What can't you philosophize about?
I was just googling types of philosophy and found out that philosophy covers a lot; From ethics to environmental philosophy, there's a ton of material. Heck, you can even philosophize about philosophizing. My question is concerning the domain of philosophy. As the title of this OP says: What can't you philosophize about? Is there something so mundane that there simply no application for philosophy? Perhaps you can't philosophize about eating porridge.
I can already see you responding to my OP by demanding what I mean by philosophizing. I'll preemptively respond to that demand by saying, I don't know exactly what it means to philosophize. I need your help. I leave it to you to first figure out what it means to philosophize, and then you can please answer my first question (see title). I hope this goes well.
I can already see you responding to my OP by demanding what I mean by philosophizing. I'll preemptively respond to that demand by saying, I don't know exactly what it means to philosophize. I need your help. I leave it to you to first figure out what it means to philosophize, and then you can please answer my first question (see title). I hope this goes well.
Comments (113)
God's feet! I'll have to read that tomorrow.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history
Every scientist is using philosophy for establishing empirical data. The scientific method IS philosophy.
In what way? Obviously you don’t mean the two are synonymous, but Im not sure what else you could mean.
The scientific method is a philosophical approach to getting knowledge about the physical world that presupposes the laws of logic, naturalism, and uniformity of nature.
Are naturalism and uniformity of nature the domain of philosophy? Isnt anything philosophy then?
You can philosophize about anything and everything. There are things which may be too trivial to want to philosophize about.
No. A bowl of porridge is not philosophy. But you can philosophize about it.
Lol, fair enough. I should have been more specific.
So: isnt all things involving thinking philosophy then? If that is so, why are you specifying science?
I think philosophy is any kind of serious inquiry and analysis. Not all thoughts are philosophy. "I'm hungry" or "I forgot to schedule my annual dental appointment" are not philosophical thoughts.
I'm specifying science because PossibleAaran said that it wasn't philosophy.
OR
If you can't philosophize about it, it's ineffable, or inaccessible in the first place, hence the titular cannot possibly answered.
Well those two things require logic and analysis, but I take your point. It seems a strange way to phrase it to me. Isnt science based on philosophy, rather than is philosophy? Science can be a part of philosophy, ie there is a philosophy to science, just like there is a philosophy to baseball, or the movie The Matrix but those things are not philosophy. Or would you say they are?
Yes, I think science is a sub-discipline of philosophy. I think it's (almost?) entirely philosophical though in way that baseball is not. Science seeks to understand the world, gain knowledge, explain things, create new things... that's all philosophical. Baseball seeks to entertain. You can philosophize about entertainment, but entertaining is not a kind of philosophizing.
Science is more than just theory though, its physical experimentation. Even if the scientific method is philosophy in the way you describe that doesnt mean science is philosophy in the same way.
Also, science can entertain. Indeed, most entertainment has a basis in science these days. Does that mean entertainment is science?
Philosophy entertains me all the time. But that's not it's purpose.
Non-theoretical science is applied philosophy. Philosophy in action.
Ok, so what is the benifit of using the term philosophy in such broad terms? Whats the usefulness of doing so if you have to operate within catagorical parameters in order to work and think in these “sub-catagories” of philosophy anyway?
Usefulness? I was thinking that's just the way it is. Like, what's the use of calling all green, red, and yellow apples fruit? It's just the way it is.
But I guess you could glean some use of the classification:
1) It serves as a reminder to those who pooh-pooh philosophy that it's not all "how many angels fit on the head of a pin."
2) It serves to encourage scientists and the like to study more "traditional" philosophy, which would definitely improve their work.
3) It encourages them to collaborate with more "traditional" philosophers, which just benefits everyone.
What do you think?
There are plenty of things that are not philosophy, but that wasn’t the question. You can philosophise about science, but science is not philosophy, nor is it a branch of philosophy. Science requires a certain amount of philosophising as a rule, but like baseball, there’s not much point in philosophising about it unless at some point you act on it: test the theory, apply it to a ‘controlled’ sample of subjective experiences and look for the holes, errors and inconsistencies.
I think the only things you can’t philosophise about are whatever you would consider to be a sure certainty in life. If you have no questions about it, or would rather not know what you don’t know, then there is no way for you to apply philosophy to it.
Of course, there are many of us here who choose to just keep philosophising, almost as a reason not to act - like we’ve taken the structure apart to explore how it all works, but lost interest in putting it back together and getting it working again.
