanism (after
Epicurus), Platonism (after Plato), Confucianism (after Confucius), Thomism (after St. Thomas
Aquinas), and Cartesianism (after Descartes).
The following table shows some representative examples of the philosophical views for
each basic branch of philosophy.
Branch of Philosophy
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics (Normative)
Social and Political
Philosophy
Logic
Philosophy of Religion
Aesthetics
Philosophy of Language
Some Representative Philosophical Views
Materialism, Idealism, Dualism, Monism, Pluralism
Rationalism, Empiricism, Critical Philosophy (of Kant),
Pragmatism
Consequentialism, Deontological Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Care
Ethics, Confucianism
Socialism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Social Contractarianism,
Anarchism, Egalitarianism
Intensional Logic, Extensional Logic, Aristotelian Logic,
Mathematical Logic
Atheism, Theism (Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism,
Panantheism), Religious Pluralism
Platonic Aesthetics, Humean Aesthetics, Kantian Aesthetics,
Modernist Aesthetics, Postmodern Aesthetics, Feminist
Aesthetics
Ideal-language Philosophy, Ordinary-language Philosophy,
6
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
Referential Theory of Meaning, Millean Theory of Proper
Names, Verificationism, Picture Theory of Propositions, Use
Theory of Meaning, Speech Act Theory
Dualism, Materialism, Realism, Non-realism, Reductionism,
Epiphenomenalism, Physicalism, Functionalism,
Computationalism, Biological Naturalism
Realism, Non-realism/Instrumentalism, Falsificationism,
Constructivism, Inductivism, Reductionism, Coherentism
When a philosophical view addresses a cluster of philosophical issues in a coherent manner, it is
usually referred to as a philosophical system. Examples of philosophical systems are the
philosophical views of the so-called system builders of (Western) Modern philosophy, which
include Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, and Hegel. Their views consistently address issues in
epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of religion, and even social-political philosophy.
A good example of a philosophical system in the East is Buddhist philosophy.
3. ACCORDING TO METHOD
In dealing with the philosophical issues, one necessarily uses certain types of methods—
the so-called philosophical methods. What makes these methods philosophical is generally the
fact that they are the methods used by philosophers in dealing with philosophical issues. As
philosophers investigate the foundations of various frameworks, they simply cannot use the very
methods used by these frameworks. In investigating the foundations of the mathematical
framework, for instance, the mathematical method simply cannot be used. A higher kind of
method is necessary. The philosophical methods are thus devised according to what are deemed
appropriate by philosophers for evaluating the foundations of such frameworks.
Consequently, philosophies are also classified according to the kind of philosophical
method that they use; and the resulting types of philosophies here correspond to what has often
been called philosophical movements, approaches, and traditions. For the purposes of this essay,
however, I shall also refer to them as the methodological types of philosophies. Foremost of
these methodological types of philosophies are as follows: Analytic philosophy, which uses
conceptual analysis or the clarification of concepts in its philosophical investigations;
Phenomenology, which generally uses experiential analysis; Hermeneutics, which uses textual
analysis or interpretation; Marxism, which uses historical-economic analysis; Existentialism,
which uses existential analysis (or daseinanalytik, in the language of Heidegger) or analysis based
on human experiences that especially concern the question of purpose in relation to human
freedom, mortality, and interpersonal relations; Feminism or feminist philosophy, which
generally uses gender analysis or analysis based on gender differences and the inequalities or
7
marginalization that results from such differences; and Postmodernism or postmodern
philosophy, which uses the methods, among others, of deconstruction or analysis based on
dichotomies and power analysis or analysis based on power structures. That these types of
philosophies are methodological in nature is evident in the way they are combined with certain
branches of philosophy, which clearly shows that they are approaches to the study of such
branches of philosophy. Consider, for instance, the area of ethics. The application of these
methodologies to the study of ethics have resulted, among others, in feminist ethics (a feminist
approach to study of ethics), existentialist ethics (an existentialist approach to the study of
ethics), analytical ethics (an analytical approach to the study of ethics), and Marxist ethics (a
Marxist approach to the study of ethics).
Some of the philosophical movements are subsumed under a more general philosophical
tradition. A good case in point is the so-called Continental philosophy, which covers
hermeneutics, phenomenology, existentialism, the so-called Frankfurt School, and postmodern
philosophy. Continental philosophy is often contrasted with Analytic philosophy, which itself is a
general philosophical tradition covering particular philosophical movements such as logical
positivism which uses the method of verficationism, logicism which is a school of thought in the
philosophy of mathematics that uses the method of logical analysis, and linguistic philosophy
which uses linguistic analysis.
Now, as theory and method are inextricably linked with one another in the sense that a
certain theory requires a certain type of method and a certain method assumes or leads to a
certain type of theory, the positional types converge with the methodological types. This explains
why certain types of philosophies that we classify as methodological are also sometimes regarded
as positional types, and vice-versa. Perhaps here what will make the difference is which between
theory and method is being emphasized. Another thing to note is that some methodological types
are combined with one another, such as existentialism with Marxism, existentialism with
feminism, and feminism with post-modernism, and others.
