The purpose of philosophy

[aegis]

What is the purpose of philosophy? What is its scope, what questions can philosophy be expected to answer?

[Steve Weiss]

What is the purpose of philosophy? What is its scope, what questions can philosophy be expected to answer?

The purpose of philosophy is to act as a guide for man's choices and actions. In order to know what one should do, one must determine what kind of a creature man is and how one acquires valid knowledge. Without an explicit philosophy, consistent, life affirming thoughts and actions are left to chance and the arbitrary. Most simply put, philosophy seeks to answer the questions: "What is (what exists: metaphysics), how does one know (epistemology), and so what (what does that mean for man)?"

Everyone functions according to an implicit philosophy because man does not function according to instincts. The role of philosophy is to make the implicit explicit and to integrate all of one's the ideas into a consistent whole according to the laws of non-contradictory identification (logic).

[andrewpkyap]

What is the purpose of philosophy? What is its scope, what questions can philosophy be expected to answer?It is to answer the question... who and what am I doing in... and what place is this? :cool:

[kennethamy]

What is the purpose of philosophy? What is its scope, what questions can philosophy be expected to answer?

There is philosophy as it is ordinary thought of by most people, and then there is academic philosophy in which philosophers discuss and try to solve philosophical problems. Which have you in mind?

[Garrett]

Meaning and Content of the term "Philosophy" (http://www.gatewayforindia.com/articles/philosophy/philos2.htm),
Greek words philos and Sophia mean respectively ‘love of ‘and ‘Wisdom’ and thus the term philosophy primarily means ‘love of wisdom’ in daily action. Pythagoras first coined the term. According to him, men and women of the world could be classified into 3 groups: 1. those that love pleasure 2. those that love activity and 3. those that love wisdom. In his perspective, the end of wisdom is progress and perfection or salvation in terms of religious understanding. It can be noted here that his division of people into 3 classes corresponds to the 3 qualities(Gunas) of Nature that constitutes them, viz. Tamas, Rajas and Sattwa. The comparison is only to show that root ideas of wise men are always the same and similar to the Universal Ancient Wisdom Religion, the source of all.

Socrates claims that the purpose of philosophy is to enable the gain of self-knowledge, through conceptual clarity.

Plato views that the discovery of reality or absolute truth, through dialectic, is the purpose of philosophy.

It was Aristotle who suggested that the study of philosophy began with the notice of ‘awe and wonder’ around and ‘investigation of the causes and principles of things’ is the object. Totality of human knowledge tends to become philosophy.

Hegasias, a Cyrenaic philosopher, felt that the endeavor of philosophy is to suggest ways and means of avoiding ‘pain’ in life.

It was Neo-platonists that suggested the purpose of philosophy to become one with the Divine.

For Descartes, philosophy is the elucidation of ultimate truth. It starts with pushing skepticism to its limit, when certainty of one’s own existence is revealed.

Locke believed that philosophy provides an analysis of ideas stocked in our mind and the unpacking of those.

Simon felt the purpose of philosophy is to bring about harmony to the world.

Hegel said philosophy presents the absolute truth in absolute form.

Classification and interpretation of the experience of humanity is the purpose of philosophy, according to Cousin.

Spencer believes philosophy to be a synthetic discipline and is held together by universal principles. He observed Evolution to be a basic idea for this unity. For Bergson philosophy is basically an intuitive disciple,

while Whitehead felt it should develop through imaginative generalization a categorical scheme applicable to all experience.

_____

The Modern Humanist (http://www.modernhumanist.com/?p=64) says that Philosophy is the only discipline whose purpose is thinking and teaching thinking.
_____

Philosophy by definition is the "love of wisdom".
_____

I think the purpose of philosophy is to learn about our world, by learning how to reason about our experiences.

[kennethamy]

Philosophy by definition is the "love of wisdom".
_____



The etymology, not the definition. The etymology of "lunatic" is someone who is influenced by the moon. That is not the definition of "lunatic".

[Garrett]

philosophy (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=philosophy&gwp=13):

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

[naturalist.atheist]

I think the purpose of philosophy is to learn about our world, by learning how to reason about our experiences.

You would have a point if the history of philosophy revealed a group of people as obsesses about gathering those experiences as they were reasoning about them. But all I see is a bunch of people more interested in reasoning about their presumptions of reality than any actual interest in learning about reality.

If they had such an interest they would be scientists, not philosophers.

[Hamlet]

And it begins.

Philosophy vs. Science - Round 10.

[kennethamy]

philosophy (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=philosophy&gwp=13):

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

I know. Lots of people confuse etymology with definition, especially in the case of the term, "philosophy". I pointed that out in the post you are replying to.

[Garrett]

Science is a branch of philosophy.

Scientism self-refutes.

[Garrett]

naturalist.atheist
But all I see is a bunch of people more interested in reasoning about their presumptions of reality than any actual interest in learning about reality.
I'm sympathetic to your point. For an example, the philosophical debate over the nature of knowledge (essentially affirming or denying that knowledge is "justified true belief") benefits when it is realized that mental events (such as "knowing") implicate neurological events.

Everyone has presumptions. Philosophy helps us recognize and expose them to the light of reason.

If they had such an interest they would be scientists, not philosophers.
Not true. Moral decisions, for example, are not derived using the scientific methods.

[naturalist.atheist]

Science is a branch of philosophy.

Scientism self-refutes.

Only in the minds of philosophers. But you will not see many scientists taking courses in the philosophy departments. And you will not see many philosophers taking courses in the science department. A long time ago they were related but that time is long gone.

