The first question you may think is “what does that mean?”  And that seems to be the right question.

“What does the efficacy of philosophy mean?”

The question cannot be asked enough.  Surely some people will grow tired of answering the question and we can only use our own good judgment to try to guess when our questions will become tiring to an-other.  It is good to guess on this account as well, because I don’t believe that most people want to be a burden.

Assuming this is the case, we may agree that discretion with regard to force and regularity of question-asking should be a well practiced part of phronesis.  The right amount at the right time in the right place.

So what does this have to do with the efficacy of philosophy (which, in turn, should raise a question about my choice of words?)  Efficacy carries a sense of efficiency without the industrial, mechanical connotations tied to it.  The meaning of philosophy, on the other hand, may be heatedly debated depending on who is asked the question.  It seems though, that philosophy seeks to understand.  Understanding carries a suggestion of action.  Once a topic is understood it clears the way for unimpeded action (even if that action is inaction.)  Most people, however, don’t associate philosophy with action.

“Why not?”

Philosophy seems to be an art of questioning.  Philosophy carries the baggage of centuries of seemingly endless, unanswered questions.  That history does not suggest much in the way of action (other than a circular sort of action which feels like a pit of despair to some in the laity.)  It does seem though that philosophy can involve action.  It is my naïve assumption that philosophy can lose the notions of inactivity associated with it and become something of a positive force for change.

In the vulgar, I believe that philosophy needs a make over.

The U.S. Army attempts to write many of its Standard Operating Procedures at an eighth grade level.  The Army understands its audience.  Philosophy, on the other hand, speaks to those already inside its circle.  In order to formulate any change outside of that circle though, philosophy must speak to the masses.  The language of philosophy must focus on discarding exclusivity for inclusiveness.  That would however require philosophers to speak at an eighth grade level.

“Would this water down the nuances available within language?  Would it hamper the ability to discover?”

It seems that philosophy is simply an art of asking questions.  The answers that result are interesting, but not always critical or actionable.  The questions do not matter in each individual case.  The thought behind philosophy may be that eventually we’ll arrive at something better by simply questioning what we have today.

If we ask enough questions without the need for an immediate, actionable answer; one day we may find ourselves a bit closer than we once were to being better off.

“What’s better off?”

That’s a question for another day.  I feel like I’ve learned something new through simply asking these questions.  The subject matter may seem trivial; however, I thought as an eighth grader might think for only a moment and it seems I’ve moved closer to understanding philosophy.

“Does it seem that it might be more complicated than I’ve laid out in this paper?” 

Certainly.

“Does it have to be?”

I don’t know.  What I do know though, is if more people en masse began asking questions, we could certainly say that we lived in a more thoughtful world.