4. ACCORDING TO REGION
Philosophical activity, however abstract it may be, always transpires in a certain spatial
location or region. This consideration has also served as a basis for classifying philosophies into
certain types, which I shall call the regional types of philosophies. At the most general level,
regional types of philosophies are often divided into two major kinds: Western philosophy and
Eastern philosophy. Under each of these two major kinds are what can be called as the national
types of philosophies, referring to philosophical activities happening in particular countries or
nations, examples of which are German philosophy, French philosophy, Indian philosophy, Greek
philosophy, Chinese philosophy, and Japanese philosophy.
Generally, regional types of philosophies simply refer to philosophical activities that occur
or that flourish in particular regions. But some attach to regional types of philosophies some
8
other characteristics believed to be unique to each of these philosophies, which are brought
about by cultural, religious, and nationalistic or ideological considerations or sentiments.2 For
instance, some distinguish Eastern philosophy from Western philosophy by citing certain features
that are considered unique to each type of philosophy, like that Western philosophy tends to
emphasize distinctions and oppositions while Eastern philosophy tends to emphasize
commonalities and harmonies. The same is true of the national types of philosophies: some
believe that a particular national type has certain unique features that differentiate it from other
national types. This has made it possible to regard, rightly or not, certain types of philosophizing
that happen in a certain region as alien to that region, say that a particular type of philosophizing
that happens in the East as non-Eastern or that happens in the West as non-Western, or still that
happens in the Philippines as non-Filipino.
What sometimes happens is the identification of some regional types of philosophies with
some positional and methodological types of philosophies. Take, for instance, what is called
Anglo-American philosophy. The expression connotes a regional type of philosophy, namely
types of philosophies that happen within the Anglo-American region. But Anglo-American
philosophy has been identified with Analytic philosophy; and so European philosophers like the
German Gottlob Frege (whom some have regarded as the father of Analytic philosophy) and the
Austrian members of the Vienna Circle (the logical positivists like Rudolf Carnap and Moritz
Schlick), being Analytic philosophers, are regarded as Anglo-American philosophers and not as
Continental philosophers. There are also Asians who are distinguished analytic philosophers,
foremost of whom is Hide Ishiguro, the Japanese scholar on the philosophy of Wittgenstein.
(Jaegwon Kim, a leading contemporary philosopher of mind, was born a Korean but later on
became an American citizen.)
5. ACCORDING TO PERIOD
Philosophies are also classified according to the period or particular time frames in which
they flourished. I shall call these types of philosophies the historical types of philosophies. The
history of philosophy, especially in the West, is conveniently divided into four periods; namely,
the Ancient period, the Medieval period, the Modern period, and the Contemporary period.
Consequently, Ancient philosophy refers to philosophies that flourished during the Ancient
period, Medieval philosophy to philosophies that flourished during the Medieval period, Modern
philosophy to philosophies that flourished during the Modern period, and Contemporary
philosophy to philosophies that flourished during the Contemporary period. The delineations
among these periods are mere approximations, most especially the one between the Modern
and Contemporary periods for as time moves forward what may now be regarded as
contemporary will surely not anymore be at some period in the future. Nonetheless, there is at
present a general consensus as to what philosophies are more or less included in each of these
four periods.
9
Ancient philosophy includes the philosophies of the Ancient Greek philosophers
(foremost of which are the Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) and Roman philosophers
(such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius). The Medieval period comes after the Ancient period and
roughly runs until the late 15th century and Renaissance. Medieval philosophy includes the
philosophies of St. Augustine, Boethius, John Duns Scotus, and St. Thomas Aquinas, among
others. The Modern period comes after the Medieval period and runs until the late 19th century.
Modern philosophy includes the philosophies of the Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz)
and Empiricists (Hume, Berkeley, and Locke) of this period, Kant, the German Idealists (Fichte,
Schelling, and Hegel), Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. The Contemporary period covers the
philosophical developments of the 20th century up to the present day; and it includes the
philosophies of Heiddeger, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Quine, Davidson, Rawls, the
postmodern thinkers (such as Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Lacan), the Frankfurt School
(Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm, Habermas, and others), the logical positivists (such as
Carnap, Schlick, Waismann, and Ayer), the hermeneutic thinkers (such as Gadamer and Ricouer),
and so many others.
Philosophies in the Eastern region (such as Indian philosophy, Chinese philosophy, Islamic
philosophy, and others) do not seem to fit nicely into these four major eras—Ancient, Medieval,
Modern, and Contemporary; for they seem to have their own ways of delineating their own
historical periods. Let us observe in particular the historical periods in Indian philosophy.
According the account of John Koller in his book Oriental Philosophies (1985, see especially pp.
