What is Philosophy

[OpenMind]

Essentially, philosophy is the quest to understand the nature of any aspect of life. It can be a specific subject such as understanding why something falls (gravity) or it can be unspecific such as understanding why the universe exists or what its purpose is.

Philosophy is one of those words that I term a blanket term insofar as it covers a wide range of things within it s domain. Ultimately, it is the process by which we try to understand how nature works. Science is its sibling and provides the basis for the protocol for undertaking a philosophical study. Confused? Good, so are the rest of us.

Simply put, philosophy is the desire to understand life and science provides the rules so that we can understand what the other bugger is talking about.

[chonsigirl]

Philosophy-the love of wisdom. It is a catch-all word that includes many aspects of self-questioning, examination of the world, how we think and analyze our viewpoints, so many things.

I do like many schools of philosophical thought, as evident by my little take under my avatar, based on Descartes, "I think, therefore I am."

[orangesox1]

I got an exellent mark in one of my Philosophy units (HD) for my argument on showing that the earth doesn't really move. So I guess it is being able to argue to a point that makes sense,, without the scientific back up to suggest otherwise.

:-3

[orangesox1]

ArnoldLayne wrote: OK Thats a good answer, An answer to a question isnt a right one or a wrong one its the convincing one



So what you did in fact is lie through your teeth, didn't you :wah:


At least I got a good grade for it:D I still didn't manage to convince my self that it didn't really move, I think the only person who belives that, would be my lecturer who gave me a top mark. No wonder it's confusing:-3

[koan]

Descartes walks into a café and sits down ready to order. A waiter comes up to him and asks, "Do you need a menu?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and he disappears!

[orangesox1]

koan wrote: Descartes walks into a café and sits down ready to order. A waiter comes up to him and asks, "Do you need a menu?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and he disappears!


:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl



Thats so funny, did you just make that up?

[koan]

wish I could say yes. author unknown

[OpenMind]

ArnoldLayne wrote: I asked the question after reading a tongue-in-cheek remark about Renee Descartes mission to prove that nothing really existed, except himself. My response would be, what, if any, conclusion can be drawn, other than having a wonderful time excercising the lesser used parts of our brains. If we dont exist why are we asking the question ?



Is the purpose in asking the questions , to find answers or more questions ?



I think this just proves how ignorant and un-read I am :wah:


Au contraire.

Most philosophy requires an argument that soundly explains the subject in question. Descartes statement "I think, therefore I am" is not an explanation and is not philosophical so much as a catch-phrase.

Every time you try to reason, you are philosophising. We all do it without realising it. Adding up the evidence is what philosophy is all about. Business is based upon an understanding of social science, even though business men do not study social science. This is philosophy in action.

At the academic level, there are rules for laying out an argument and there are rules for criticising an argument. These rules are based upon perspective and assumption. For instance, to work out the science of gravity, an assumption can be made that the apple moves to the ground rather than that the ground moves to the apple. In fact, a pure understanding of gravity shows that both move towards each other.

Perspective provides the framework or the viewpoint of the student. For instance, to explain gravity, a student can take for reference the actions of force and motion. Einstein, on the other hand, explained gravity on the basis that mass bends space and stray matter follows the curves.

Your skill is based upon various observations made in the distant past that enabled us to build permanent structures. This technology is the result of philosophical breakthroughs.

[OpenMind]

ArnoldLayne wrote: How are philisophical observations linked to scientific facts if the former is used to define abstract perceptions and the latter is undeniable truth


The philosophical observation is the initial enquiry. For instance, after all this time, why is there not a pile of suns mounting up on the western horizon? Philosophical understanding starts with a question.

Then science gets involved. Science provides the parameters by which we test for results. Hopefully, the results will provide more questions. For instance, where the hell do these suns come from in the first place. (Oh yeah, they come from the east.)

Philosophy: so who's shooting all these suns up across the sky? Hmmm, perhaps it's a giant archer.

Science: go east and find archer.

[chonsigirl]

It is more then an exercise of the mind, Arnold. How you perceive this knowledge gained from science, is gathered through your senses.

You see the picture.

You touch the object.

You hear the bird singing.

You taste the chocolate cream pie.

You smell the lavendar perfume.

But there are different ways to analyze this knowledge, through different forms of philosophy.

You might just want to take this things at face value. But if you want to think about them more closely, then philosophy can set you thinking along many lines of thought.

