What is philosophy?

[ComradeRed]

Is philosophy limited to Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc.? Could it be expanded to other categories? What categories would you give it?

[Starboy]

Why expand it, why not relegate it to the same place as other ancient knowledge traditions that were also created at the same time and are now discredited or on the dustbin of history like astrology or alchemy?

Starboy

[Songbird]

In my mind I define philosophy as the study of ethics, morals, and the way one should live their life. I know this is a rather narrow view, but somehow this is just how my brain has evolved :)

So if sticking to my definition, philosophy is by no means out of date! It is very similar to a religion in the way that it teaches people(in general) how to live good, ethical and succesful lives. An easy example is Buddism, which at first was not a religion but a philosophy. (It is considered a religion if the practicers worrship the founder as a good, and do not simply revere him as a holy man.) It is a way of life that is still very popular today in both of its forms. Buddism is not in the "dustbin of history".

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Religion is a subset of philosophy, few religions are large enough to encompass more than one, but a single philosophy can lead to many religions.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy Why expand it, why not relegate it to the same place as other ancient knowledge traditions that were also created at the same time and are now discredited or on the dustbin of history like astrology or alchemy? Starboy

Because unlike astrology or alchemy philosophy is useful. The questions it asks are still important whereas the questions alchemy and astrology asked are not. It is still important to know what is right or wrong, hell since Oppenheimer's little advance it's more important.

[Vee]

phil, philo = love

sophy, sofi, sofia, sophie = wisdom

therefore philosophy is the love of wisdom but you were all ready wise to that were'nt you.

Philosophy is a way of life. Philosophy is for me synonymous with politics, religion, etc.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike Because unlike astrology or alchemy philosophy is useful. The questions it asks are still important whereas the questions alchemy and astrology asked are not. It is still important to know what is right or wrong, hell since Oppenheimer's little advance it's more important.

Come again? What questions does philosophy ask that is either a) useful b) or relevant if not useful c) or have much to do with they claim to talk about d) or that philosophers even bother to try to check against actual reality?

In order for philosophy to claim to be "useful" then it must concern itself with what is real. After all if it only concerned itself with the unreal than why would it be "useful"? But since philosophy has no tradition at all for actually checking any of its "philosophies" against what is real then why would anyone think that philosophy has any importance to what is real and therefore useful at all. In fact if you talk to those that are paid to be philosophers and claim to be proficient in the philosophies and philosophers of the past and present the vast majority of them will tell you that a philosopher has no duty, responsibly, requirement or need to try to make sure that their philosophies have anything at all to do with reality. "It's not my job man." Their philosophies can be about something that has nothing at all to do with actual reality whatsoever. What I see happening is gullible minds reading this crap and then think it is important to reality and then acting on it. It does far more damage than good.

You see if you put it to a philosopher until they squirm they will admit that within the discipline of philosophy there is no method to prefer one philosophy over another. Which is why philosophy is this accretion of philosophies that go back two and a half millennia that are still taught today as legitimate philosophy. (As if nothing has changed since then on what we know about the universe) There really hasn't been any progress in the field since the very first philosophers. It is essentially the same old crap recycled over and over and over again. If you take the time to look at what passes as serious philosophical discourse among philosophers today it is this very arcane tradition of quoting philosophers that have quoted philosophers that have quoted philosophers at nauseum. They really end up saying nothing but "what he said".

The most astute philosopher that I know of (can't remember who it was) said that philosophy is art. Its truth and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have no problem with that. It is a kind of thought that people use to make themselves feel good. That is fine. In that case it is very much like religion. But just like religion philosophers appear to take themselves far more seriously than they should and gullible minds suffer for it just as in religion.

Starboy

[Dadoo]

StarBoy, shouldn't gullible minds suffer? That they shouldn't may be a philosophy of yours, extrapolated from the last sentence you typed. When a gullible mind learns, it opens up and will suffer less as it grows. The suffering, then is necessary to breed Mothering Principa to guide one through this journey.
A philosophy will bend and change as it needs to. It is up to the individual to see how a single Dominant Philosophy shapes all the many choices made every moment.
Changing philosophies breed changing behaviours and fresh experience.
We have no choice but to admit that everyone is a philosopher in this way and that most philosophers traditional are more likely playing with words, or practicers of Philogeny.. those tricky Knights of Philogia! I see you. *wink*

[Starboy]

From what I have seen all philosophy does to gullible minds is just suck them into it further. They are then able to spin elaborate works of art all the while convincing themselves that it is significant. It would be fine if they did all that but did not think that it was significant.

