Does anything exist?

[theprestige]

Yeah, but then that's the definition of philosophy that _I_ was supporting, so it's no surprise that I find it to be a good example.

It's been a long thread, and I apologize for having missed your definition. What's your definition of philosophy where my answer is good? What's the broader definition of philosophy that you're arguing against, where my answer is bad?

 

[IanS]

You're right. I can't. I don't know if that's due to a gap in my knowledge, or not. It feels like a chicken-and-egg question. It's almost like there's a past definition of philosophy, which encompasses every human intellectual pursuit, and a more modern one which defers to other disciplines for other things.

Are you asking what is the difference between philosophy and science? As if you think there is actually no difference? Such that it's perfectly OK to claim that whatever scientists do and whatever they publish, is actually all just philosophy? Or in particular where scientists publish ideas, models or hypotheses as possible explanations for all sorts of observational/experimental results and mathematical/theoretical calculations in areas like Big Bang cosmology or particle-field entanglement and results from double slit experiments … are you saying that sort of thing is really all philosophy, even though it's work published by scientists in science research journals?

 

[Belz...]

I think you're making it too narrow to have any utility. For example, you dismiss the useful work that entertainment does in helping humans to thrive.

If you mean making a salary, the work and the produce aren't the same.

 

[Belz...]

It's been a long thread, and I apologize for having missed your definition. What's your definition of philosophy where my answer is good? What's the broader definition of philosophy that you're arguing against, where my answer is bad?

I just posted the one from Wikipedia, originally. I thought it was a good summary. Defining philosophy as pondering ethics, meaning and somesuch I think is valid. Defining it to mean "thinking" or even just "good thinking" is just worthless.

 

[Chanakya]

Heh, even Belz's demand for evidence of utility is ultimately a philosophical demand. He can't even argue against the utility of philosophy without doing philosophy. I wonder which is the better option, at this point? To conclude that his argument is useless? Or to conclude that philosophy is useful?

I think his argument is (or at least one of the things he's been saying here is), and I kind of agree with him, that all critical thinking, in fact all organized thinking, is philosophy, so that the word is kind of meaningless, in as much as both how broad it is, as well as how much we take it for granted (like you say, not noticing one's wet when swimming is all we've known).

It occurs to me that this might be a function of how entirely successful philosophy has been over the centuries and millennia. We've so internalized all of its methods, that it's now become kind of ...no different than just thinking.

Conceivably the same might happen to science a century or so down the line. At this point, despite the dramatic advances in and mainstreaming of science, there's still lots of folks that haven't quite internalized a scientific worldview. It might well happen that in a hundred years' time, we might so internalize these things, that to speak of the "scientific method" by spelling out what it means might sound bizarre to people. Except in a historical sense, no one may even bother, conceivably, at that time, with the non-scientific modes of thinking that held sway in the past.

We could then, at that time, have a group of folks sitting around, mentally clicking on the bionic implants inside their heads and holding an impassioned online discussion on whether "science" as a word serves any purpose. And the answer, the entirely valid answer, may well be a "no". You have super-specializations that people study; why bring the world "science" at all into it, given that that is the only way everybody conducts themselves when it comes to objective things?

 

[Belz...]

It occurs to me that this might be a function of how entirely successful philosophy has been over the centuries and millennia. We've so internalized all of its methods, that it's now become kind of ...no different than just thinking.

I think this touches on an important point: the definition of the word has changed in the last couple of millennia. So how the ancient Greeks understood "philosophy" isn't necessarily how we understand it now. So going back to Socrates' time for support isn't necessarily very useful for the discussion in the present.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem is people are saying "definition" when what they are really doing is trying to define something into existence.

Again this all the same tactics the God people use. "God created the universe. Oh how to I prove it? Well the universe has to be created, something had to have created it, and God is what creates universes."

Same thing here. "Philosophy has to exist as a meaningful concept because we're defining it as all thought, base thought, thinking about thinking, and so forth. Are you denying thought exist? Ergo ipso facto philosophy exists as a meaningful category."

That's not a definition, that's trying to use the language to bootstrap something into existing just by defining it.

This is like dealing with a nerd who's mad that they called them dragons on Game of Thrones WHEN THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY WYREN and doesn't get that that's not really a problem in the same way your mechanic calling your Ford a Toyota is.

 

[Belz...]

*Wyvern.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Wyvern.

Yeah at least they didn't call them pedophiles. *Grins*

 

[Jimbo07]

Are you asking what is the difference between philosophy and science? As if you think there is actually no difference? Such that it's perfectly OK to claim that whatever scientists do and whatever they publish, is actually all just philosophy?

No. Not even hardly. I was addressing whether critical thinking was spawned from philosophy or a pre-condition. I'm not sure. I suspect that's lost in the sands of time.

I just posted the one from Wikipedia, originally. I thought it was a good summary. Defining philosophy as pondering ethics, meaning and somesuch I think is valid. Defining it to mean "thinking" or even just "good thinking" is just worthless.

