The nature of philosophy

[Complexity]

I've been troubled for some time about how narrow the use of the term 'philosophy' is on this forum and elsewhere.

I value philosophy a great deal, and I think there are a great many interesting and thought-provoking philosophers, both in the past and living today - I simply don't think that too many of them are the self-described philosophers who try to erect systems of thought.

A philosophy is a glimpse of a worldview, a way of looking at the world, an attitude, the trace of a lifetime, questions and reflections - all aspects of a life.

Some people try to organize their thoughts, to make a system or a framework, for the appreciation and/or benefit of others. Some of these attempts are of great value, usually as starting points, while others overreach or do not satisfy.

Other people write stories, write music, perform, teach, make things, raise children, explore, do science, imagine, practice a discipline, or simply live their lives - and these things can, at moments or for lifetimes, constitute a philosophy - a glimpse of a worldview, of a life.

A philosophy does not need to be written in words, it does not need to be about a limited set of topics, it does not need to be consciously expressed, it does not need to be communicated or understood.

A philosophy does not need to be intensional.

Some philosophies are of greater value to me than others.

For me, Bach's Chaconne, Shakespeare's King Lear, Wilbur's Junk, Monet's An Impression - Sunrise, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, Melville's Moby Dick, Homer's Iliad, and Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird are all examples of works that embody and convey a compelling philosophy. Similar examples can be found in all aspects of human life.

One of the reasons why I have grown so frustrated at the discussions of philosophy on this forum is that so many regard philosophy as a particular variety of writing that is constrained to a specified range of topics, and that is written for a particular purpose.

A philosopher used to be a lover of wisdom. I wish that lovers of wisdom would be regarded once more as philosophers, and that philosophers would become lovers of wisdom.

 

[Brombadil]

Your wisdom has shown me I'm a glutton for punishment.
I read your post and realized I agree and have nothing to say. Consequentially I then realized why do I even read this forum? As nauseating as reading woo woo posts is, I thrive off of conflict and disagreement.

 

[mijopaalmc]

A philosopher used to be a lover of wisdom. I wish that lovers of wisdom would be regarded once more as philosophers, and that philosophers would become lovers of wisdom.

Any philosopher of any merit would realize that this is a etymological fallacy.

You, sir, are neither and philosopher or a lover of wisdom.

 

[yy2bggggs]

A philosopher used to be a lover of wisdom. I wish that lovers of wisdom would be regarded once more as philosophers, and that philosophers would become lovers of wisdom.

Any philosopher of any merit would realize that this is a etymological fallacy.

You, sir, are neither and philosopher or a lover of wisdom.

Huh?

 

[dafydd]

Your wisdom has shown me I'm a glutton for punishment.
I read your post and realized I agree and have nothing to say. Consequentially I then realized why do I even read this forum? As nauseating as reading woo woo posts is, I thrive off of conflict and disagreement.

That reminds me of the two Jewish New York ladies who meet in a diner.
'Are you married?'
'No'
'Divorced?'
'No'
'No children then?'
'No'
'Any brothers and sisters?'
'No'
'Boyfriend?'
'No'
'Wadya do for aggravation?'

 

[dafydd]

Huh?

Huh indeed!

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Complexity
A philosopher used to be a lover of wisdom. I wish that lovers of wisdom would be regarded once more as philosophers, and that philosophers would become lovers of wisdom.

Any philosopher of any merit would realize that this is a etymological fallacy.

You, sir, are neither and philosopher or a lover of wisdom.

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.[1] An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology

Feel free to use the above definition to point out where the etymological fallacy was committed.



.

 

[Resume]

You, sir, are neither and philosopher or a lover of wisdom.

You do understand that there is a lot more to intellectualism than an understanding of philosophical concepts?

 

[punshhh]

I've been troubled for some time about how narrow the use of the term 'philosophy' is on this forum and elsewhere.

I value philosophy a great deal, and I think there are a great many interesting and thought-provoking philosophers, both in the past and living today - I simply don't think that too many of them are the self-described philosophers who try to erect systems of thought.

A philosophy is a glimpse of a worldview, a way of looking at the world, an attitude, the trace of a lifetime, questions and reflections - all aspects of a life.