Starboy

[Dadoo]

StarBoy, are you sure, as they spin these elaborate works, that they truly ALL believe that what they say is significant?
You surely do, as your posts lead me to deduce.
What if the intended response matched yours? Would you feel gullible? Are You being sucked in to the fruitless debate concerning futile philosophies?
Yes, you will find as you grow that there are reasonable minds bearing reasonable, logical and well-intentioned designs upon which philosophy is built and which itself, is built upon the foundation of rational yet malleable philosophy.
To the rest- let them spin. Mistaken notions willn't harm nor tear reality apart, except of course, to the mistaken mind.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dadoo StarBoy, are you sure, as they spin these elaborate works, that they truly ALL believe that what they say is significant? You surely do, as your posts lead me to deduce. What if the intended response matched yours? Would you feel gullible? Are You being sucked in to the fruitless debate concerning futile philosophies? Yes, you will find as you grow that there are reasonable minds bearing reasonable, logical and well-intentioned designs upon which philosophy is built and which itself, is built upon the foundation of rational yet malleable philosophy. To the rest- let them spin. Mistaken notions willn't harm nor tear reality apart, except of course, to the mistaken mind.

Dadoo, I have already said that I don't have a problem with those that don't take themselves seriously. What is your point? Or are you trying to argue that there is no such thing as a philosopher that doesn't take themselves seriously? I gotta say that your post just seems pissy to me. Make up you mind, clarify your thougths and make a statement or a claim. Otherwise stop playing 'twist the words'.

Starboy

[rez]

I find it ironic that the first philosophers were actually scientists


some like wisdom, others love it - I guess wisdom is an opinion Starboy.

[Dadoo]

StarBoy,
Not pissy 'at all, bro.
Just sharing with you.
There are no statements to claim, no philosophy that is 'serious' nor arguments to create,
simply points of view. I won't bother you again.
I only worry about the trouble people have with other people's minds. That is the saddest thing on Earth. If I cannot be clear to you, I will direct future posts toward other guests.
I won't waste your time with idle chat, thanks for the head's up!
Dadoo

[Starboy]

Quote by: rez I find it ironic that the first philosophers were actually scientists

Me too. And then it went horribly wrong. It wasn't till about four hundred years ago that it started getting back on track. In order to do that a rouge group of people had to essentially ignore philosophy and the church and tell them all to take a hike. It continues to this day. It has to. Religion and philosophy are just too screwed up.

some like wisdom, others love it - I guess wisdom is an opinion Starboy.

Wisdom has always been an opinion, what made it science were methods to prefer one wisdom over another. Something philosophy lacks and religion will not allow.

Starboy

[patriot5]

Philosophy is the opinion that any person has at any given time; hopefully that philosophy is couched in a large amount of learning and discernment.

Persons freely state that for any given subject they have a philosophy but most of the time their alleged philosophy is limited to what little they may actually know about whatever the subject may be. Allegedly the great philosophers had studied behavior or psychology or even engineering and had arrived at conclusions utilizing both pragmatism and realistic data; the word for that form escapes me at the present time.

[Aequo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy is a good start.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy Come again? What questions does philosophy ask that is either a) useful

Is the act I just witnessed moral or immoral? Is the person I might be about to deal with someone who generally acts morally or not? It's real useful to know this. If you can't figure out why you're not too smart. Hint: the immoral/amoral person might not screw
you over, the moral person probably won't.

Quote by: Starboy b) or relevant if not useful c) or have much to do with they claim to talk about d) or that philosophers even bother to try to check against actual reality? In order for philosophy to claim to be "useful" then it must concern itself with what is real. After all if it only concerned itself with the unreal than why would it be "useful"? But since philosophy has no tradition at all for actually checking any of its "philosophies" against what is real then why would anyone think that philosophy has any importance to what is real and therefore useful at all.

Sure it has a way to check it's philosophies against what's real. It's called "logic".

