What is Philosophy?
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
What is Philosophy?
Philosophy, religion, science, and politics are separate subjects of knowledge. It begs the question: Can you have philosophy of science, and science of philosophy? What do you mean by philosophy of science?
In common use, philosophy it taken aa 'thought', seriously but even casually. To be precise, I would refer to "philosophy on politics as a issue" instead, but not on diverse political issues. See the difference? Your comment on the Trump presidency, for example, is thought on politics, but no philosophy please.
How do you pose philosophical question and statement? They must be fundamental, complex, and soul-searching, with no straightforward answer off the cuff, "Talent is what matters." "Money = freedom." "Better human than animal, or man than woman." Excuse me, but I call these silly questions not worth appearing on sites worse than the present one. Ironically, such questions would attract pages after pages of replies, which some would take to show success and model to follow. It is human nature that one may hold back in awe by wisdom's challenge, but one cannot stop throwing back, even if to join in the spoil.
I am glad to witness some serious philosophical topics posted here, even if only once in a while.
- feinbird
- Posts: 5
- Joined: August 14th, 2022, 12:44 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
The further problem that interested me in your message,is one of the provocative statements you presented as in order to distinct philosophical inquiry from nonsense (here by non-sense I am referring to this kind of statements that are usually posted with the only purpose of causing some easily angered and short sighted people to start the marathon of making argumentum ad hominem or ad populum, instead of holding argumentative sensible and constructive objective conversation). I am wondering if someone would agree on this point with me, but isn't it really about the way one questions some particular problem, and not so much about the specific field his question is related to? Isn't it so, with regard to the given definition, that what philosophy is really about is to strive for the core, the crux of something, sense and origin that is beyond shallow surface?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: August 12th, 2022, 5:31 am
Re: What is Philosophy?
The series was so good that I bought the book of the series to study, which led me to study other areas of philosophy such as modern philosophers and eastern philosophy. So what, after all this study, did I come to understand 'What is Philosophy?' as a form of inquiry? I thought about whether it could all be wrong, but what if all philosophy was right? What would it mean for a subject if it was internally contradictory but still valid? For me, philosophy gives me access to insights into ideas about the nature of the universe and the human condition which I could never have thought of myself (or having thought, not be able to communicate) but which I could now investigate. What if X was the right was of looking at things? What if it was Y?
I remember a science experiment I used to teach about light and colour where children made colourful dioramas but put different coloured acetate sheets over a viewing slot. Different coloured sheets picked out different things. For me philosophy allows us to pick out different ways of interpreting the world we live in so that we can say, 'What if this is a good way to look at things, or if it is a bad way?' What would it mean if it was the right way? The wrong way? What would be the consequences in reality?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is Philosophy?
If we aren't careful, any definition of philosophy will include something(s) that should be excluded, and exclude something(s) that should be included. If we start that way, we will achieve nothing but loud and angry disagreement. We are humans, after all.gad-fly wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 3:50 pm Google Search: Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
Philosophy, religion, science, and politics are separate subjects of knowledge. It begs the question: Can you have philosophy of science, and science of philosophy? What do you mean by philosophy of science?
Perhaps we could say, intentionally without further qualification, that if we give serious and considered thought to any topic, we are philosophers?
"Who cares, wins"
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: What is Philosophy?
I think you have to stop to define "serious and considered". For example, people in the past (and sometimes in the present) gave very serious consideration to many topics, but only within the framework of their religion, refusing to consider ideas that conflicted with their religious explanations of the world. I think philosophy demands that you make an effort to step outside yourself in a sense. You need to give next-level serious consideration to the topic at hand. You should try to consider how it might look to others with different experiences, or to a non-human, like a super-smart visiting alien who might look down on us and, well, look down on us, and with good reason!Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 8:32 amIf we aren't careful, any definition of philosophy will include something(s) that should be excluded, and exclude something(s) that should be included. If we start that way, we will achieve nothing but loud and angry disagreement. We are humans, after all.gad-fly wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 3:50 pm Google Search: Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
Philosophy, religion, science, and politics are separate subjects of knowledge. It begs the question: Can you have philosophy of science, and science of philosophy? What do you mean by philosophy of science?
