Philosophy is a study or questioning, of everything really,
and its only tool is logic and reason,
that I think is the definition of philosophy, Quoting tim wood
Philosophy is also the attempt to reason, and being open to reason. Where reason is rejected, unless on grounds of better reason, or ignored or dismissed out-of-hand, that is not philosophy. Indeed it is anti-philosophy and an enemy of philosophy, practitioners anti-philosophers and enemies of philosophy
My goodness! Snowflake philosophy!
To me Philosophy or better still Logic is honest human Description. It is Subjective. The word objective is a nonsense when used literally.
The problem I see is old dinosaurs pendants and dogmatists who appeal to Authority and "history" in lieu of Logic and those who get all whitney emotional when their beloved idols are smashed.
Reply to tim wood
I disagree, philosophy is not about reason and this fixation on reason causes people to misunderstand themselves. Your opinions, preferences, moral views, values, perspectives, your psychology, biology, emotions, desires and all that constitutes the lifeblood of your philosophical views are not ruled by reason. Reason is just a component of some of these things but people do not create philosophy with reason alone. And reason itself can be a characterisation defined by your individual preferences, for truth is a vector for logic to go in many different directions. Depending on how the truth is managed, perceived, what our goals are, what our identity is and the list goes on.
Philosophy is about developing an understanding of really any topic and then using that understanding for really any purpose. Any attempt to dictate how a topic should be understood or what that purpose should be is just more philosophy.
Deleted UserAugust 08, 2020 at 17:18#4411690 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I was made to believe that philosophy is, essentially, about areas where humanity is utterly unsure of itself - philosophers typically being the adventurous explorers in what is uncharted territory. Being so, it must be the norm rather than the exception to be lost in the wildnerness of new ideas and this state of being lost takes the form of what people, who've made a home for themselves in familiar, well-explored regions of the mind and the world, consider woo-woo or nonsense. @tim wood stop putting down real philisophers :chin:
Deleted UserAugust 08, 2020 at 17:32#4411760 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood Agreed but I appeal that philosphers be given some slack in what they do. You never know when a crazy idea can become a treasure trove of hidden wisdom.
Reply to tim wood
I dictate what is good-willed and what isn't, I dictate when reason is appropriate and when it isn't, reasonableness is what I say it is. My views, strong and robust, in my mind, won't be reviewed in that way by others. I am not validated by agreement or invalidated by disagreement. The way I see myself and my place in the world is reinforced by my actions, interpretations and understanding. You just have to accept that whenever you discuss something with someone, you don't know what you're getting yourself into, you barely even understand what they're talking about - whether you see it that way or not.
Deleted UserAugust 08, 2020 at 17:56#4411860 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I think a quick and general answer would be that philosophy is about the fundamental topics that lie at the core of all other fields of inquiry, broad topics like reality, morality, knowledge, justice, reason, beauty, the mind and the will, social institutions of education and governance, and perhaps above all meaning, both in the abstract linguistic sense, and in the practical sense of what is important in life and why.
But philosophy is far from the only field that inquires into any of those topics, and no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else.
Philosophy uses the tools of mathematics and the arts, logic and rhetoric, to do the job of creating the tools of the physical and ethical sciences. It is the bridge between the more abstract disciplines and the more practical ones: an inquiry stops being science and starts being philosophy when instead of using some methods that appeal to specific contingent experiences, it begins questioning and justifying the use of such methods in a more abstract way; and that activity in turn ceases to be philosophy and becomes art or math instead when that abstraction ceases to be concerned with figuring out how to practically answer questions about what is real or what is moral, but turns instead to the structure or presentation of the ideas themselves.
The characteristic activity of philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not the possession or exercise thereof. Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question.
I view philosophy in comparison to science. Science has a theory based off of a known phenomenon, and attempts to prove and disprove it. But science deals in the objectively defined. We knew that lightning existed. We just didn't know why it existed. That is the job of science.
Philosophy is the job of defining identities in the world on an objective level that can then be tested with science. It is to take what we simply use for granted, and analyze it to a point in which we are better able to understand it and use it. Knowledge for example. We have a general understanding of what knowledge is, but it is not an objective definition, or even known to be real. We are trying to define that which is undefined. If we are successful, then we discover a base definition of something that can then be tested.
The goal of philosophy is honestly to destroy itself. It is to take the ideas within all of us that we suspect or objective share conditions, and define them in such a way that they can be confirmed as such.
Deleted UserAugust 08, 2020 at 19:33#4412250 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
:rofl: No sense of irony or scientism.
Let these rabbits eat their strawman thistles and put on their lab coats complete with Idols for logic.
Appeals to authority!
But here also many who are not willing, those who just want to rant and are oblivious or hostile to argument or even sense. Those agenda-driven whose methods are mainly Prucrustean; Trumpian who insist their nonsense is sense and have zero interest in real sense;
...
Indeed. But I suppose that you find such people to be similarly closed to a clarification of philosophy or an appeal to common modes of conduct such as you've made? And so I was wondering, on the one hand, who this kind of clarification was aimed at and, on the other, how you tend to approach those who are such as you have described?
I'm just unsure what to make of this. I would not call any discussion that forgoes reason philosophical. Religious, perhaps; mystical, even. But not the child of Socrates.
And to use your analogy, it is a set of tools for dispassionately figuring out where you are
So a disembedding? That move from the "taken for granted" - the concrete and particular - towards an understanding in terms of the most abstract or general view. And the principal tool involved is dialectical argument.The discovery of the opposing limits of what could even be.
This includes the ignorant and the stupid - I plead guilty to both, ignorance all the time and occasional stupidity.
I don't see much of either in you, but I do see there are certain topics which just 'push your buttons'.
There are quite a few philosophically-literate posters here but it being a public forum there are inevitably ignoramuses and trolls also.
I regularly pledge to myself 'done with philosophy forums' but I find I need to come back. I do actually read philosophy and the subject interests me, although I see a lot of 20th century academic philosophy as a wasteland.
Philosophy is the job of defining identities in the world
on an objective level that can then be tested with science.
No, no, no. That is 'the instrumentalisation of reason'. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or better still, love~wisdom. It is open-ended and cannot be easily defined. Many of the Platonic dialogues are littered with aporia, unanswerable questions, and at least part of philosophy’s task is with the contemplation of such questions.
The goal of the original philosophers, according to Pierre Hadot, ‘was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing.’
I plead guilty to both, ignorance all the time and occasional stupidity. And these, ignorance and being stupid, our human condition, redeemed in the willingness to be corrected and the effort to learn. But here also many who are not willing, those who just want to rant and are oblivious or hostile to argument or even sense. Those agenda-driven whose methods are mainly Prucrustean; Trumpian who insist their nonsense is sense and have zero interest in real sense; woo-mongers interested in nothing but their own woo, impervious to reason. And those who do not understand, and aren't willing to.