And there are others who’d rather just drive the car until a red light comes up on the dash, and then take it to a mechanic...
Well Im always open to better uses of a word if it serves better. I guess we disagree that the way you are defining philosophy is the standard way. It seems broader than the usual use of the word.
I also don’t put a lot of stock into “traditional” philosophy, if we are using that term the same way.
Critical thinking seems pretty universally useful, but I wouldnt say thats something only under the perview of philosophy.
Yes that's true, but collecting empirical data is to establish that the earth is round or that man evolved from prior species is not doing Philosophy. It is doing science grounded on philosophical assumptions.
You might distinguish between Philosophy in the wide sense and Philosophy in the narrow sense. In the wide sense, absolutely every enquiry into anything is Philosophy, since it will always presuppose philosophical assumptions. But Philosophy in the narrow sense is directly about the assumptions of ordinary life and enquiry. It isn't using them as a basis for empirical work, but examining them directly.
PA
Well, you're doing it right here! :razz:
Ah, and how do you distinguish those two things?
Fun fact, the "division" between philosophers and scientists is a historically relatively new development. Back in ye olden days, they were considered one and the same thing. That's literally why it's called a PhD!
Yes, I know. The distinction is a useful one.
Quoting NKBJ
Between Philosophy in the wide sense and Philosophy in the narrow sense? Philosophy in the wide sense is any form of enquiry or rational thought into anything. Philosophy in the narrow sense is the sort of thing you see in contemporary philosophy articles. Because the distinction arose, as you point out, in a quite organic way historically, it isn't possible to draw the lines very sharply. What ends up in Philosophy (in the narrow sense) is largely a mish-mash of topics that (a) have not been taken on by other accepted forms of enquiry, (b) do not have a largely agreed upon method for their resolution, (c) are discussed by the great philosophers of previous eras without firm resolution, (d) seem to be relevant in the assessment of other philosophical issues (e) continue some project carved out for philosophy by past thinkers, or any combination of these things. These things are often assumptions of other discourses, but, on reflection, I see that they are not always. It is quite easy to list examples of things which fall into these categories and things which don't. "Does God exist?" falls in, "Did Caesar cross the Rubicon?" doesn't. There are of course boundary cases and things which seem not to fit neatly into either/or, but the distinction is useful all the same.
In the wide sense you can philosophize about anything. In the narrow sense, only certain subjects count. There isn't any deep reason why. It's just what's left over when you start with the whole range of enquiry and take away anything which has branched into a new discipline with its own identity.
PA
Yeah, I can see that.
Quoting PossibleAaran
That's just like saying biology is not science because it has it's own identity...
PA
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
PA
You say the sciences are not sub-disciplines of philosophy. (Something about a narrow versus broad sense?) I say they are.
I agree with you that if you define Philosophy in the way ancient philosophers did, and even early-moderns did, it includes the sciences.
Is there something you disagree with in this?
PA
The philosophy department through which I got my degree frequently did dual courses, sometimes even taught by two professors.
And my philosophy professors were the ones to point out that science is just a form of natural or applied philosophy.
So did mine, but they were dual; Philosophy [I]and[/I] Psychology in my case. Philosophy [I]and[/I] History for a friend of mine. These subjects were not listed as part of the Philosophy department, nor are they so listed in most universities, so far as I know.
Quoting NKBJ
Yes and they are right, by the ancient/early-modern definition of Philosophy. But that doesn't change the fact that those who call themselves academic philosophers don't do experiments with chemical compounds or microorganisms, nor gene studies nor look in to the daily lives of the old Romans. And those who do those experiments and studies don't call themselves philosophers anymore (though they used to). They call themselves scientists or historians. Philosophers study certain topics by profession, and not others.
PA
Some will no doubt disagree with this, but I think, going back to the beginning with Socrates, philosophy, or at least good philosophy, is ultimately about how to live well. And to find answers to that question, it uses language in a particular way, by utilizing logic and formulating arguments.
So then to answer the first question, one would have to look for things that don't lend them especially well to be analysed with language and reasoned arguments. And I'd suggest you'll find those there where other forms of communication and expression that rely more on rhythm and sound, like music and poetry, are typically more succesfull.
Sigh. And we're right back where we started. Again, let's just agree to disagree. I'd prefer not to repeat myself ad infinitum.
We want these experiences that make other questions mute.
The rest is a festival of disappointment.
