What is philosophy for?

[Eudaimonist]

Philosophy is thinking about thinking, practically.

To an extent, yes. I'd say that (among other things) it's about putting your ideas in order by removing contradictions and integrating them together into a justifiable and cogent system. And if we are to really get to the point of Socratic philosophy, to do all this for the sake of living a wise life and achieving inner peace.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

Does that include the one you just proffered?

Don't start that philosophical mumbo jumbo with me.

The real world is an absolute. Whether philosophy can tell us anything about the real world is an absolute.

So, can anyone give an example of how philosophy can tell us something about the real world?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, can anyone give an example of how philosophy can tell us something about the real world?

It isn't the purpose of philosophy to state the laws of physics, or to tell you how many species of beetle there are. It's not about such details.

However, it does deal with such questions as "What is knowledge? How can I come to know something? What ought I to do with my life? What sort of person should I be?"

This is saying something about the real world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Here are some examples of what philosophy tells us about the real world.

Being exists (existence)
Being is (identity)
Being is not non-being (non-contradiction)
Either being or non-being (exclusion)
Non-being cannot cause being (causality)
contingency
necessity
existential: causality, contingency, necessity

Philosophy tells us that truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Without philosophy, language would be meaningless.
Without philosophy, we would live as dogs, abased and slaves to our appetites.

I am a realist. In other words, I must be able to reduce an idea to the self-evident to be able to affirm it.
The first-principles of logic are the base self-evident ideas.
They are the ideas that must be employed to deny them.
Any attempt to explicitly deny the first-principles implicitly affirms them.

The question isn't, what can philosophy tell us?
The question is, what can be known, without it?

 

[Verticordious]

Here are some examples of what philosophy tells us about the real world.

Being exists (existence)
Being is (identity)
Being is not non-being (non-contradiction)
Either being or non-being (exclusion)
Non-being cannot cause being (causality)
contingency
necessity
existential: causality, contingency, necessity

Philosophy tells us that truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Without philosophy, language would be meaningless.
Without philosophy, we would live as dogs, abased and slaves to our appetites.

I am a realist. In other words, I must be able to reduce an idea to the self-evident to be able to affirm it.
The first-principles of logic are the base self-evident ideas.
They are the ideas that must be employed to deny them.
Any attempt to explicitly deny the first-principles implicitly affirms them.

The question isn't, what can philosophy tell us?
The question is, what can be known, without it?

All you did was list a bunch of things. You didn’t give any reasoning to support your claims that these are philosophical ideas.

Language, for example, is completely man made. We as humans agree that certain symbols/sounds refer to specific things or ideas, which then allows us to communicate. Computer languages are a great example. If I were to give you a disc with a file on it, but I didn’t give the file an extension, and I didn’t tell you what kind of file it was when I gave the disc to you, then you would have no way to open it. No communication can take place until we agree upon the method of communication by me telling you what type of file it is. There is nothing philosophical about this process.

Logic, for another example, is also not philosophical, it is scientific. We observe that things are the way that they are, and aren’t the way that they aren’t, and we summarize this observation as the law of identity. Never has anyone produced an example of where the law of identity was proven incorrect, so we make the inference that it is always true. The same is true for other laws of logic, they are all observed.

If you want to give an example of how philosophy has ever done anything useful for anyone, then you must give an example of something, explain how it was discovered, and explain how that something has produced tangible results. This something must also not be discoverable solely through observing and testing, as that would be science.

Here's an example of a scientific discovery:
Discovery Made: Acetaminophen is useful for the treatment of migraine headache pain
How It Was Discovered: Random, placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical trial. 2 hours after ingestion, 52% of patients treated with 1g of Acetaminophen reported little to no pain, while only 32% of patients taking the placebo reported little to no pain. Average overall pain reduction reported by those who took the Acetaminophen was 82%, while those who took the placebo reported an average of 46% pain reduction.
Benefits of Discovery: People suffering from migraine headaches can treat the pain by ingesting a 1g dose of acetaminophen.

 

[Tiberius]

It isn't the purpose of philosophy to state the laws of physics, or to tell you how many species of beetle there are. It's not about such details.

However, it does deal with such questions as "What is knowledge? How can I come to know something? What ought I to do with my life? What sort of person should I be?"

This is saying something about the real world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, that's saying something about the people who live there. One person can find out what to do with their life, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to do that. Hell, it doesn't even mean that another person can use the same technique to find out.

So how can something that is completely different for each person be presented as an absolute, as Bricklayer said? Or is science now subjective?

If I use philosophy to find out the meaning of my life, or how I can come to know something, it is not telling me anything at all about the world outside me. It is not telling me anything about the outside world. Which is what I was asking.

So I'll ask again. Can philosophy tell me anything about the real world? Something testable?

 

[bricklayer]

Language is a philosophy.

Your critiques would be meaningless without the philosophy of language.

Science would be meaningless without the philosophy of language.

The thought processes of reason, language and observation are meaningless without philosophy.

Philosophy is what underpins all of the things that you esteem above philosophy.

