Exploring the Origins of Anglo-American Philosophy

Western philosophy is said to have begun when Socrates broke from natural philosophy. Prior to this move by Socrates, natural philosophy offered various theories regarding the origin of the world (known as archê; literally, "origin or first principle"), such as water, the indefinite, or air. However, according to Socrates, such natural-scientific inquiries could not explain why he chose to obey an unjust law and was willing to drink a cup of poisonous hemlock. In contemporary terms, this represents a shift in the subject of philosophy from the "how" of natural sciences to the "why" of philosophy. Even supposing that one understands the origin of the universe or the composition and mechanisms of the human body, such knowledge pertains only to the "how." It cannot answer the "why."

After Socrates, the two great figures Plato and Aristotle emerged and established prototypes that would shape the course of subsequent Western philosophy. However, since my master's thesis, I have been preoccupied with certain questions-- I wonder if philosophy and natural sciences are truly like oil and water, as in general terms, and I ponder if both disciplines are directed towards investigating the fundamental principles of the world. Since then, I have focused on the relationship between philosophy and natural sciences as the central theme of my research.

As time progressed, the 16^th and 17^th centuries witnessed the Scientific Revolution. This was one of the most significant events in human history and laid the foundation for modern civilization. This period saw the emergence of the modern natural sciences, including astronomy, physics, chemistry, physiology, biology, and earth sciences. The influence of these developments extended to conceptions of humanity and society, eventually giving rise to the human and social sciences, such as economics and psychology. John Locke (1632 to 1704), the philosopher of my research, made a noteworthy observation during this era of the Scientific Revolution. Specifically, Locke stated that the role of the philosopher was to clear the way for "master-builders" of knowledge, such as Boyle and Newton. Until the end of the Middle Ages, philosophy held the position of "queen of all sciences," second only to theology and supremacy over all fields of study. However, this hierarchy began to reverse from around the era of Locke.^[1]

Over the past two decades, my research has clarified that Locke's role as a philosopher seeking to clear the ground for great scientists (specifically, his defense of what later became known as experimental philosophy) was a major driving force behind the rise and development of so-called British empiricism and the tradition that continued through Berkeley and Hume. In this sense, philosophy and science did not mutually act as oil and water; rather a central mission of 17^th-century British philosophy was to lay the groundwork for a new era of science and provide a bedrock for empirical sciences.

In recent years, a notable advancement is currently being made by both domestic (including myself) and international scholars in reconsidering the very framework of British empiricism, by tracing its roots to the movement then called experimental philosophy. The message is that the category of "British empiricism" is a retrospective construct; that is, it was developed long after Locke's time, following Kant's integration of "Continental rationalism" and "British empiricism", and was subsequently systematized by late-18th-century Kantian historians of philosophy such as Reinhold and Tennemann.^[2] In other words, the category of "British empiricism" did not exist in the era in which Locke and his contemporaries lived.

The question, then, is what Locke and his contemporaries were advancing if not British empiricism. The answer is that they promoted the renovative movement of learning known as experimental philosophy as promoted by the Royal Society of London, which was chartered by Charles II in 1662. Indeed, a close examination of texts from that time shows that metaphors used by Locke--such as "building," "clearing the ground," and "under-labourer"--were already common expressions used by Sprat, Glanvill, and other theorists supporting experimental philosophy in the Royal Society.^[3] Over the past several years, I have availed myself of two grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to focus my research on this keyword of "experimental philosophy". I have analyzed the texts of experimental philosophers such as Boyle, Locke, Newton, and Molyneux, with the primary aim of understanding the origins and real situation of the movement which later came to be called "British empiricism."

In my recent work, I read a paper at the 2025 International John Locke Conference held at the University at Buffalo in the United States.^[4] I have also expanded my activities in various ways; for example, I became the first scholar from the Asia region to be elected to the board of the International John Locke Conference.^[5] Furthermore, as a work based on my research findings, The Letters of British Philosophers: John Locke (co-translated) was published this month (September 2025) by the University of Nagoya Press.

One current branch of contemporary philosophy is known as analytic philosophy. The origins of analytic philosophy are often attributed to Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein. Viewed from the perspective of the classical British empiricism as represented by Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, however, there is a clear continuity between British empiricism and analytic philosophy in their fundamental attitudes. Specifically, these two camps of philosophy share an emphasis on sensory experience, an anti-metaphysical stance, the elimination of ambiguity, the continuity with natural sciences, and the use of language criticism as a means to diagnose philosophy. Moreover, in English-speaking philosophical education, particularly at institutions such as Oxford University, undergraduates are encouraged from the outset to read British empiricist texts as basics. This education shapes not only the agenda of philosophical discussions, the methods of argumentation, but also what should count as solutions of philosophical problems-- showing the extent to which British empiricism underpins much of Anglophone philosophy. In a sense, it is a hallmark of philosophical tradition in the English-speaking world.

One of the currently hotly debated topics in Anglophone philosophy today is the debate between philosophical naturalism and anti-naturalism. Returning to my initial question, this debate concerns the relationship between philosophy and natural sciences. Do they coexist, complement each other, and evolve together? Is one discipline reducible to the other? Or do they remain independent and autonomous? These are precisely the kinds of issues addressed in contemporary naturalised philosophy. I contend that, historically informed vertical approaches are valuable alongside the presently dominant analytic, horizontal approaches. Important insights for understanding contemporary naturalistic philosophy may be gleaned from extensive research on the role of philosophers in the era of classical British empiricism; that is, the role of serving as under-labourers to the master-builders of knowledge. The relationship between philosophy and the natural sciences became particularly acute during the Scientific Revolution, when the natural sciences rapidly advanced and philosophy began to lose its status as the "queen of all sciences." This makes Locke's notion of the philosopher as an under-labourer to the master-builders of knowledge a theme that remains pertinent even today.

[1] The reversal in the relationship between philosophy and the natural sciences during the Scientific Revolution is also addressed in a mock lecture for the Philosophy Department of the Faculty of Letters, available on YouTube. The lecture also discusses the shift in inquiry by Socrates from "how?" to "why?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derj54uJ__o

[2] Chapter 9 of the recent work by Anstey and Vanzo, Experimental Philosophy and the Origins of Empiricism (Cambridge University Press, 2023), provides a detailed account of these matters. It is important to note that Kant himself did not categorize previous philosophical doctrines as "empiricism" or "rationalism," nor did he claim that his own philosophy served as a replacement for either of these traditional doctrines (pp. 237 and 249).

[3] I discussed this point in detail in my article, "The Epistemology of Experimental Philosophy: Hooke, Glanvill, and Locke," Nagoya Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 7, 2008, pp. 54 to 85.

[4] "Experimentalism in Locke's Primary Qualities," presented at the 2025 John Locke Conference, July 10, the University at Buffalo, was a presentation highlighting how Locke's approach of experimental philosophy is particularly evident in his discussions of the qualities of bodies.

[5] The news of my election to the board of the John Locke Society has also been posted on the Chuo University website.
https://www.chuo-u.ac.jp/english/news/2024/12/78141/