[OpenMind]

ArnoldLayne wrote: Sorry, I may just be looking at this from the wrong angle. My problem is, from a modern day standpoint, if I know for a fact that the sun sets and the same sun rises, why would I need to philosophise over the abstract perception of it being a different sun that turned up every morning and try to convince fellow philosophers of this. I understand the fun in doing so but not the practicallity of the exercise


Someone (who, I don't know) did ask the question and we all now know that it's the one and the same sun that we see every day. Therefore, in the modern perspective this particular question just doesn't arise. It has been asked and the question has been answered. Only a thousand years ago, Britons thought that tornadoes were caused by the Earth goddess and the Sky god making love to each other. Who knows? Perhaps they have a point.

Philosophy starts with a question. Every time you ask a question that is over and above current human knowledge, you are putting forward a potential destination for a ship of discovery. Ask your question and set sail.

[koan]

ArnoldLayne wrote: What exactly is philosophy ? I mean the philosophy from an intellectual point of view



Has it a purpose or is it just an exercise for the mind. Has philosophy actually answered any questions or has it just posed more. Is it just a process of questions that try to establish whether we exist or not (I think, therefore I am ) ? What's the end result, if any, apart from a desire to analyse that, that most of us take for granted. Or is the Holy Grail of philosophy, that there is no answer after all


Going back to OP for a moment, and realizing it is not an entirely earnest query, there are some good points.

From an intellectual point of view, you would probably hear that philosophy is essential. Can't remember what the term is for the capability to think on multi-levels...damn. It was a library book too. Anyway, it is considered to be what separates humans from other animals. So to people, such as intellectuals, who prefer to live above primal pleasure seeking existence, philosophical thought is of utmost importance. It is almost more fun to hear what philosophy is to the non-intellectual, though that might result in hearing the unpleasant words "mumbo jumbo".

I wonder why the "just" needs to exist in any of those questions. Exercising the mind is as helpful as exercising muscles of any other kind. Asking more questions is vital to progress. Uh, oh. Now what is progress?

I personally enjoy seeing how many complex words it takes a philosopher to express one idea in way that is uniformly understood. It is even more fun to imagine there is a holy grail of philosophy. Like a trophy in the mental olympics.

[coberst]

I once asked a philosophy professor “What is philosophy about?” He said philosophy is “radically critical self-consciousness”. This was 35 years ago. Only in the last five years have I begun to understand that statement

I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what “radically critical self-consciousness” meant.

I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.

Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.

I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usage”such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.

The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.

If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.

The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.

Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.

If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.

I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.

A good place to begin CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[OpenMind]

Arnie. I don't see you as having shortcomings. Philosophy is a skill that has to be acquired like any other skill. That it is a mental skill makes no difference.

I developed my own skills by subscribing to Open University courses. To begin, I had to learn how to study, learn, and argue, etc at university level. This is radically different to learning at school or college. But I had to learn nonetheless.

On the other hand, I know very little about building construction. Makes us kinda equal in my eyes.



My dictionary's definition of philosophy is:

Philosophy. Noun. The pursuit of wisdom or of the knowledge of things & their causes (natural, moral, etc, p., subdivisions limited to external nature, morality, etc), the study of the ultimate realities & general principles; a system of theories on the nature of things or of rules for the conduct of life; the equanimity expected of a philosopher, superiority to pain & passion.

[OpenMind]

Hehehe, Arnie. Most of my knowledge could be described as anecdotal at best. Ingesting snippets of information that interested me most and allowing the rest to pass through.


Believe it or not, that is how information is collected at university level learning. Reading entire sentences is adviced against unless you particularly want to read the entire sentence. Looks like you're already a natural.

Since, as you say, you have been lazy over learning stuff, you can't really say whether you're any good at it until you try.

[koan]

ArnoldLayne wrote: I beg to differ. My language may not suit you but my question was indeed entirely earnest. As you quite properly point out, I am by no means an intellectual, that particular muscle of mine is underused to the point of being sometimes redundant but it hardly warrents the sneering. Still, if it provides you with fun to hear us lesser mortals try to grasp the intricasies of philosophy.



Furthermore I dont think , even in my clumsy way, did I refer to the subject of this thread as mumbo-jumbo.



My thanks to those who read my question as it was intended and responded appropriatly. OpenMind, at least tried to engage me in a manner that was on an equal platform and accepted my shortcomings. I can clearly see where I would learn most from


I'd ask "why" but there are so many better questions to ask...

I said "not an entirely earnest query" because you had written "I asked the question after reading a tongue-in-cheek remark about Renee Descartes mission to prove that nothing really existed, except himself." So it seemed you were asking it to start a discussion and not because you had no idea of the answer.