Now of course philosophers are very fond of subsuming and accreting anything that they think should be philosophy. And that is fine but I have no idea why they would think that their choices were at all important to anyone else.

Philosophy just never seems to advance unless some other human knowledge tradition advances.

Go figure.

At best philosophy is the library science of thoughts. It is when philosophers think of themselves as more than librarians but as content providers is when they run amok. And they run amok all the time.

[naturalist.atheist]

I'm sympathetic to your point. For an example, the philosophical debate over the nature of knowledge (essentially affirming or denying that knowledge is "justified true belief") benefits when it is realized that mental events (such as "knowing") implicate neurological events.

Everyone has presumptions. Philosophy helps us recognize and expose them to the light of reason.

You have got to be kidding me! Philosophy just gets in the way. Philosophy has no mechanism to discard old philosophy. All it does is accrete. That doesn't help at all.

Not true. Moral decisions, for example, are not derived using the scientific methods.

That is what is so amazing about philosophers. Until someone rubs their noses in it they presume that they know all that is currently available to know. The area of moral research is a very dynamic and fruitful area of scientific research. You should look into it sometime if you can drag yourself away from philosophy.

[John Page]

Philosophy just gets in the way.
Points of view should not become dogma (except this, of course :)).
Philosophy has no mechanism to discard old philosophy. All it does is accrete. That doesn't help at all.
The history of theories of the mind and thought do help construct more pertinent theories.

[naturalist.atheist]

The history of theories of the mind and thought do help construct more pertinent theories.

Only if philosophers had the humility to admit that at best they were the librarians of ideas.

Nothing wrong with library science. I have found it very useful. But when they start telling scientists that they need to go about things in certain ways because it will coorespond with their classification system then they have run amok.

Philosophers have run amok.

[aegis]

There is philosophy as it is ordinary thought of by most people, and then there is academic philosophy in which philosophers discuss and try to solve philosophical problems. Which have you in mind?

The latter

[aegis]

Meaning and Content of the term "Philosophy" (http://www.gatewayforindia.com/articles/philosophy/philos2.htm),
Greek words philos and Sophia mean respectively ‘love of ‘and ‘Wisdom’ and thus the term philosophy primarily means ‘love of wisdom’ in daily action. Pythagoras first coined the term. According to him, men and women of the world could be classified into 3 groups: 1. those that love pleasure 2. those that love activity and 3. those that love wisdom. In his perspective, the end of wisdom is progress and perfection or salvation in terms of religious understanding. It can be noted here that his division of people into 3 classes corresponds to the 3 qualities(Gunas) of Nature that constitutes them, viz. Tamas, Rajas and Sattwa. The comparison is only to show that root ideas of wise men are always the same and similar to the Universal Ancient Wisdom Religion, the source of all.

Socrates claims that the purpose of philosophy is to enable the gain of self-knowledge, through conceptual clarity.

Plato views that the discovery of reality or absolute truth, through dialectic, is the purpose of philosophy.

It was Aristotle who suggested that the study of philosophy began with the notice of ‘awe and wonder’ around and ‘investigation of the causes and principles of things’ is the object. Totality of human knowledge tends to become philosophy.

Hegasias, a Cyrenaic philosopher, felt that the endeavor of philosophy is to suggest ways and means of avoiding ‘pain’ in life.

It was Neo-platonists that suggested the purpose of philosophy to become one with the Divine.

For Descartes, philosophy is the elucidation of ultimate truth. It starts with pushing skepticism to its limit, when certainty of one’s own existence is revealed.

Locke believed that philosophy provides an analysis of ideas stocked in our mind and the unpacking of those.

Simon felt the purpose of philosophy is to bring about harmony to the world.

Hegel said philosophy presents the absolute truth in absolute form.

Classification and interpretation of the experience of humanity is the purpose of philosophy, according to Cousin.

Spencer believes philosophy to be a synthetic discipline and is held together by universal principles. He observed Evolution to be a basic idea for this unity. For Bergson philosophy is basically an intuitive disciple,

while Whitehead felt it should develop through imaginative generalization a categorical scheme applicable to all experience.

_____

The Modern Humanist (http://www.modernhumanist.com/?p=64) says that Philosophy is the only discipline whose purpose is thinking and teaching thinking.
_____

Philosophy by definition is the "love of wisdom".
_____

I think the purpose of philosophy is to learn about our world, by learning how to reason about our experiences.

Thanks! great post

[WarrenandTrumbull]

Only in the minds of philosophers. But you will not see many scientists taking courses in the philosophy departments. And you will not see many philosophers taking courses in the science department. A long time ago they were related but that time is long gone.

Now of course philosophers are very fond of subsuming and accreting anything that they think should be philosophy. And that is fine but I have no idea why they would think that their choices were at all important to anyone else.

Philosophy just never seems to advance unless some other human knowledge tradition advances.

Go figure.

At best philosophy is the library science of thoughts. It is when philosophers think of themselves as more than librarians but as content providers is when they run amok. And they run amok all the time.

oh man.... now if only this post was relevant to any specific philosophy or even the OP... I know you hate philosophy and want to stick it in science but there isn't a warrant in your entire post (maybe a philosophy class could fix that)

[WarrenandTrumbull]

You have got to be kidding me! Philosophy just gets in the way. Philosophy has no mechanism to discard old philosophy. All it does is accrete. That doesn't help at all.


Critical Theory disproves this on face... you can get rid of old philosophy and it has been destroyed by recent thinkers.


That is what is so amazing about philosophers. Until someone rubs their noses in it they presume that they know all that is currently available to know. The area of moral research is a very dynamic and fruitful area of scientific research. You should look into it sometime if you can drag yourself away from philosophy.

you again don;t have a warrant. how can you make ethical decisions via science? that makes no sense.

