34
   

So, seriously, what is philosophy anyway?

 
 
chai2
 
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:29 pm
Right, I've been, well not really reading full on any of the philosophical threads here, just posts here and there, trying to get a flavor of the new kids.

Mostly though, I've been reading their responses to what posters I feel I know well have been saying.

Frankly, I'm not seeing any difference, as far as the rubber hits the road aspect of it, from what common sense people like soz, and others say.

I pick out soz, because, #1 she's got a good head on her shoulders. Also because in a thread about, of all things Winking, she basically answered the question, only to be rebuffed, and someone from the original philforum says practically the same damn thing, and is praised for his intellect.

I'm serious.
What is all this?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 34 • Views: 12,209 • Replies: 167

 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:31 pm
confusionist say:

philosophy is a mountain that one a can conquer, but two cannot climb

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:38 pm

phi·los·o·phy   
–noun, plural -phies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy,
that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge,
esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:43 pm
oh yeah, another thing...

every other post, all this "I didn't mean to offend", "I think you're angry", etc.

no I'm not friggin' angry, I haven't seen anyone be so either. Aand it would take a lot more than what has been said to offend me, and I'm pretty sure, most others.

Stop with that already.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:55 pm

I believe that it means LOVE OF WISDOM
and that a philosophy is a pattern of beliefs,
e.g. Ludwig von Mises has a philosophy of economics which conflicts with that of Karl Marx.

A pattern of beliefs can relate to ANYTHING,
e.g. qua how its best to dress, or to eat, or to vote, or to reason.

These beliefs can be manifested in products,
such as an engineering philosophy of how to craft the most effective defensive bullet: soft point, hard nose, or hollowpointed?

People can be RIGID unbending and non-varying from those beliefs,
which makes them CONSERVATIVES as to those beliefs,

or

thay can vary from such a pattern of beliefs, turn away from them,
which makes them LIBERALS -- the further thay vary the MORE LIBERAL thay are

or

thay can reject those patterns of belief completely, pulling them up by the root, eradicating them, which makes them RADICALS.





David
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:56 pm
@chai2,
some one sounds a little angry Wink *





*http://able2know.org/topic/153174-1#post-4178391
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:04 pm
Could mean love of sophistry...


No, no, no, I didn't mean to offend!
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  7  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:19 pm
It's probably a mistake to take these threads as good examples of philosophy Smile
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:28 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

some one sounds a little angry Wink *





*http://able2know.org/topic/153174-1#post-4178391


come over hear and say that.

0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  8  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 02:06 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
Frankly, I'm not seeing any difference, as far as the rubber hits the road aspect of it, from what common sense people like soz, and others say.

This is pretty much spot on, in practical application.

The thing is, philosophy is a collection of subjects that almost everyone shares but don't perhaps talk about as a methods and ways of thinking. All told, yea they're areas of living and thinking that we all share - so its not terribly different from many "normal" conversations. But while in the philosophical context, we "allow" ourselves free reign to talk about these issues in a broader context, building on a bank of commonly-shared knowledge from philosophers past - saving time and getting deeper past the "Oh look! Cows!!"-response

As a "discipline", its worthless unless one applies those ideals and views his or her own views; translating them to the practical realm of every day living and thinking - its in this way that we hope to become wiser (using this word rather loosely to apply to a group of which I'm a member). Philosophy acknowledges that there are many ways to look at our lives, conduct, etc. and then recognizes some of the motivations and effects. The philosopher names we hear tossed about are done not so much because we're fans, but because many of these obtained their notoriety because they spelled out, very well or were the first to do so, a particular set of thoughts. For example, I can refer to the "Kant" ideal of ethical treatment of individuals rather than launch into 18 paragraphs on what that entails.

Traditionally/formally, it consists of:
Aesthetics: Beauty; what is, what isn't, why, effects, views
Epistemology: How do you know what you know? Can you know? What are ways of attaining knowledge, etc.
Ethics: The study of right and wrong
Metaphysics: All things beyond the physical realm
Logic: The study and analysis of reason and reasoning. What follows, what doesn't, why; giving specific termonology in analyzing our reasoning methods.