I did not point out anything about your intellectual capability as I don't know a thing about you. I quoted your OP because those were the subjects of the thread which you posted for discussion. Additionally, I hadn't imagined that you would say "mumbo jumbo" since you started the thread and are therefore expressing an interest in philosophy. You read my response as an insult whereas I tried to take pains to ensure you would not read it that way.

Alas.

[koan]

ArnoldLayne wrote: If I read your response wrongly then i appologise. That must be the gulf of language between us. Any real reponse to my questions from you would be appreciated


That is very gracious of you, Arnold. For my part, I regret that you took my post as a comment about you personally and apologise for any grief that might have caused you.

My "real" comment lies within the last:

That philosophy is for the purpose of keeping humans from living on the level of pure animals and for the sake of progress. This brought up the question from me on "what is progress", which might have an ancient thread of its own here at FG somewhere.

And on the light hearted side, I introduced the idea of a mental olympics and was hoping to spur ideas on what such an event might be called (ie- orange bowl etc.)

[spot]

I'm late to the ball as usual. Let me try to catch up. I do hope you don't find this irrelevant.

ArnoldLayne wrote: How are philosophical observations linked to scientific facts if the former is used to define abstract perceptions and the latter is undeniable truthAh. Well now. Undeniable truth. Philosophy does use undeniable truths but they're not scientific, they're the agreed assumptions for a given philosophy. Philosophers tend, the grander they get, to limit those to the smallest irreducible set that they can get away with. "I take these truths to be undeniable, and from these I logically deduce my philosophy" - that sort of undeniable truth. "I think therefore I am", for example, was the first logical deduction made by Descartes after he rather ramblingly came up with his first undeniable truth "I think". He did go on to invent an entire new universe of thought after that opening chapter.

I was just stood in the kitchen making coffee with my lesser daughter discussing this very matter, strangely.

Science isn't truth. Science is a process of investigation. Science uncovers a widening body of observation. The process allows an interpretation of observations to be made, predictions to be thought up on the strength of those known observations, and the interpretation to be tested by further observation in the predicted area. Observational agreement with well designed predictions strengthens the usefulness of the interpretation. Observational anomalies lead to recasting or overthrowing the interpretations on which the predictions were made.

Anywhere that this process can be applied is open to scientific enquiry. It depends on the consistent repeatability of measurable observations, for one thing. Applying that single scientific process has built all of the technological marvels that we play with here.

But it - the scientific process - says nothing about truth. Truths are what you get from assumptions. An undeniable truth is what you have if you can't ever throw your assumption away.

What philosophy does is this. It allows you to start with whatever assumptions you feel compelled never to part with - your undeniable truths. You can then add deductions. Depending on whether you're logical or not, your deductions can be rational or not (given the undeniability of your initial truths) - your deductions can be entirely mathematical in fact, if you're good at logic as mathematics. So long as you can continue to deduce, you can extend your philosophy.

You can also, if you want to weaken your resulting philosophical argument about a particular aspect under discussion, bring in scientific observations and even interpretations. This extends what you can deduce very quickly and very widely, but you need to be careful. If you bring in "facts" (let's abbreviate scientific observations and interpretations to that, as distinct from what we've already called "truths") and they're central commonplace ones that everyone can either recognize or check by looking up to be unambiguously factual, then fine. If your "facts" are only recognized by a subset of people, then immediately your philosophy is only useable by that same subset. This is where "facts" like "the Bible was written by God" become so divisive - if you assume or state that, then your philosophy is immediately controversial.

So, back to Arnold... "Has philosophy actually answered any questions or has it just posed more". Philosophy's answered nothing, ever. It's provided tools for people who want to talk with each other. I shall listen attentively to your philosophy and you shall listen to mine, and we may find areas we can productively stitch from one to the other. All I do with my philosophy, at the end of the day, is live it.

[koan]

Where science asks "can we?" philosophy asks "should we?"

Then philosophy asks "which is more important? the can or the should?"

Then science asks "if we sit around thinking about it all day will it ever get done?" (at which point science invents 'the philosophy of science')

so they temporarily draft an agreement

[Mongoose]

ArnoldLayne wrote: What exactly is philosophy ? I mean the philosophy from an intellectual point of view



Has it a purpose or is it just an exercise for the mind. Has philosophy actually answered any questions or has it just posed more. Is it just a process of questions that try to establish whether we exist or not (I think, therefore I am ) ? What's the end result, if any, apart from a desire to analyse that, that most of us take for granted. Or is the Holy Grail of philosophy, that there is no answer after all


Sorry I'm a bit late here but maybe I'll reignite the debate. Or not if I say the same as somebody else.

