What is Philosophy?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

What is Philosophy?

Post by gad-fly »

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?

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.
User avatar
feinbird
Posts: 5
Joined: August 14th, 2022, 12:44 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by feinbird »

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.

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?
philg42
Premium Member
Posts: 8
Joined: August 12th, 2022, 5:31 am

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by philg42 »

I became interested in philosophy after changing jobs as a teacher. I started teaching as a science teacher to older children, then moved to teach everything to younger children. To fill in some blank spots in my education I took a year-long Open University course (in the UK) on forms of inquiry, which looked at what was unique about each 'subject' or 'form of knowledge' that was essential to understand when teaching any subject. The only one I couldn't get a real handle on was philosophy. A few years later I watched a BBC series 'The Great Philosophers' With Bryan Magee, John Searle, J.P. Stern, Peter Singer. It was a sequential account of the history of western philosophy in 15 episodes, each a discussion about a particular philosopher or school of 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?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

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?
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?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by chewybrian »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:32 am
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?
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?
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!

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.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

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?
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!
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 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

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

chewybrian wrote: August 20th, 2022, 8:55 am I think philosophy demands that you make an effort to step outside yourself in a sense.
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).

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.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by gad-fly »

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.
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.

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.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

gad-fly wrote: August 20th, 2022, 11:55 am
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by gad-fly »

philosophy is functionally a rabbit hatch served, more often than not, to make the world go away for a while.
User avatar
feinbird
Posts: 5
Joined: August 14th, 2022, 12:44 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by feinbird »

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.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by JackDaydream »

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.
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!
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: What is Philosophy?

Post by gad-fly »

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.
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.

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.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021