"Philosophy: Unintelligible answers to insoluble problems"

Henry B. Adams’s phrase, “Philosophy: Unintelligible answers to insoluble problems,” delivers a wry, skeptical view of the enterprise of philosophy. By suggesting that philosophical answers are “unintelligible,” Adams alludes to the tendency of philosophical discourse to become abstract, opaque, or convoluted, sometimes alienating those not versed in its specialized vocabulary. Philosophy, across its history, has developed a language of its own, rife with jargon and concepts difficult to penetrate for those outside the discipline. This obscurity can lead to frustration or the perception that philosophical inquiry is disconnected from practical or comprehensible human concerns.

Adams’s identification of the problems themselves as “insoluble” points to the perennial nature of the questions philosophy addresses: What is the meaning of life? What can we know? What is the nature of reality or morality? These are questions without definitive answers despite centuries, even millennia, of debate. Each generation revisits them, often proposing new frameworks or critiques, yet the core issues remain unresolved and perhaps, in Adams’s view, unresolvable.

The juxtaposition of “unintelligible answers” and “insoluble problems” encapsulates a sort of intellectual paradox. Philosophers have continuously striven for clarity, truth, and wisdom, but their efforts may yield more questions than answers, or produce theories so complex and subtle that they appear inaccessible. Adams’s remark, though tinged with humor and perhaps frustration, can be read as a challenge: Are philosophical endeavors worthwhile if their problems prove unsolvable and their answers obscure? Or is there value in the pursuit itself, regardless of the ultimate outcome?

Adams captures both an enduring criticism and a subtle appreciation of philosophy’s audacity. While some may see philosophy as an exercise in futility, others recognize that its relentless questioning advances our collective understanding, even if solutions remain forever elusive. Thus, Adams’s ironic summation invites reflection on the purpose and limitations of human thought itself.