Susan Haack on Serious Philosophy, and the Search for Truth

Philosopher Susan Haack has long defended the importance of taking philosophy seriously  not in the sense of being solemn, but in the sense of pursuing truth with integrity. In her essay “Serious Philosophy” and in conversations inspired by it, Haack explores what it means to inquire honestly, whether philosophy should embrace humor, and how science, law, and academia influence our understanding of truth.

What Does “Serious Philosophy” Really Mean?

When Susan Haack speaks of serious philosophy, she does not mean grim faces and humorless arguments. Rather, she means philosophy undertaken in earnest with a genuine will to learn, free from vanity, political convenience, or careerist shortcuts.

“Philosophy undertaken seriously, for real. Not solemnity, not self-importance. A sense of humor can help,” she explains.

In Spanish, the phrase would be filosofía en serio  philosophy done in good faith, with the intention of really figuring things out. Haack insists that humor and even playfulness can strengthen inquiry, helping philosophers avoid self-importance and remain open to surprising insights.

Humor and Philosophy: Should They Go Together?

Many assume that to be “serious” is to be humorless. Haack firmly rejects this:

• Humor prevents overconfidence in our own claims.

• Playfulness  what Charles Peirce called musement  is key to creative discovery.

• Solemnity, by contrast, blocks inquiry by inflating egos and silencing imagination.

Thus, a philosopher can be both serious and light-hearted. In fact, a sense of humor might be a philosopher’s best safeguard against dogmatism.

Peirce’s Metaphor: “Intentness in the Eye” and “Energy in the Arm”

Haack recalls Peirce’s metaphor of an archer:

• Intentness in the eye means focusing squarely on truth, without distraction.

• Energy in the arm means the determination to pull hard  to give one’s best effort in pursuit of reality.

In philosophy, this means wanting the truth itself, not just a convenient or publishable answer.

Is Truth Objective?

Haack resists post-modern skepticism:

• Yes, truth exists. Without it, asking questions would make no sense.

• Perceptual judgments are fallible, but error does not eliminate truth.

• Most truths remain independent of belief: truth is objective, even when it concerns our own beliefs.

This defense of objectivity runs through her work, including The Unity of Truth and the Plurality of Truths and Post “Post-Truth”: Are We There Yet?

Table: Serious vs. Solemn Philosophy

Science, Philosophy, and the Will to Learn

Peirce called the will to learn the essence of inquiry. For Haack, this will expresses itself differently depending on the domain:

• In science, through experiments and reasoning.

• In philosophy, through attentive reflection on everyday experience.

• In history, mathematics, and law, through methods suited to each discipline.

Science is neither sacred nor a confidence trick. It is fallible, like all human enterprises, but has undeniably yielded countless real discoveries.

Universities and the Search for Truth

Haack worries that modern universities, especially in the U.S., have been overtaken by administrative “managers” who value productivity, rankings, and funding more than truth itself.

This leads to:

• Faculty pressured to publish fast and often, rather than deeply.

• Graduate students trained to chase grants and metrics.

• An erosion of older academic values of honest inquiry.

She warns: a university cannot thrive if it forgets that its soul is truth-seeking, not bureaucratic rankings.

Science and Law: Different Goals, Different Limits

Science and law both deal with evidence but with very different aims:

• Science seeks explanatory truth, however long it takes.

• Law seeks timely, fair, and workable decisions.

In law, burdens of proof and admissibility rules constrain evidence; in science, all relevant evidence must be pursued. Problems arise when courts expect science to give more than it can (e.g., certainty of guilt from DNA probabilities) or when powerful interests suppress scientific evidence.

Language, Diversity, and Human History

Haack acknowledges that the diversity of languages shapes history and daily life. Even if one universal language existed, she argues, it would inevitably splinter into dialects  just as Latin evolved into French, Spanish, Italian, and more.

Language, like philosophy, thrives on diversity and change.

FAQ

Q1: What does Susan Haack mean by “serious philosophy”?
A: Philosophy genuinely aimed at truth, not solemnity or self-importance. Serious philosophy is about honest inquiry.

Q2: Does philosophy require humorlessness?
A: No. Haack argues that humor can support inquiry by deflating vanity and encouraging openness.

Q3: What role does science play in the pursuit of truth?
A: Science is fallible but has produced many true discoveries. For Haack, the scientific spirit is simply the will to learn through reasoning and experience.

Q4: Why does Haack criticize universities?
A: She believes that bureaucracy and managerialism distort academic priorities, shifting focus away from truth and toward rankings, productivity, and funding.

Q5: How do science and law differ in their use of evidence?
A: Science seeks truth without time limits, while law must resolve disputes quickly and fairly. Their evidential standards therefore differ profoundly.