Quote by: Starboy In fact if you talk to those that are paid to be philosophers and claim to be proficient in the philosophies and philosophers of the past and present the vast majority of them will tell you that a philosopher has no duty, responsibly, requirement or need to try to make sure that their philosophies have anything at all to do with reality.

I'm not sure if that's true but if so, so what? They're wrong.

Quote by: Starboy "It's not my job man." Their philosophies can be about something that has nothing at all to do with actual reality whatsoever. What I see happening is gullible minds reading this crap and then think it is important to reality and then acting on it. It does far more damage than good. You see if you put it to a philosopher until they squirm they will admit that within the discipline of philosophy there is no method to prefer one philosophy over another.

Only if the philosopher is deeply stupid.

Quote by: Starboy Which is why philosophy is this accretion of philosophies that go back two and a half millennia that are still taught today as legitimate philosophy. (As if nothing has changed since then on what we know about the universe) There really hasn't been any progress in the field since the very first philosophers. It is essentially the same old crap recycled over and over and over again. If you take the time to look at what passes as serious philosophical discourse among philosophers today it is this very arcane tradition of quoting philosophers that have quoted philosophers that have quoted philosophers at nauseum. They really end up saying nothing but "what he said".

That's not even close to true. Did St. Thomas Aquineas say "what he said" and point to Aristotle? No.

Quote by: Starboy The most astute philosopher that I know of (can't remember who it was) said that philosophy is art. Its truth and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have no problem with that. It is a kind of thought that people use to make themselves feel good. That is fine. In that case it is very much like religion. But just like religion philosophers appear to take themselves far more seriously than they should and gullible minds suffer for it just as in religion. Starboy

So your "most astute" philosopher couldn't give a definitive answer to whether killing to protect your child from a murderer is more moral than the murderer killing your child? Well I can. So obviously I'm more astute than him.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike Is the act I just witnessed moral or immoral? Is the person I might be about to deal with someone who generally acts morally or not? It's real useful to know this. If you can't figure out why you're not too smart. Hint: the immoral/amoral person might not screw you over, the moral person probably won't.

Fine then, name a philosopher that one should listen to in regards to morality?

Sure it has a way to check it's philosophies against what's real. It's called "logic".

And you think that I am not too smart? Logic is not a check against reality. At best all it can do is indicated if a given philosophy is self consistent with itself. That doesn't mean that the philosophy has anything at all to do with reality.

I'm not sure if that's true but if so, so what? They're wrong.

So dang funny. You have no idea if they do or don't. Apparently it is important to you that they do but it never occurred to you to see what they actually do to try to test their philosophies against actual reality.

Only if the philosopher is deeply stupid.

As far as I can tell they are all deeply stupid because in the field of philosophy they all are still being taught all the philosophies from over two millinia ago. It would be as if you were still studying the basic humors in a biology class. Science has moved on because it has methods to prefer one theory over another, but philosophy has not moved on because there is no such thing in philosophy.

That's not even close to true. Did St. Thomas Aquineas say "what he said" and point to Aristotle? No.

You are such a moron.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#A4

So your "most astute" philosopher couldn't give a definitive answer to whether killing to protect your child from a murderer is more moral than the murderer killing your child? Well I can. So obviously I'm more astute than him.

No argument from me. Philosophy is for idiots.

Starboy

[Livemike]

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike Is the act I just witnessed moral or immoral? Is the person I might be about to deal with someone who generally acts morally or not? It's real useful to know this. If you can't figure out why you're not too smart. Hint: the immoral/amoral person might not screw you over, the moral person probably won't. Fine then, name a philosopher that one should listen to in regards to morality?

Well let's see now, Ayn Rand (not all the time but she has some good points. Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards". is a must read, Objectivity and Truth by Ronald Dworkin http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/f...jectivity.html, and a piece whose authorship I'm not sure about but I think is by http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm James A. Donald. Oh and anything by Lysander Spooner is good.

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike Sure it has a way to check it's philosophies against what's real. It's called "logic". And you think that I am not too smart?

I didn't say that. I said you weren't that smart if you can't figure out why it's real useful to know if the person you might be about to deal with someone who generally acts morally or not. So tell me, can you figure out why that's important? It's not a hard question and if you can answer it you should be able to figure out why moral philosophy is important and what relation it has to reality.