My own claim was that if you look at the actual practices of people who call themselves "philosophers", very few of them do anything like studies of microorganisms, genes, planets or the like. If you skim the IEP you won't find any entries discussing how different animals reproduce. A simple scan here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/a/
Will reveal no topics normally falling under "natural science". And if you look in journals like "The Journal of Philosophy" or "Philosophy and Phenomenological Research", you won't find any studies of that kind either. If you go to most university websites and look up what is taught on their Philosophy programme, you won't find modules about plant biology. I went to the Birmingham University website and took a look at the Philosophy department. The intro to the subject says:
"Have you ever considered the difference between knowing something and merely believing it? Have you ever worried about how to tell right from wrong, or even considered that there may be no such things? Perhaps you’ve even asked yourself how it is that words and sentences have meaning - how this printed material is conveying information to you? Come to Birmingham to study Philosophy and develop the analytical skills required to address these issues" -https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/ptr/departments/philosophy/undergraduate/index.aspx
Note that it doesn't pose any natural scientific question and that these subjects are taught in a different department. They also have a list of their research projects in the department, and none of it is what would normally be called "natural science": https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/ptr/departments/philosophy/research/index.aspx
The same would be true of almost every Philosophy department, and that is why I say that Philosophy is the study of certain topics and not others. I merely describe what is practiced under the heading "Philosophy" as an academic discipline.
Do you deny these things? If you don't I'm not sure that we disagree, or what you mean to say.
PA
If your point only is that academia has disciplines labeled "philosophy" and "biology," then yeah, that's true.
My point is, that this is like the word "cat." We may commonly understand "cat" to be our little purring fur-angels (I like my cat, if you couldn't tell :P) but "tiger" and "leopard" and "lynx" are also kinds of cats, even though they are in some ways classified differently from house cats.
Thinking about it, however, I've been reconsidering my stance on the mere data-gathering parts of science. Those particular activities may not be very philosophical, but biology only matters and is able to do or say anything meaningful by subsequently philosophizing about that data. It's a central part of the discipline.
Science is a tool - a remarkable and very powerful tool (within its area of applicability) - that grew out of several related schools of philosophy. It grew up and left home a long time ago, and has since established its own identity. Not that this actually matters. :wink: Considered thinking uses (should use) all applicable/useful tools to achieve its aims. Science is one such tool; its parent (philosophy) is another.
It's all fun! :up:
PA
My response: the infinite.
No, the good philosopher will tell you those things, because he doesn't disregard what can be known through history and science. What can be known, and what is known, is part of philosophy. Philosophy is extremely broad.
I strongly disagree with the attempt to spin philosophy as something which must look remarkably different. It isn't all evil demons and the like.
It seems foolish to even attempt to answer the title question. What can't you philosophise about? Nothing. Except even [i]that[/I] can be philosophised about.
PA
Philosophy covers metaphysics and epistemology, which in turn covers what history and science cover.
And yes, I deliberately ignored defining "philosophy".
PA
That's the thing: you don't have to ask that. Are you, or are you not, capable of identifying questions covered by each branch of philosophy? Yes, you are.
If I took you to a room with a blue vase and a red vase, you would be capable of identifying them without me having to define terms.
PA
You shouldn't capitalise the first letter of the word "philosophy". It's ungrammatical.
And why would you dispute what seems so obvious? That metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy; that metaphysics deals with reality and what's the case; that epistemology deals with what can be known, and what is known; and that history and science are subcategories of that?
I'm not disputing that philosophy, as you define it, includes metaphysics and epistemology and then science and history as subcategories. There is no fact of the matter about that "is" and "isn't" philosophy. It just depends how you define the word, which is why I asked you how you define it.
What I don't understand, however, is why you want to define philosophy in this way. If philosophy, as you define it, pnly involves metaphysics and epistemology, then you miss out ethics and aesthetics, which are standardly taught on philosophy courses, and researched by people who call themselves philosophers. Your definition also includes research in history and science. Most people who identify as philosophers do not do this sort of work, and most people who do this sort of work don't identify as philosophers. These are only fatal flaws in your definition if you care about actual practice, but if the definition serves some other purpose than capturing actual practice, all well and good.
PA
Is it, or is it not, the case that history and science make claims of the sort that fall under the broader category of branches of philosophy such as metaphysics and epistemology, in spite of belonging to the more specific category of history or science? Is the claim that Earth orbits the Sun not a claim about reality or what's the case? Is the claim that we know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon not a claim falling under the broad category of epistemology?
You can have that definition if you want, but it's simply not a complete one. It would be like someone insisting that "cat" only ever refers to "house cat."