Chapter 12 from Introduction to Philosophy online. "Philosophy is an activity of thought, a type of thinking. Philosophy is critical and comprehensive thought, " and, "It is primarily a pursuit after wisdom."

You're free to disagree, but until I know enough about philosophy to generate my own definition, I'll defer to the PhDs. Even the Wikipedia entry, if you read the history section alludes to the relationship between the words philosophy and wisdom.

I think his argument is (or at least one of the things he's been saying here is), and I kind of agree with him, that all critical thinking, in fact all organized thinking, is philosophy, so that the word is kind of meaningless, in as much as both how broad it is, as well as how much we take it for granted (like you say, not noticing one's wet when swimming is all we've known).

It occurs to me that this might be a function of how entirely successful philosophy has been over the centuries and millennia. We've so internalized all of its methods, that it's now become kind of ...no different than just thinking.

Conceivably the same might happen to science

Science and philosophy don't exist in a vaccum. You're right, there's a whole convoluted history, and we don't know if new modalities of thought will emerge. There has to be an academic space for the disciplined exercise of thought, even reflection on thought, itself.

The problem is people are saying "definition" when what they are really doing is trying to define something into existence.

In fact, the people decrying it are doing the opposite, by trying to define it down into some narrower silo.

What do you call the discipline of thinking about thinking? What do you call disciplined thinking? What do you call examination of ethics and meaning? What do you call seeking wisdom? I mean you could use a mouthful of syllables and repeat those for sentences, or you could find a word. Philosophy works well enough for me.

Whether its in Wikipedia or elsewhere, philosophy at one point could have been taken to include many intellectual pursuits. Things have since splintered off and specialized, but what should we continue to call the more generalized level of intellectual pursuit?

 

[Belz...]

"Philosophy is an activity of thought, a type of thinking. Philosophy is critical and comprehensive thought, " and, "It is primarily a pursuit after wisdom."

That's beautifully meaningless.

You're free to disagree, but until I know enough about philosophy to generate my own definition, I'll defer to the PhDs.

Why? They're not the ones defining words.

 

[IanS]

No. Not even hardly. I was addressing whether critical thinking was spawned from philosophy or a pre-condition. I'm not sure. I suspect that's lost in the sands of time.

What do you mean by a "pre-condition"? Are you doubting that humans could think inquisitively before the so-called "philosophers" came along??

It's surely pretty obvious that long before any homo sapiens even existed our ancestral apes were thinking "critically" (if you want to use that word) about everything that their senses detected.

If you want to say that by 500BC (roughly) the famous names of Greco-Roman philosophy had added countless new things to think about, such as "what was thinking!" ... and what was "thinking about thinking" ... or what should be “justice, virtue & ethics”, then that's also pretty obvious … as the centuries pass mankind thinks of very many more questions to ask about everything & anything … today we can ask, ponder, or “think critically” about vast mountains of new questions that arise each year from science … does any of that make it “all just philosophy”?? … are we getting back yet again for the 50th time in this thread to a belief that all constructive thought must be “philosophy”?

 

[JoeMorgue]

What do you call the discipline of thinking about thinking? What do you call disciplined thinking? What do you call examination of ethics and meaning? What do you call seeking wisdom? I mean you could use a mouthful of syllables and repeat those for sentences, or you could find a word. Philosophy works well enough for me.

1. I don't think any of those things needs a specific concise term. It's all, as Belz put it, so much beautifully worded nonsense.
2. I don't actually think any of those things are what people are actually talking about when they are arguing for philosophy.

Much like God there are two definition of "philosophy" the one people actually are arguing for and the one people will admit they are arguing for.

 

[Jimbo07]

That's beautifully meaningless.

Umm. Ok. They're not my words, so I guess you'll have to take it up with them.

Why? They're not the ones defining words.

I don't understand this bit. The philosohers aren't telling us what philosophy is? Who is, then?

What do you mean by a "pre-condition"? Are you doubting that humans could think inquisitively before the so-called "philosophers" came along??

No, but at that point the terms would have been intertwined. From the Wiki article:

"Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE),[7][8] others dispute this story,[9][10] arguing that Pythagoreans merely claimed use of a preexisting term."

So, boy, did philosophy begin in 570 BCE, or not? And since it may have been used before, is it easily separable from critical thinking? If anything, using the term critical thinking is more recent.

It's surely pretty obvious that long before any homo sapiens even existed our ancestral apes were thinking "critically" (if you want to use that word) about everything that their senses detected.

If you want to say that by 500BC (roughly) the famous names of Greco-Roman philosophy had added countless new things to think about, such as "what was thinking!" ... and what was "thinking about thinking" ... or what should be “justice, virtue & ethics”, then that's also pretty obvious …

What you would probably need is a class of people with the time to reflect on such things, and write them down. Literacy wasn't universal, so philosophy as a formal discipline, as going beyond rudimentary reflection, would be a later development.

as the centuries pass mankind thinks of very many more questions to ask about everything & anything … today we can ask, ponder, or “think critically” about vast mountains of new questions that arise each year from science … does any of that make it “all just philosophy”?? … are we getting back yet again for the 50th time in this thread to a belief that all constructive thought must be “philosophy”?

