What is philosophy for?

[Gracchus]

Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke.

Here's some definitions. Of course, like many words there is not just one definition.

"1
a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2
a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3
a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>
4
a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher"

Philosophy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Philosophy is not a joke. If you hear people laughing when you discuss philosophy, it is probably not the subject that is making them laugh.

Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there.

All the sciences started as subjects in philosophy.

People often use philosophy in attempt to confuse people into believing things by using word games and quaint little sayings that sound smart and clever, but lack any evidence to support the claims being made.

It is true that some branches of philosophy address unreal entities and issues, as for example, theology and religion.

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments.

Beautiful misdirection there! You have to watch out for that Paul!

Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

Say rather, it is evidence and reasoning, that in tandem, distinguish scientists from other philosophers.

So, to answer your question, the purpose of philosophy is pretty much just to deceive gullible people. Stay away from it.

It is evident that you have taken your own advice. Indeed!

 

[JonF]

Philosophy should be about the meaning of life. It is for life and about life. It is the pursuit of the kind of wisdom that changes cultures and provides the seminal thinking that defines the next generation.

I think this is kind of a silly position and the problem with your view. You are stating what you would like philosophy to be, not what it is. Philosophy as far as I understand it, is a quest to develop a systematic approach to answer a class of questions.


For example, before there was math, math was just philosophy and when philosophy developed a systematic process for answering questions relating to what is now math, it ceased being philosophy and became math. Philosophy created the discipline of math.The same story is true for biology, chemistry, psychology, and many other subjects.


Philosophy doesn’t exist to answer “what is the meaning of life?” Granted that question is relevant to one of the major systems that philosophy has been trying to develop pretty much since human existence. Right now the big systems that are still open philosophically are epistemology, metaphysics, and morality. Your desire for philosophy falls into morality, but there is much more to philosophy than just that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think this is kind of a silly position and the problem with your view. You are stating what you would like philosophy to be, not what it is. Philosophy as far as I understand it, is a quest to develop a systematic approach to answer a class of questions.

You would be mistaken.

That may be how philosophy is now at the nadir of Western philosophy, but classical Greek philosophy is about far more than simply providing a systematic approach to answering a class of questions. It was very much about creating for oneself a pattern of living, a preparation for one's own death, and a source of inner peace.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

I have been really distressed recently by the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Whether with word games, nihilistic non questions, smart alec jargonisation, posturing and abstraction, or logical nonsences the conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight of the real purpose of philosophy.

Philosphy is a waste of time. Mind games, nothing that is demonstratably applicable to reality.

Philosophy should be about the meaning of life. It is for life and about life. It is the pursuit of the kind of wisdom that changes cultures and provides the seminal thinking that defines the next generation.

Ahem. You are assuming that there IS a meaning of life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Philosphy is a waste of time. Mind games, nothing that is demonstratably applicable to reality.

Philosophy at its worst is just that.

Not all philosophy is just mind games or inapplicable to reality. Consider, for instance, that there are philosophies of science and of mind.

Ahem. You are assuming that there IS a meaning of life.

Only philosophy will tell you if there is or isn't. It's worth investigating.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JonF]

You would be mistaken.

That may be how philosophy is now at the nadir of Western philosophy, but classical Greek philosophy is about far more than simply providing a systematic approach to answering a class of questions. It was very much about creating for oneself a pattern of living, a preparation for one's own death, and a source of inner peace.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don&#8217;t know about that. Judging from your name and what I remember from when I posted on this site a few years ago (you&#8217;re a professional philosopher right?) you are very familiar with the subject. But it seems to me the Greeks held my mentality &#8211; at least the big three. Look at the body of their works:

The Socratic Method / Fallacy doesn&#8217;t seem to be a method for creating for oneself a pattern of living, etc. It seems more to be necessary criteria for a system of knowledge.

Plato&#8217;s republic might be an effort to answer what is &#8220;good&#8221; but it does that by exploring kind of a quirky way to answer that question. The method Plato uses is just as aweing as his arguments.

Aristotle&#8217;s virtues didn&#8217;t seem like a moral prescription, more like an idea on how to explore morality. He also seemed to inquire more about the fundamental nature of the world than anything else. I mean he&#8217;s pretty much the father of the scientific method and modern logic. If that isn&#8217;t a system for developing new knowledge systems, I&#8217;m not sure what is.

 

[mindlight]

I think this is kind of a silly position and the problem with your view. You are stating what you would like philosophy to be, not what it is. Philosophy as far as I understand it, is a quest to develop a systematic approach to answer a class of questions.