Especially online, philosophy (or, rather, philosophizing) seems medicine for the healthy (i.e. dialectical ones) and poison for the unhealthy (i.e. dogmatic herd). I find the temptation to name names - TPF members - nearly erogenous ... :sweat:
Anyway, for what it's worth, my two drachmas:
Only the unwise seek - love - wisdom, or strive to flourish from understanding - contemplating - the variety of ways in which we are unwise (i.e. confused, perplexed, frustrated, oblivious, sleepwalking-through-our-lives aka "foolish") that is broadly designated ontology, axiology & epistemology (prioritized by whatever schema (metaphysics) is deemed most illustrative, or illuminating). For an unwise few this becomes a way of life (ethos) - aka "thinking" - which consists in both reflective inquiries (logos) and reflective practices (mythos).
Caveat: it's folly to contemplate this word salad (meta-mandala) and try to eat it too.
And the sense conditioned by the knowledge at the time, so when Thales says the world is made of water, or Heraclitus fire, these are appropriate for their respective times and purposes, and to be understood in their contexts.
The modern version of Heraclitus' fire, is the people who claim that the world is made of energy. Then there are those who claim it is all waves, which is similar to Thales' water, or the Pythagorean ether. It seems like history repeats itself. Isn't that what philosophy is, to observe the repetitions in history?
I meant to say philosophy is about more than just reason.
I agree, but reason is indispensable to it. The problem is that today, 'reason' is simply assumed to be 'scientific reason', and scientific reason, in turn, relies on a method which is chiefly concerned with facts that can be validated by empirical (i.e. sensory) observation. IN other words, only what can be quantized is taken seriously. Whereas classical philosophy asked why the world was rational, what is the nature of the order, which assumed a teleological view, that the world existed for a reason. But
[quote=Richard Dawkins]"Why we exist" - you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.[/quote]
What happened in the transition to modernity, was precisely the bracketing out of 'why' in any sense other than the instrumental. in other words, of Aristotle's 'four causes', only two were retained, namely the material and efficient cause. The very idea of being a 'final cause' - which is 'the reason for' - is part of what was lost in the transition from medieval cosmology. (Although it is interesting that in biology at least there is something of a revival of Aristotelianism.)
Reply to Wayfarer
I am not really sure, I think reason is reason even if it's not called reason. So, of course people still use reason outside of circumstances where empirical observation is applicable. Morality, politics and so on. No? Philosophy also, is philosophy, regardless of whether people call it by another name.
Reply to Judaka I'm saying modernity still relies on reason, but it often narrows its scope to what is measurable, what can be represented in scientific terms. Whereas in pre-modern times, the concept of 'reason' was much broader, and, we would now say, more mystical.
[quote=Wikipedia, entry on Reason]For many classical philosophers, nature was understood teleologically, meaning that every type of thing had a definitive purpose which fit within a natural order that was itself understood to have aims. Perhaps starting with Pythagoras or Heraclitus, the cosmos is even said to have reason. Reason, by this account, is not just one characteristic that humans happen to have, and that influences happiness amongst other characteristics. Reason was considered of higher stature than other characteristics of human nature, such as sociability, because it is something humans share with nature itself, linking an apparently immortal part of the human mind with the divine order of the cosmos itself. Within the human mind or soul (psyche), reason was described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over the other parts, such as spiritedness (thumos) and the passions. Aristotle, Plato's student, defined human beings as rational animals, emphasizing reason as a characteristic of human nature. He defined the highest human happiness or well being (eudaimonia) as a life which is lived consistently, excellently and completely in accordance with reason.[/quote]
I think it's safe to say that this conception of reason is considered outmoded (although it is defended by Catholic neo-thomist philosophers). But nowadays 'reason' is usually understood in terms an evolved adaptation or as somehome subjective in nature. Certainly the notion that the Universe is 'animated' by reason, or that reason is real in any objective sense, is disputed by many modern and post-modern philosophers.
One good contemporary book on this is Thomas Nagel's The Last Word.
Reply to Wayfarer
Most of that wiki is idealism, narratives which emphasise the preferences of those philosophers. Perhaps it is indispensable to a form of philosophy but not philosophy in general, such a view only excludes certain types of philosophies a status. Seems like you are just stating your preferences.
I disagree, philosophy is not about reason and this fixation on reason causes people to misunderstand themselves.
Philosophy is not only about reason, but it uses reason. What other tool can you use to investigate philosophical problems? Faith, desire, experiment, irrationality...?
The concept of philosophy is very vague but philosophy is not what you want. A rough method to understand what philosophy can be:
-Differentiate philosophy from other branches of thought. -Why is philosophy not science? Why is philosophy not religion? Why is philosophy not myth?
Some conclusions: Philosophy does not do experiments. Philosophy does not cling to dogmas or faith. Philosophy is not narrative.
- Come and see what philosophers do at the university. They debate on the basis of rational arguments. Whether you think they're good or bad, that's another issue.
First conclusion: Philosophy is based on reason and its main tool is the contrast of arguments. What kind of reason?
This is an important question, although it is not easy. It is important to get rid of a plethora of mystics and gurus who try to legitimize their irrationality by claiming to be philosophers. No, they are not.
Differentiate philosophy from other branches of thought. -Why is philosophy not science? Why is philosophy not religion? Why is philosophy not myth?
...no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else.
Philosophy is not Religion
The first line of demarcation is between philosophy and religion, which also claims to hold answers to all of those big questions. I would draw the demarcation between them along the line dividing faith and reason, with religions appealing to faith for their answers to these questions, and philosophies attempting to argue for them with reasons. While it is a contentious position within the field of philosophy to conclude that it is never warranted to appeal to faith, it is nevertheless generally accepted that philosophy as an activity characteristically differs from religion as an activity by not appealing to faith to support philosophical positions themselves, even if one of those positions should turn out to be that appeals to faith are sometimes acceptable. The very first philosopher recognized in western history, Thales, is noted for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world, instead practicing a primitive precursor to what would eventually become science, appealing to observable phenomena as evidence for his attempted explanations.
Philosophy is not Sophistry
Despite turning to argumentation to establish its answers, philosophy is not some relativistic endeavor wherein there are held to be no actually correct answers, only winning and losing arguments. While there are those within philosophy who contentiously advocate for relativism about various topics, philosophy as an activity is characteristically conducted in a manner seeking out answers that are genuinely correct, not merely seeking to win an argument. Though the historical accuracy is disputed, a founding story of the classical era of philosophy ushered in by Socrates, at least as recounted by his student Plato, is that philosophers like them were to be distinguished from the prevailing practitioners of reasoned argumentation of their time, the Sophists, who on Plato's account were precisely such relativists uninterested in genuine truth, only in winning. It is from that account that the contemporary use of the word "sophistry" derives, meaning wise-sounding but secretly manipulative or deceptive argumentation, aimed more at winning than at finding the truth. And whether or not the historical Sophists actually practiced such argumentation, philosophy since the time of Socrates has defined itself in opposition to that.