Yes, it's true. Scientists make claims about how the world is, and according to some philosophers, that's what metaphysics studies. But there are many different ways that philosophers have defined metaphysics and so no reason to stick with any particular definition so far as I can see.
But even if philosophers had always in the past defined "metaphysics" as the study of reality and listed it as a branch of philosophy, I don't understand what reason there is for sticking with this definition now. I don't see the point in defining philosophy in such a way that it includes topics which are simply not investigated by anyone who identifies as doing philosophy and explicitly called something other than philosophy by most people. Am I missing something?
Quoting NKBJ
What could be meant by "complete"? Why is yours "complete"? It isn't like there is some shiny platonic form of philosophy and you only correctly define philosophy when you correctly describe the form. "Philosophy" is just a word and we choose to define it however we wish. So is the word "cat". It is useful to the biologist to have the word "feline" for all members of a certain family of animals. It is useful for most ordinary folk to have the word "cat" just for particular creatures that walk around their neighbourhoods. The word "feline" is not "more complete" than the word "cat". There are purposes where having "cat" mean just "house cat" is far more useful than having it refer to the entire feline family, and vice versa.
PA
To me its love for knowledge and that you can philosophize the heck out of anything that you want to be knowledge-full about it....
And there are better and worse ways to define things. If I define "philosophy" as "tree" that's a really bad definition. If I leave out from the definition of "tree" all conifers, that's a really bad definition. Your definition simply does not cover all that philosophy is. You're leaving out all the "conifers" because you want to limit it to only what is "deciduous."
Nicely put. :up: :smile:
I don't think your analogy here is really apt. If I left out conifers in defining "tree" I would be leaving out things which it is very useful to include under the general term, "tree". What I leave out in my definition is only what (a) most people outside of philosophy don't call philosophy, and (b) is not practiced by most people who identify as philosophers. So I'm not leaving out anything that it is useful to include, so far as I see. Is there any utility to including science in the definition of "philosophy"? If not, why bother?
Also, you made another appeal to "what philosophy is", which again suggests that there is some fixed thing, the form of philosophy.
PA
Reducing philosophy to just academia is pretty useless. IMHO
Like reducing chemistry to just academia would be just as useless.
Thank you :smile:
PA
Those would be a group of pretty whiny/thin-skinned scientists. "Whaaaaa, people call me something absolutely benign that I kind of maybe possibly don't necessarily want to be called, whaaaaa. My life is RUINED. RUINED I tell you!!!!"
PA
I found some discussions among scientists and philosophers here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_science_a_part_of_or_separate_from_philosophy
and here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection
and here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory
Some of whom almost agree with you, some of whom agree with me, some of whom are somewhere in the middle. THESE scientists, at least, are not annoyed but rather intrigued by the (philosophical) question of whether science is a form of philosophy. Most agree that philosophy is part of the job of a good scientist.
PA
Yes, you seem to be missing that this actually harms the reputation of a serious academic subject, and those who partake in it, without good reason. It would exclude good philosophy from philosophy. Good philosophy incorporates history and science.
Yes, nicely put.
:smile:
I don't suppose much hangs on what we call these things anyway. But it is contrary to common practice to call "the earth is round" a piece of philosophy, and I don't see for what purpose you want to do so.
PA
Except that is a metaphysical claim.
Agreed. That it is also likely scientific doesn't mean that it isn't philosophical, and more specifically, metaphysical, as though the two categories were mutually exclusive. If we didn't include such claims, then there wouldn't be much good philosophy. It would be full of the evil demon stuff which gives philosophy a bad name.
Do you simply mean that you would like to use the word "philosophy" to describe statements like "the earth is round"? If so, I don't have any real objection to your doing so. I just won't be doing so. If you are suggesting, more strongly, that we [I]should[/I] use the word "philosophy" to describe statements like "the earth is round", then I don't see any reason why we [I]should[/I] do it. Pointing out that "the earth is round" is a "metaphysical claim" just begs the question in this context, since no one who denied that "the earth is round" is a philosophical claim would accept that it was a metaphysical claim.
PA
So there is reason to call it a metaphysical claim, irrespective of your own views on the matter, and irrespective of your own decision about whether or not to call it a metaphysical claim. And that it's a metaphysical claim implies that it's a philosophical claim.
But there is no reason to infer from this that we should only use the word "philosophy" in that way, and that anyone who uses it another way must be wrong - which seems at least to be the attitude you take in disputing my own definition of "philosophy".