[naturalist.atheist]

Critical Theory disproves this on face... you can get rid of old philosophy and it has been destroyed by recent thinkers.

Has it really? Philosophers as a group agree on very little. There is nowhere near the agreement that is found in other disiplines like science.

you again don;t have a warrant. how can you make ethical decisions via science? that makes no sense.

Certainly better than you can make them via philosophy, because at least science will have some actual knowledge to go on instead of presumptious conventions based on personal preference.

[naturalist.atheist]

oh man.... now if only this post was relevant to any specific philosophy or even the OP... I know you hate philosophy and want to stick it in science but there isn't a warrant in your entire post (maybe a philosophy class could fix that)

The only place I want to stick philosophy is in the dustbin of history.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

You have no defense of science. if you had taken a philosophy course you would know that every argument needs a claim and a warrant (and sometimes data/evidence) now, not a single claim you have made has a warrant and you seem thin even on the claims.....

Has it really? Philosophers as a group agree on very little. There is nowhere near the agreement that is found in other disiplines like science.


This is because science isn't reflexive enough to recognize the subjectivity of knowledge. That is, science is just as subjective as any other discipline in so far as what consitutes truth is a function of dominant discourses. This is demonstrated for instance by how science came to be a master-signifier- remember that untill the church was no longer an expedient tool for the crown, science was considered a waste, just like you consider philosophy. When the drive to explore and produce overcame our obsession with religion and God science became the dominant discourse.

Certainly better than you can make them via philosophy, because at least science will have some actual knowledge to go on instead of presumptious conventions based on personal preference.

that doesn't answer my question. how does one MAKE ethical decisions without the thinking of ethics via philosophy? for instance, how does science answer the question "what is ethics?"

[Garrett]

naturalist.atheist

Nice rant.

Philosophy just never seems to advance unless some other human knowledge tradition advances.
Which is evidence for the pragmatic value of philosophy. ;)

At best philosophy is the library science of thoughts.
Unsupported assertion.

Philosophy has no mechanism to discard old philosophy.
Logic is a branch of philosophy. If you were to succeed in logically refuting the value of philosophy as more than a mere library science of thoughts, you would succeed in building a self-refuting argument.

So carry on.

The area of moral research is a very dynamic and fruitful area of scientific research.
Scientific research - which includes psychology - provides data used when we tackle the philosophical issues, such as morality.

[naturalist.atheist]

You have no defense of science. if you had taken a philosophy course you would know that every argument needs a claim and a warrant (and sometimes data/evidence) now, not a single claim you have made has a warrant and you seem thin even on the claims.....

That is of course the plea made by philosophy. Who cares? Not I. The other traditions of knowledge will do just fine without philosophers telling them how to go about their business.

This is because science isn't reflexive enough to recognize the subjectivity of knowledge. That is, science is just as subjective as any other discipline in so far as what consitutes truth is a function of dominant discourses. This is demonstrated for instance by how science came to be a master-signifier- remember that untill the church was no longer an expedient tool for the crown, science was considered a waste, just like you consider philosophy. When the drive to explore and produce overcame our obsession with religion and God science became the dominant discourse.

What a hoot. The reason why science isn't as "reflexive" as philosophy is because science has a mechanism to get rid of old science. And in so doing now limits the number of scientific explanations that are considered to be the most preferred among explanations. Philosophy has no such mechanism. Your use of the term "reflexive" is perfect. Because the reflection is purely personal preference and the state of philosophy is what I would expect to see if the criteria of preference was essentially personal preference.

that doesn't answer my question. how does one MAKE ethical decisions without the thinking of ethics via philosophy? for instance, how does science answer the question "what is ethics?"

By thinking of ethics in terms of human behavior in the context of evolution. Social interactions are an evolutionary adaptation. Just as in medicine many human diseases are now being understood in terms of evolutionary adaptation, so can human behavior and thus ethics be understood in terms of evolutionary adaptation.

And by understanding it in this way we can use our scientific knowledge to predict what the ramifications would be for us as a species when adopting spedific social and moral codes. We also learn that a certain component of our moral code is part of our adaptation, and by understanding which parts are woven into the cloth so to speak, we can work with them to acheive social harmony and allow people to pursue their interest with the least amount of strife and conflict.

We turn it from a religious problem into an engineering problem using science to help us foresee the consequences of our decisions as best we can.

Or we can stick with philosophy which is nothing more than an overblown regurgitation of supernatural religious beliefs. But we already see how well that has been working.

[Simen]

That is of course the plea made by philosophy. Who cares? Not I. The other traditions of knowledge will do just fine without philosophers telling them how to go about their business.



What a hoot. The reason why science isn't as "reflexive" as philosophy is because science has a mechanism to get rid of old science. And in so doing now limits the number of scientific explanations that are considered to be the most preferred among explanations. Philosophy has no such mechanism. Your use of the term "reflexive" is perfect. Because the reflection is purely personal preference and the state of philosophy is what I would expect to see if the criteria of preference was essentially personal preference.



By thinking of ethics in terms of human behavior in the context of evolution. Social interactions are an evolutionary adaptation. Just as in medicine many human diseases are now being understood in terms of evolutionary adaptation, so can human behavior and thus ethics be understood in terms of evolutionary adaptation.

And by understanding it in this way we can use our scientific knowledge to predict what the ramifications would be for us as a species when adopting spedific social and moral codes. We also learn that a certain component of our moral code is part of our adaptation, and by understanding which parts are woven into the cloth so to speak, we can work with them to acheive social harmony and allow people to pursue their interest with the least amount of strife and conflict.