Philosophy is not Science
What we today call "science" was once considered a sub-field of philosophy, "natural philosophy". This had been the case for thousands of years since at least the time of Aristotle, such that even Issac Newton's seminal work on physics, often considered the capstone of the Scientific Revolution, was titled "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". But increasingly since then, what was once considered a sub-field of philosophy is now considered separate from it. What remains still as philosophy is demarcated from science in that while philosophy relies only upon reason or evidence to reach its conclusions, rather than appeals to faith, as an activity it does not appeal to empirical observation either, even though within philosophy one may conclude that empirical observation is the correct way to reach conclusions about reality. It is precisely when one transitions from using empirical observation to support some conclusion, to reasoning about why or whether something like empirical observation (or faith, or so on) is the correct thing to appeal to at all, that one transitions from doing science to doing philosophy.
Philosophy is not Ethics
One may be tempted to conclude that this means philosophy is entirely about prescriptive matters, rather than descriptive ones; that philosophy is all about using reason alone, without appeals to faith, to reach conclusions not about what is or isn't real, but about what one ought or ought not do, or broadly speaking, about morality. In other words, that philosophy is equivalent to the field of ethics. But as described just previously, philosophy does treat other topics concerning not just morality but also reality, at least the topics of how to go about an investigation of what is real. And while ethics is currently considered soundly within the field of philosophy, I contend that it properly should not be, for I hold that there are analogues to the physical sciences, what we might call the ethical sciences, that I consider to be outside the domain of philosophy, in that they appeal to specific, contingent hedonic experiences in the same way the physical sciences appeal to specific, contingent empirical experiences. I hold that philosophy bears the same kind of relation to both the physical and the ethical sciences, providing the justification for each to appeal to their respective kinds of a posteriori experiences, while never itself appealing to either of them, instead dealing entirely with a priori reasoning.
Philosophy is not Math
That in turn may raise the question of how philosophy is to be demarcated from mathematics, which also deals entirely with a priori logical reasoning without any appeal to a posteriori experience. Indeed in some ancient philosophy, such as that of Pythagoras, mathematics and philosophy bleed together in much the same way that what we now consider the separate field of science once did with philosophy as well. But today there is a clear distinction between them, in that while philosophy and mathematics share much in common in their application of logic, they differ in that mathematical proofs merely show that if certain axioms or definitions are taken as true, then certain conclusions follow, while philosophy both does that and asserts the truth of some axioms or definitions. So while mathematics says things of the form "if [premise] then [conclusion]", philosophy says things of the form "[premise], therefore [conclusion]". Mathematics explores the abstract relations of ideas to each other without concern for the applicability of any of those ideas to any more practical matters (although applications for them are nevertheless frequently found), but philosophy is directly concerned with the practical application of the abstractions it deals with. It is not enough to merely define axiomatically some concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, and validly expound upon the implications of that concept; it also matters if that is the correct, practically applicable concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, that is useful for the purposes to which we want to employ that concept.
Philosophy is not Art
Similarly, philosophy has many similarities to the arts, broadly construed as communicative works presented so as to evoke some reaction in some audience. Philosophy is likewise an evocative, more specifically persuasive, discipline, employing not just logic, as with mathematics above, but also rhetoric, to convince its audience to accept some ideas. But philosophy is not simply a genre of literature. Whereas works of literature, like all works of art, are not the kinds of things that are capable of being correct or incorrect, in the way that scientific theories are, but rather they are only effective or ineffective at evoking their intended reactions, with works of philosophy correctness matters. It is not enough that a philosophical theory be beautiful or intriguing; a philosopher aims for their theories to be right.
@A Seagull :up: Far too many think philosophy Is deferring to famous writers.
And on TPF deferring to "science".
Standards of proof and certain concepts have become so dogmatic as to render many discussions as basically appeals to authority.
This style relies on axioms which are not self evident!
I see the same dogmatism and pedantry as that of conservative religious discourse.
To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both.
Poets and novelists are much closer to philosophy than this linguistic sophistry.
Phenomenology plus linguistic Inferences is philosophy.
The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective.
Finally,we must recognise the prevalence of lying and political agendas in the majority of "classical" philosophers. It's like the idols are still dancing with their clay feet to their emotionally insecure devotees.
Most of TPF philosophy is emotional therapy for insecurity.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 14:06#4414250 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
@tim wood You mean strawman zone. Your favorite!
Solipsism! So your suggesting we both agree Independently? Then what happened to solipsism!
I know I'm replying to timmy wood a seperate Identity.
Solipsism refuted.
Pathological!? Wheres that diagnosis from wiki?
Anything that doesnt fit your opinion you get all emotional and irrational.
The irony is it's obvious to many you cannot discuss with
nuance or outside of your own prejudices.
I agree that comparing philosophy to science helps us get a better perspective on what philosophy is. Both are navigations of logic, where the goal strives towards sound and coherent logic. Here's something that differentiates the two:
Philosophy seems to place more value on introspection; understanding the knowledge that we already possess.
Science seems to place more value on discovery; the hope that newly-acquired knowledge will be more useful than the sum of our previous knowledge.
And yes, it is unfortunate when people think that this is a debate club. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can practice to become a lawyer. Some don't even go that far; they are content just to post their opinion and then walk away.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 14:42#4414400 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
@tim wood A Prejudice is an opinion based on deferral to Authority,
fear or incomplete knowledge.
The second term is obvious. All truth is subjective and inter subjective.
Now I'm sure you will run to a dictionary or some such deferral. And that proves my point!
Philosophy seems to place more value on introspection; understanding the knowledge that we already possess.
Science seems to place more value on discovery; the hope that newly-acquired knowledge will be more useful than the sum of our previous knowledge.
I like this demarcation. At the core of philosophy is an exploration of the human condition from within it, as seen from the very human perspective of a subject, a person, a self, a mind or whatever you want to call who we are. Whereas sciences look from the same perspective but explore the outside of us, objects in the world around us.
Of course sciences can also explore the mind, or human beings. This often creates overlaps and tends to blur the distinction (eg think of the similarities between political philosophy and political science).
But even in social sciences, scientists envisage human beings as objects of their attention, that can and must be observed through eg MRI, statistics, voting patterns, etc. to come at a correct or fitting interpretation of such objective patterns. While philosophers envisage human beings as subjective beings, and can thus deal with the stuff of human experience that is still inaccessible to scientific observation (doubts, remorse, intuition, etc) but accessible to all of us through introspection.
Reply to tim wood
All that is clear to me is that you don't understand what you're arguing against, there is no possibility of you accurately paraphrasing my opinion, which makes your opposition to it unreasonable.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 17:34#4414640 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
@Judaka A perfect illustration of what philosophy shouldnt be is mr @tim wood totally misunderstanding
what posters write or just ignoring anything that doesnt fall within a very narrow band of acceptable prejudices so he can try to lecture.
It seems folks cannot distinguish Innate philosophy from dry as dust academic platitudes.
