What do you say when people ask, "What is Philosophy"?

[Sy Borg]

Not that anyone would ask but, for me, philosophy is about trying to comprehend a little of the nature of reality in a generalised way. It's wondering about underlying dynamics and how they relate to our familiar PEEST realities (political, environmental, economic, social and technological).

This is maybe closer to the approach of natural philosophers before science and philosophy became specialist fields. The boundary between science and philosophy would seem to be more defined by professional efficiency and methodology than ontology. Each discipline ultimately just wants to work out what the heck is going on, a question that forms in humans while covered in amniotic fluid and remains largely unanswered when our remains are placed underground in a container.

What's it all about? Why is there suffering? How did life arise? What beings are conscious and what ones are not, and in what way? Do beauty and love have significance beyond evolutionary usefulness? What are the potentials for the future and what do they mean, if anything? Life, consciousness, time, quantum things ... and so on ... and on.

Most people I know see such thinking as pointless. They are inevitably time-poor and fully occupied with professional, social, financial and political concerns. Those who philosophise can be thankful that such people exist to do the things that we could not tolerate, and vice versa :)

[Consul]

I don't like Hegel's philosophy, but I like his simple general definition of "philosophy" (* as the "thoughtful contemplation of things" ("denkende Betrachtung der Gegenstände").

(* Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline, 1817, §2)

[Prof Bulani]

I tell them, "Philosophy is pure human thought unadulterated by fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda, or faulty science. And you must be trained to think philosophically in order to free yourself from all heretofore brainwashing from your parents, friends, teachers, clerics, politicians, governments, corporations, and the news media."

Since fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda and faulty science consumes a significant amount of real estate in human thought, I include these in philosophy. And there is evidence that most well-known philosophers also do. I think it is important to examine these types of human thought, investigate why they occur, and develop tactics to counteract these types of thoughts so that there is a meet result of more accurate, "thoughtful" thoughts.

[Pattern-chaser]

Since fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda and faulty science consumes a significant amount of real estate in human thought, I include these in philosophy. And there is evidence that most well-known philosophers also do. I think it is important to examine these types of human thought, investigate why they occur, and develop tactics to counteract these types of thoughts so that there is a meet result of more accurate, "thoughtful" thoughts.

A worthy aim. ... Until we consider how "fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda and faulty science" are to be recognised. There is no universal database of Objectivity, to which we can refer doubtful things, and be told whether they represent (logical/scientific/etc) truth. There is no One and Only Truth, that I am aware of. So your suggestion, seen in this light, must surely be that everyone should see things as you do, and strive to ensure that everyone else does too? I don't think this attitude will prove helpful to someone who has just approached you, and asked "What is philosophy?", as the OP does.

[h_k_s]

I tell them, "Philosophy is pure human thought unadulterated by fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda, or faulty science. And you must be trained to think philosophically in order to free yourself from all heretofore brainwashing from your parents, friends, teachers, clerics, politicians, governments, corporations, and the news media."

Since fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda and faulty science consumes a significant amount of real estate in human thought, I include these in philosophy. And there is evidence that most well-known philosophers also do. I think it is important to examine these types of human thought, investigate why they occur, and develop tactics to counteract these types of thoughts so that there is a meet result of more accurate, "thoughtful" thoughts.

Then you have blasphemed Philosophy.

[Alias]

People - by far predominantly men - with no pressing real work to do, ruminating about Life, The Universe and Everything, and generally coming up with crackpot ideas that other guys with nothing better to do take seriously.

[Prof Bulani]

A worthy aim. ... Until we consider how "fallacies, myths, religion, propaganda and faulty science" are to be recognised. There is no universal database of Objectivity, to which we can refer doubtful things, and be told whether they represent (logical/scientific/etc) truth. There is no One and Only Truth, that I am aware of. So your suggestion, seen in this light, must surely be that everyone should see things as you do, and strive to ensure that everyone else does too? I don't think this attitude will prove helpful to someone who has just approached you, and asked "What is philosophy?", as the OP does.

Are you arguing that objective facts and measures do not exist?

[chewybrian]

Are you arguing that objective facts and measures do not exist?

It's easy to speculate that they exist, waiting for us to find them, yet we never know for sure when or if we have found them. What we might call objective facts are just widely held opinions. All understanding is subjective. There is no source which is an authority on truth to which I can safely appeal. I must own my own beliefs. If I lay off the responsibility on religion, science, law, college professors, whatever, I still own my decision, as I chose the source to trust.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are you arguing that objective facts and measures do not exist?

It's easy to speculate that they exist, waiting for us to find them, yet we never know for sure when or if we have found them.

Yes. We have no direct access to Objective Reality, so we're reduced to speculation as regards its nature, behaviour or other qualities. And what point is there in saying things like "It's objectively true or false, but we don't know which"? We will never know which, we cannot know which, so our speculation is ... what? Pointless? Wishful thinking, maybe?

