Does it still make any sense to maintain dividing lines or borders between sciences or disciplines? In other words, are epistemological hierarchies still valid? Wouldn’t it be more productive, starting with teaching, if the narratives were free of barriers between them? As knowledge advances, the topics expand and intertwine, to the point that we can say that current knowledge ends up reflecting much more our ignorance than our response to various problems. In fact, the deeper questions remain open for discussion.

I think this is a blessing in at least two ways. In the first place, new “truths” can be reached at any moment, albeit provisional, which can be translated by the classic expression of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951): “point to the bottle”. Second, it is necessary to recognize that this unfinished search allows us to be rationally free from the domination of other men. At this point, we can say, then, that philosophy is really just a process. In other words, philosophy does not give us knowledge, but understanding, and this can be frustrating, as Sir Anthony Kenny pointed out.

In turn, Wittgenstein takes this philosophical understanding more as the experience of a journey than as the arrival at a destination. (And traveling is everything; that’s what we learn from the poem “Ithaca” by Konstantinos Kaváfis). In short, for Wittgenstein, philosophy is a process or activity. Finally, these reflections take us back to classical Greece. It seems that we are always coming “home” in philosophy. Therefore, we ask ourselves: does the search for the essence of things make any sense as an end instigated by Socrates? After so many centuries, the foundational position seems to lose its reason for being. In any case, and here comes Wittgenstein’s suggestion, we need, perhaps, to understand philosophy or the search for knowledge as a search for clarity.

Therefore, responding to the desire for generality, we must conclude, with Wittgenstein, that it is no longer possible to neglect the particular data, but to consider that by putting together a model for the description of the phenomenon or data under study, we have already done everything. or almost everything that was possible to do right now. The always provisional characteristic of human research.

After all, Wittgenstein recognized that the logical structure of language could be visible on its surface. The Austrian sage did not want to propose theories. But he describes in detail what is happening: this sums up his analysis. In short, it is up to the philosopher to “put things” clearly. The Wittgensteinian approach is therefore descriptive. His contribution to the history of philosophy focuses on method.