Reply to tim wood
Tim wood, I have posted honestly and you have insulted, mocked and judged me unfavourably. You cannot reasonably disagree with my position if you do not understand it. It is simply proving my point that despite your behaviour here, you can see yourself in a positive light and me as a villain. What is trolling is defined by you, it includes your biases and your perspective, your experiences and your biology all play a role. To deny this and pretend like you are a being ruled by rational thought is simply delusional. You decide what is philosophy and what is not, you give status to your own views while degrading the views you disagree with and this is further showing how your philosophy (about philosophy in this case) is really far more complicated than you simply trying your best to be logical, fair and well-intentioned.
I think all of the problems I pointed out with your OP, you are showing are valid. Because you have framed philosophy as all of these great things, logical, rational, sensible, reasonable - you have created a perfect structure to demonise the views you dislike. It has become a personal weapon for you - which ignores your subjectivity and gives you a god-like status to give your judgement from a higher place.
To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both.
Totally agree. The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. Only when that is achieved can one seek to improve the world. Too often people go straight to morality and say 'you should do this, you shouldn't do that' without any clear understanding of what they are talking about.
The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective.
I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others.
@A Seagull Yep. This subjectivity is inter subjective in many cases as well. I do think ethics is Innate to some.
Morality seems more like authoritarian rules,something that tries to be imposed.
I like the practicalities aligning with ones Description! :up:
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 20:07#4415010 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 20:14#4415020 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
@tim wood Here's a man that doesnt understand clear english or subjectivity! Tbh,you are coming across as pretty dim now. Just strawmanning every post and being a pedant. Your lack of personal self awareness and knee jerk philosophical clicheism is telling.
Reply to tim wood
You disagree with me and then validate me, it is rather bizarre. You are simply mediocre, all you can do is angrily raise your fists at me and nothing else. To expect civility from me while you are throwing mud, it is a bit much. I can see based on how you are responding to others in this thread that this is what you like to do. Look at how you respond to people @A Seagull posted a fair opinion and you bring up Nazi Germany, it's disgraceful.
Nazi germany! I rest my case! Pure kneejerk clicheism with no nuance patience or attempt to understand the posters intent or analysis.
Let's be real. All truth/description is subjective/intersubjective. Doesnt mean all subjectivity is equal or agreed upon even accurate. Like a complete novice @tim wood
I see many of the sins of "philosophy" in this thread.
We just need some scientism and some political or religious propoganda and we can pin this thread for posterity. Maybe timmy will repent and see the error of his fallacies. :cool:
@Daniel What is the person "itself"! Some kantian abstraction!? Some ideas are an expression of a person.
Or do you want to preach to me anymore how I Express myself?
Reply to Asif I agree, some ideas are. But when an idea is expressed by a subject and received by another, and when it becomes the object of discussion/debate, the idea is not the subject who expresses it, nor does it belong to such subject alone. All I am saying is that in a philosophical discussion/debate, words should be directed to that shared idea which is under discussion and not to the person or people who expressed the idea.
@Daniel It depends on the context and the idea expressed. You can say all you want. I said sometimes.
You ignore the context and what I'm saying. I will conduct my responses as I wish. I dont need your hackneyed generalisms.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 22:02#4415430 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
@tim wood Total strawman.
Go read again. And how about asking for a clarification or asking how you have misunderstood my position.
Knee jerk could get no jerkier.
The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. — A SeagullAnd how might you do that? You take for granted your concepts, not realizing that at different times and places people have held different concepts on how the world works and what it is.
I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others. — A SeagullTo this, Nazi Germany.
Do you have a point? If so what is it?
Or if you have a non-rhetorical question, I might try to answer it.
PS It is well known in debating circles that the first person to brink up Nazi Germany is the loser.
Protagorus the most astute of all famous philosophers explained this common sense about reality some time ago...But the perversion of common sense by Plato and academic philosophy strawmanned Protagorus.
Subjectivity does not equate to relativity.
Some descriptions are better than others. Some are agreed upon. And some are inaccurate. Some are even holy lies and propoganda. How simple it is for those who trust their common sense and dont run in fear to the idolatry of the holy lies.
I've been on TPF and its predecessor for a middling long time, and it seems to me that we're awash at this time with an unusual number of posts from people who are confused about what philosophy is. This includes the ignorant and the stupid - I plead guilty to both, ignorance all the time and occasional stupidity. And these, ignorance and being stupid, our human condition, redeemed in the willingness to be corrected and the effort to learn. But here also many who are not willing, those who just want to rant and are oblivious or hostile to argument or even sense. Those agenda-driven whose methods are mainly Prucrustean; Trumpian who insist their nonsense is sense and have zero interest in real sense; woo-mongers interested in nothing but their own woo, impervious to reason. And those who do not understand, and aren't willing to. These appearing in every one of the main TPF categories.
My thoughts on the middle east is that it is one of the places on the planet where civilization "as we know it" first appeared. But middle-easterners have been fucking it up from day one to the present. I've met middle-easterners; I've known middle-easterners; and it seems to me that being one is just a disease of intellect and spirit.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 22:40#4415630 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 22:55#4415690 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to SophistiCat
He really is the definition of a bigot, a word which has used a lot where it shouldn't be but its apt here. That quote you've given is definitely one of the worst things I've read on the forum. Now reading his argument to @A Seagull it is so fallacious, rude and classless. The OP is literally about how philosophy is about being good-intentioned and reasonable, I'm once again left astonished by what I'm seeing from @tim wood.
Deleted UserAugust 09, 2020 at 23:13#4415770 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But has not also the middle east been the site of wars and oppression for nearly all time, and even as we speak, even while other places seem to try to evolve away from that? And my personal experiences with middle-easterners is my own; but one example, the acquaintance of mine, here to become an engineer, who explained that friendship notwithstanding, were there a jihad he'd have to kill me, my not being Muslim. What do you make of that? And I should like to think that in many ways, the west is more desirably progressive than the middle east.
To my way of thinking bigotry is an offense against thought, being an illegitimate substitute for it. So if I offended, point it out.
Here is an illegitimate substitute for thought: discrediting the being of an entire region of individuals (“being a middle-easterner” as “a disease of intellect and spirit”) by the expressed thoughts of one person (or even a handful) from that region. We all would like to think that we are “more desirably progressive” than others, but generalisations such as these are the definition of an offence against thought, I would imagine. As an example, it has come to my attention that the US has enjoyed just 16 years of peace since its inception, and no more than a day since 1970 - a case of the pot and kettle? More desirably progressive? Not in this way, it would seem.
I for one thought you were better than this, Tim.
Now, hopefully everyone can swallow their pride long enough to return to a meaningful discussion of the topic - which I was enjoying before it descended into accusations of inciting war and oppression....
The goal of the original philosophers, according to Pierre Hadot, ‘was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing.’
‘Combat’ here may be the wrong term - not to ignore, isolate or exclude, but to increase inter-subjective awareness, connection and collaboration with a diversity of evaluative beliefs in relation to passions, habits and upbringing, such that this ‘rational comprehension’ doesn’t limit itself to avoid uncertainty.