We turn it from a religious problem into an engineering problem using science to help us foresee the consequences of our decisions as best we can.

Or we can stick with philosophy which is nothing more than an overblown regurgitation of supernatural religious beliefs. But we already see how well that has been working.

You do realize that you invalidate all you say by applying what you try to show is useless (philosophy) to itself?

[naturalist.atheist]

Unsupported assertion.

As support I present philosophy.

Logic is a branch of philosophy. If you were to succeed in logically refuting the value of philosophy as more than a mere library science of thoughts, you would succeed in building a self-refuting argument.

I do not make my statements based on logic. I make my statements based on evidence. The evidence of philosophy itself. I know this is a novel concept for philosophers, but sometimes you have to just go look. Actually observe something. It is something that scientists do. But philosophers by definition do not do.

Scientific research - which includes psychology - provides data used when we tackle the philosophical issues, such as morality.

The science of the brain and thus the mind is the next thing to move away from philosophy. That is because it will now concern itself with investigating its explanations by actual experimentation and observation, and certainly that is not something that philosophers would do. For gosh sakes, if they did that they would be scientists.

[naturalist.atheist]

You do realize that you invalidate all you say by applying what you try to show is useless (philosophy) to itself?

Sure, sure, everything is philosophy, or so say the philosophers. You realize that this is also the argument of the theists. Everything is of god therefore subject to its dominion. Why? Because they say so.

[Simen]

What, then, is philosophy, and what is not? Do you have a good definition handy?

[naturalist.atheist]

What, then, is philosophy, and what is not? Do you have a good definition handy?

I don't propose any because I do not advocate philosophy. It is up to those that advocate it to tell people what it is and what it has set out to do in a way that is understandable and consistent with what it actually does.

As I said before the most charatible purpose for philosophy that I can think of is as a librarian of ideas. But that is it. But even so, it doesn't actually try to do that. But if it did it would have a much more useful purpose than anything it may think it has. And it might have more support from other traditions. And if it made that clear then maybe people would have an easier time of interpreting philosophy. People certainly understand that a library is a repository of books, but the books are simply an artifact of what has and is going on and no replacement for the real thing.

[Simen]

If philosophers were librarians of ideas and not people who put forth own ideas, we wouldn't have, say, the scientific method. It would be a loss to humanity, wouldn't it? An idea that is esoteric and obscure in this century may very well be relevant a couple of centuries from now. That you don't see the immediate effects of an idea doesn't mean the idea is worthless.

[naturalist.atheist]

If philosophers were librarians of ideas and not people who put forth own ideas, we wouldn't have, say, the scientific method. It would be a loss to humanity, wouldn't it?

It would be a loss only in the minds of philosophers. Scientists would have no difficulties doing science. That philosophical nonsense about the "scientific method" doesn't even begin to adress how science is done.

An idea that is esoteric and obscure in this century may very well be relevant a couple of centuries from now. That you don't see the immediate effects of an idea doesn't mean the idea is worthless.

No problems. Let the philosophers keep the library of ideas so they are there when they are needed. But do not pretend to tell the other traditions how to go about their business. Just as librarians should not tell any other tradition how to go about their business.

[Simen]

What, then, are the principles of science?

Whatever you answer, you're doing philosophy of science. You may deny that term, but it doesn't make it any less true.

[naturalist.atheist]

What, then, are the principles of science?

Whatever you answer, you're doing philosophy of science. You may deny that term, but it doesn't make it any less true.

That kind of nonsense has got to stop. A mechanic telling people how he fixes cars is no more doing philosophy than a scientist is when they tell people how they do science.

And if you insist that you as a philosopher knows better than that mechanic just because you are a philosopher, then you deserve the bill you will get.

[Cheerful Charlie]

What is the purpose of philosophy? What is its scope, what questions can philosophy be expected to answer?

Philosophy is the finding of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway.
G.E. Moore

[kennethamy]

Philosophy is the finding of bad reasons for things we are going to believe anyway.
G.E. Moore


Doesn't sound like the kind of thing Moore would say or even believe. Are you sure it was Moore.

[kennethamy]

I'm sympathetic to your point. For an example, the philosophical debate over the nature of knowledge (essentially affirming or denying that knowledge is "justified true belief") benefits when it is realized that mental events (such as "knowing") implicate neurological events.

.

Why would the undoubted fact that mental events have something to do with neurological events show anything about the "debate" about the truth-conditions of knowing?

[Garrett]

naturalist.atheist
As support I present philosophy.
You are not to be taken seriously, then. Philosophy does not support your claim.

I do not make my statements based on logic. I make my statements based on evidence.
Confirming my decision above. There is no evidence for your statements. I agree your statements are not based on logic.

That is of course the plea made by philosophy. Who cares? Not I.
I don't believe you. If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother offering your rants against it.

Don't bother responding, since I no longer can see your posts. You join an elite group of arrogant, ignorant and unpleasant fools.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

That is of course the plea made by philosophy. Who cares? Not I. The other traditions of knowledge will do just fine without philosophers telling them how to go about their business.

like science because that hasn;t lead to bad shit.... ::cough:: The Holocaust ::Cough::


What a hoot. The reason why science isn't as "reflexive" as philosophy is because science has a mechanism to get rid of old science. And in so doing now limits the number of scientific explanations that are considered to be the most preferred among explanations. Philosophy has no such mechanism. Your use of the term "reflexive" is perfect. Because the reflection is purely personal preference and the state of philosophy is what I would expect to see if the criteria of preference was essentially personal preference.


science in the same way is a matter of preference. the scientific method is merely a community norm that has goined credence through a relation of power as explained above. just because you refuse to acknowledge it and pretend to have some level of standards doesn't make it so.


