On the Intentions of Philosophers

What intention, purpose, or aim do philosophers have when they engage in philosophy? Well, that depends on many factors. Some philosophers investigate, pose questions, answer them, challenge those answers, clarify them, reformulate them, abandon them, enrich their position with other perspectives, turn to science or personal and/or external experience, challenge themselves, and so on. Other philosophers simply express themselves, share what they feel, think, or what comes from their soul; their language is primarily emotional and evaluative. Others also want to change the world, society, so they exhort people to act and engage in radical criticism of the status quo. What is it that each one of them intends? One seeks to clarify things, to understand, or if you will, to find the truth. And the other? The other just wants to vent, to express themselves, to say how they feel at a given moment, how they see things. But they have no intent regarding others at that moment, perhaps only communicating it to themselves or doing it to find emotional relief. And what about those who want a particular form of society? They want to convince and move others to action, to gain followers and, with them, make their vision of society a reality.

Now, some philosophers, after their investigation or reflection, want to communicate their ideas in an organized, clear, and polished way. So, they write. Some write with the purpose of being read by others, evaluated, approved, or disapproved according to certain evaluation criteria. These criteria generally include valid arguments and probable or true premises (in the case of argumentative philosophy) or that the descriptions match the evidence, what is shown or seen (in the case of descriptive philosophy). There are other criteria for evaluating this form of philosophy; for instance, the extent to which a reflection maximizes understanding of a subject is also valued, and even secondary matters of style are considered. What do philosophers who write in this way seek? They only seek to be read or heard, properly understood, and honestly evaluated. If the result of that evaluation is positive, it’s welcome; if negative, corrections and adjustments must be made. That is one way of doing philosophy, and those are the aims of this approach.

But what about the other philosophers, the ones who write to vent? At some point, they also want to share their writings. What do they seek with this? Well, perhaps they found what they wrote appealing and want others to enjoy it. But perhaps they simply want to share, to have others read and understand them, and that’s it. One thing seems certain: they don’t care about being evaluated in terms of whether they provide a good argument or if what they say aligns with reality. Rather, they are interested in sharing their generally pessimistic point of view about reality. They don't aim to impact anyone, and their work is not made with that purpose. If it happens to have some impact, it wasn’t within the writer’s deeper intentions. Philosophers of this type just want others to read and understand them, and if by chance readers share the same view or attitude, so much the better, as that means there will be identification, that they will find in those writings the expression of their own thoughts and feel that they are not alone, that there are others like them. But generally, these philosophers don’t write with the intention of making all that happen. Optimistic philosophers or those of a poetic tendency also belong to this group; all of them simply want to communicate their perspective and perhaps, just perhaps, move others to share it.

Philosophers committed to criticizing and changing society are very similar to the first group in their phase of investigation and reflection, and very similar to the second in their phase of communication. Their central theme is determining whether this is a good society, and if not, what would be a better one and how it could be achieved. Thus, a large part of their reflections is about criticizing society, which often serves as a way to introduce their proposal for society. This is often accompanied by exhortations, calls to action, and transformation. These philosophers also present arguments and counter-arguments, but attempting to evaluate them in the same way as the first group is inappropriate because their arguments have a different intention: to lead to a negative assessment of society and to do something to change the situation for the better. Nothing prevents, of course, the inclusion of important facts in their arguments, but their language is emotionally charged and filled with ethical evaluations. In their preliminary investigations, these philosophers seek a worldview with which to commit, and for that reason, they wander from place to place in apparent confusion. But once they commit, their tentative style becomes more resolute, and they then seek to have others commit to the same vision. What do these authors aim for when they publish or communicate? They not only want to be heard; they want to generate change, transformation, to move people to action, to have others share their worldview, or at least awaken critical awareness of their surroundings. Of the three types of philosophers mentioned, this one is the most outwardly oriented in its goals. The first group hopes to be read, understood, and evaluated; this group also wants to be read and understood, and evaluated (particularly in terms of strategies or methods, since values are usually not examined), but above all, they hope that if the reader agrees, they will join their cause, and if they disagree, they will still engage. The second type of philosopher wants to share their vision, have others read and understand it, nothing more. This type also wants to share their vision but seeks something more: for people to commit to that vision and take action. The same can be said for defenders of the status quo, as they proceed similarly, only in the opposite direction: they find faults in novel proposals and highlight the virtues of traditional forms.

Of course, most philosophers have elements of all three types. In general, their works combine the three styles to varying degrees. Now, how should we approach each philosopher? We already know that only the first type expects to be evaluated, that all three expect to be understood, and that the third also wants to move others to action. To understand philosophy, we must determine exactly what each philosopher tends toward: truth, expression, or motivating action. Now, to assess the quality of philosophical works, there are many criteria, as one can evaluate the writing, clarity, coherence, plausibility, but also beauty, impact, and effectiveness in persuasion. A philosopher of the first tendency is more interested in the first type of evaluation; the second is not very interested in evaluation, though they can be evaluated in many ways; the third is generally open to evaluating strategies but not the intentions or values from which their idea of society is generated.