Serious philosophy is of the opinion that there is a world and a state of affairs that exists independent of our thoughts. The basic characteristics of this world do not require anyone to exist to think about them. This reality, although independent of our knowing, can be known. That is, we can discover traits about its nature through logic and experience. Indeed, serious philosophers believe that there are constraints built into nature which determine what we can know and in fact help lay some ground rules as to how one can know about this world. Logic is an essential tool for discovering more about the nature of this reality.

The free spirited philosopher, on the other hand, usually believes that there is no ultimate, underlying fact behind reality. Such concepts are unknowable or unimportant. What is more interesting to the free spirit is to discuss how different things work together relative to a certain topic. The free spirit is not interested in seeking an ultimate Truth, but is instead content to get by with philosophies that “work for” him or her.

Sosa brings up two arguments against Seriousness, one of which is the idea that even after thousands of years, serious philosophy has failed to deliver hard and fast tenets with which there are no disagreements. If philosophy were successful, there would not be so many factions with their own pet theories. Instead there would be answers which the majority of philosophers would agree upon in the same way that most astronomers agree that the earth orbits the sun. Several thousand years seems like enough time for philosophy to deliver the goods, so if it hasn’t been successful in that time, what good is it?

First of all, it is a fallacy to impose some sort of time limit on the progress of philosophy. Surely there were centuries since the time of Plato and Socrates during which nothing much happened in the realm of philosophy and perhaps it even lost some ground. In the realm of science, whole schools of thought may be discarded after many decades when new discoveries are brought to light. It is often the case that tools and research methods have not reached a level capable of making new discoveries. It is the same with philosophy. Systems of logic are becoming more refined and sophisticated all the time. It may be the case that philosophy must restart at square one each time a more powerful mental tool is created.

Should a pursuit be deemed unworthy merely because years of research have yielded little or no fruit? Because there is no cure for AIDS at present, should all the doctors and scientists throw up their hands in despair crying, “If we haven’t found a cure by now, we’ll never find one!”? This seems to me contrary to the spirit of man to struggle on in the face of adversity. And is not the struggle for the dearest prize longer and more arduous than the pursuit of that which is transient? What could be more dear than Truth? Should not the path to its discovery be proportionately difficult?

Secondly, agreement on a topic is not necessarily a good-making quality. If all it took to make a group or pursuit worthy was agreement amongst its members, then the practices of the most base and foul cults would be praiseworthy. All of the cults members may be in agreement about the wholesale slaughter of children, but that does not make their organization right or just. This position also neglects the insights which may be gained from disagreement. Various religious sects may be in disagreement over interpretations of holy texts, but should that mean they should bar all discussion and association with members of sects with different opinions? And no matter how many people agree to believe that the world is flat, the world will still be round.

The free spirit concentrates on the collective will of the group. Nothing exists independently of the group’s beliefs and opinions. This view is hard pressed when confronted with the fact that the earth on which the group lives exists whether or not the group has an opinion about it at all. In fact, it is easy to imagine the earth existing without the group at all.

Overall, Sosa does a good job defending Seriousness by bringing up concepts derived from simple reflection and common sense. However, in order to make the statements he does about the worthiness of serious philosophy, he must discuss it within a certain framework. For instance, one can only take it on faith that the pursuit of Truth will yield fruit. It may be that there is no answer or that the questions are even important. To say what he does, Sosa must imbue Truth with worth when it is possible that it is worthless. When viewed in this light, the pursuit of serious philosophy can seem Quixotic.

His attack on agreement presupposes an absolute moral code in which certain acts are evil and certain acts good. This is forcing the free spirit to answer a question that is only possible to ask in the serious philosopher’s world. At best Sosa can say that the agreed-upon actions of a certain group may be frowned upon by other groups in general.