By thinking of ethics in terms of human behavior in the context of evolution. Social interactions are an evolutionary adaptation. Just as in medicine many human diseases are now being understood in terms of evolutionary adaptation, so can human behavior and thus ethics be understood in terms of evolutionary adaptation.

And by understanding it in this way we can use our scientific knowledge to predict what the ramifications would be for us as a species when adopting spedific social and moral codes. We also learn that a certain component of our moral code is part of our adaptation, and by understanding which parts are woven into the cloth so to speak, we can work with them to acheive social harmony and allow people to pursue their interest with the least amount of strife and conflict.


sure, that justifies fascism, we just make all the proper calculations, like minorities can't have kids or all the jews should die. we've been down that road before. Thats not ethics anyways because you mediate your ethical responsibility through scientific determinism. and you have no method of determining interest ect. unless of course you just think ethics=helping capitalism.... thats a party.


We turn it from a religious problem into an engineering problem using science to help us foresee the consequences of our decisions as best we can.

Or we can stick with philosophy which is nothing more than an overblown regurgitation of supernatural religious beliefs. But we already see how well that has been working.

you have no way of determining the desirability of your consequences- ethics are literally impossible because you have a predetermined end point of your ethical calculation; your starting ideology.

In other words, you have no external justification of why what you do is good, you start with the presupposition that you are the universal. that empiorically doesn't work. see above.

[kennethamy]

If philosophers were librarians of ideas and not people who put forth own ideas, we wouldn't have, say, the scientific method. It would be a loss to humanity, wouldn't it? An idea that is esoteric and obscure in this century may very well be relevant a couple of centuries from now. That you don't see the immediate effects of an idea doesn't mean the idea is worthless.

Indeed, if philosophers were only "librarians of ideas" and produced none, there would not be any philosophical ideas for them to be librarians of. To say that philosophers are only librarians of ideas is self-refuting.

[naturalist.atheist]

You are not to be taken seriously, then. Philosophy does not support your claim.


Confirming my decision above. There is no evidence for your statements. I agree your statements are not based on logic.

There is the collections of writings that has accumulated over the millenia that is called by philosophers, philosophy. That is the evidence.

I don't believe you. If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother offering your rants against it.

Don't bother responding, since I no longer can see your posts. You join an elite group of arrogant, ignorant and unpleasant fools.

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but not everyone thinks that everything is philosophy.

[kennethamy]

There is the collections of writings that has accumulated over the millenia that is called by philosophers, philosophy. That is the evidence.



I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but not everyone thinks that everything is philosophy.

Now this is an interesting debate.

[naturalist.atheist]

like science because that hasn;t lead to bad shit.... ::cough:: The Holocaust ::Cough::

And like philosophy has had any effect otherwise?

science in the same way is a matter of preference. the scientific method is merely a community norm that has goined credence through a relation of power as explained above. just because you refuse to acknowledge it and pretend to have some level of standards doesn't make it so.

But it is a term that has wider use among philosophers than it does among scientists. I don't recollect many colleagues proclaiming that it was time to put down the morning coffee and go do the scientific method.

sure, that justifies fascism, we just make all the proper calculations, like minorities can't have kids or all the jews should die. we've been down that road before. Thats not ethics anyways because you mediate your ethical responsibility through scientific determinism. and you have no method of determining interest ect. unless of course you just think ethics=helping capitalism.... thats a party.

And philosophy had any effect how? That is what is so lame about philosophy. It may claim to posses important knowledge about ethics but for some reason it doesn't matter. I am sure that the fascists had their Nazi philosophers explaining to them in all that fine philosophical mumbo jumbo just how ethical they were.

you have no way of determining the desirability of your consequences- ethics are literally impossible because you have a predetermined end point of your ethical calculation; your starting ideology.

In other words, you have no external justification of why what you do is good, you start with the presupposition that you are the universal. that empiorically doesn't work. see above.

What in the world are you talking about? As if philosophy has a way of determining the concequences of any of its bull shit? At least science has a track record of being able to do something.

[untermensche]

There is no one purpose to a philosophy, and no such thing as a single philosophy.

There are philosophies, and their purposes depend on who constructs them and why.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

And like philosophy has had any effect otherwise?


we have you know, asked why science was able to do that.... thats a lot better than science has done.


But it is a term that has wider use among philosophers than it does among scientists. I don't recollect many colleagues proclaiming that it was time to put down the morning coffee and go do the scientific method.


so, you don;t have formal standards for whats accepted as "science"? I find that laughable.


And philosophy had any effect how? That is what is so lame about philosophy. It may claim to posses important knowledge about ethics but for some reason it doesn't matter. I am sure that the fascists had their Nazi philosophers explaining to them in all that fine philosophical mumbo jumbo just how ethical they were.


not really. they bullied several philosophers into playing their patsies. either way, thats not a reason science is any better.

What in the world are you talking about? As if philosophy has a way of determining the concequences of any of its bull shit? At least science has a track record of being able to do something.

do something? like what? you;ve already lost the example question. provide me one time when philosophy as a formal discipline was responsible for bad shit. yet, philosophy has had as large of an effect on the world as science. for instance, most political systems sart out as an offshoot of philosophy or just political philosophy. It seems that your best reason why its bad is because you don't like it which is the same standard of personal preference you criticise.

[naturalist.atheist]

we have you know, asked why science was able to do that.... thats a lot better than science has done.

