Personality Zone

Schools of Philosophy

Of all the disciplines which have developed over the years, it strikes me that they can be divided into the temporal and the eternal. Languages rise and fall; technologies are invented and become obsolete; but certain disciplines (like mathematics) seem to be constant wherever you go. Child prodigies in mathematics may, for example, spontaneously discover Euclidean geometry; but no child suddenly invents the Latin language in a thrill of inspiration.

Philosophy occupies an unusual position, since it changes over time, but constant elements tend to appear within it as a reprise of some immemorial theme. Particularly in our own time, the schools of philosophy are legion; Platonism (mostly limited to eccentric mathematicians such as myself), Aristotelian Realism, Skepticism, Hegelianism, Confucianism, you name it and there's a gaggle of disciples to follow it.

This is a very odd situation, at least on the surface. To look at philosophers, it always seems that they're laying foundations on the ruins of each other's buildings; compared with physics and mathematics, philosophy is quite the ramshackle edifice. If they really are concerned with the eternal and the essential, shouldn't they be able to come up with a straight answer to the simplest of questions without profound disagreement cropping up between the master practitioners in each camp?

My suspicion is that what we see in the Great Conversation is fundamentally different from what we see in the sciences. In science, the papers are the record of experimental knowledge; scientists confront a question with a definite goal of coming up with a straight answer. The experiment comes first, and the convictions come second. In philosophy, it's the other way around -- whatever gets written on the page is a sort of cast-off, the residue of some greater labor that happens on another plane of action.

Science exists to acquire information. Philosophy exists to improve the mind. The goal of a philosopher is to place all the available tools at their own disposal, so they can throw their full strength at a problem when it arises. Not for nothing did the first philosophers meet at the Gymnasium -- it's the mental equivalent of working out. A person's philosophy is as uniquely their own as their physical build. A good athlete works to develop his natural gifts for his desired purpose; the regimen of a gymnast will look very different from an offensive lineman.

Enter temperament theory, stage left.

If a person seeks to improve his faculties of mind through philosophy, the shape of that philosophy must conform to his natural talents. The philosophy of an Artisan Promoter needs must be different from that of a Rational Mastermind, since the one will be strongest where the other is weakest.


Should it bother us overmuch if there are sixteen or more schools of thought?


What is of especial value in philosophy is that you can learn to think like a person of another temperament, provided that you learn from a philosopher of that temperament. A lengthy adventure through the corridors of Aristotelian logic does wonders for the Intuitive and Thinking functions; a walk with Confucius is excellent for the Sensing and Feeling functions. It's no substitute for being born with a different temperament, but it's enormously helpful in unlocking your potential not only to empathize with others, but draw from their own sources of strength and wisdom.