Well written piece Louis; your philosophizing paid off! I am reminded of a definition of "problem" I heard recently that you might find interesting: a problem is the gap between a perceived state and a desired state. This has the strength (or weakness) of reducing all problem-solving into some combination of three possible categories: move the perceived state toward the desired state, change your perception, or change the desired state.
Looking forward to more essays in this series.
P.S. It has been a while, but if memory serves me correct John Dewey had a lot to say about philosophy as problem-solving. I'm not the biggest fan or Dewey or what some of his ideas led to, but thought I'd mention it here in case it was of interest to you.
I like that definition of “problem” as it sheds light on how to resolve them. As I’m interpreting it, it’s compatible with my own.
I suppose one missing feature that I think is key is that problems always exert force (as they are currents). Noticing a gap, I might not care and it might not lead to its resolving.
What do you see as a potential weakness of reducing of problem solving as you’ve described?
P.S. Thanks for the tip! Some Dewey will be coming my way soon so I’ll keep an eye out for that.
Good question! Off the top of my head, I'm reminded of the distinction Josef Pieper identifies in "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" between ratio and intellectus. If I remember correctly, the former refers to the faculty of mind that actively reasons about things, while the latter refers to the passive faculty of mind that is more analogous to sense perception but with intellectual instead of sensible objects.
It seems to me that thinking of philosophy exclusively in terms of problem-solving may leave less room for the use of that second faculty. Some might argue that that would fall more under the purview of piety than philosophy, but I *think* Pieper makes the case that the Greeks thought both were necessary for philosophy.
I could be remembering wrong though - it's been a while since I read the book and I never actually finished it haha.
This is partly why I’m careful not to call philosophy problem solving, only problem exploring. Sometimes it involves solving, but sometimes it is much more about taking a lap through contentious territory, making sense of things one step at a time, without a clear goal in mind.
And while philosophizing always, to me, involves conceptual thinking, it is possible that this occurs without our conscious awareness and formal control.
To make things more complicated, problems to me are abstract enough to fall outside of the mind, as we think it, entirely. A sunflower has a problem of not facing the sun, and engages problematic exploration as it moves in search of it. But this might be a better discussion under another essay to come…!
Very well written and digestible for most. Thinking conceptually about solving problems is a key skill that we are losing to immediate answer culture due to LLMs, social media, and the web.
Well written piece Louis; your philosophizing paid off! I am reminded of a definition of "problem" I heard recently that you might find interesting: a problem is the gap between a perceived state and a desired state. This has the strength (or weakness) of reducing all problem-solving into some combination of three possible categories: move the perceived state toward the desired state, change your perception, or change the desired state.
Looking forward to more essays in this series.
P.S. It has been a while, but if memory serves me correct John Dewey had a lot to say about philosophy as problem-solving. I'm not the biggest fan or Dewey or what some of his ideas led to, but thought I'd mention it here in case it was of interest to you.
Thank you for the words of encouragement!
I like that definition of “problem” as it sheds light on how to resolve them. As I’m interpreting it, it’s compatible with my own.
I suppose one missing feature that I think is key is that problems always exert force (as they are currents). Noticing a gap, I might not care and it might not lead to its resolving.
What do you see as a potential weakness of reducing of problem solving as you’ve described?
P.S. Thanks for the tip! Some Dewey will be coming my way soon so I’ll keep an eye out for that.
Good question! Off the top of my head, I'm reminded of the distinction Josef Pieper identifies in "Leisure: The Basis of Culture" between ratio and intellectus. If I remember correctly, the former refers to the faculty of mind that actively reasons about things, while the latter refers to the passive faculty of mind that is more analogous to sense perception but with intellectual instead of sensible objects.
It seems to me that thinking of philosophy exclusively in terms of problem-solving may leave less room for the use of that second faculty. Some might argue that that would fall more under the purview of piety than philosophy, but I *think* Pieper makes the case that the Greeks thought both were necessary for philosophy.
I could be remembering wrong though - it's been a while since I read the book and I never actually finished it haha.
Thanks for the insight!
This is partly why I’m careful not to call philosophy problem solving, only problem exploring. Sometimes it involves solving, but sometimes it is much more about taking a lap through contentious territory, making sense of things one step at a time, without a clear goal in mind.
And while philosophizing always, to me, involves conceptual thinking, it is possible that this occurs without our conscious awareness and formal control.
To make things more complicated, problems to me are abstract enough to fall outside of the mind, as we think it, entirely. A sunflower has a problem of not facing the sun, and engages problematic exploration as it moves in search of it. But this might be a better discussion under another essay to come…!
Very well written and digestible for most. Thinking conceptually about solving problems is a key skill that we are losing to immediate answer culture due to LLMs, social media, and the web.