There are also "areas" or branches that have been added over the years including history, education, science, language, politics and more.

chai2 wrote:
...every other post, all this "I didn't mean to offend", "I think you're angry", etc... Stop with that already.

Kinda nauseating sometimes, isn't it.

I can't speak for others but I know *I* do that when I believe something I'm saying is going to overwhelm the emotional knee-jerk reaction of someone whom I want to keep interacting productively with. If I can temper it a bit, perhaps they won't spew forth all the hate in the world over a point that's not terribly important. And yea, its probably equates to overcompensation many times.

Thanks
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 02:09 pm
@chai2,
I'm finding with many of these new threads that the manner in which something is said is at least as important as what is said. I'm undoubtedly biased by what I perceive as philosophy's impulse to generalize and to answer in the abstract, but it seems that a lot of the new philosophy threads are seeking answers that not only address the question but which also hint at a Grand Unifying Theory of Everything, or something comparably sweeping. As evidence I would site the thread on "why people started farming," which didn't seem too concerned about specifying which people and which was followed by a series of thought experiments about abstract communities and what they would do in certain conditions until Setanta and Farmerman stepped in and cited some actual historical data about real communities. Or this thread about "why a world religion would be impossible," with the explanation having nothing to do with the historical circumstances of or cultural differences between any actual religions, but for the simple reason that such a concept would contradict the ontology of religion. The abstract answer seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and with so many historically-minded folks on A2K we might not be suited to give the new folks what they're looking for.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:07 pm
@Shapeless,
Facts, or requests for facts, do seem to throw off the PF threads a bit.

The farming thread is a good example of that.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:17 pm
@ehBeth,
Farming thread? I'll keep an eye out for it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:35 pm
@Khethil,
WELCOME to A2K, Mr. Khethil!





David
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:39 pm
@roger,
Oh, well then, who doesn't like a bit of "farming"?

wink wink nudge nudge.

plowing the fields, eh? eh?

laying down a bit of the fertilizer then. (she said knowingly).
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:42 pm
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:
I'm finding with many of these new threads that the manner in which something is said is at least as important as what is said. I'm undoubtedly biased by what I perceive as philosophy's impulse to generalize and to answer in the abstract, but it seems that a lot of the new philosophy threads are seeking answers that not only address the question but which also hint at a Grand Unifying Theory of Everything, or something comparably sweeping. As evidence I would site the thread on "why people started farming," which didn't seem too concerned about specifying which people and which was followed by a series of thought experiments about abstract communities and what they would do in certain conditions until Setanta and Farmerman stepped in and cited some actual historical data about real communities. Or this thread about "why a world religion would be impossible," with the explanation having nothing to do with the historical circumstances of or cultural differences between any actual religions, but for the simple reason that such a concept would contradict the ontology of religion. The abstract answer seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and with so many historically-minded folks on A2K we might not be suited to give the new folks what they're looking for.
I suggest that u post on those threads which attract your interest
and say anything that u deem appropriate, in addition to beginning
any thread of your choice. That 's what we 've been doing.

WELCOME to the forum!

Note that I ofen use fonetic spelling,
in an effort to drag down so much of the spelling paradime as is non-fonetic.
I try to show a better way.





David
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:43 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
... I pick out soz, because, #1 she's got a good head on her shoulders. Also because in a thread about, of all things Winking, she basically answered the question, only to be rebuffed, and someone from the original philforum says practically the same damn thing, and is praised for his intellect.

Spot on...
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:46 pm
@Reyn,
going to be doing any farming this evening reyn?

knowhatImean, knowhatImean? eh, eh?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:49 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
going to be doing any farming this evening reyn?

knowhatImean, knowhatImean? eh, eh?
I think he said he has a SPOT on.

He 'll probably be busy cleaning it off.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:50 pm
@Khethil,
Good post, Khet, if I may call you that. I'm an early nickname type. Feel free to insist on full name..

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » So, seriously, what is philosophy anyway?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/08/2020 at 08:11:31