On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

Not as a reply to your sophistry, but as further evidence to substantiate a position that some have asked me to defend: Isn't it? You don't seem so sure about that.If everything is philosophy, then nothing is. If all human thought constitutes a form of philosophy, then all you've done is create an unneeded synonym for "thinking." Funny, but the existence of my friends with JD and MD degrees would seem to prove you wrong about the universality of philosophy.

Archer says: Crashfrog quotes this, then takes exception this way: (sigh)_______Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

quote:

---

nator reminded us that in academia all roads lead to philosophy. When you do your science well, she pointed out, academia recognizes you as a Doctor of Philosophy (Science). Indeed it does. And when you do other things well, it still recognizes you as a Doctor of Philosophy, whatever your field. Different paths, same colour blue at the summit.

---

Yeah...and evolution is just a theory.

Since things seem to be stalling fast I was trying to find a way to summarize my position, and why philosophy is not to be scorned and why it was not 'nothing more than a dumpster for questions that sound interesting to sexy sophomore co-eds but cannot, in all likelihood, be answered in any confident fashion [and]...for wags who like the sound of their own voices far too well to muzzle them with the rigorous requirements of science.'.I managed at least to get a cautious acceptance that some fields are rigorous and I hoped that would put rest the idea that philosophy was 'refuted', and that those fields that are considered most rigorous represents the current consensus of the field of western philosophy.Still, I wanted a good summary of what I think philosophy is - crashfrog has certainly described various properties he believes philosophy has but I haven't seen a coherent simple definition of what philosophy is. Maybe I missed it, but I've put several different angles out there, and then I went to answers.com. I found this, which expressed it better than I have been able:

quote:

---

This search for truth began, in the Western world, when the Greeks first established (c.600 B.C.) inquiry independent of theological creeds. Philosophy is distinguished from theology in that philosophy rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith. Philosophy differs from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available. Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims. Thus physics was once in the realm of philosophy, and it was only in the early 20th cent. that psychology was established as a science apart from philosophy. However, many of the greatest philosophers were also scientists, and philosophy still considers the methods (as opposed to the materials) of science as its province.

​

Philosophy is traditionally divided into several branches. Metaphysics inquires into the nature and ultimate significance of the universe. Logic is concerned with the laws of valid reasoning. Epistemology investigates the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. Ethics deals with problems of right conduct. Aesthetics attempts to determine the nature of beauty and the criteria of artistic judgment. Within metaphysics a division is made according to fundamental principles. The three major positions are idealism, which maintains that what is real is in the form of thought rather than matter; materialism, which considers matter and the motion of matter as the universal reality; and dualism, which gives thought and matter equal status. Naturalism and positivism are forms of materialism.

​

Historically, philosophy falls into three large periods: classical (Greek and Roman) philosophy, which was concerned with the ultimate nature of reality and the problem of virtue in a political context; medieval philosophy, which in the West is virtually inseparable from early Christian thought; and, beginning with the Renaissance, modern philosophy, whose main direction has been epistemology.

---

Right, because you were contradicting yourself.

It seems to me that I've been supplying definitions throughout. You quoted two of them in this post alone.I gather that you find them wrong, in some way, but to assert that I haven't defined anything at all seems wrong on its face.

It's not that I thought they were wrong crashfrog and it is not that I thought you hadn't defined philosophy in some sense of the word, it's that that I thought they were not simple coherent definitions in the sense I was providing, but instead were disparaging remarks about a subject. As I conceded, in the section you quoted you have 'described various properties he believes philosophy has' but I don't think these give any understanding of what philosophy is, just what your opinion of what philosophy is..If you'd like, you've not expanded on it sufficiently: If a sexy co-ed finds a question interesting, does that make it philosophy? Does it just have to be one sexy co-ed, or a consensus of sexy co-eds. Who gets to decide if they are sexy or not? It seems like a silly definition. Can we get something more concrete? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A spade has to be called a spade. In my view, which I have defended, philosophy is a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent.Any definition that doesn't proceed from that understanding, in my view, is describing something other than philosophy. For instance, if I defined "philosophy" as "a large, extinct flightless bird originally native to the island of Mauritius", then clearly we have reason to dismiss my definition regardless of its clarity and concision - much as I have reason to reject yours.A definition cannot give understanding unless it accurately describes what it claims to define. Any definition of philosophy that does not refer to how useless and pointless it is as a field is similarly inaccurate.