Perhaps we could say, intentionally without further qualification, that if we give serious and considered thought to any topic, we are philosophers?
I don't think you will ever come up with a definition of philosophy that will satisfy philosophers, if only because they are doing it right.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is Philosophy?
gad-fly wrote: ↑August 18th, 2022, 3:50 pm Google Search: Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
Philosophy, religion, science, and politics are separate subjects of knowledge. It begs the question: Can you have philosophy of science, and science of philosophy? What do you mean by philosophy of science?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 8:32 am If we aren't careful, any definition of philosophy will include something(s) that should be excluded, and exclude something(s) that should be included. If we start that way, we will achieve nothing but loud and angry disagreement. We are humans, after all.
Perhaps we could say, intentionally without further qualification, that if we give serious and considered thought to any topic, we are philosophers?
Yes, such breadth and flexibility must surely be included in any useful definition of philosophy. All constraints should be the subject of scrutiny. There may be some constraints that are necessary and appropriate (?), but some are not, and only retain their historical roles because we've forgotten they're there! Others are unavoidable assumptions — often called "axioms" — that we must make for practical reasons. These, unavoidable as they are, should at least be acknowledged, and not forgotten. [If we forget that our thinking is built on sand, we might start to think it's well-founded and unassailable.]chewybrian wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 8:55 am I think you have to stop to define "serious and considered". For example, people in the past (and sometimes in the present) gave very serious consideration to many topics, but only within the framework of their religion, refusing to consider ideas that conflicted with their religious explanations of the world. I think philosophy demands that you make an effort to step outside yourself in a sense. You need to give next-level serious consideration to the topic at hand. You should try to consider how it might look to others with different experiences, or to a non-human, like a super-smart visiting alien who might look down on us and, well, look down on us, and with good reason!
chewybrian wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 8:55 am I don't think you will ever come up with a definition of philosophy that will satisfy philosophers, if only because they are doing it right.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is Philosophy?
Well, yes, but I am a proponent of human philosophy. I.e., my philosophy is aimed at humans, for humans, and is not devoted to an 'objective' perspective, in the sense that that means 'external' or 'detached'. Humans are not external or detached, they are internal (part of reality), and they are very much attached (participants in reality, not impartial observers of it).chewybrian wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 8:55 am I think philosophy demands that you make an effort to step outside yourself in a sense.
So I definitely don't argue with your sentiment, but I also wish to retain that relevance to me, a human. We have all seen philosophers, often scientifically-oriented philosophers, who seek to create philosophy that it as relevant to a Sqyg from the planet Trump as it is to a human who lives here on Earth. I can see their point, but such a perspective seems valuable to me only if it remains relevant and useful to me, as well as to the Sqyg.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
Most people would avoid the question rather than face it, let alone answering. Complex question? No doubt. The term "philosophy' by itself is a big deal. It implies nothing less than complexity, not commonsense or easy skip over.feinbird wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 7:46 am This is a complex question that may be overwhelmed if we were to appeal to each particular circumstance of making a distinction, namely, what is to be considered a part of the philosophical inquiry and what is not, than it would rather serve to perplex the question. Success in giving a plausible answer is dependent not only on giving the right definition, but also on the way we perceive the definition. For example, one would say that philosophy may be defined 'as a course of your action for seeking truth in something'. Do we approve this construing? If yes, then we should make another inquiry: ''Does really seeking for knowledge make philosophy a subject that is not compatible with science, religion, politics, etc. Can we understand this idea of 'seeking for truth' as a distinctive one?" - Taking the account of definition above, it would be sensible, I presume, to conclusively deduce that philosophy as a scope is all-absorbing, as far as the underlying purpose is to find an answer, that would appear to be most plausible, viz. one that approaches the absolute truth closer than others.
Is philosophy a separate field, by itself distinct from science, religion, art, and so on. If so, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science and so on do not make sense, any more than art of science and science of art.