Science is actual knowledge that has an actual affect on reality. People use it any way they like and have no trouble using philosophy to justify their ethics.

so, you don;t have formal standards for whats accepted as "science"? I find that laughable.

Not in the philosophical sense. But it is not something I would expect a philosopher to understand no matter how much they may think they do just because they have concocted a philosophy for it. It is not as if any of the schemes for knowledge that philosophers cook up have to actually be checked against anything.

But if there were a standard of science, checking explanations and claims against actual reality would have to be it.

But again, I do not expect philosophers to understand that. Going and looking is just not something they do.

not really. they bullied several philosophers into playing their patsies. either way, thats not a reason science is any better.

Perhaps, but most likely they did it willingly as patriotic Germans. And my bet is that they were able to fully rationalize their actions with all that fine philosophical ethics.

do something? like what? you;ve already lost the example question. provide me one time when philosophy as a formal discipline was responsible for bad shit. yet, philosophy has had as large of an effect on the world as science. for instance, most political systems sart out as an offshoot of philosophy or just political philosophy. It seems that your best reason why its bad is because you don't like it which is the same standard of personal preference you criticise.

Of course it has. That is because according to philosophers, EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY(1). So yes, they get to take credit for everything they want to take credit for, and get to shuck off anything they decide should not be part of philosophy with some lame pronouncement that it is not proper philosophy.

It is very convenient. All I can say is see (1).

[kennethamy]

Of course it has. That is because according to philosophers, EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY(1). .

Any evidence for that one?

[naturalist.atheist]

Any evidence for that one?

I know this is something that would not occur to a philosopher but just read this dang thread and see for yourself what people that identify with philosophy say it is.

[kennethamy]

I know this is something that would not occur to a philosopher but just read this dang thread and see for yourself what people that identify with philosophy say it is.

I don't recall anyone saying that everything is philosophy (or anything that could be so interpreted). And, even if everyone on this thread had said that, what kind of sample would that be of everyone on this forum or much less, all philosophers.

Tell me, do you know anything at all about statistics? And the fallacy of hasty generalization, and jumping to conclusions? You do exactly what you accuse philosophers of doing. Refusing to look at, or consider the evidence and drawing conclusions from scanty evidence. Psychologists call that, "projection", accusing others of your faults.

[naturalist.atheist]

I don't recall anyone saying that everything is philosophy (or anything that could be so interpreted). And, even if everyone on this thread had said that, what kind of sample would that be of everyone on this forum or much less, all philosophers.

Tell me, do you know anything at all about statistics? And the fallacy of hasty generalization, and jumping to conclusions? You do exactly what you accuse philosophers of doing. Refusing to look at, or consider the evidence and drawing conclusions from scanty evidence. Psychologists call that, "projection", accusing others of your faults.

I am surprised that a self professed philosopher of all people would think about going out and looking and making a tally and generating some statistics.

Not something you see philosophers doing.

But I have seen philosophers make that claim many times. I have seen you imply it. It seems to go with the territory if you advocate philosophy as a pursuit in and of itself.

[kennethamy]

I am surprised that a self professed philosopher of all people would think about going out and looking and making a tally and generating some statistics.

Not something you see philosophers doing.

But I have seen philosophers make that claim many times. I have seen you imply it. It seems to go with the territory if you advocate philosophy as a pursuit in and of itself.

What claim are you talking about? You mention no claim (do you know what a claim is?). Anyway, what has that to do with it? I pointed out to you that you had an insufficient sample for your generalization, and that you were committing the fallacy of hasty generalization (or of jumping to conclusions). And now you are committing the fallacy of irrelevance. That's two. Want to try for a third?

[WarrenandTrumbull]

Science is actual knowledge that has an actual affect on reality. People use it any way they like and have no trouble using philosophy to justify their ethics.


science is actual knowledge because philosophy is arbitrary and can be used on anyone. that begs the question of which reality and what rationality. the difference between science and religion is an empty signifier called "rationality". "science" and "rationality" are vacuous in all of your posts. this is because our conceptions of them are historically contingent.


Not in the philosophical sense. But it is not something I would expect a philosopher to understand no matter how much they may think they do just because they have concocted a philosophy for it. It is not as if any of the schemes for knowledge that philosophers cook up have to actually be checked against anything.

But if there were a standard of science, checking explanations and claims against actual reality would have to be it.

But again, I do not expect philosophers to understand that. Going and looking is just not something they do.


Thats weak. and its circular because you are able to define what you mean by "looking" and "checking." ideas require a basic understanding/confirmation- people just don't come up with philosophical theories out of their ass. do some reading.

You also fail to explain how one determines what is in the best interest of humanity. you literally justify the holocaust and you don't care. nice.


Perhaps, but most likely they did it willingly as patriotic Germans. And my bet is that they were able to fully rationalize their actions with all that fine philosophical ethics.


that makes no sense. and sidebar. it was their lack of ethics- ethics are all about how to stop the subjugation of people. It was more likely a absolute belief in science and rationality in the form of the nazi ideology. In the same way that you attempt to justify science, the nazi ideology was justified by appeals to things that are "easily observable." In the same way you think philosophy should die, the germans burned subversive books. face.

Of course it has. That is because according to philosophers, EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY(1). So yes, they get to take credit for everything they want to take credit for, and get to shuck off anything they decide should not be part of philosophy with some lame pronouncement that it is not proper philosophy.