For me, philosophy is more about the questions than the answers, more about existence than humanity, and more about awareness than exclusion. But I do recognise that it takes both approaches to render philosophy productive as such. So I will continue to challenge ignorance, anthropocentrism and claims to certainty, and expect to be challenged myself on clarity, context and purpose.
The day that everyone agrees on ‘the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos’ is the day philosophy is obsolete.
Reply to Pfhorrest
In general, I agree.
I would change "Ethics" for "Morality".
The philosophy of morality is valid for me and is generally called "ethics".
It's true that there is some ambiguity in these names. That's why it's good to clear it up.
The day that everyone agrees on ‘the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos’ is the day philosophy is obsolete.
Does this mean that the essence of today's philosophy is free and rational debate? That's a good point... to start a philosophical debate.
The first point would be: What is rational?
(The day the history of philosophy ends, we can leave it for the moment. These things are usually simple provocations to debate and do not have much scope. You know what happened with Fukuyama and the end of history. What was left of him was taken away by the pandemic).
I'll take issue here. The request was for my thoughts, which I provided.
David Stove:Their intellectual temper is (as everyone remarks) the reverse of dogmatic, in fact pleasingly modest. They are quick to acknowledge that their own opinion, on any matter whatsoever, is only their opinion; and they will candidly tell you, too, the reason why it is only their opinion. This reason is, that it is their opinion.
@tim wood Your problem is you are way too fond of sweeping generalisations and unfounded assumptions and then when you cant understand a nuance you resort to your prejudicial generalisations even further.
You have enough in this small thread to identify your bad habits and inaccuracies.
Seriously,read back this thread carefully and honestly and you will see what is meant.
I'm all for banter and humour but your stuff is just strawman caricatures and misrepresentations.
What I find funny is your critique of subjectivity said with all your subjective fervour!!! I wouldn't mind but you seem unaware and unwilling to acknowledge your subjectivity.
Oh well,maybe platos subjective opinions will help you realise what subjectivity really is.
Does this mean that the essence of today's philosophy is free and rational debate? That's a good point... to start a philosophical debate.
The first point would be: What is rational?
Not debate: more dialectics. The aim is not for one side or another to win or be conclusive, but to arrive at a relatively shared sense of reality. To relate to, without subsuming, an alternative perspective of truth (as distinct from a statement of what is true) enables us to speculate on the limitations of our own perspective.
Often it is our rational process itself that is challenged in relation to inter-subjective experience, and we may currently have insufficient information between us to resolve it. As modern philosophers, I think we need to work with this uncertainty and be open to inter-subjective collaboration and speculation, rather than retreat into excluding uncertain information on the grounds of its subjectivity. ‘Someone must be essentially right’ inspires far less philosophical progress than ‘somewhere between our perspectives must exist the right answer’ - or at least the right question...
Unless your philosophy is open to adjustment, you’re not doing philosophy. It’s rational process in free play with imaginative speculation.
[quote=Thomas Paine]To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.[/quote]
Naming TPF names isn't really necessary, is it?
To Tim Wood only:
I agree with much of your assertions, but mostly I applaud the courage displayed by your effort. Because of the Nature of the situation, I have to question your wisdom. Because of the ever present malady of confusing a container for thing contained, you should have known what the responses would be like. Since nearly all responses here contain some element of that malady. A valid reason for you to present the assertion escapes me. I just would like to let you know that it did have value to me as a way to help relieve your suffering. Which is to say, in the common sense, I feel your pain!
Comments (91)
Philosophy is a study or questioning, of everything really,
and its only tool is logic and reason,
that I think is the definition of philosophy,
Quoting tim wood
isn't anti philosophy a philosophy in itself?
To me Philosophy or better still Logic is honest human Description. It is Subjective. The word objective is a nonsense when used literally.
The problem I see is old dinosaurs pendants and dogmatists who appeal to Authority and "history" in lieu of Logic and those who get all whitney emotional when their beloved idols are smashed.
I disagree, philosophy is not about reason and this fixation on reason causes people to misunderstand themselves. Your opinions, preferences, moral views, values, perspectives, your psychology, biology, emotions, desires and all that constitutes the lifeblood of your philosophical views are not ruled by reason. Reason is just a component of some of these things but people do not create philosophy with reason alone. And reason itself can be a characterisation defined by your individual preferences, for truth is a vector for logic to go in many different directions. Depending on how the truth is managed, perceived, what our goals are, what our identity is and the list goes on.
Philosophy is about developing an understanding of really any topic and then using that understanding for really any purpose. Any attempt to dictate how a topic should be understood or what that purpose should be is just more philosophy.
I dictate what is good-willed and what isn't, I dictate when reason is appropriate and when it isn't, reasonableness is what I say it is. My views, strong and robust, in my mind, won't be reviewed in that way by others. I am not validated by agreement or invalidated by disagreement. The way I see myself and my place in the world is reinforced by my actions, interpretations and understanding. You just have to accept that whenever you discuss something with someone, you don't know what you're getting yourself into, you barely even understand what they're talking about - whether you see it that way or not.
But philosophy is far from the only field that inquires into any of those topics, and no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else.
Philosophy uses the tools of mathematics and the arts, logic and rhetoric, to do the job of creating the tools of the physical and ethical sciences. It is the bridge between the more abstract disciplines and the more practical ones: an inquiry stops being science and starts being philosophy when instead of using some methods that appeal to specific contingent experiences, it begins questioning and justifying the use of such methods in a more abstract way; and that activity in turn ceases to be philosophy and becomes art or math instead when that abstraction ceases to be concerned with figuring out how to practically answer questions about what is real or what is moral, but turns instead to the structure or presentation of the ideas themselves.
The characteristic activity of philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not the possession or exercise thereof. Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question.
Philosophy is the job of defining identities in the world on an objective level that can then be tested with science. It is to take what we simply use for granted, and analyze it to a point in which we are better able to understand it and use it. Knowledge for example. We have a general understanding of what knowledge is, but it is not an objective definition, or even known to be real. We are trying to define that which is undefined. If we are successful, then we discover a base definition of something that can then be tested.
The goal of philosophy is honestly to destroy itself. It is to take the ideas within all of us that we suspect or objective share conditions, and define them in such a way that they can be confirmed as such.
Let these rabbits eat their strawman thistles and put on their lab coats complete with Idols for logic.
Appeals to authority!
Quoting tim wood...
Indeed. But I suppose that you find such people to be similarly closed to a clarification of philosophy or an appeal to common modes of conduct such as you've made? And so I was wondering, on the one hand, who this kind of clarification was aimed at and, on the other, how you tend to approach those who are such as you have described?
That'll be why, then.
What?
If you reject reason, understanding becomes a much easier.
Are you saying you read what I wrote as "I reject reason"?
I think it may be useful for this topic to look at what philosophy is not.
Here are some suggestions:
Philosophy is not the devotional following of what philosophers past have declared to be philosophy, whether they be Plato, Aristotle or Kant.
It is not what has been written about philosophy.