You present philisophical arguments against philosophy.

Your explicit attempt to deny the value of philosophy implictly affirms it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, that's saying something about the people who live there.

People aren't part of the real world?

One person can find out what to do with their life, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to do that.

No, but it may mean that you've discovered a method that applies to everyone, but which produces unique answers based on the uniqueness of every individual.

So how can something that is completely different for each person

It wouldn't be "completely different". It would simply apply differently, since we are not clones of each other.

If I use philosophy to find out the meaning of my life, or how I can come to know something, it is not telling me anything at all about the world outside me.

YOU ARE PART OF THE WORLD. And you can test at least some philosophical advice in your life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mindlight]

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

Agreed philosophy helps us work out meanings but also is a wonderful way of delaying washing the dishes. Afterall how do we know that the dishes really exist anyway. Is the sensual evidence reliable enough until we have given it the interpretative structures that allow us to make sense of it and have integrated our actions into a grand metanarrative ;-).

 

[Verticordious]

Language is a philosophy.

Your critiques would be meaningless without the philosophy of language.

Science would be meaningless without the philosophy of language.

The thought processes of reason, language and observation are meaningless without philosophy.

Philosophy is what underpins all of the things that you esteem above philosophy.

You present philisophical arguments against philosophy.

Your explicit attempt to deny the value of philosophy implictly affirms it.

Again you make claims but give nothing in support of them. For demonstration purposes I shall do the same:

Language is not philosophy.
My critiques would not be meaningless without the philosophy of language.
Science would not be meaningless without the philosophy of language.
The thought processes of reason, language and observation are not meaningless without philosophy.
Philosophy is not what underpins all of the things that I esteem above philosophy.
I present scientific arguments against philosophy.
My explicit attempt to deny the value of philosophy does not implicitly affirm it.

 

[Tiberius]

People aren't part of the real world?

No, but it may mean that you've discovered a method that applies to everyone, but which produces unique answers based on the uniqueness of every individual.

It wouldn't be "completely different". It would simply apply differently, since we are not clones of each other.


YOU ARE PART OF THE WORLD. And you can test at least some philosophical advice in your life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I meant the world outside the person doing the thinking.

And you are yet to show me some demonstratable truth that is based on philosophy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And you are yet to show me some demonstratable truth that is based on philosophy.

The validity and usefulness of scientific method.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Verticordious]

The validity and usefulness of scientific method.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Science is validated by reality, not by philosophy.

 

[Tiberius]

Agreed. If the scientific method was not applicapble to reality, it wouldn't be used. It's usefullness has been shown by the many reliable results it provides, which is based on the concrete real world, not an abstraction of philosophy.

 

[sk8Joyful]

I have been really distressed recently by
the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight,
of the real purpose of philosophy.
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.

Has philosophy lost its way?

Philosophy, & the testing thereof, & the proofs, are all alive & well
in the minds of people alive & well: this preceeds the others, you know

Anything philosophical, in particular you mindlight? want to discuss...

 

[sk8Joyful]

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.

except there are Billions of such philosophical examples, &
yes! 'tested in the real world', with increasing awareness continually discovered...

 

[sk8Joyful]

Here's an example of a scientific discovery:
Discovery: Acetaminophen
How Discovered: Random, placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical trial.
Benefits: People suffering from migraine headaches can
treat the pain by ingesting a 1g dose of acetaminophen.

Except of course, that getting rid of any headache,
without knowing its primary cause, can beyond dangerous, prove outright deadly
example:
Gee, that headache!, it's getting worse!!, now it's
a migraine, yikes - but wait! Acetaminophen to the rescue. - really?
gee, if only that person hadn't died

Evidently it's better to eliminate causes , then learn to
turn-off pain drug-free; and factually live different
.

 

[daniel777]

philosophy is description. without description there is no understanding.

 

[Tiberius]

except there are Billions of such philosophical examples, &
yes! 'tested in the real world', with increasing awareness continually discovered...

And you you haven't given a single example...

Except of course, that getting rid of any headache,
without knowing its primary cause, can beyond dangerous, prove outright deadly
example:
Gee, that headache!, it's getting worse!!, now it's
a migraine, yikes - but wait! Acetaminophen to the rescue. - really?
gee, if only that person hadn't died

Evidently it's better to eliminate causes , then learn to
turn-off pain drug-free; and factually live different
.

Wow, a bit alarmist, aren't you? And is philosophy the answer? Can philosophy cure headaches?

philosophy is description. without description there is no understanding.

A description of what?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

There are aspects to philsophy that at least involve tangential testing. For instance in analytic ordinary language philosophy, usage of a term might be described and used to illucidate philosophical debate. I am recalling reading a essay called (IIRC) "The meaning of a word" by Austin where examples of terms being used outside of ordinary context lead to philosophical difficulty. The example I recall is the issue of the meaning of life which he said was not a sensible question, unless one were looking for a ordinary definition of the term "life". "What's the meaning of the term "life"?" therefore makes sense, but "Whats the meaning of life?" does not.