It is very convenient. All I can say is see (1).

actually. I think some idea are dangerous and others are not. I don;t think I ever said that all philosophy is good but rather that the abscence of criticism of certain ideologies and practices via philosophy is dangerous which is what you are essentially proposing.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

What claim are you talking about? You mention no claim (do you know what a claim is?). Anyway, what has that to do with it? I pointed out to you that you had an insufficient sample for your generalization, and that you were committing the fallacy of hasty generalization (or of jumping to conclusions). And now you are committing the fallacy of irrelevance. That's two. Want to try for a third?

I tried to explain what a claim is.... that didn't work out i see

[kennethamy]

I tried to explain what a claim is.... that didn't work out i see

I don't think I was addressing your post. I was addressing NA's post.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

I know... I'm commenting on his continued lack of learning

[naturalist.atheist]

science is actual knowledge because philosophy is arbitrary and can be used on anyone.

I am sure philosophers find that convincing.

that begs the question of which reality and what rationality. the difference between science and religion is an empty signifier called "rationality". "science" and "rationality" are vacuous in all of your posts. this is because our conceptions of them are historically contingent.

It never ceases to amaze me just how dumb stupid ignorant you have to be to be an advocate of philosophy.

This is something that philosophers just never get. Not ever.

What differences science from religion and philosophy is that in science there is a requirement to go and look. It is not enough to concoct your grand schemes for reality, they must actually work against actual reality before the fact. And because of that it really doesn't matter how logical, or philosophical or whatever you may think they need to be. Because they only need to work better than anything else anyone has come up with.

Thats weak. and its circular because you are able to define what you mean by "looking" and "checking." ideas require a basic understanding/confirmation- people just don't come up with philosophical theories out of their ass. do some reading.

Doh, of course I need to define them for philosophers. That is because philosophers have no idea what they are. But it wouldn't do any good. Because reality is a contact sport and that is not a game that philosophers play.

You also fail to explain how one determines what is in the best interest of humanity. you literally justify the holocaust and you don't care. nice.

There is no point in explaining it to you. You would not comprehend it. The idea that ethics, morals or philosophy for that matter is just human behavior and thus can be studied as human behavior is too foriegn a concept for you.

that makes no sense. and sidebar. it was their lack of ethics- ethics are all about how to stop the subjugation of people. It was more likely a absolute belief in science and rationality in the form of the nazi ideology. In the same way that you attempt to justify science, the nazi ideology was justified by appeals to things that are "easily observable." In the same way you think philosophy should die, the germans burned subversive books. face.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. It purports to know about moral behavior. It is practiced by philosophers. They use it to make claims and representations about morality and ethics. It has never stopped anyone from using it to justify any dang thing they wanted.

Just as patriotic German scientists built death weapons for the cause, there were many other Germans from all walks of German life, theologians, philosophers, artists, and so forth that did their duty for the fatherland.

actually. I think some idea are dangerous and others are not. I don;t think I ever said that all philosophy is good but rather that the abscence of criticism of certain ideologies and practices via philosophy is dangerous which is what you are essentially proposing.

Where is the branch of Ethics? Gosh it must be all good because it can only be used to justify good things?

More philosophical bull shit.

[naturalist.atheist]

What claim are you talking about? You mention no claim (do you know what a claim is?). Anyway, what has that to do with it? I pointed out to you that you had an insufficient sample for your generalization, and that you were committing the fallacy of hasty generalization (or of jumping to conclusions). And now you are committing the fallacy of irrelevance. That's two. Want to try for a third?

The claim that everything is philosophy. Pay attention.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Doesn't sound like the kind of thing Moore would say or even believe. Are you sure it was Moore.


Yes, but apparently he said theology, not philosophy.


CC

[WarrenandTrumbull]

ok, you have not a warrant.. but anyways I think half of your beef with philosophy is that we don't "get" the obvious and yet you don't seem to have read philsophy at any length. quite frankly, I don;t understand what exactly you think of as science. if going and looking is your standard, then my analysis of history seems to have met that standard.



It never ceases to amaze me just how dumb stupid ignorant you have to be to be an advocate of philosophy.

This is something that philosophers just never get. Not ever.

What differences science from religion and philosophy is that in science there is a requirement to go and look. It is not enough to concoct your grand schemes for reality, they must actually work against actual reality before the fact. And because of that it really doesn't matter how logical, or philosophical or whatever you may think they need to be. Because they only need to work better than anything else anyone has come up with.


you can't answer the question of who determines what constitutes acting efficiently. the holocaust was efficient and accomplished a societal goal as defined by that society.

and anyways, my investigations and retelling of history seem to be the going and looking you claim philosophy is deviod of. sidebar, it isn't but you seem to be making less than scientific assertions about what it is you consider science.


Doh, of course I need to define them for philosophers. That is because philosophers have no idea what they are. But it wouldn't do any good. Because reality is a contact sport and that is not a game that philosophers play.

There is no point in explaining it to you. You would not comprehend it. The idea that ethics, morals or philosophy for that matter is just human behavior and thus can be studied as human behavior is too foriegn a concept for you.


this is again pretty weak. maybe you should use a little philosophy to try and articulate what it means to be ethical. sidebar: human behaviour can include violence and canabalism. seems liek you have an ethical dilema



Ethics is a branch of philosophy. It purports to know about moral behavior. It is practiced by philosophers. They use it to make claims and representations about morality and ethics. It has never stopped anyone from using it to justify any dang thing they wanted.

Just as patriotic German scientists built death weapons for the cause, there were many other Germans from all walks of German life, theologians, philosophers, artists, and so forth that did their duty for the fatherland.


I think you again need a history/philosophy lesson
the nazi project was justified as being the philosophical truth event, the literal overman of neitzsche fame by heidegger et al. that is the opposite of ethics. that is ontology, they literally mistook the event of the holocaust for the beginning of a new dawn of being in the name of rationality ect. The point is that "doing your duty to the fatherland" is an ontological and epistemologiucal judgement, not an ethical one. This seems is about as undisputed of an assertion as it gets in philosophy.