[anonymous66]

It's easy to speculate that they exist, waiting for us to find them, yet we never know for sure when or if we have found them.

Yes. We have no direct access to Objective Reality, so we're reduced to speculation as regards its nature, behaviour or other qualities. And what point is there in saying things like "It's objectively true or false, but we don't know which"? We will never know which, we cannot know which, so our speculation is ... what? Pointless? Wishful thinking, maybe?

Are you suggesting that all opinions are equal? If not, then what makes some opinions better than others?

[Cats]

Our thoughts are all influenced by philosophies of some kind. The study of philosophy can help someone refine their own way of being, their ideals & virtues, etc. Observing the structure of our thoughts and understanding how they manifest in the world. That's my understanding, anyway.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes. We have no direct access to Objective Reality, so we're reduced to speculation as regards its nature, behaviour or other qualities. And what point is there in saying things like "It's objectively true or false, but we don't know which"? We will never know which, we cannot know which, so our speculation is ... what? Pointless? Wishful thinking, maybe?

Are you suggesting that all opinions are equal?

No.

If not, then what makes some opinions better than others?

This question is the key to escaping the bondage of analytic philosophy (Objectivism, sciencism, etc). Once we have accepted there are, in practice, no absolutes and no certainties, we can start to see what we do have, instead of what we wish for. We can bolster our confidence in the things we believe in all the ways we already know. We just don't frame our knowledge as being absolute or certain.

If everyone else agrees with my opinion, that increases my confidence. But consensus is not the only way! We can use all of our critical thinking skills, from common sense all the way to formal logic. And then there's science, which (if we're honest) has always claimed not to offer certainty or absolute truth. Science can help a lot. And all other types of human learning and understanding too.

Really, things are just as they have always been, except that there is no certainty. We can stop expressing ourselves with certainty - e.g. "That is blue" - and say instead what we really know. Maybe "That looks blue to my eyes"? E-Prime might be a new friend here?

There's a few ideas to be going on with.

[anonymous66]

Are you suggesting that all opinions are equal?

No.

If not, then what makes some opinions better than others?

This question is the key to escaping the bondage of analytic philosophy (Objectivism, sciencism, etc). Once we have accepted there are, in practice, no absolutes and no certainties, we can start to see what we do have, instead of what we wish for. We can bolster our confidence in the things we believe in all the ways we already know. We just don't frame our knowledge as being absolute or certain.

If everyone else agrees with my opinion, that increases my confidence. But consensus is not the only way! We can use all of our critical thinking skills, from common sense all the way to formal logic. And then there's science, which (if we're honest) has always claimed not to offer certainty or absolute truth. Science can help a lot. And all other types of human learning and understanding too.

Really, things are just as they have always been, except that there is no certainty. We can stop expressing ourselves with certainty - e.g. "That is blue" - and say instead what we really know. Maybe "That looks blue to my eyes"? E-Prime might be a new friend here?

There's a few ideas to be going on with.

I guess I come at it from a different angle- I take it as obvious that humans are fallible- we strive for solutions, then we think we've found THE answer, only to be proven wrong at a later date. But- I also take it to be the case that we can know at least some things.

Is it the case that we both agree that we can know at least some things? (your post suggests you believe this to be the case)

Perhaps where we differ is that I think that we are discovering truths while you believe there are no objective truths to be discovered?

If we can know- doesn't that very fact suggest there is something objectively true that can be discovered/known?

[Pattern-chaser]

I guess I come at it from a different angle- I take it as obvious that humans are fallible- we strive for solutions, then we think we've found THE answer, only to be proven wrong at a later date. But- I also take it to be the case that we can know at least some things.

Is it the case that we both agree that we can know at least some things? (your post suggests you believe this to be the case

If by "know" we have in mind knowledge of Objective Truth, then it seems to me that we know nothing at all, except that Objective Reality exists. Outside of such analytic auto-eroticism, there are many things we believe, in which we are pretty confident. If you mean to refer to them when you write "know", then we agree that "we can know at least some things".

Perhaps where we differ is that I think that we are discovering truths while you believe there are no objective truths to be discovered?

I think we are discovering all kinds of things, all of the time. As for objective truths, again it depends on how absolute you intend your usage of "objective" to be. If you mean impartial, then fair enough. But if you mean to refer to Objective Reality - that which actually is - then I think there are Objective Truths, but we cannot know them - i.e. know-to-Objective-standards - because we have no (knowing) direct access to, or perception of, Objective Reality. So the search for such things is pointless, in practice.

If we can know- doesn't that very fact suggest there is something objectively true that can be discovered/known?

See above. I'm sorry to be so noncommital, but "objective" covers a multitude of sins, and your intended usage of the term directly affects my responses...