It is not about playing with words to arrive at some banal (or absurd) conclusion. e.g. A is B, B s C, therefore A is C.
It is not about creating some fictional world that has but little relevance to the real world.
What kind of situation requires me to choose between the two?
A philosophical one, perhaps?
Quoting Judaka
I'm just unsure what to make of this. I would not call any discussion that forgoes reason philosophical. Religious, perhaps; mystical, even. But not the child of Socrates.
So a disembedding? That move from the "taken for granted" - the concrete and particular - towards an understanding in terms of the most abstract or general view. And the principal tool involved is dialectical argument.The discovery of the opposing limits of what could even be.
I don't think there's any situation that requires me to choose between the two.
I did say that philosophy is not about reason when I meant to say philosophy is about more than just reason. I'll take responsibility for that.
I don't see much of either in you, but I do see there are certain topics which just 'push your buttons'.
There are quite a few philosophically-literate posters here but it being a public forum there are inevitably ignoramuses and trolls also.
I regularly pledge to myself 'done with philosophy forums' but I find I need to come back. I do actually read philosophy and the subject interests me, although I see a lot of 20th century academic philosophy as a wasteland.
Quoting Philosophim
No, no, no. That is 'the instrumentalisation of reason'. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or better still, love~wisdom. It is open-ended and cannot be easily defined. Many of the Platonic dialogues are littered with aporia, unanswerable questions, and at least part of philosophy’s task is with the contemplation of such questions.
The goal of the original philosophers, according to Pierre Hadot, ‘was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing.’
Quoting Judaka
:up:
Quoting tim wood
Especially online, philosophy (or, rather, philosophizing) seems medicine for the healthy (i.e. dialectical ones) and poison for the unhealthy (i.e. dogmatic herd). I find the temptation to name names - TPF members - nearly erogenous ... :sweat:
Anyway, for what it's worth, my two drachmas:
Only the unwise seek - love - wisdom, or strive to flourish from understanding - contemplating - the variety of ways in which we are unwise (i.e. confused, perplexed, frustrated, oblivious, sleepwalking-through-our-lives aka "foolish") that is broadly designated ontology, axiology & epistemology (prioritized by whatever schema (metaphysics) is deemed most illustrative, or illuminating). For an unwise few this becomes a way of life (ethos) - aka "thinking" - which consists in both reflective inquiries (logos) and reflective practices (mythos).
Caveat: it's folly to contemplate this word salad (meta-mandala) and try to eat it too.
:death: :flower:
Philosophy (of a certain time and kind): the means by which reason curbs its own enthusiasm.
Kantian, but still ... :up:
The modern version of Heraclitus' fire, is the people who claim that the world is made of energy. Then there are those who claim it is all waves, which is similar to Thales' water, or the Pythagorean ether. It seems like history repeats itself. Isn't that what philosophy is, to observe the repetitions in history?
I side with Schopenhauer (pace Nietzsche) against this emphatically Hegelian nostrum.
I agree, but reason is indispensable to it. The problem is that today, 'reason' is simply assumed to be 'scientific reason', and scientific reason, in turn, relies on a method which is chiefly concerned with facts that can be validated by empirical (i.e. sensory) observation. IN other words, only what can be quantized is taken seriously. Whereas classical philosophy asked why the world was rational, what is the nature of the order, which assumed a teleological view, that the world existed for a reason. But
[quote=Richard Dawkins]"Why we exist" - you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.[/quote]
What happened in the transition to modernity, was precisely the bracketing out of 'why' in any sense other than the instrumental. in other words, of Aristotle's 'four causes', only two were retained, namely the material and efficient cause. The very idea of being a 'final cause' - which is 'the reason for' - is part of what was lost in the transition from medieval cosmology. (Although it is interesting that in biology at least there is something of a revival of Aristotelianism.)
I am not really sure, I think reason is reason even if it's not called reason. So, of course people still use reason outside of circumstances where empirical observation is applicable. Morality, politics and so on. No? Philosophy also, is philosophy, regardless of whether people call it by another name.
[quote=Wikipedia, entry on Reason]For many classical philosophers, nature was understood teleologically, meaning that every type of thing had a definitive purpose which fit within a natural order that was itself understood to have aims. Perhaps starting with Pythagoras or Heraclitus, the cosmos is even said to have reason. Reason, by this account, is not just one characteristic that humans happen to have, and that influences happiness amongst other characteristics. Reason was considered of higher stature than other characteristics of human nature, such as sociability, because it is something humans share with nature itself, linking an apparently immortal part of the human mind with the divine order of the cosmos itself. Within the human mind or soul (psyche), reason was described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over the other parts, such as spiritedness (thumos) and the passions. Aristotle, Plato's student, defined human beings as rational animals, emphasizing reason as a characteristic of human nature. He defined the highest human happiness or well being (eudaimonia) as a life which is lived consistently, excellently and completely in accordance with reason.[/quote]
I think it's safe to say that this conception of reason is considered outmoded (although it is defended by Catholic neo-thomist philosophers). But nowadays 'reason' is usually understood in terms an evolved adaptation or as somehome subjective in nature. Certainly the notion that the Universe is 'animated' by reason, or that reason is real in any objective sense, is disputed by many modern and post-modern philosophers.
One good contemporary book on this is Thomas Nagel's The Last Word.
Most of that wiki is idealism, narratives which emphasise the preferences of those philosophers. Perhaps it is indispensable to a form of philosophy but not philosophy in general, such a view only excludes certain types of philosophies a status. Seems like you are just stating your preferences.
No, I think I'm saying something about the subject. A lot of people here just make stuff up, you're free to do that of course.
Philosophy is not only about reason, but it uses reason. What other tool can you use to investigate philosophical problems? Faith, desire, experiment, irrationality...?
The concept of philosophy is very vague but philosophy is not what you want. A rough method to understand what philosophy can be:
-Differentiate philosophy from other branches of thought. -Why is philosophy not science? Why is philosophy not religion? Why is philosophy not myth?
Some conclusions: Philosophy does not do experiments. Philosophy does not cling to dogmas or faith. Philosophy is not narrative.
- Come and see what philosophers do at the university. They debate on the basis of rational arguments. Whether you think they're good or bad, that's another issue.
First conclusion: Philosophy is based on reason and its main tool is the contrast of arguments. What kind of reason?
This is an important question, although it is not easy. It is important to get rid of a plethora of mystics and gurus who try to legitimize their irrationality by claiming to be philosophers. No, they are not.
...no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else.
Philosophy is not Religion
The first line of demarcation is between philosophy and religion, which also claims to hold answers to all of those big questions. I would draw the demarcation between them along the line dividing faith and reason, with religions appealing to faith for their answers to these questions, and philosophies attempting to argue for them with reasons. While it is a contentious position within the field of philosophy to conclude that it is never warranted to appeal to faith, it is nevertheless generally accepted that philosophy as an activity characteristically differs from religion as an activity by not appealing to faith to support philosophical positions themselves, even if one of those positions should turn out to be that appeals to faith are sometimes acceptable. The very first philosopher recognized in western history, Thales, is noted for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world, instead practicing a primitive precursor to what would eventually become science, appealing to observable phenomena as evidence for his attempted explanations.