Quote by: Starboy Logic is not a check against reality. At best all it can do is indicated if a given philosophy is self consistent with itself. That doesn't mean that the philosophy has anything at all to do with reality.

Which is one of the reasons why I recommend Ayn Rand (conditionally). She stresses the importance of the moral premise. If the philosophy is not consistent with moral axioms then it's wrong. If you can't figure out what the moral axioms are then that's probably not anyone else's fault.

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Starboy In fact if you talk to those that are paid to be philosophers and claim to be proficient in the philosophies and philosophers of the past and present the vast majority of them will tell you that a philosopher has no duty, responsibly, requirement or need to try to make sure that their philosophies have anything at all to do with reality. Quote by: Livemike I'm not sure if that's true but if so, so what? They're wrong. So dang funny. You have no idea if they do or don't. Apparently it is important to you that they do but it never occurred to you to see what they actually do to try to test their philosophies against actual reality.

It's not at all important to me what the majority of people paid to be philosophers and claiming to be proficient at it think. If it were any credible philosopher would point out that I'm committing a combination of the Argumentum ad numerum http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum and the Argumentum ad verecundiam http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism...html#authority. The fact is that some philosophers do check their conclusions against reality and others are crap.

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike Only if the philosopher is deeply stupid. As far as I can tell they are all deeply stupid because in the field of philosophy they all are still being taught all the philosophies from over two millinia ago. It would be as if you were still studying the basic humors in a biology class. Science has moved on because it has methods to prefer one theory over another, but philosophy has not moved on because there is no such thing in philosophy.

You're still being taught Newtonian physics aren't you? The humor theory of biology and medicine was rejected because it was wrong and dangerous. At least some of what the ancient philosophers wrote is not.

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike That's not even close to true. Did St. Thomas Aquineas say "what he said" and point to Aristotle? No. You are such a moron. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#A4

The link you give clearly states that St. Thomas Aquineas didn't say "What he said" and point to Aristotle. He used Aristotle, Plato and others to form a philosophy which wasn't just "What he said". So why claim I'm a moron for saying what your post proves right?

Quote by: Starboy Quote by: Livemike So your "most astute" philosopher couldn't give a definitive answer to whether killing to protect your child from a murderer is more moral than the murderer killing your child? Well I can. So obviously I'm more astute than him. No argument from me. Philosophy is for idiots.

Ok, so it's idiotic to know if a person acts moral or not? Great. So when you're deciding who to have run your financial affairs you won't find out if any of the applicants acted in ways that might be considered immoral? You know a certain kind of people and their money are soon parted.
BTW by admitting that I'm more astute than the philosopher you claim is "most astute" you implictly admit that my philosophy makes more sense than his. And since I based that claim on an instance that very much relates to reality you implictedly admit that moral arguments based on realitycan be valid. Yet you still cling to the idea that none of it relates to reality. Why?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Livemike Well let's see now, Ayn Rand (not all the time but she has some good points. Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards". is a must read, Objectivity and Truth by Ronald Dworkin http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/f...jectivity.html, and a piece whose authorship I'm not sure about but I think is by http://www.jim.com/moralfac.htm James A. Donald. Oh and anything by Lysander Spooner is good.

All I see here is a list of people that you like. So what? Why should their take on anything let alone morals be important? What criterion have you applied other than personal preference? It might as well be art.

I didn't say that. I said you weren't that smart if you can't figure out why it's real useful to know if the person you might be about to deal with someone who generally acts morally or not. So tell me, can you figure out why that's important? It's not a hard question and if you can answer it you should be able to figure out why moral philosophy is important and what relation it has to reality.

If you think that philosophy can help you make that distinction then you are the idiot. People who have actually studied human behavior would be the people that I would consult if I were concerned if someone would act appropriately. But let us say for the sake of argument that you are correct, in that philosophers are the fountain of knowledge in regards to proper behavior. It is not as if they all say the same things. What criterion should one use to prefer the teachings of one philosopher over another?

Which is one of the reasons why I recommend Ayn Rand (conditionally). She stresses the importance of the moral premise. If the philosophy is not consistent with moral axioms then it's wrong. If you can't figure out what the moral axioms are then that's probably not anyone else's fault.

