On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

I agree, side, except that the observation assumes a different character for me.I don't view the 'rulings of science' as 'subsuming' philosophy in any new way. Philosophy has always sought to address established facts. Scientific inquiry has just multiplied the number of facts to consider.[AbE:] (Of course, as Modulous is explaining, science and empiricism are themselves objects of interest when the subject turns to epistomology.)Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Spoken like a true Aristotelian.All people who value knowledge are in the philosophy business.
Some know it, some don't.

A fine philosophical statement.I have no quarrel with your philosophy. Only with denial, if any exists, that it is one.To discuss 'the value of knowledge' is to do philosophy.

It is simply a matter of calling things what they are. (And going with the topic.)You are debating philosophical questions and stating a personal philosophy. Anyone who knows what philosophy is can spot this.How much time and talent does it take to say the sky is blue? Not much. Is it a waste to say it? Not if the sky is blue, and someone needs to know.Philosophy is a wide-ranging and inevitable endeavour of the human intellect. Every person who values knowledge engages in it.Certainly every EvC participant I've met displays an interest in philosophical discussion. And quite a few show remarkable aptitude for it--yourself definitely included._________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Well said.Many people make the mistake of thinking that knowledge works like a college course catalog tends to look. Everything is there in self-contained little boxes. If one chooses one's courses from the chemistry box, the thinking goes, one has consigned social science and literature and other endeavours to the dustbin. Literature and social science specialists may likewise think of themselves as done with chemistry as a result of their choices. Nevermore shall these paths cross.Not so. Human knowledge is not isolated boxes, but a woven fabric. Threads cross, run parallel, provide mutual support. One thread leads to another. All of the fabric is connected.We find an excellent example of this just in looking at the sciences. In the first half of the twentieth century we had a situation where geologists often did their thing, physicists did theirs, and biologists did theirs. As the century moved forward, though, patterns were discerned that had implications for, and united, all these areas of study. Overarching theories such as plate tectonics united a variety of formerly separate areas of study into one theory. (Just as the theory of evolution had a century earlier.)This process of discerning pattern is not limited to the sciences. Interrelationships exist across all human knowledge.Behind all areas of study lies philosophy. It is the place you come to when, regardless of where you started, you trace all the threads back.JavaMan showed us how you get to these questions when you start with auto mechanics. Jar showed us how addressing a practical concern--improving the quality of human lives--necessarily follows from value decisions--the nature of improvement, the desirability of the goal. 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.To climb, if one climbs well, is to see a panorama at the summit. There one sees all the peaks one chose not to climb. One views them with new appreciation for having conquered the single peak one has. One sees the interrelatedness of all knowledge. And one sees the limits of one's own.So it is that in back of all specialized knowledge lies philosophy. What do we know? How do we know it? What limits do we work with? How best to take advantage of those things we can do?It is often charged that questions like these are not of 'practical' use. But they are. We act every day on our answers to them. It's just that most of the time we assume those answers rather than think about them. The mechanic asks 'How do I get the engine to run more efficiently?' (a practical question). It's a daily concern. But the question itself assumes that an answer to another question has already been reached: 'What is efficiency?' (a threshold philosophical question).Sooner or later thinking people step back and examine the assumptions they make. They ask those questions and question those answers that so often are taken for granted. They consider, they wonder, they... well, they think. Am I using the best definition? How do I know? When did I decide? What other answers are possible? How do they compare?

The unexamined life is not worth living.
-Socrates

To hold any belief system, to operate from any set of priorities, is to have a philosophy. To examine any belief system is to engage in philosophy. All thinking people are in this business.It is not true to say that philosophy has 'no definition' because 'everything is philosophy.' People say this when they realize this is something that can't be put in a ghetto-shaped box the same way you might be able to segregate, say, the subject of geology from the subject of biology. Not knowing right away where to place it, they assume it to be shapeless.Not at all. It's not that everything is philosophy; it's that philosophy stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had._______________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