Philosophy is not Sophistry
Despite turning to argumentation to establish its answers, philosophy is not some relativistic endeavor wherein there are held to be no actually correct answers, only winning and losing arguments. While there are those within philosophy who contentiously advocate for relativism about various topics, philosophy as an activity is characteristically conducted in a manner seeking out answers that are genuinely correct, not merely seeking to win an argument. Though the historical accuracy is disputed, a founding story of the classical era of philosophy ushered in by Socrates, at least as recounted by his student Plato, is that philosophers like them were to be distinguished from the prevailing practitioners of reasoned argumentation of their time, the Sophists, who on Plato's account were precisely such relativists uninterested in genuine truth, only in winning. It is from that account that the contemporary use of the word "sophistry" derives, meaning wise-sounding but secretly manipulative or deceptive argumentation, aimed more at winning than at finding the truth. And whether or not the historical Sophists actually practiced such argumentation, philosophy since the time of Socrates has defined itself in opposition to that.
Philosophy is not Science
What we today call "science" was once considered a sub-field of philosophy, "natural philosophy". This had been the case for thousands of years since at least the time of Aristotle, such that even Issac Newton's seminal work on physics, often considered the capstone of the Scientific Revolution, was titled "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". But increasingly since then, what was once considered a sub-field of philosophy is now considered separate from it. What remains still as philosophy is demarcated from science in that while philosophy relies only upon reason or evidence to reach its conclusions, rather than appeals to faith, as an activity it does not appeal to empirical observation either, even though within philosophy one may conclude that empirical observation is the correct way to reach conclusions about reality. It is precisely when one transitions from using empirical observation to support some conclusion, to reasoning about why or whether something like empirical observation (or faith, or so on) is the correct thing to appeal to at all, that one transitions from doing science to doing philosophy.
Philosophy is not Ethics
One may be tempted to conclude that this means philosophy is entirely about prescriptive matters, rather than descriptive ones; that philosophy is all about using reason alone, without appeals to faith, to reach conclusions not about what is or isn't real, but about what one ought or ought not do, or broadly speaking, about morality. In other words, that philosophy is equivalent to the field of ethics. But as described just previously, philosophy does treat other topics concerning not just morality but also reality, at least the topics of how to go about an investigation of what is real. And while ethics is currently considered soundly within the field of philosophy, I contend that it properly should not be, for I hold that there are analogues to the physical sciences, what we might call the ethical sciences, that I consider to be outside the domain of philosophy, in that they appeal to specific, contingent hedonic experiences in the same way the physical sciences appeal to specific, contingent empirical experiences. I hold that philosophy bears the same kind of relation to both the physical and the ethical sciences, providing the justification for each to appeal to their respective kinds of a posteriori experiences, while never itself appealing to either of them, instead dealing entirely with a priori reasoning.
Philosophy is not Math
That in turn may raise the question of how philosophy is to be demarcated from mathematics, which also deals entirely with a priori logical reasoning without any appeal to a posteriori experience. Indeed in some ancient philosophy, such as that of Pythagoras, mathematics and philosophy bleed together in much the same way that what we now consider the separate field of science once did with philosophy as well. But today there is a clear distinction between them, in that while philosophy and mathematics share much in common in their application of logic, they differ in that mathematical proofs merely show that if certain axioms or definitions are taken as true, then certain conclusions follow, while philosophy both does that and asserts the truth of some axioms or definitions. So while mathematics says things of the form "if [premise] then [conclusion]", philosophy says things of the form "[premise], therefore [conclusion]". Mathematics explores the abstract relations of ideas to each other without concern for the applicability of any of those ideas to any more practical matters (although applications for them are nevertheless frequently found), but philosophy is directly concerned with the practical application of the abstractions it deals with. It is not enough to merely define axiomatically some concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, and validly expound upon the implications of that concept; it also matters if that is the correct, practically applicable concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, that is useful for the purposes to which we want to employ that concept.
Philosophy is not Art
Similarly, philosophy has many similarities to the arts, broadly construed as communicative works presented so as to evoke some reaction in some audience. Philosophy is likewise an evocative, more specifically persuasive, discipline, employing not just logic, as with mathematics above, but also rhetoric, to convince its audience to accept some ideas. But philosophy is not simply a genre of literature. Whereas works of literature, like all works of art, are not the kinds of things that are capable of being correct or incorrect, in the way that scientific theories are, but rather they are only effective or ineffective at evoking their intended reactions, with works of philosophy correctness matters. It is not enough that a philosophical theory be beautiful or intriguing; a philosopher aims for their theories to be right.
And on TPF deferring to "science".
Standards of proof and certain concepts have become so dogmatic as to render many discussions as basically appeals to authority.
This style relies on axioms which are not self evident!
I see the same dogmatism and pedantry as that of conservative religious discourse.
To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both.
Poets and novelists are much closer to philosophy than this linguistic sophistry.
Phenomenology plus linguistic Inferences is philosophy.
The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective.
Finally,we must recognise the prevalence of lying and political agendas in the majority of "classical" philosophers. It's like the idols are still dancing with their clay feet to their emotionally insecure devotees.
Most of TPF philosophy is emotional therapy for insecurity.
Solipsism! So your suggesting we both agree Independently? Then what happened to solipsism!
I know I'm replying to timmy wood a seperate Identity.
Solipsism refuted.
Pathological!? Wheres that diagnosis from wiki?
Anything that doesnt fit your opinion you get all emotional and irrational.
The irony is it's obvious to many you cannot discuss with
nuance or outside of your own prejudices.
And yes, it is unfortunate when people think that this is a debate club. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can practice to become a lawyer. Some don't even go that far; they are content just to post their opinion and then walk away.
fear or incomplete knowledge.
The second term is obvious. All truth is subjective and inter subjective.
Now I'm sure you will run to a dictionary or some such deferral. And that proves my point!
I like this demarcation. At the core of philosophy is an exploration of the human condition from within it, as seen from the very human perspective of a subject, a person, a self, a mind or whatever you want to call who we are. Whereas sciences look from the same perspective but explore the outside of us, objects in the world around us.
Of course sciences can also explore the mind, or human beings. This often creates overlaps and tends to blur the distinction (eg think of the similarities between political philosophy and political science).
But even in social sciences, scientists envisage human beings as objects of their attention, that can and must be observed through eg MRI, statistics, voting patterns, etc. to come at a correct or fitting interpretation of such objective patterns. While philosophers envisage human beings as subjective beings, and can thus deal with the stuff of human experience that is still inaccessible to scientific observation (doubts, remorse, intuition, etc) but accessible to all of us through introspection.
All that is clear to me is that you don't understand what you're arguing against, there is no possibility of you accurately paraphrasing my opinion, which makes your opposition to it unreasonable.