For example, before there was math, math was just philosophy and when philosophy developed a systematic process for answering questions relating to what is now math, it ceased being philosophy and became math. Philosophy created the discipline of math.The same story is true for biology, chemistry, psychology, and many other subjects.


Philosophy doesn’t exist to answer “what is the meaning of life?” Granted that question is relevant to one of the major systems that philosophy has been trying to develop pretty much since human existence. Right now the big systems that are still open philosophically are epistemology, metaphysics, and morality. Your desire for philosophy falls into morality, but there is much more to philosophy than just that.

People thinking about the nature and meaning of the reality they inhabit is not stupid. Mathematics is a way of resolving problems that started as philosophical questions is an example of how questions about the meaning of what we see and can reason about led to something truly useful.

Actually morality, ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, phenomenology, metaphysics all have open issues related to them. It is simply easier for a Christian with ethics , morality and epistemology as we already have answers to some of these questions.

 

[mindlight]

I don’t know about that. Judging from your name and what I remember from when I posted on this site a few years ago (you’re a professional philosopher right?) you are very familiar with the subject. But it seems to me the Greeks held my mentality – at least the big three. Look at the body of their works:

The Socratic Method / Fallacy doesn’t seem to be a method for creating for oneself a pattern of living, etc. It seems more to be necessary criteria for a system of knowledge.

Plato’s republic might be an effort to answer what is “good” but it does that by exploring kind of a quirky way to answer that question. The method Plato uses is just as aweing as his arguments.

Aristotle’s virtues didn’t seem like a moral prescription, more like an idea on how to explore morality. He also seemed to inquire more about the fundamental nature of the world than anything else. I mean he’s pretty much the father of the scientific method and modern logic. If that isn’t a system for developing new knowledge systems, I’m not sure what is.

Socrates was put to death for rejecting the validity of the City gods his star disciple Plato was very interested in God and so was Aristotle. you might have missed the point with these guys - they were entirely interested in the discussion of morality, nature of God etc

 

[mindlight]

Philosphy is a waste of time. Mind games, nothing that is demonstratably applicable to reality.

Ahem. You are assuming that there IS a meaning of life.

This sounds like a philosophical conclusion to me but are you aware of the process of reasoning that led to it. Note I said reasoning not experience, though I suppose reflection on experience is philosophically valid.

I agree a lot of philosophers play mind games and I think they waste their talents and brains in doing so. The kinds of questions that philosophers are best suited to answer in the current generation have to do with the unseen realm of our thoughts and dreams where science has nothing to say and religion is ambiguous or needs clarification

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don&#8217;t know about that.

I recommend that you read Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life if you are interested in knowing. He was an expert on such matters.

The Socratic Method / Fallacy doesn&#8217;t seem to be a method for creating for oneself a pattern of living, etc.

Oh, it most certainly is that! That is its precise purpose. The Examined Life is a pattern of living that Socrates is said to have lived, and one might almost say "religiously".

It seems more to be necessary criteria for a system of knowledge.

Only in bloodless, soulless modern philosophy.

Plato&#8217;s republic might be an effort to answer what is &#8220;good&#8221; but it does that by exploring kind of a quirky way to answer that question. The method Plato uses is just as aweing as his arguments.

Plato's Republic is there to explain the nature of justice, not only in society, but also as a virtue that orders the soul/psyche. It is about how to live a better life oneself. Its value is as a spiritual exercise, and food for contemplation.

Aristotle&#8217;s virtues didn&#8217;t seem like a moral prescription, more like an idea on how to explore morality.

And this is why he mentions at least a dozen virtues? The issue of how one justifies "oughts" wasn't alive back then, so of course he doesn't deal with that issue in the way that moderns expect. And of course he is talking about life in classical Athens. But he certainly intended his lectures to be used by his students to improve their lives.

He also seemed to inquire more about the fundamental nature of the world than anything else.

Sure, why not?

I mean he&#8217;s pretty much the father of the scientific method and modern logic. If that isn&#8217;t a system for developing new knowledge systems, I&#8217;m not sure what is.

Aristotle was the most scientific of the Socratic philosophers, but he never limited himself to "pure science" or "pure logic". He wasn't just an epistemologist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JonF]

People thinking about the nature and meaning of the reality they inhabit is not stupid. Mathematics is a way of resolving problems that started as philosophical questions is an example of how questions about the meaning of what we see and can reason about led to something truly useful.

I never said or implied it&#8217;s stupid. If this is your take on mathematics you&#8217;re well over a few centauries out of date.