Yes yes, I know your opinions about philosophy, but how would I know philosophy when I saw it? This does not have to be the case. One can define philosophy, and then explain how from that definition it is useless. You've just started at describing it as useless, and then tried to argue that it is useless. The problem I find myself in is that I do not know what it is that you are describing as useless. You have given it a word 'philosophy', but you haven't actually defined it, just dismissed it as useless and unrigorous.The debate is at its final dead end if you cannot explain what philosophy actually is in your mind, not just describe what you think of philosophy. I know what your opinions on philosophy are and they don't need repeating. If I was to pick up something by Russell or Hume, how would I be able to say "That was a philosophical position or question?"I don't want you to describe some qualities that you think the field possesses, but rather I'm asking for the cognitive tool you use for discriminating between what is philosophy and what is not.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The smell? You'd look for a field where people said much, meant nothing, and seemed to be all the better regarded for it, but didn't call themselves "theologians" or "economists," but rather, "philosophers."Philosophy is what philosophers are doing when they're not doing anything useful. I think that after 220 posts I've made a pretty good argument for considering philosophy useless, and again, I'm not by any means the only person who thinks so. I don't know a single scientist, for instance, who sees any merit in philosophy, for all that philosophers try to take credit for the scientific method. You're not making any sense. What else could philosophy be in my mind except for what my mind thinks of it?

So, if anyone shows you something currently regarded as philosophy which is not "a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent;" Your reply will merely be that it cannot be philosophy, and instead, all you'll include into your category of philosophy are those things which already t the denition you've given them, and then you'll use those to defend your point. Let's diagram that, shall we?

(Examine X)
      |
      v
   Does X=0? -No-> X = non-Philosophy
      |
     Yes
      |
      v
X = Philosophy

The obvious problem here, of course, is that you are trying to mould your reality around your denitions, instead of trying to extract your denitions from your reality. It's similar to how Creationists interpret evidence to t their presuppositions that the Bible is inherent, instead of concluding whether the Bible is inherent based on the evidence. A more honest (and non-Crashfroggian) method should be something like:

(Examine P)
    |
    v
What is P? -0-> Some P are 0
    |
    1
    |
    v
   Some
 P are 1

This way, you'll come to the proper conclusion that some philosophy is good, and that others is utter rubbish. In other words, you'll come to a conclusion that is more tting of your reality, and then you won't have to make one up any more”your reality, that is.Also, I'd like to know how it was you came to this denition.Jon

Uh, no, that doesn't sound like what I wrote, at all.See, this is what makes me think you're not here to read for comprehension; you're here to interpret my remarks in the most rebutable way possible, regardless of my intent. The obvious problem here is that you're molding your replies around what you wish I had said, instead of what I actually did. By all means, try to defend philosophy; but see if you can do it in the context of 220 previous posts on the subject and without being as disingenuous as you've been in the past.Can you do that for me? Observation of the dishonesty of those who defend philosophy, like the dishonesty you've been displaying in this thread.

Then we are not talking about the same field. One might be saying much and meaning nothing and engaging in philosophy. But I feel that one can say plenty with meaning and also engage in philosophy.However, I feel your idea of looking for people who call themselves philosophers as a means to determining if they are engaging in philosophy or some other useless field you don't like is highly unsatisfying. If I didn't know who the person was making a statement, how would I know if they were a philosopher or if they were engaging in philosophy rather than talking about economics or theology?

quote:

---

On the other hand, there is a very real evil consequent on ascribing a supernatural origin to the received maxims of morality. That origin consecrates the whole of them, and protects them from being discussed or criticized. So that if among the moral doctrines received as a part of religion, there be any which are imperfect---which were either erroneous from the first, or not properly limited and guarded in the expression, or which, unexceptionable once, are no longer suited to the changes that have taken place in human relations (and it is my firm belief that in so-called christian morality, instances of all these kinds are to be found) these doctrines are considered equally binding on the conscience with the noblest, most permanent and most universal precepts of Christ. Wherever morality is supposed to be of supernatural origin, morality is stereotyped; as law is, for the same reason, among believers in the Koran.

---

Without knowing who wrote this, how would I know if it was theology or philosophy or economics? I think you have put an OK case up against useless philosophy. Let me try again. I don't want your opinion on your perceived flaws of the field, I want to know what the field actually is that you feel has no merit. Don't tell me its useless that it has no rigour that it is whatever philosophers do etc etc. Tell me what 'it' actually is.

I wish that the one you were talking about existed. I honestly do.But it is not philosophy as practiced. Again, I don't understand. If the field has no merit, it is because of its flaws. You're asking for something, and then you're telling me not to tell you that thing. How am I supposed to make heads or tails of that?

So in summary, your position's merely been pulled from your ass? Did you even read what you wrote? What I wrote? Your position, like the Creos, always breaks down to name-calling and accusing your opponents of being stupid. What does that say about your position? What does that say about you? Every eld's got its dishonest folk. If you discounted everything just because there were a few dishonest folk in the eld, you'd be listening to speaker reverb and complaining about those blasted economists.Jon