What do you think I am trying to say there? Do not ask for clarification, that question comes before judgement not after.
what posters write or just ignoring anything that doesnt fall within a very narrow band of acceptable prejudices so he can try to lecture.
It seems folks cannot distinguish Innate philosophy from dry as dust academic platitudes.
Tim wood, I have posted honestly and you have insulted, mocked and judged me unfavourably. You cannot reasonably disagree with my position if you do not understand it. It is simply proving my point that despite your behaviour here, you can see yourself in a positive light and me as a villain. What is trolling is defined by you, it includes your biases and your perspective, your experiences and your biology all play a role. To deny this and pretend like you are a being ruled by rational thought is simply delusional. You decide what is philosophy and what is not, you give status to your own views while degrading the views you disagree with and this is further showing how your philosophy (about philosophy in this case) is really far more complicated than you simply trying your best to be logical, fair and well-intentioned.
I think all of the problems I pointed out with your OP, you are showing are valid. Because you have framed philosophy as all of these great things, logical, rational, sensible, reasonable - you have created a perfect structure to demonise the views you dislike. It has become a personal weapon for you - which ignores your subjectivity and gives you a god-like status to give your judgement from a higher place.
Totally agree. The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. Only when that is achieved can one seek to improve the world. Too often people go straight to morality and say 'you should do this, you shouldn't do that' without any clear understanding of what they are talking about.
Quoting Asif
I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others.
Morality seems more like authoritarian rules,something that tries to be imposed.
I like the practicalities aligning with ones Description! :up:
You disagree with me and then validate me, it is rather bizarre. You are simply mediocre, all you can do is angrily raise your fists at me and nothing else. To expect civility from me while you are throwing mud, it is a bit much. I can see based on how you are responding to others in this thread that this is what you like to do. Look at how you respond to people @A Seagull posted a fair opinion and you bring up Nazi Germany, it's disgraceful.
Let's be real. All truth/description is subjective/intersubjective. Doesnt mean all subjectivity is equal or agreed upon even accurate. Like a complete novice @tim wood
We just need some scientism and some political or religious propoganda and we can pin this thread for posterity. Maybe timmy will repent and see the error of his fallacies. :cool:
Go back to sleep.
Wow! As I said before the snowflake preachy philosophy is well represented. You get a cupcake for your wise cliche.
Or do you want to preach to me anymore how I Express myself?
You ignore the context and what I'm saying. I will conduct my responses as I wish. I dont need your hackneyed generalisms.
Go read again. And how about asking for a clarification or asking how you have misunderstood my position.
Knee jerk could get no jerkier.
Do you have a point? If so what is it?
Or if you have a non-rhetorical question, I might try to answer it.
PS It is well known in debating circles that the first person to brink up Nazi Germany is the loser.
Subjectivity does not equate to relativity.
Some descriptions are better than others. Some are agreed upon. And some are inaccurate. Some are even holy lies and propoganda. How simple it is for those who trust their common sense and dont run in fear to the idolatry of the holy lies.
And then there are the bigots...
Quoting tim wood
He really is the definition of a bigot, a word which has used a lot where it shouldn't be but its apt here. That quote you've given is definitely one of the worst things I've read on the forum. Now reading his argument to @A Seagull it is so fallacious, rude and classless. The OP is literally about how philosophy is about being good-intentioned and reasonable, I'm once again left astonished by what I'm seeing from @tim wood.
Quoting tim wood
Here is an illegitimate substitute for thought: discrediting the being of an entire region of individuals (“being a middle-easterner” as “a disease of intellect and spirit”) by the expressed thoughts of one person (or even a handful) from that region. We all would like to think that we are “more desirably progressive” than others, but generalisations such as these are the definition of an offence against thought, I would imagine. As an example, it has come to my attention that the US has enjoyed just 16 years of peace since its inception, and no more than a day since 1970 - a case of the pot and kettle? More desirably progressive? Not in this way, it would seem.
I for one thought you were better than this, Tim.
Now, hopefully everyone can swallow their pride long enough to return to a meaningful discussion of the topic - which I was enjoying before it descended into accusations of inciting war and oppression....
Quoting Wayfarer
‘Combat’ here may be the wrong term - not to ignore, isolate or exclude, but to increase inter-subjective awareness, connection and collaboration with a diversity of evaluative beliefs in relation to passions, habits and upbringing, such that this ‘rational comprehension’ doesn’t limit itself to avoid uncertainty.
For me, philosophy is more about the questions than the answers, more about existence than humanity, and more about awareness than exclusion. But I do recognise that it takes both approaches to render philosophy productive as such. So I will continue to challenge ignorance, anthropocentrism and claims to certainty, and expect to be challenged myself on clarity, context and purpose.
The day that everyone agrees on ‘the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos’ is the day philosophy is obsolete.
In general, I agree.
I would change "Ethics" for "Morality".
The philosophy of morality is valid for me and is generally called "ethics".
It's true that there is some ambiguity in these names. That's why it's good to clear it up.
Does this mean that the essence of today's philosophy is free and rational debate? That's a good point... to start a philosophical debate.
The first point would be: What is rational?
(The day the history of philosophy ends, we can leave it for the moment. These things are usually simple provocations to debate and do not have much scope. You know what happened with Fukuyama and the end of history. What was left of him was taken away by the pandemic).
You have enough in this small thread to identify your bad habits and inaccuracies.
Seriously,read back this thread carefully and honestly and you will see what is meant.
I'm all for banter and humour but your stuff is just strawman caricatures and misrepresentations.
What I find funny is your critique of subjectivity said with all your subjective fervour!!! I wouldn't mind but you seem unaware and unwilling to acknowledge your subjectivity.
Oh well,maybe platos subjective opinions will help you realise what subjectivity really is.
Not debate: more dialectics. The aim is not for one side or another to win or be conclusive, but to arrive at a relatively shared sense of reality. To relate to, without subsuming, an alternative perspective of truth (as distinct from a statement of what is true) enables us to speculate on the limitations of our own perspective.
Often it is our rational process itself that is challenged in relation to inter-subjective experience, and we may currently have insufficient information between us to resolve it. As modern philosophers, I think we need to work with this uncertainty and be open to inter-subjective collaboration and speculation, rather than retreat into excluding uncertain information on the grounds of its subjectivity. ‘Someone must be essentially right’ inspires far less philosophical progress than ‘somewhere between our perspectives must exist the right answer’ - or at least the right question...
Unless your philosophy is open to adjustment, you’re not doing philosophy. It’s rational process in free play with imaginative speculation.
Naming TPF names isn't really necessary, is it?
Guilty, I know. But shameless, I think.
I agree with much of your assertions, but mostly I applaud the courage displayed by your effort. Because of the Nature of the situation, I have to question your wisdom. Because of the ever present malady of confusing a container for thing contained, you should have known what the responses would be like. Since nearly all responses here contain some element of that malady. A valid reason for you to present the assertion escapes me. I just would like to let you know that it did have value to me as a way to help relieve your suffering. Which is to say, in the common sense, I feel your pain!