What is philosophical investigation? On life, nature, being, and so on? But such investigation has already been covered by other fields, in art, science, and religion, etc. Why should we bother? Is it because we are not sure which, or because we may want to mystify the investigation?
Most people's response to philosophy is simple: It is beyond me. I give up.
I am tempted to suggest that philosophy has evolved to be no longer a separate field, but an escape tunnel to evade the stress of challenging questions. Philosophy means no more than the deep end, which is groundless.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
I do find that a lot of people seem put off by philosophy and I have known people who began philosophy courses and really didn't like it. As a discipline it is so different than many others because it involves answering the difficult questions. However, it can be that reading the works can become a substitute for personal thinking. I do enjoy reading but try to think for myself as well. That is why I use the forum, because interacting with others and writing involves thinking far more than by reading alone.gad-fly wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 11:55 amMost people would avoid the question rather than face it, let alone answering. Complex question? No doubt. The term "philosophy' by itself is a big deal. It implies nothing less than complexity, not commonsense or easy skip over.feinbird wrote: ↑August 19th, 2022, 7:46 am This is a complex question that may be overwhelmed if we were to appeal to each particular circumstance of making a distinction, namely, what is to be considered a part of the philosophical inquiry and what is not, than it would rather serve to perplex the question. Success in giving a plausible answer is dependent not only on giving the right definition, but also on the way we perceive the definition. For example, one would say that philosophy may be defined 'as a course of your action for seeking truth in something'. Do we approve this construing? If yes, then we should make another inquiry: ''Does really seeking for knowledge make philosophy a subject that is not compatible with science, religion, politics, etc. Can we understand this idea of 'seeking for truth' as a distinctive one?" - Taking the account of definition above, it would be sensible, I presume, to conclusively deduce that philosophy as a scope is all-absorbing, as far as the underlying purpose is to find an answer, that would appear to be most plausible, viz. one that approaches the absolute truth closer than others.
Is philosophy a separate field, by itself distinct from science, religion, art, and so on. If so, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science and so on do not make sense, any more than art of science and science of art.
What is philosophical investigation? On life, nature, being, and so on? But such investigation has already been covered by other fields, in art, science, and religion, etc. Why should we bother? Is it because we are not sure which, or because we may want to mystify the investigation?
Most people's response to philosophy is simple: It is beyond me. I give up.
I am tempted to suggest that philosophy has evolved to be no longer a separate field, but an escape tunnel to evade the stress of challenging questions. Philosophy means no more than the deep end, which is groundless.
However, in spite of saying that a lot of people are put off by philosophy I do find that when I am out reading people do sometimes come up to me and chat about ideas. I have even got to know a few people in libraries and bookshops where there is a cafe area. Also, while many people don't read philosophy books most people do think about some of the issues, especially the nature of death and moral questions, even if they don't use philosophy terminology. I had fun trying to explain the concept of qualia to a couple of friends and I think that they found it a bit strange. If people come into my room they often look rather puzzled by the piles of books and think I am a bit eccentric.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
- feinbird
- Posts: 5
- Joined: August 14th, 2022, 12:44 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
Secondary problem emerges once we reach the world fundamental, as in saying that philosophy touches fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. What is the specific feature making this problems to be understood as those of a fundamental matter? How do we split difference between? Could we logically derive from it that philosophy is limited by the bounds of the fundamental questions, and that the philosophy may be defined as "systematized study of particular questions? It would be a concrete definition, but in fact, the essence of this 'study remains vague. Although I apt to disagree with this reading, let it nonetheless be placed among others hypothetical perceptions, as a famous saying goes ''quot homines tot sententiae'. I've already described my own approach of philosophy as of a field, that I prescribe it to be primarily understood as 'a course of action to', more specifically 'a course for seeking the truth in', so that we don't search for some special problems that possesses fundamentality.
At this point 2 major problems I previously ascribed should be stated:
1 - The extent of knowledge philosophy concerns as a part of it's theoretical field (the problem of fundamentality)
2 - Philosophy as the way to approach some specific type of knowledge, viz..