I'd say close, but other way around. It is not all constructive thought, but constructive thought is one of the central outputs of philosophy. As I've quoted, philosophy is an activity, not a collection of facts. So is science.

1. I don't think any of those things needs a specific concise term. It's all, as Belz put it, so much beautifully worded nonsense.
2. I don't actually think any of those things are what people are actually talking about when they are arguing for philosophy.

Much like God there are two definition of "philosophy" the one people actually are arguing for and the one people will admit they are arguing for.

1. Well, ok, but Universities disagree with you. They don't have a Department of: Ethics, and Wisdom and disciplined thinking, formal logic, thinking about thinking, search for meaning, Etc. They have departments of Philosophy.
2. Why aren't they? That's what academics do.

If you're referring to people using the term "philosophy" as a wedge issue to justify introducing their favourite supernatural character, they are not engaged in philosophy. Their thinking lacks the element of discipline, which is one of the aspects separating the activity of philosophy from sitting around BSing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you're referring to people using the term "philosophy" as a wedge issue to justify introducing their favourite supernatural character, they are not engaged in philosophy. Their thinking lacks the element of discipline, which is one of the aspects separating the activity of philosophy from sitting around BSing.

I have called BS on this distinction multiple times.

The difference between philosophy and BSing is only one of tone and presentation, not of content.

Someone starts a thread "Is reality real? Do we live in the Matrix?" (oh like for instance... this one.) and they are laughed away as a kook, but go "There is an accepted philosophical difference between materialism and dualism" and you are not despite those, I will ******* die on this hill, BEING THE EXACT SAME STATEMENT.

Erudite, well spoken nonsense in Latin spoken by someone who lived before we knew maggots didn't spontaneously form from rotting meat in a huge leatherbound book on the shelf entitled "Philosophy" is still nonsense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, ok, but Universities disagree with you. They don't have a Department of: Ethics, and Wisdom and disciplined thinking, formal logic, thinking about thinking, search for meaning, Etc. They have departments of Philosophy.

Philosophy seems to really want knowledge to have authorities instead of experts.

 

[Jimbo07]

I have called BS on this distinction multiple times.

Ok, fine. I'm calling BS on your calling BS. If you can't see the distinction between internet BSing, and rigorous systems of thinking including: formal logic, study of history and other writers, cross-pollination from other disciplines and influence on same, then that's on you.

The difference between philosophy and BSing is only one of tone and presentation, not of content.

Or, as said, it's in the exercise of the activity, not the output of facts.

Someone starts a thread "Is reality real? Do we live in the Matrix?" (oh like for instance... this one.) and they are laughed away as a kook,

As they should be. This is sophomoric.

but go "There is an accepted philosophical difference between materialism and dualism" and you are not despite those, I will ******* die on this hill, BEING THE EXACT SAME STATEMENT.

Again, they're not saying much. Sometimes those folks are grasping at straws, trying to feel special. It's not relevant to the academic discipline of philosophy. I really suspect that those arguing against "philosophy" aren't really arguing against philosophy, but against what they read here.

Erudite, well spoken nonsense in Latin spoken by someone who lived before we knew maggots didn't spontaneously form from rotting meat in a huge leatherbound book on the shelf entitled "Philosophy" is still nonsense.

Nonsense is nonsense, agreed. That said, not everything written under the umbrella of philosophy is nonsense! Further, learning evolves. Things change. Plato is studied in freshman courses, precisely because it's part of the historical context. Plato is not on the forefront of environmental ethics, say.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's a lot of "No true Philosophical Scotsman" there.

Why do philosophy defenders have such an easy time being able to identify what philosophy isn't yet such a hard time explaining or given non-vague examples of what it actually is?

 

[Jimbo07]

That's a lot of "No true Philosophical Scotsman" there.

I don't understand this at all. Of course we're not practicing philosophy here.

When I babble over on the Sci/Tech forum, am I practicing science?

Why do philosophy defenders have such an easy time being able to identify what philosophy isn't yet such a hard time explaining or given non-vague examples of what it actually is?

Umm... duh? I am not well educated in philosophy. I've admitted to not being able to defend it well. I have just barely enough knowledge to get a gut sense of what it's not, when I see it. It's actually the same with physics. I know just barely enough to get a sense of when someone is BSing, and not actually a physicist, but not be employable in cutting-edge, current room-temperature superconductor research.

 

[Belz...]

Umm. Ok. They're not my words, so I guess you'll have to take it up with them.

Don't play that game, please. You posted it and vouched for it.

I don't understand this bit. The philosohers aren't telling us what philosophy is? Who is, then?

Ask 2 philosophers, get 2 different answers. Ask 100, get 100. That's the problem. As for definitions, I don't think I need to tell you who defines words.