Socrates was put to death for rejecting the validity of the City gods his star disciple Plato was very interested in God and so was Aristotle. you might have missed the point with these guys - they were entirely interested in the discussion of morality, nature of God etc

You completely missed my point, this is non sequitur to the post you quoted.

Oh, it most certainly is that! That is its precise purpose. The Examined Life is a pattern of living that Socrates is said to have lived, and one might almost say "religiously".

Plato's Republic is there to explain the nature of justice, not only in society, but also as a virtue that orders the soul/psyche. It is about how to live a better life oneself. Its value is as a spiritual exercise, and food for contemplation.

And this is why he mentions at least a dozen virtues? The issue of how one justifies "oughts" wasn't alive back then, so of course he doesn't deal with that issue in the way that moderns expect. And of course he is talking about life in classical Athens. But he certainly intended his lectures to be used by his students to improve their lives.

It could be my naiveté in this topic, but find the method far more interesting (and philosophically relevant) that was used in each of these cases than the particular conclusions the philosopher drew.

Socrates made nearly no positive claims, he mostly just pointed out the flaws in other people&#8217;s reasoning. I mean it&#8217;s still up for debate whether the Socratic Fallacy is even a fallacy, and that&#8217;s a question of method. Socrates huge contribution in my opinion is to make us aware how important consistency of implication is. Plato does do everything you say, but he does it by discussing what the perfect state is, not what he perfect man is. He examines this question by analogy. This was a unique way to look at moral questions. I see Aristotle&#8217;s virtues as the precursor to deontology. I also think his view on science was far greater than his contributions to moral theory.

Aristotle was the most scientific of the Socratic philosophers, but he never limited himself to "pure science" or "pure logic". He wasn't just an epistemologist.
Only in bloodless, soulless modern philosophy.
I recommend that you read Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life if you are interested in knowing. He was an expert on such matters.

This is where my bias may come in, and maybe I&#8217;m reading into these guys with my purist ways. My academic background is in pure math, mostly set theory and logic. I will check out that book though, and gladly appreciate any other recommendations.

 

[mindlight]

I never said or implied it’s stupid.

Actuallly you did - you said that it was a silly position to take and went on to explain that you though that philosophy was simply a systematic way of answering a class of questions (which sounds more like computer programming to me than Philosophy) - but there you go.

If this is your take on mathematics you’re well over a few centauries out of date.

My brother did Maths at Cambridge. My take on Hawkins is that some of his positions are seriously idiotic. Maths has lost its way with the likes of him.

You completely missed my point, this is non sequitur to the post you quoted.
.

You are looking at the methodologies of the philosophers you quoted rather than the purpose of their works. Since I read purpose as being more important in their works than system in contradiction to your unproven assertions I do think that you have missed the point of what they were trying to say.

Take the Socratic cave for instance. A man in darkness sees shadows and guesses at what might be in the light. Then he comes into the light and sees clearly. His purpose is to understand the meaning and actual nature of what he sees flickering on the wall. If you focus on the cave and shadows as an explanatory illustration only, you miss the point of the philosophical quest that motivates the mans thought.

 

[JonF]

Actuallly you did - you said that it was a silly position to take and went on to explain that you though that philosophy was simply a systematic way of answering a class of questions (which sounds more like computer programming to me than Philosophy) - but there you go.

I think silly in the context I wrote it is best understood as unfounded view.

My brother did Maths at Cambridge. My take on Hawkins is that some of his positions are seriously idiotic. Maths has lost its way with the likes of him.

Hawkins is irrelevant to math. And you may think math has lost its way, but again that’s just because the world and math isn’t what you wish it was. Pretty much the entire scientific and mathematical community thinks that math not being restricted by the physical world is a very good thing. Scientist prefers math, in a sense, to be ahead of science so they don’t have to wait for math to catch up. Math by nearly all philosophers is considered to be one of the truest or most certain truths because it’s not predicate of the real world.

You are looking at the methodologies of the philosophers you quoted rather than the purpose of their works. Since I read purpose as being more important in their works than system in contradiction to your unproven assertions I do think that you have missed the point of what they were trying to say.

Take the Socratic cave for instance. A man in darkness sees shadows and guesses at what might be in the light. Then he comes into the light and sees clearly. His purpose is to understand the meaning and actual nature of what he sees flickering on the wall. If you focus on the cave and shadows as an explanatory illustration only, you miss the point of the philosophical quest that motivates the mans thought.