The word “moral” is just another philosophy bullshit word, right in there with “truth”. One man’s morals are another mans sin. One man’s “truth” is another man’s lie. They are overused ambiguous terms that have come to mean nothing. If by morals you mean ‘how we should live and treat each other and everything else’ then why is Ayn Rand any better than any other philosopher other than because you just happen to like it. What will result from Rand’s take that would not be better accomplished by another philosophy and what makes you think the Rand’s take will accomplish anything that you would like at all? It is all just philosophical bullshit. The same as all other philosophical bullshit. There is no reason other then personal preference to think that anything Rand has to say is important at all.

It's not at all important to me what the majority of people paid to be philosophers and claiming to be proficient at it think. If it were any credible philosopher would point out that I'm committing a combination of the Argumentum ad numerum http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum and the Argumentum ad verecundiam http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism...html#authority. The fact is that some philosophers do check their conclusions against reality and others are crap.

The philosophers that do this cease to be philosophers. They then become scientists. But the tradition of philosophy is to eschew such practices. The mere fact that all the philosophy ever done is still all considered to be valid philosophy by philosophers should be more than enough indication that they have no method to prefer one philosophy over another and they have no method within the field to discredit and discard philosophies. The crap from 2,500 years ago is just as good as the crap that someone came up with last week.

BTW the people that post over at IIDB in the philosophy section are a bunch of wankers.

You're still being taught Newtonian physics aren't you? The humor theory of biology and medicine was rejected because it was wrong and dangerous. At least some of what the ancient philosophers wrote is not.

Sure. So what? Science is not about what is “true”. It is the human endeavor to honestly explore and explain reality. Newtonian physics is not taught because it is “true”, it is taught because it is useful. It can be shown to be useful. It is shown to be useful continuously. If something more useful comes along it will be discarded. Nobody in physics will tell you that Newtonian physics is the “truth” of motion. Nobody in physics will tell you that any theory of physics is the “truth” of anything. They just happen to be the best explanations to date. They can be shown to be the best explanations to date. That is how they become the best explanations to date. That is because science does have methods for preferring one explanation over another. But philosophers are more than willing to make “truth” claims all the time. Then they will deliberately confuse their “truth” claims with reality claims but will not require or even try to test those claims against actual reality. But they will still claim that what they say is “true”. Sorry, science is not about what is “true”. That would be philosophy.

The link you give clearly states that St. Thomas Aquineas didn't say "What he said" and point to Aristotle. He used Aristotle, Plato and others to form a philosophy which wasn't just "What he said". So why claim I'm a moron for saying what your post proves right?

Hey, you held up Aquineas as an example of a philosopher that didn’t play a game of “what he said”. You were wrong. Take your lumps. I bring it up to illustrate that because philosophy has no way to prefer one philosophy over another that philosophy is reduced to nothing more than a game of “what he said”. If there were other ways then philosophy could be introduced completely on its own merits because they could point to this other criterion as a basis for considering that particular philosophy as worth while. Just like in science. In science you can publish a paper that makes no reference to previous theories as long as you can present an experiment that everyone can reproduce to back up your claim. Hell you can even say in that paper that someone like Einstein appears to have gotten it all wrong. This can happen in science because it has something that philosophy will never have; an actual test against nature that is used to prefer one scientific explanation over another. Because philosophy lacks this all they have is “what he said”.

Ok, so it's idiotic to know if a person acts moral or not? Great. So when you're deciding who to have run your financial affairs you won't find out if any of the applicants acted in ways that might be considered immoral? You know a certain kind of people and their money are soon parted.

You seem to think that philosophy is the only method on the face of the earth that one can use to determine ‘what is the best way to relate to others and everything else around you’. It is not. There is science. It is chock full of useful information on behavior and its consequences. It is also a lot more useful in figuring out why people behave as they do and a hell of a lot more useful in figuring out what to do about it.

BTW by admitting that I'm more astute than the philosopher you claim is "most astute" you implictly admit that my philosophy makes more sense than his. And since I based that claim on an instance that very much relates to reality you implictedly admit that moral arguments based on realitycan be valid. Yet you still cling to the idea that none of it relates to reality. Why?

Not at all. You may think that all other philosophy except that which you espouse is nonsense. I agree with that and I also include the philosophy that you espouse.

Starboy