14-18)), the following periods constitute the history of Indian philosophy. The first is the Vedic
period which stretches from about 1500 B.C. to 700 B.C. The philosophies that flourished during
this period are those contained in the writings called the Vedas and the Upanishads (which is an
influential part of the Vedas). The second is the Epic period which occurred between 800 B.C.
And 200 A. D. The philosophies that flourished during this period are those contained in the
writings called the Mahabhrata (its most influential part is the Bhagavad Gita) and Ramayana.
The third is the Sutra period, which occurred between 400 B.C. and 500 A.D. This is where the
more systematic philosophies flourished. The schools of thought during this period are divided
into the orthodox schools consisting of Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhaya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and
Vedanta; and the unorthodox schools consisting of Buddhism, Jainism, and Carvaka. In the main,
the orthodox schools accepted the Vedic teachings while the unorthodox schools do not. The
fourth is the Commentary period, which began around 400 A.D. and continued until about 1700
A.D. The philosophers during this period are Guadapada (6th century A.D.), Shamkara (8th
century A.D.), Bhaskara (9th century A.D.), Yamuna (10th century A.D.), Ramanuja (11th century
A.D.), Nimbarka (12th century A.D.), Madhva (13th century A.D.), Vallabha (15th century A.D.).
And the fifth and the last is the Renaissance Period, which began around 1800 A.D. and still in
progress. The influential Indian Renaisssance thinkers are Gandhi, Tagore, Ramakrishna,
Aurobindo, Vivekananda, and Radhakrishnan.
10
CONCLUSION
From the five general bases for classifying philosophies, we come up with the following
five general types or categories of philosophies: (1) the thematic types of philosophies, referring
to types of philosophies distinguished according to the kind of topic being addressed; (2) the
positional types of philosophies, referring to types of philosophies distinguished according to the
position being advanced; (3) the methodological types of philosophies, referring to the types of
philosophies distinguished according to method used; (4) the regional types of philosophies,
referring to types of philosophies distinguished according to the region where philosophizing
transpires; and (5) the historical types of philosophies, referring to types of philosophies
distinguished according to the historical period in which philosophizing occurred.
As the various ways of classifying philosophies are based on the general features of the
philosophical activity, a particular philosophy can therefore assume several types. For instance,
the philosophical view called Cartesian Rationalism is an epistemological, Modern, Western, and
French type of philosophy. We have also seen that these five general types of philosophies
converge at some points and it is the failure to understand these convergences that brings about
confusion in classifying philosophies. Foremost of these convergences that we have examined
are the one between the positional types and the methodological types, and the one between
the regional types and the positional and methodological types.
Finally, it shall be observed that I have only indicated the main concerns of some of the
particular philosophical types that I have mentioned under each of the five major philosophical
types that I have identified. To explain them all is simply not possible in this paper and perhaps
in a single book as well. What I have done was just to provide an overview of the philosophical
landscape, but I have also put some sign posts in this landscape to help its explorers—the
“wisdom seekers”—know their way around.
NOTES:
_______________
1. Carnap thinks that internal questions can be settled scientifically (that is, either analytically
by looking at how such questions cohere with the rules of the framework, or empirically by
looking at how such questions correlate with events in the world as specified by the rules of
the framework), while the external questions can only be settled pragmatically, that is, by
considering their practical benefits. Consequently for Carnap, there is no objective way by
which we can settle the correctness of a certain linguistic framework. This particular point of
Carnap is contentious. Be this as it may, his distinction between internal and external
questions relative to a linguistic framework is a highly useful conceptual device for
understanding the nature of philosophical questions.
11
2. This may be due to the fact that the various frameworks that we use, especially the religious,
cultural, and ideological ones, are also sometimes loosely called “philosophies”. (In its loose
sense, “philosophy” is used as a synonym for “idea”, “perspective”, “framework”, “principle”,
and the like.) As such, when one speaks of regional types of philosophies, there is a tendency
to understand them in this loose sense of the word “philosophy.” Strictly speaking,
philosophies are those that investigate the foundations of frameworks and not the
frameworks themselves: what are philosophical or types of philosophies, for instance, are
philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and philosophy of culture, not religious,
scientific, and cultural systems. The same goes for calling a worldview a type of philosophy:
strictly speaking, a particular investigation on the foundations of a particular worldview is
what constitutes a particular type of philosophy, not the worldview itself.
REFERENCES
Carnap, Rudolf. 1992. Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. In The linguistic turn. Edited by
Richard Rorty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Koller, John.1985. Oriental philosophies. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Nagel, Thomas. 1987. What does it all mean? A very short introduction to philosophy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Russell, Betrand. 1981. A history of Western philosophy. London: Unwin Paperbacks.
Searle, John. 1999. The future of philosophy. In The Royal Society. Online:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/faculty/yuste/reprints/s/--searle.ptrs.99.pdf
[Accessed 10 October 2008]
[This paper is a revised version of the article with the same title published in Exploring the
philosophical terrain. Edited by Elenita Garcia. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc. 2013.]
12