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

You say "a number of people" have said this. It should therefore be no problem to cite a few names and posts. Please do.I ask because although the phrase "everything is philosophy" appears often on this thread, I have yet to see anyone actually make this claim. I've only encountered the phrase in the posts of individuals--you being the latest--who say they disagree with it.What has been said is that philosophical questions arise in every field of intellectual endeavour. And they do.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Until you wake up, and find out it was all a dream. Then you conclude the opposite: that the rock you thought was real never existed.So again the question arises: How do you know?It's a question worth asking anywhere knowledge itself is a goal.You say you don't like to be bothered with asking it. You prefer to leave certain questions unasked and take their answers for granted. If a rock seems real to you, it is.Who can argue with you about your personal preferences? You are the world's foremost authority on what subjects interest you and what subjects don't.But let's be plain about it: a statement of personal likes and dislikes is not a reasoned argument invalidating any realm of human intellectual endeavour.I like canteloupe. I don't like raisins. It does not follow that raisins are poison or that canteloupe is all the food humans beings need to survive.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Quetzal, failing to produce an example of anyone taking the position he says they do ('philosophy is everything'), whisks the goal posts into the next county thus: You'll have to take that complaint to your Straw Man in Charge of Nonsense.My claim is as I stated it:

'How do you know?' It's a question worth asking anywhere knowledge itself is a goal.

You quoted this yourself.Do you deny that the question 'How do you know?' is worth asking?If so, say so. In speaking of being 'actually covered' you assume, rather than prove, the conclusion you draw: that the experience is real.A person who dreams about a fall can dream about mud and toes. During the dream he says 'This is real.' He wakes up and decides the opposite.The question remains. What criteria are you using to decide which experience is real? No, your argument does.So far you have made no reasoned case to support your contention that certain questions should be taboo for the human species to ask or discuss. You merely state your lack of interest in exploring any of those questions yourself.You can put your objection on more substantial grounds any time you wish. Just explain, using reason rather than personal likes and dislikes, why human beings are better off not asking themselves the question 'How do you know?'___________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Human beings inquire. We ask questions about the world around us and explore those questions. We consider, debate, reject, accept and refine answers that others of our kind propose.Among the questions that appear in every culture and in every age one finds these:

What is best?
What is right?
What is real?
What is useful?
How do you know?

Many people look to traditions within their culture to provide the answers. But some individuals in ancient Greece made a noteworthy break with this habit.These individuals consciously regarded the notions of What Our Culture Teaches as separate from What Is Right. They made a place for skepticism. In seeking knowledge they accepted, for the sake of acquiring it, a healthy level of uncertainty about its results. Our answers are provisional, they said. New information may always come in. The best way to increase knowledge is not to stand pat on assumed answers, but to inquire. To ask, seek, test.This stance is now the stance of persons around the globe who value knowledge. Those who would know ask. We explore, examine, discuss, evaluate. We also refine. Over time our questions grow more focused, more accurate. For all that, our knowledge remains provisional. More information is always allowed in the door.Some have come forward to stand against this approach. 'Some questions don't need to be explored,' they say. 'The premises may be safely assumed. People who are curious beyond this should have their curiosity amputated.'This mindset is not new. Human beings have always existed who prefer to equate What My Culture Teaches with What Is Right. The approach has a certain ease of use about it. Premises come ready made.As individuals they can often make their way in life well enough. People navigated their ships by stars centuries before anyone could say what a star is. Farmers grew their crops without bothering themselves over why plants grow. Fishermen pulled up their harvest without asking why the ocean currents behave as they do. So it is that some scientists today can be equally content to go about their tasks without once asking how they know.Methods, in time, become traditions. For some, tradition seems an adequate enough guide. They feel little curiosity about where it comes from, what it is based on, what its limits might be.The fact remains: human experience has validated the worth of asking. All knowledge is connected (Message 210 ). We do well to trace the threads, seeking the sources and connections.Many people in ancient times looked up at the stars. They asked and discussed. Many scientists today look at their findings and do the same. If other individuals opt out of the discussion, the journey is no less worth undertaking for that reason. For us, as always for our species, discoveries await. The journey continues.______________Edited by Archer Opterix, : title.Edited by Archer Opterix, : ref.

Modulous has done us all a service by providing this excellent survey of the questions involved.This post deserves to be widely read. Many thanks.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It is only through asking that answers are formed.Such is the worth of questions.Here's a toast to those who have the true last word: seekers, everywhere.

Not dead at all. Human beings continue to design buildings and make art. Every time someone does so the question has to be asked anew: What does good design achieve?That's an aesthetic question, and thus a philosophical one.Aesthetics belongs to a new thread, though--if in fact anyone here is seriously interested in it.In this thread the validity of philosophy itself, in all its forms, has been questioned, and defended. Questions remain worth asking, discussing, exploring, and answering (however provisional those answers may be). To value knowledge is to value inquiry.Thanks to everyone who participated._____________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.