Where is the branch of Ethics? Gosh it must be all good because it can only be used to justify good things?

More philosophical bull shit.

what is good? you seem about as adept at the german citizens doing their duty to the fatherland at determining it.

[naturalist.atheist]

ok, you have not a warrant.. but anyways I think half of your beef with philosophy is that we don't "get" the obvious and yet you don't seem to have read philsophy at any length. quite frankly, I don;t understand what exactly you think of as science. if going and looking is your standard, then my analysis of history seems to have met that standard.

You have no idea what I know about philosophy or anything else for that matter. But I am sure you will presume what you like about what you think I know in the tradition of all philosophers.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

You have no idea what I know about philosophy or anything else for that matter. But I am sure you will presume what you like about what you think I know in the tradition of all philosophers.

uh that makes no sense. and your posts are telling.

[ADParker]

I have been engaged in a very similar thread on RichardDawkins.net, entitled "Is Philosophy Bullshit?"
This is an explanation of Philosophy and its vaule I recently gave:
I have been thinking a lot today, of just how I define philosophy. And your timely request for a list of criteria highlights what I wish to say about it nicely.
Philosophy, as I have stated earlier is defined etymologically as "THE LOVE OF WISDOM". To clarify further it is the pursuit of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

The problem is that many people (philosophers,scientists and 'laymen' alike) seem to feel the need to define philosophy as a strict discipline, as a system of research, investigation or whatever, being clearly bound by certain methods or criteria. So that we can look at any piece of work for example, and using this accepted criteria, clearly delineate into which field of study it belongs. Is a work of mathematics, biology, science, psychology, philosophy.. or what?

But Philosophy is not a specific field of enquiry, it is simply the field of 'enquiry' itself. All enquiry.
Philosophy = Enquiry. Enquiry about anything and everything.
The clearly defined areas of enquiry (although the lines can be quite fuzzy at times, and often overlap), like those mentioned above are the "offspring" of philosophy. Philosophy is the general 'method' that 'birthed' the more rigid specialities we know and love today.

It was discovered by certain people that to fully come to grasps with certain areas of philosophical thought one had to specialise, and often form more rigid and strict guidelines on how to investigate them. For example, science needs strict methods of testing, falsification etc ("The Scientific Method" as it is often known), in order to productively advance the field of study. Also, of course, specialisation allows for deeper analysis in that specific area, as looking at the whole picture all the time will get you only so far (not very, usually).

But, philosophy, that general, unrestrained search for wisdom and knowledge, is still very much required, as it is the spark which fires the imagination into new avenues of enquiry. All scientists etc. on the 'cutting edge', looking for new discoveries and levels of understanding, are philosophers. it is their ability to think and search beyond the current paradigms and theories, which bring about the greatest advances, the 'paradigm shifts' which push the field to exciting and almost unimagined areas of understanding and discovery.

Also, of course, there are areas of philosophy, for varying reasons that have not 'branched out on their own', like ethics and logic. As well as those areas that encompass the entirety of philosophy, the very basis of the endeavour and/or do not fit into any of the specialised fields. An example (which many, who view philosophy negatively, rubbish) would be those questions philosophers call the big questions: "What is knowledge?", "what is justice?" and so on.

These types of metaphysical questions and the like, are seen as valueless by many people, I know. But they are the very types of questions that have been asked for millennia, and sparked off the very fields of enquiry (like the sciences), and the resulting benefits (health, technology..) we value and enjoy today. Who knows what those still asking these questions will spark off tomorrow?

I am sorry if my previous post offended you. I in no way intended to. It is just, as I said above, that many people (philosophers included) try to pigeon-hole philosophy into a neat clearly marked field. And understandably so, this is the nature of the human mind I think, this compartmentalisation of concepts make life (esp. as it become more and more complex) much easier to understand and deal with. And it is for this reason (not necessarily alone though) that even in science, there is inevitably a resistance to abandon one paradigm for another. This in no way implies that anyone should think less of ones intelligence because they think this way, I certainly don't. I understand for example, that Einstein was dead against quantum physics, basically dismissing its potential value out of hand, and I would not accuse him of being stupid or ignorant at all.

One more little point: Such a free flowing, unconstrained and uncontrolled thing as philosophy is bound to contain a number of ideas, arguments, assertions and points of view that are quite frankly Complete Bullshit. But that is the nature of the thing. It is our job as lovers of reason (most of you appear to be such on this forum) to sift through it all and find the roses hidden in the fertiliser.

[naturalist.atheist]

uh that makes no sense. and your posts are telling.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Well we agree on something.

[untermensche]

What is the purpose of philosophy? What is its scope, what questions can philosophy be expected to answer?
It's scope is not known.

Philosophy can come up with moral truisms like; Anything I allow myself to do I allow all to do, and anything I forbid others from doing I also forbid myself from doing.

That is if I want to live as if all people were equals in social rank and none were masters and none slaves.

[Bob K]

An operational definition of philosophy is needed herein:

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/opdefs.html

What is philosophy? What do philosophers do when they philosophize? what is the value of philosophy to normal people (defined humorously as non-philosophers)?

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/whatisphilosophy.html

[Kumori]

I think thoughts are to philosophy what paint is to art. So... philosophy, at its best, inspires, creates new patterns of thoughts, new ways to think. If you pin down philosophy you kill the creativity and chaos from which new stuff emerges. Perhaps philosophy is to memes what mutagens are to genes.