I think Philosophy is just an exercise for the mind. It is fun and makes people think a bit more than in their everyday life. However, Philosophy cannot answer any of the questions that it asks because when someone gives an answer somebody else critisises it and just asks more questions. Philosophy just goes round and round in circles meaninglessly.

[koan]

Philosophy gave birth to the Age of Reason.

Is it to be said that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, Descartes, Jung, Adam Smith, Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Aquinas, Voltaire, Bacon, Rousseau, etc have not contributed to society?

[coberst]

“It’s a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.”

“But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in a recent article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University.

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the ever essence of our life.

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.

[coberst]

Diuretic wrote: No it isn't. It's a philosopher's job to make us think about how we should live our lives, not tell us how to live our lives.


It seems selfish to study what is the proper way to live and then not tell anyone.

[OpenMind]

coberst wrote: It seems selfish to study what is the proper way to live and then not tell anyone.


If a philosopher wants us to even think about how we should live our lives, then the info would have to published. If the info wasn't announced, then I agree that it would be an abuse of position. Nonetheless, all academics earn a living by publishing their findings on a subject. Although this is not the only way they can earn a wage. In fact, I believe it is the supreme desire of every 'normal' academic to publish their findings and subject it to criticism from their peers.

[coberst]

Open Mind

I suspect most academics think that they have no peers.

[OpenMind]

coberst wrote: Open Mind



I suspect most academics think that they have no peers.


Hmmm. An interesting conjecture.

I am currently studying quantum mechanics in my spare time. From these studies, I have surmised that not only is there intense rivalry among the academics, but there is also a lot of collaboration, discussion, and cameraderie. I have acquired the same impression from other subjects that I have studied. I think that while academics appear aloof by nature, they are the opposite in reality. What makes them appear aloof is their command of the English language (whatever their nationality) and their immense knowledge.

[coberst]

Open Mind

I also tried to understand QM. The best book that I read (well read a good bit of) was the book "QED" (Quantium Electro Dynamics) by Richard Feynman. For me Feynman is my man for QM. This is a great book.

[chonsigirl]

*off topic*

Scholars don't really make money out of publications, or not much. Usually when you write a published book, you get a box of books for free. You only make money if a large amount of them are sold. You write an article for a compilation, you get a copy of that. And it is taxable. (and threw my tax man into a fit, for one book I was sent last year)

Scholars publish their work usually for two main reasons: peer review, and it does help them to obtain a university position, or move up to tenure. At many universities it is an unspoken requirement you publish something at least every 4-5 years.

But there are scholars who publish their works because they feel the topic is important, and the subject matter must be told. Thank goodness for many scholars like that, there are still a large number of them around.

[OpenMind]

coberst wrote: Open Mind



I also tried to understand QM. The best book that I read (well read a good bit of) was the book "QED" (Quantium Electro Dynamics) by Richard Feynman. For me Feynman is my man for QM. This is a great book.


http://www.amasci.com/feynman.html

Take your pick.

[Erinna1112]

orangesox1 wrote: So I guess it is being able to argue to a point that makes sense,, without the scientific back up to suggest otherwise.

:-3
I disagree. Philosophy is the basis and origin of science. Philosophy is based on rational argument and appeal to facts. The history of modern sciences begins with philosophical inquiries, and the scientific method of experimentation and proof remains an instance of the general approach that a philosopher tries to bring to a question - one that is logical and rigorous.

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. … In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

”Ayn Rand, Philosophy, Who Needs It (p. 2)
A good definition, IMO.

[Bryn Mawr]

ArnoldLayne wrote: OK Thats a good answer, An answer to a question isnt a right one or a wrong one its the convincing one



So what you did in fact is lie through your teeth, didn't you :wah:


Not in the slightest - if you take the Earth as your frame of reference then of course it does not move.

[Bryn Mawr]

ArnoldLayne wrote: No appology necessary. Its an old favourite and wholly appropriate. I still sing bits of it :wah:



Eternal thanks to the Python geniuses once again


I do believe that it pre-dates the Pythons.

As I recall it was the B Side to the Rhubarb Tart song from the 1948 Gang show.

Struggling here but I think it was most of the Pythons plus most of the Goodies whilst they were still at Uni.