PA
I'm doing the same thing that you're doing, which is arguing semantics in favour of one stance over the other.
You're just trying to mischaracterise me and make yourself out to be more open-minded, it seems.
The branch of philosophy called metaphysics deals primarily with two questions:
1. What is there?
2. What is it like?
"The earth is round" answers those:
1. There is an earth.
2. It is round.
I've sat in many a philosophy class where the roundness of the earth was discussed at length.
I don't suppose there is any such thing as "the correct" definition of philosophy. There are more and less useful definitions for different purposes. For the purposes of answering the OP, I offered a definition which seems to accurately describe the current state of academic philosophy. Given that, I concluded that there are certain topics which may be philosophized about and some which may not be. I never meant to suggest that a definition with roots in ancient philosophy is "mistaken". You can, of course, also define philosophy in the way you do and conclude that almost everything may be philosophized about. I don't think there is any disagreement at all between us here unless you assume that there must be a "correct" definition of philosophy about which we are disagreeing.
PA
I don't think that that's saying anything particularly complicated or unclear. No need to turn a molehill into a mountain.
A stance on what? If you mean something like a stance on "the nature of philosophy" or "what philosophy is", I don't think there is any fact of the matter. If you mean a stance on "the correct definition of philosophy", again, I don't think there is any such thing as "the correct" definition. So if your stance is that the correct definition of philosophy is the ancient one, then I disagree in the sense that I reject your assumption that there is a "correct" definition [I]at all[/I].
I am, consequently, not trying to argue semantics at all. I am trying to point out that there is nothing to argue about.
PA
Wikipedia's definition of metaphysics is inaccurate. Also, you can't determine either of those two things by sitting around thinking about them "in an abstract and fully general manner". I would define metaphysics as "what lazy affluent men mused and mistook as intellect when practical or reasonable modes of thought were beyond their reach".
PA
"In short, Metaphysics of Science is that part of metaphysics that enquires into the existence, nature, and interrelations of general kinds of phenomena that figure most prominently in science. Also, Metaphysics of Science grants the sciences authority in their categorization of the world and in their empirical findings."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/met-scie/ (emphasis mine).
That's just the more wordy version of the Wikipedia entry.
And there's that performative contradiction.
Quoting PossibleAaran
You've been arguing with yourself on that point, not with me.
Quoting PossibleAaran
I think that your focus on this particular wording has been pedantic and largely a waste of both of our time. It hasn't made any real difference. We disagree over what's more useful, as you would put it.
Alright, well what is useful about including science and history in a definition of philosophy? Perhaps there is some purpose that I don't see.
For my part, a definition which excludes science and history allows one to give an accurate description of academic philosophy, and that may well be needed to explain to non-philosophers what it is that an academic philosopher spends his time doing.
PA
I've explained this already. It is useful for salvaging the already damaged reputation of philosophy as excessively focussed on stuff of little substance or bearing on the world, and I dispute your claim about accuracy, because I am categorising these statements accurately in accordance with the appropriate branches of philosophy which they fall under, and doing this doesn't mean that they can't be distinguished from history or science, as they retain their own more specific identities. Philosophy is just a broader category which relates to, and subsumes, other academic subjects, such as those mentioned.
The two definitions are completely different. Metaphysics is lazy musing and science is active seeking. This second definition admittedly abandons all the leg work to real intellectuals, while the first definition relies entirely on imagination.
You don't think philosophers are "real intellectuals"?
I think that "real intellect" is independent from the subjective nonsense that "philosophers" tend to haplessly toss into their pedantic sermons.
Wow. Well, if you have such a nasty opinion of philosophy and philosophers, I have no clue what you're doing here.
I do know that it means you are biased in such a way as to make it unsavory for me to further converse with you.
I just told you that "real intellect" is an exercise in unbiased thought, and you retort that I'm biased and therefore unworthy. My comments have nothing to do with my opinion of a person or their character and everything to do with the integrity of their ideas. If someone is making claims based on emotion or personal experience, then they're not using intellect. How is that a "nasty opinion"?
I stand by my conviction that you're just biased and not worth talking to--possibly just trolling this forum.
You haven't yet provided a reasonable foundation for claiming that I'm biased. My suggestion that unbiased dialogue is intellectual and biased dialogue is emotional: how is this biased? Also, it's fickle to cry "troll" whenever you don't agree with or understand something.
It's a sign of bias to constantly tell other people they don't understand things when they simply don't like your attitude.