I fully understand the questions that these philosophers posed and the answers they gave. But you will have a hard time denying philosophy past the renaissance is exactly what I describe. And philosophy before the renaissance is debatablely what I described. Worst case it’s a healthy mix of our two views. Let me ask you a few question, which of the ancient greeks philosophies impact modern thought. Does Plato’s exploration of light you mention have any effect on modern optics? Now, does his method of inquiry affect modern thought? Does Aristotle’s atom have much scientific relevance (and if you try to cite QM to say yes, you have a very flawed understanding of QM), does his contributions to the scientific method? Can you at least admit that developing a method of rational inquiry into the natural world that gives us real truth is part of the motivation for these guys, in of itself.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What is philosophy for? Sometimes it stops the table from wobbling. Sometimes it kills flies. Sometimes, when there is no toilet paper...

 

[mindlight]

you may think math has lost its way, but again that’s just because the world and math isn’t what you wish it was. Pretty much the entire scientific and mathematical community thinks that math not being restricted by the physical world is a very good thing. Scientist prefers math, in a sense, to be ahead of science so they don’t have to wait for math to catch up. Math by nearly all philosophers is considered to be one of the truest or most certain truths because it’s not predicate of the real world.

When maths and science begin to speculate at distances in space and time that make their conclusions completely untestable the relevance of these methodologies to truth claims becomes less and less certain. I do not care for a consensus that mouths pie in the sky for its group consciousness.

you will have a hard time denying philosophy past the renaissance is exactly what I describe. And philosophy before the renaissance is debatablely what I described. Worst case it’s a healthy mix of our two views. Let me ask you a few question, which of the ancient greeks philosophies impact modern thought. Does Plato’s exploration of light you mention have any effect on modern optics? Now, does his method of inquiry affect modern thought? Does Aristotle’s atom have much scientific relevance (and if you try to cite QM to say yes, you have a very flawed understanding of QM), does his contributions to the scientific method? Can you at least admit that developing a method of rational inquiry into the natural world that gives us real truth is part of the motivation for these guys, in of itself.

You are assuming a separation between theology and philosophy that most philosophers in the world do not accept. Note most philosophers not most Western academics. Personally I think theology was the root discipline rather than philosophy. The Greek philosophers came a thousand years after the Bible had already answered many of the issues the Greek greats raised about the good, the true and the beautiful and the nature of God. Thus Aquinas was one of the all time philosophical and theological greats for instance and more recently Barth. But even in a totally godless modern philosophy as for example in the works of Friederich Nietzsche the question of ultimate meaning was central even by way of ultimate denial.

Also I can see a value in the works of Wittgenstein in addressing questions of ultimate meaning even though he never really had this focus himself.

 

[mindlight]

What is philosophy for? Sometimes it stops the table from wobbling. Sometimes it kills flies. Sometimes, when there is no toilet paper...

That would be my wifes view and worse philosophy does not get the lawn mown or the dishes done. But while such empirically verifiable achievements rank highly for many there is an unseen realm of consciousness that does have impacts on the way we approach life as a whole and the extent to which we see or do not see with our minds eye.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That would be my wifes view and worse philosophy does not get the lawn mown or the dishes done.

I wonder if your wife realizes that this is a philosophical judgment? She clearly values practicality over what she perceives as impractical.

Philosophy can help one to prioritize one's values. Just how important is mowing the lawn or washing the dishes relative to other values? What should one focus on in life? What sort of person should one become?

Aside from fairly self-evident metaphysical and epistemological views (e.g., in favor of the idea that we can reason about dishes and lawns), philosophy might not help much with the means, but it may be crucial for determining the ends. If one washes the dishes or mows the lawn, what is that all for?



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, literally.
Philosophy is thinking about thinking, practically.

Philosophy's purpose is to remove doubt, by testing.

Philosophy is a science. It should be conducted in a scientific meathod.

The scientific-meathod is a process wherein one has an idea
and then seeks to des-prove the idea, by testing.

Religion is a process wherein one has an idea
and then seeks to prove the idea, by guessing.

Sacntification is a scientific-process.
That's why we should count it all joy, when we are tested.
Testing removes doubt.

There are those, here on this forum, who will test an idea.
I am grateful for them.

Philosophy is a scientific-process wherein we test ideas,
in an attempt to remove doubt.

 

[Tiberius]

Philosophy is a science. It should be conducted in a scientific meathod.

The scientific-meathod is a process wherein one has an idea
and then seeks to dis-prove the idea, by testing.

Please give me an example of a philosophical idea which has ever been shown to be true or false by testing.

Now, I'm all for testing things to see if they are true, but philosophical ideas can never be tested in the real world.

 

[bricklayer]

Does that include the one you just proffered?