The problem of fundamentality
I would again like to start by giving some possible understandings of the idea of the fundamentalis quaestionis. The most basic and self-evident definition would be like that question becomes fundamental when it concerns somewhat that may be related to the notion of big other (basically the knowledge of people's social interactions, hidden and explicit implications of symbols we understand either through different means of propagation, either technological or merely by posters sticked on some wall. Another interesting way of a perfectly symbolic approach is how the situation in the world elevates and intensifies number of public events as in order to grow the 'happiness' within particular social group, as well as in order to decrease attention of people. I have a very profound experience of this, since I live Russia (I hope it wouldn't switch your relationship towards me) ). Simply put, the very socialness of the inquiry is what makes it fundamental.
Second reading that could be approached is one of the individualistic character, that makes us to think of the human as a single entity, nor considers interactions within the society. To understand human as an intelligent sensible entity, given the ability to think, to decide, not in accordance to its 'id', but through assessment given by the register of 'super-ego' that functions on the grounds of one's ethical and moral standards .than it goes to the intelligible 'ego' that is what forms one's personality purely. The phenomenon of human's reason and universality is the underlying attitude of the second reading.
(Of course there are much more things to be said in regard to it, but in the context of this message I need to be economical with my words, and frankly, I don't have enough knowledge for I simply share my general thoughts on it. I say it in advance so that other participants of this thread don't blame me for my ignorance).
This version is partly a constituent of the first, more absorbing one, since we cannot imagine a complete human beyond the domain of society. The crucial difference between these two approaches is about priorities each of them postulates (interaction superior to the human as itself and vice versa). Distinction I made here may appear vague, but it's all because I myself am not completely certain about it.
To continue, the question here is whether philosophy should by definition correspond to one of possible limitations of ambiguous notion of fundamental. The problem I see within here is that, in my opinion, there are no really questions that couldn't be attributed to the questions of this fundamentality, as a question would either arise from the social interactions or from the ability of human being to deliberate on something. That basically this very phenomenon of deliberation can only present us with the fundamental questions (either explicit or implicit ones), because other, if they exists, may nonetheless in some sense by fundamental, but unreachable by the limitations of human's mind. This understanding would imply, that basically all of our deliberating may have the sense of either implicit of explicit fundamentality by the very process of deliberating.
The problem of philosophical approach
Hitherto we were trying to distinguish whether we should consider some approach to be somewhat philosophical one or not. (I suppose that we would fail to find some distinctive characteristics of deliberating in a philosophical way, to be more precise, to find an empirical evidence of one doing so. That's the very uniqueness of it, that it all lies in the basis of a priori.) The possible definition of such an approach was stated in the previous message of mine, that philosophy is an attempt to seek for truth no matter what the theoretical field is. One would tempt to agree with this statement, as if without any future qualification, it would allow us to conform it to the previously mentioned idea of fundamentality and say that we may observe anything from a philosophical standpoint, by deliberating in order to seek for truth (even though this seeking for truth may also appear to be a vague term, since it all is dependent on how the truth perceived and what particular instruments are widely-recognised at some specific time of history to seek for it).
The Truth
The absolute truth - is a notion of the truth in its purest, that cannot be achieved due to the limitations of human's mind, for it would require to go out of bounds of the ideological and to attempt seeing something without any possible opinion or standpoint.
The statistical truth - a rather relative term that can be in some cases proven empirically and therefore is within the human's power.
The social truth - a complex idea that can be understood as a kind of social phenomenon. Simply put, this idea implies that, for example, the truth of some historical events maybe re-emphasized by the government (by some specific instance concerned with it) in accordance to the present ideological direction of country. This idea is much more wide, as I suppose.
The philosophical truth - a term standing for the notion of philosophical argumentation and controversy, that seeks to find the most reasonable, cogent and plausible argumentation out of all the presented and recognized, as to be acknowledged to be one that approaches the absolute truth closer than others.
Well, my interpretation here lies as inconsolable as it was before, since when you think more, the vast number or details you see uncovered, terms become feeble and vague, and it only get's harder to find any answers. I think that, no matter for how long one may think of this question over and over, he will never be able to get out the bounds of making his standpoint for something, in order to reach the real.