Attitude and soundness of reason are not interchangeable, neither is bias interchangeable with either of them. Which is it, do you think I'm biased, or do you think I have a poor attitude, or do you think my commentary lacks soundness of reason?
I don't constantly tell people they don't understand things, that's just blatantly false. Not everyone dislikes my attitude, also false. Bias is not interchangeable with criticism neither does telling people they don't understand something equate to bias.
My implication that you don't understand what I'm saying isn't based on bias but on the lack of quality of your responses and the lack of comprehension they exhibit. It's a rational conclusion based on the information available to me.
If you're human, you're biased. Your only sources of information are non-objective. So you put beliefs where you have no certainty. As we all do. So you're biased, as we all are.
"Real intellect" is an avoidance of this human tendency toward bias. If a person can't consider data objectively, then they have no business pretending to be philosophically or scientifically minded.
Bias is irrational and avoidable.
Clouds That Glitter
The scientific method is defective in that it should impose a final step to justify itself by coming up with the possible practical value of what it discovers. For example, if physicists had been forced to justify themselves, the neutrino might have been used as a GPS Geiger counter to map all the resources of the Earth down to its core.
Instead, philosophy from its very beginning has been just mind candy for useless theorists. So, the way philosophy has been engaged in, it excludes the necessity to connect it to desirable activity in the real world.
Also forbidden by philosophy is discovering and condemning the source of its contempt for practical value and common use by the despised plebeians. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty; the hereditary ruling class gives its unearned prestige to such wandering and pointless mental masturbation. That taints all the higher arts of this high and mighty lowlife. Its hub, the university, is an obsolete aristocratic institution designed specifically to please spoiled and decadent teenagers who live off an allowance.
Nerdy Runaways
Science should visit its home and be told by its parent that it is doing things wrong. This is in line with the idea that "War is too important to leave to the generals" and "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient."
Climatologists might be told by their philosopher parent that if they were real scientists they'd be doing things like how to seed clouds, propose a pipeline to bring the glacial melt down to cure droughts, even replace trees with a far more effective converter of carbon dioxide, etc., instead of negatively criticizing the aftereffects left by the inventions of creative scientists (real scientists, according to this definition).
Marine scientists wouldn't be real scientists, either, until they quit being merely descriptive scientists. The same with classifiers; it is dishonest to point out how their classifications, such as the periodic table, became tools for creative scientists, because the originators themselves should have been the ones to immediately start putting a classification to practical use instead of wallowing in its sterile neatness.
Likewise, we shouldn't trust philosophers to tell us what belongs in philosophy. For example it is congenitally joined with the university, which is work without pay for its students, but no professor would
allow philosophizing about the fact that his whole isolated world is based on class-biased indentured servitude and his own apprenticeship indicated a teenager who was afraid to grow up.
The Ivory Tower Is an Elevated Dungeon
Professors have as little to do with being intelligent as sportswriters have to do with being athletic.
Ah, well if YOU say so, then it must be true.
Those Who Can, Do. Those Who Can't, Teach. Those Who Can't Teach, Preach
Funny, that's what I always say about your mindless mentors.
You got a whole lotta quips and a serious lack of arguments/proof/evidence.
By “accurate” I mean that my definition describes the actual practices of those who call themselves “philosophers”.
Quoting S
Fair enough. I agree.
PA
For the most part. And therein lies the semantic game of philosophy. We’re stuck with our subjective view and aware of our ‘capacity’ for misinterpretation. There is then the question of how best to avoid such misguided views, and if we cannot completely - which we cannot - then we better make the most of it.
Also, Damasio showed rather convincingly (via neuroscience) that “emotions” are required for “rational” thought.
I prefer “philology” over “philosophy”. Love of learning is my game NOT simply love of wisdom; which comes attached to a sense of universal morality I find a little self-defeating!
Saying that emotions are required for rational thought seems misleading. Emotions are sort of "omnipresent" in human thought. This doesn't necessarily mean that they're required for rational thought as much as that they're required in general and so happen to accompany thought, rational or irrational. In practice, it seems that emotion has a drastic impact on rational discourse. Also, much of our communication is either ingrained or rehearsed in the brain long before it's written or spoken. It seems as though we reach for previously catalogued ideas on certain emotion cues, but if I was going to entertain the notion that emotion "assists" rationalization in any way, I'd have to see the details of such a study.
Whirled Wad of Wub
I've read that pathetic and dishonest self-justification many times on this copycat medium.
What justification? I haven't offered one. You're the one making weird unsubstantiated claims.