Philosophical Style And More
Brand Blanshard (1892 --1987) was an American philosopher who taught at Yale for many years. During his lifetime, Blanshard was out of the philosophical mainstream and remains so. He was a rationalist with a commitment to the Absolute and to speculative metaphysics in a distinctly analytic, naturalistic age. I don't think Blanshard has received the attention he deserves.
With several lengthy philosophical works to his credit, Blanshard's most famous book is this 68 page booklet "On Philosophical Style" which originated as a lecture he gave in 1953 at Manchester University. A pleasure to read, "On Philosophical Style argues that philosophical writing does not have to be obscure or turgid to have depth and meaning. In the "Tractatus", Wittgenstein said that "whatever can be said, can be said clearly". Blanshard was not a follower of either the early or the late Wittgenstein, but this insight from early Wittgenstein might, in its own way, be a motto for Blanshard's book.
The book offers examples of jargon-filled, almost unreadable philosophical prose from usual suspects such as Kant and Hegel and from others. Although not offering any easy formulas for good writing, Blanshard praises short, direct sentences, use of the specific term more than the general, a limited use of subordinate qualifiers, simple English, and a rhythmical prose that might be read aloud. The book offers many insights and turns of phrase in its own right, with astute comments about Nietzsche, Santayana, and Berkeley, among others.
Although the book is about style in philosophical writing, Blanshard has a deeper purpose. In discussing the style appropriate to philosophy, as opposed, say, to a novel, Blanshard offers thoughts on what philosophy is. Blanshard says that philosophy "belongs to the literature of knowledge" but people demand of it "the literature of power". He describes philosophy as an intellectual enterprise which examines fundamental concepts and assumptions in an attempt to reach the truth. Philosophy shares some characteristics with the sciences but differs from them in the breadth of its concerns and in the importance of its questions to human life and value. Thus, unlike work in chemistry or particle physics, the non-specialist has an interest in the investigations of philosophers and a right to demand clarity in what passes for philosophy.
Blanshard's discussion mirrors his own rationalistic conception of philosophy and might not be accepted by most philosophers. Some philosophers would deny that philosophy tells us facts about nature on grounds that this work is exclusively within the province of the sciences. Similarly, some philosophers might challenge Blanshard's belief in the alleged impersonal, rational character of the philosophical search or his claim that it discovers the truth. Those holding to a different understanding of philosophy might have in part a different conception of good philosophical writing. Still, there is much for philosophers and students of all persuasions to learn from this book. I have sympathy with Blanshard's understanding of philosophy.
The book is full of allusions to many writers, philosophers and non-philosophers together with many sharp observations that are easy to pass over in the context of reading about philosophical style. For example, Blanshard advises the philosopher to be aware in his writing that he may be criticizing the deeply-held feelings of some readers: Blanshard writes, for example: "Even if he thinks that religion and morals are the political progeny that flattery begets upon pride, he will know that this is hardly the most persuasive way of putting his case."
In the last pages of the work, Blanshard considers the relationship between style and substance in philosophy. Some would emphasize style while others would find it of little importance. Blanshard finds a strong connection between thought and feeling and expression in writing that philosophers, and others who write, must work at improving with time. More importantly, he argues that their is a relationship between philosophical style on one had, and having a proper mind and being a good person on the other hand. Blanshard writes:
"The more perfectly one's style fits the inner man and reveals its strength and defect, the clearer it becomes that the problem of style is not a problem of words and sentences merely, but of being the right kind of mind. .... [I]t show also that the problem we have been discussing is no petty or merely technical one, but very far-reaching indeed. We may have to agree with Professor Raleigh that 'to write perfect prose is neither more nor less difficult than to lead a perfect life.'"
This is an excellent, rewarding book for readers interested in philosophy or writing. It makes me want to explore in greater detail Blanshard's longer philosophical books.
Robin Friedman
