On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

I'm still curious about this modern definition. I went to modernphilosophy.com which is authored by a modern philosopher. He says that

quote:

---

Modern philosophers have to use their intellect without denying their intuition; they have to stand on the solid foundation of science, while straining to see from as high a vantage-point as possible; they have to look objectively, while acknowledging their subjectivity, and they have to be discriminating and open-minded at the same time. Above all, philosophy, like science, is about finding the truth, whether we like it or not.

​

Modern philosophers have to ensure their words and works are accessible. If they can’t communicate their ideas simply and elegantly they need to go back and study them until they can. The obscure, the irrelevant, and the impenetrable, have no value in modern philosophy.

---

So modern philosophy is about standing on the shoulders of giants and looking for interesting new avenues of research. Sounds like something someone who just completed a piece of original research to the satisfaction of their peers just did. Regardless of any perceived dishonesty, I think the modern PhD along with the modern definition of philosophy work together rather well.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Principia Mathematica, Vols 1-3 by Russel and Whitehead, 1910-1913, and then all subsequent work in mathematics. It's not necessary, or likely possible, to define what every infant is born knowing how to do. That's the basis on which your argument immediately fails. To define empiricism - as opposed to using it - is to be engaging in philosophy, which cannot justify empiricism.Empiricism is justified by empiricism, not by definition or philosophy. That's been my point throughout. Are you paying attention?

I have defined philosophy, throughout. Remember?Why am I continually being asked to define words that I have already defined? It's like you all aren't paying attention. What leads you to believe that philosophy can distinguish truth from fiction? It seems to me that I've given ample evidence that it cannot. Indeed, you and others have repeatedly agreed with me on that.So what's going on, here? As much as you've asked me to define the term "philosophy", you seem to forget that you have already done so, often, and that "telling truth from fiction" was not a feature of any of those definitions.

You misunderstand. When you try and discover a way to distinguish truth from fiction you are engaging in philosophy. We finally arrived at the system we have, it took a lot of thought - and a lot of dispute. Yes they were, I'm afraid. Remember epistemology? Part of epistemology are the criteria of truth.

quote:

---

In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. They are tools of verification. Understanding a philosophy's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation of that philosophy. This necessity is driven by the varying, and conflicting, claims of different philosophies. The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own. An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable.

---

Which is what I have been saying. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Wow.My prejudices are again reinforced.People who are into philosophy tend to be smug and annoying.

Wonderful. You've proven that mathematics uses logic, a proposition never in dispute. Your claim is that logic is more properly part of math than philosophy. The fact that math uses it is a far cry from supporting your proposition.In support of my proposition that logic is a branch of philosophy, I offer the following:In a Google search of the phrase "university philosophy department class list" every one of the first 11 universities included logic as a component of the philosophy program. (I stopped after 11, but have no reason to believe that the result would be different if I went farther down the list. Feel free to check it yourself if you like.) I'm quite certain that you can dismiss this with a wave of your hand, possibly suggesting that all universities are running a huge scam on their students. Nonetheless, I offer it in case any rational people are reading this thread. The fact that you are unable to define your term strongly suggests to me that you don't really have a good grasp of what it means. It's really rather nonsensical for you to say that you can't define empiricism but you use it every day. Sounds a lot like superstition to me ("When you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer." -- Stevie Wonder.) Defining one's terms isn't philosophy, it's simply necessary for clarity of discussion. On the other hand, if you really believe that defining one's terms is part of philosophy, then you've engaged in philosophy every time you've asked a creo to define a term.In any event, I fear that continuing this discussion with you would be as futile as trying to pin down a creo on "kind." I have other obligations to tend to at the moment, but will give some thought to how we might possibly continue from this point on. In the meantime, if you care to take a stab at defining your term, I'd be delighted to see what you can come up with.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

OK, so would you be willing to say 'rigor' is empirical verifiability? I am keeping up with this thread, I just disagree with your apparent supposition that only the natural sciences, along with some select social sciences, contribute to human knowledge. I believe virtually all fields of human inquiry and endeavor, including basket weaving, contribute to human knowledge. After all, knowledge of a better way to weave a basket is a contribution to human knowledge. I based those answers on your own previous responses. Are you now denying that chemistry and physics 'contribute to human knowledge' while supporting theology and philosophy do 'contribute to human knowledge?' Are you denying your own assertions? We have a history of mutual antagonism don't we? I notice you are quite emotional for someone who supposedly holds logic and empiricism in greater regard than all who believe your defenses of certain prepositions lack 'rigor.' Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Says you. Since philosophy can't do that, as we both agree, why would I believe you? Your quotation proves my point, Mod.

Have you even read the text in question? Russel and Whitehead didn't just use logic; they reconstructed it, and then they used it to re-develop hundreds of years of mathematics. Why? Ah, yes. I disagree with Subbie; I must be a creationist.Why isn't it possible for any of you to defend philosophy except by being dishonest?

