Definition of philosophy

I think philosophy is sort of tapping into a deeper thinking and looking past what is thought of as conventional wisdom. Philosophy is thinking about explanations for ways we think, act, are anything else that happens.

...paralytic thinking

Well, at least it is original. But Swift, in that case, what kind of thinking is not "paralytic"?

From the Greek words Philos (love) and Sophia (wisdom). The love of wisdom. The study of the how and the why of the nature of nature. It is not knowledge of common things. You would not say "He is very wise in the ways of plumbing."

Love of wisdom is absolutly correct. This depends ofcourse on your definition of Wisdom and Knowledge.

The most common definition I would say is Aristotles.

Knowledge of statements is called knowledge. Like - The Red Sox are in the World Series this year.

Wisdom is knowledge of first principles - such as the causes that the Sox are in the world series. A philosopher of Sports could debate the pitching and batting abilities of the Sox and talk to you about how they got to the series. These are knowledge of causes in Aristotles mind.

So the love of the real reasons why something is the way it is - is philosophy.

TTF

There is also Plato's view of Wisdom as the perception of an idea itself, not the perception of that idea manifested in the qualities of something else. He uses the examples of Beauty and Theatre in the Republic, if I remember correctly. It is belief to look at many beautiful things and to say that they are beautiful without understanding why they are. On the other hand, Wisdom is to look at beautiful things and to be aware of what beauty is in of itself; to know what the main idea of something that exists in a multitude. He defines Philosophers then as those who love and pursue the study of what qualities are in of themselves and not the manifestations of these qualities themselves. Those who search for beautiful things but not beauty itself are not lovers of Wisdom, but lovers of Belief, and are not, therefore, philosophers. This leads him to his search for morality (Allegory of the Cave.... etc.)

Thalion has added the second most pupular way of defining Philosophy.

Either it is a search for wisdom within the objects - or the search of wisdom outside the objects.

TTF

I've seen "philosophy" defined as thinking about thinking.

Philosophy: theoretical physics for non-math majors.

Interestingly - however - we tend to ignore eastern philosophy in these discussions.

Eastern philosophy is usually defined as thinking about practical matters. Western philosophy is usually not very practical.

I like this way of thinking myself: Philosophy is not very practical - however without it there can be nothing practical.

TTF

TFF

Perhaps western philosophy is more practical that it seems.
See the deep influence of Locke in the liberal reforms in Europe and America. And the influence of Descartes in the foundation of a new scientific spirit.
On the other side, see the influence of men like Nieztsche or Spengler in the genesis of a nazi mentality. And has Hegel nothing to do with fascist corporatism? And what about Marx?
I think that the difference is in the fact that western philosophy uses an abstract language, that seems to be stranger to any kind of reality, even when it gives a definition of reality: Heidegger in "Sein und Zeit" rejects an abstract conception of man, as subject, and studies the different ways he exists in his daily experience, but does that with the (almost) traditional philosofical vocabulary.
As I see it, western philosophy has practical effects. More than that, it's a very dangerous activity (and not only for philosophers). When we say philosophy is not practical, I think we all must read Benda's "La trahison des clercs".

I think what you have said is encompassed in my last statement. You said that Locke's influence, of Hegels influence, Nietzsche's influence, etc. This means thatg for the philosopher it was a very impractical study of things but for others it can be used as practical.

Practical seems to be a matter of application - philosophy especially philosophy of government (which you mention a lot above) is not practical in a vacuum or by one person - but when implemented by hundreds we can see its effects.

Which I think goes back to my last statement - that philosophy by itself is not practical - but without it there is nothing practical.

TTF

The east and the west exist on two different foundations so to speak. Western focus is centered on material existence, a world where further submerging into the realm of materialism is strongly encouraged. The ego is at the center here. The bigger the better.

As a result, the main focus of philosophers bred in this world is not truth and wisdom. Instead they try to justify thir ways by building up independent theories on anything they can. How much pride did Descartes have to have to come up with his famous phrase?

In eastern philosophy it is different. The principle is simply that the best course of life is to forsake the material world, and devote yourself to spiritual understanding. This philosophy takes into the equation that the human being is a part of nature, and therefore totally at the mercy of existence.

Cyracuz

But even for that, they must define what is material world and what is sprituality, dont you think?

val, the strength and the weakness of philosophy is that it seeks to continually question, a strength, and not act, a weakness.

I think philosophy is humanity's attempt to explain problems which would not exist but for the invention of philosophy; problems that arise out of our uniquely human and perhaps illusory belief that we have choices.

One does not ask the carpenter ant for his philosophy, and one suspects the carpenter ant's life is none the poorer for his failure to have one.

Yes val, I think they do. But after that part the focus remains on the spiritual. My impression of western philosophy is that the material world is the foundation of our existence.