A little note:
JackDaydream i am fully on the same page with you in terms of being accepted as eccentric person. In my city with the population slightly bigger than 1 million, I appear to be the only young student (or most likely even among adults), who would go in a library during holidays to read literature. Well, although it seems completely normal, I nonetheless find it a bit hard finding interesting interlocutors and acquittances in general.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
I am glad that I am not alone in being regarded as eccentric and I love libraries, especially if they have a coffee bar to read in. As a teenager, I used to creep into store rooms and read books not on the main shelves. It felt like secret knowledge. The security staff realised that I used to go into the back rooms but they never really said anything because I was only reading books. Now, I read and write in all kinds of places. Recently, I was writing on this site in a corner of Macdonalds and I got told to leave. That was because it was closing time and they didn't even let me finish my sentence and I had to finish it outside in the dark!feinbird wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 5:17 pm But cannot it be compatible so that philosophy is a specific distinctive field and it nonetheless may concern all the others? (science, politics, etc.) This, as previously, requires to give an interpretation to the term of 'knowledge field', and it is where, I suppose, solution may be laying. We could define philosophy as a ''course of action to'' and it elicits that philosophy is not of a scope of them object-orientated knowledge, but rather a guide for one's action. That what philosophy really draws on is its very function-based application. As it usually is being interpreted, philosophy is about deliberating. This kind of definition may appear uncogent and vague, and it's perfectly understandable, insofar as it doesn't allow one to realize the essence of philosophical realm.
Secondary problem emerges once we reach the world fundamental, as in saying that philosophy touches fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. What is the specific feature making this problems to be understood as those of a fundamental matter? How do we split difference between? Could we logically derive from it that philosophy is limited by the bounds of the fundamental questions, and that the philosophy may be defined as "systematized study of particular questions? It would be a concrete definition, but in fact, the essence of this 'study remains vague. Although I apt to disagree with this reading, let it nonetheless be placed among others hypothetical perceptions, as a famous saying goes ''quot homines tot sententiae'. I've already described my own approach of philosophy as of a field, that I prescribe it to be primarily understood as 'a course of action to', more specifically 'a course for seeking the truth in', so that we don't search for some special problems that possesses fundamentality.
At this point 2 major problems I previously ascribed should be stated:
1 - The extent of knowledge philosophy concerns as a part of it's theoretical field (the problem of fundamentality)
2 - Philosophy as the way to approach some specific type of knowledge, viz..
The problem of fundamentality
I would again like to start by giving some possible understandings of the idea of the fundamentalis quaestionis. The most basic and self-evident definition would be like that question becomes fundamental when it concerns somewhat that may be related to the notion of big other (basically the knowledge of people's social interactions, hidden and explicit implications of symbols we understand either through different means of propagation, either technological or merely by posters sticked on some wall. Another interesting way of a perfectly symbolic approach is how the situation in the world elevates and intensifies number of public events as in order to grow the 'happiness' within particular social group, as well as in order to decrease attention of people. I have a very profound experience of this, since I live Russia (I hope it wouldn't switch your relationship towards me) ). Simply put, the very socialness of the inquiry is what makes it fundamental.
Second reading that could be approached is one of the individualistic character, that makes us to think of the human as a single entity, nor considers interactions within the society. To understand human as an intelligent sensible entity, given the ability to think, to decide, not in accordance to its 'id', but through assessment given by the register of 'super-ego' that functions on the grounds of one's ethical and moral standards .than it goes to the intelligible 'ego' that is what forms one's personality purely. The phenomenon of human's reason and universality is the underlying attitude of the second reading.
(Of course there are much more things to be said in regard to it, but in the context of this message I need to be economical with my words, and frankly, I don't have enough knowledge for I simply share my general thoughts on it. I say it in advance so that other participants of this thread don't blame me for my ignorance).
This version is partly a constituent of the first, more absorbing one, since we cannot imagine a complete human beyond the domain of society. The crucial difference between these two approaches is about priorities each of them postulates (interaction superior to the human as itself and vice versa). Distinction I made here may appear vague, but it's all because I myself am not completely certain about it.