A working definition I've been going with is the ability to recognize false models. Basket weaving would be a form of engineering, obviously, and therefore a kind of natural science.The thing is, Ang, nobody's here putting forward theatre as the underlying basis for all human knowledge. The claim made by philosophy's defenders - when they aren't acting like jackasses - is that you can't do anything without philosophy. No science, no learning, nothig.Philosophy is responsible for everything? All knowledge? That's an extraordinary claim - as well as an extraordinarily arrogant claim.Theatre isn't even on the radar, here. When theatre students go to their classes, they're learning stagecraft, they're studying plays and great performances, they're learning how to emote, maybe they're even discovering something about themselves. All that stuff is very well and good and I wish them the best of luck in all that; I'm a big supporter of the theatre, coming as I do from a theatre family.But the students of philosophy are going to class, learning essentially the rules to a game, and then they're being taught that all human civilization has been made possible by the self-indulgent wankery they're engaging in.And then, of course, they show up here and act like smug assholes. It's because my opponents are delivering sophistry instead of rebuttals. It's precisely the sort of thing they prize in philosophy, and it's precisely the sort of thing that the rest of us reasonable people can't stand about you all.

Well, I guess I have to admit I was wrong. You didn't dismiss my argument with a wave of your hand and indict the entire university system. You just ignored it. Well done.It's quite simple. If you can't define a term, you don't know what it means. And if all you got from what I said is that I think you're a creationist because you disagree with me, you either skipped a lot or your reading comprehension is much lower than I would have thought it is.Once again, we seem to have reached a point beyond which any further discussion would be pointless.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Was that an argument? Seriously? I thought you were just being cute. What does it matter what university department teaches logic? My wife just completed her masters degree at one of the top universities in the Midwest, and her entomology department was in the plant science division, and I'm pretty sure insects aren't plants.Perhaps you disagree?

Up yours, Bruce!

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And right, which is the most annoying thing of all.Sorry. That just comes with our PhDs. _______Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for perfect annoyance.

Says me and says philosophers. When you want to know what science is, you ask scientists. Yet when you want to know what philosophy is, you stick to your own opinions. Genius.Philosophy cannot say, for definite, what is true or false. Many years of thinking about the subject has given us ideas about criteria with which to judge the truth of a proposition. The point is that nothing gives us a way of knowing what is definitely true and what is definitely false, and that part of philosophy concerns itself with trying to explore different ways to discriminate - and to argue their various strengths and weaknesses. I showed you something which says that part of philosophy is about how to verify certain statements (since logic alone cannot do this). I'm fairly sure it actually confirms the areas we already agreed about, and where we disagree with one another, it confirms things in my favour. However, feel free to wave it away with six words - it really shows the strength of your argument.Since you simply said 'your quotation' I can only assume that you are yet again not investigating the matter for yourself by, you know, looking things up. Let me quote further from the page. Feel free to continue denying reality, people are being entertained by it:

quote:

---

There are three "primary truths" inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge and truth. They are the first fact (the fact of our existence), the first principle (the principle of non-contradiction) and the first condition (the ability of the mind to know truth). They cannot be validated with positive proof, as they are an inherent in every analysis. As a demonstration of their a priori nature, a person objecting to these essential truths cannot set a standard of proof without implicitly accepting the premises.

---

Agreed?

quote:

---

Coherence refers to a consistent and overarching explanation for all facts. To be coherent, all pertinent facts must be arranged in a consistent and cohesive fashion as an integrated whole. The theory which most effectively reconciles all facts in this fashion may be considered most likely to be true. Coherence is the most potentially effective test of truth because it most adequately addresses all elements. The main limitation lies not in the standard, but in the human inability to acquire all facts of an experience.

---

Why do we consider theories to be probably true? Because of the criterion of coherence. Shock horror - a criteria of truth inherent in that pointless waste of time that we both use to justify the theory of evolution's validity at least once a month around here. Damn philosophy.

quote:

---

Strict consistency is when claims are connected in such a fashion that one statement follows from another. Formal logic and mathematical rules are exemplary examples of rigorous consistency.

---

Oh my god. Another criterion of truth that you have been arguing for in this very thread - you'd never have thought crashfrog was a lover of epistemology!

quote:

---

If an idea works then it must be true, to the Pragmatist.

---

"Empiricism justifies empiricism", I assume because you think it works...a criterion of truth. Epistemology...philosophy.You can, if you want, just deny this. You can say it is not so. You can say that nobody ever needed to think of this, and nobody needed to argue this etc etc, if you'd like. It's actually quite funny how remarkable your denial is - almost like you really really want philosophy to be discredited and the reality of the matter is unimportant. Out of interest though, do you have any argument of substance? Have you actually done any research on the matter? Is this just an inherent bias because of how much philosophy students got laid even though they seemed to be talking bollocks when you were investigating truths and getting no action? I really am interested why you are so invested in this.Or alternatively you can just snap out of it and we'd all have a little more respect for you. Your call.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.