To continue, the question here is whether philosophy should by definition correspond to one of possible limitations of ambiguous notion of fundamental. The problem I see within here is that, in my opinion, there are no really questions that couldn't be attributed to the questions of this fundamentality, as a question would either arise from the social interactions or from the ability of human being to deliberate on something. That basically this very phenomenon of deliberation can only present us with the fundamental questions (either explicit or implicit ones), because other, if they exists, may nonetheless in some sense by fundamental, but unreachable by the limitations of human's mind. This understanding would imply, that basically all of our deliberating may have the sense of either implicit of explicit fundamentality by the very process of deliberating.
The problem of philosophical approach
Hitherto we were trying to distinguish whether we should consider some approach to be somewhat philosophical one or not. (I suppose that we would fail to find some distinctive characteristics of deliberating in a philosophical way, to be more precise, to find an empirical evidence of one doing so. That's the very uniqueness of it, that it all lies in the basis of a priori.) The possible definition of such an approach was stated in the previous message of mine, that philosophy is an attempt to seek for truth no matter what the theoretical field is. One would tempt to agree with this statement, as if without any future qualification, it would allow us to conform it to the previously mentioned idea of fundamentality and say that we may observe anything from a philosophical standpoint, by deliberating in order to seek for truth (even though this seeking for truth may also appear to be a vague term, since it all is dependent on how the truth perceived and what particular instruments are widely-recognised at some specific time of history to seek for it).
The Truth
The absolute truth - is a notion of the truth in its purest, that cannot be achieved due to the limitations of human's mind, for it would require to go out of bounds of the ideological and to attempt seeing something without any possible opinion or standpoint.
The statistical truth - a rather relative term that can be in some cases proven empirically and therefore is within the human's power.
The social truth - a complex idea that can be understood as a kind of social phenomenon. Simply put, this idea implies that, for example, the truth of some historical events maybe re-emphasized by the government (by some specific instance concerned with it) in accordance to the present ideological direction of country. This idea is much more wide, as I suppose.
The philosophical truth - a term standing for the notion of philosophical argumentation and controversy, that seeks to find the most reasonable, cogent and plausible argumentation out of all the presented and recognized, as to be acknowledged to be one that approaches the absolute truth closer than others.
Well, my interpretation here lies as inconsolable as it was before, since when you think more, the vast number or details you see uncovered, terms become feeble and vague, and it only get's harder to find any answers. I think that, no matter for how long one may think of this question over and over, he will never be able to get out the bounds of making his standpoint for something, in order to reach the real.
A little note:
JackDaydream i am fully on the same page with you in terms of being accepted as eccentric person. In my city with the population slightly bigger than 1 million, I appear to be the only young student (or most likely even among adults), who would go in a library during holidays to read literature. Well, although it seems completely normal, I nonetheless find it a bit hard finding interesting interlocutors and acquittances in general.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: What is Philosophy?
Philosophy, religion, science, and so on are distinct (not distinctive) fields. Some issues may overlap in different fields. Some issues, like creation, may even be incompatible, as between science and religion. Most issues are not.feinbird wrote: ↑August 20th, 2022, 5:17 pm But cannot it be compatible so that philosophy is a specific distinctive field and it nonetheless may concern all the others? (science, politics, etc.) This, as previously, requires to give an interpretation to the term of 'knowledge field', and it is where, I suppose, solution may be laying. acquittances in general.
I cannot find issues in philosophy which are incompatible with the same in other fields. This arises because philosophy is not asking for fact, right or wrong, and good or bad. Philosophy is asking for MEANING. What for?
Why am I here?
Because you deserve no better, you twit.
The answer is not philosophical. Nor is the question "Who brings me here" philosophical. The biological answer is: your mum.
Asking for meaning in life and asking for causation of life are not incompatible questions. They are different questions, demanding answers from different angles.
What makes philosophy distinct from other fields? It does not search for solution. It is a knowledge field, but so are other fields.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023