Some people try to organize their thoughts, to make a system or a framework, for the appreciation and/or benefit of others. Some of these attempts are of great value, usually as starting points, while others overreach or do not satisfy.

Other people write stories, write music, perform, teach, make things, raise children, explore, do science, imagine, practice a discipline, or simply live their lives - and these things can, at moments or for lifetimes, constitute a philosophy - a glimpse of a worldview, of a life.

A philosophy does not need to be written in words, it does not need to be about a limited set of topics, it does not need to be consciously expressed, it does not need to be communicated or understood.

A philosophy does not need to be intensional.

Some philosophies are of greater value to me than others.

For me, Bach's Chaconne, Shakespeare's King Lear, Wilbur's Junk, Monet's An Impression - Sunrise, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, Melville's Moby Dick, Homer's Iliad, and Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird are all examples of works that embody and convey a compelling philosophy. Similar examples can be found in all aspects of human life.

One of the reasons why I have grown so frustrated at the discussions of philosophy on this forum is that so many regard philosophy as a particular variety of writing that is constrained to a specified range of topics, and that is written for a particular purpose.

A philosopher used to be a lover of wisdom. I wish that lovers of wisdom would be regarded once more as philosophers, and that philosophers would become lovers of wisdom.

There are lovers of wisdom on your ignore list.

 

[Irony]

Any philosopher of any merit would realize that this is a etymological fallacy.

You, sir, are neither and philosopher or a lover of wisdom.

It is not an etymological fallacy to note that the meaning of a word has changed. In fact, at it's heart, the etymological fallacy is a refusal to note that the meaning of words change.

 

[dafydd]

There are lovers of wisdom on your ignore list.

Names please.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.[1] An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology

Feel free to use the above definition to point out where the etymological fallacy was committed.

You might start with the wish to conflate of "philosopher" with "lover of wisdom".

That's like wishing to conflate "scientist" with "one who knows", and, as far as the larger genetic fallacy is concerned and as you and Complexity might argue, conflating philosophy and science.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It is not an etymological fallacy to note that the meaning of a word has changed. In fact, at it's heart, the etymological fallacy is a refusal to note that the meaning of words change.

Stating that you wish to return a word to its etymology is as a form of the etymological fallacy.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Everyone seems to love to have their own personal "take" on just about every word and concept there is these days.

 

[Brombadil]

Everyone seems to love to have their own personal "take" on just about every word and concept there is these days.

Majority of conversations for a lot of people take place on the internet now, and the only thing connecting me and you is the words I put together, I can see how the emphasis on definitions of the only way we have to communicate become more important.

 

[tsig]

You might start with the wish to conflate of "philosopher" with "lover of wisdom".

That's like wishing to conflate "scientist" with "one who knows", and, as far as the larger genetic fallacy is concerned and as you and Complexity might argue, conflating philosophy and science.

What do you conflate philosophy with?

 

[mijopaalmc]

What do you conflate philosophy with?

That's irrelevant.

What Complexity proposes in the OP is intellectually lazy and dishonest. The collection of the fact of various human endeavors is not the same thing as the synthesis of those facts into systems of knowledge, yet the latter is more highly valued than the former. Complexity, however, knows that the former activity is not the latter, that there is a difference in the valuation of the two activities, that the label of the latter carries some cachet. He therefore proposes that the former takes the label of the latter, because, as he has made quite clear in other thread, he disdains most, if not all, of the products of the latter and wishes the former to have the esteem that he gives it and that most others have given to the latter.

Moreover, he proposes that the label of the former should be "philosophy", because the label of the latter was derived from the love of what it creates (i.e., knowledge/wisdom), and the former creates "true" knowledge while the latter does not. In other word, Complexity simply wants to remake philosophy in to what he esteem while maintaining the cachet of the thing he disdains, much like creationists want creationism to be since without actually having to do the work of science.

 

[tsig]

That's irrelevant.

What Complexity proposes in the OP is intellectually lazy and dishonest. The collection of the fact of various human endeavors is not the same thing as the synthesis of those facts into systems of knowledge, yet the latter is more highly valued than the former. Complexity, however, knows that the former activity is not the latter, that there is a difference in the valuation of the two activities, that the label of the latter carries some cachet. He therefore proposes that the former takes the label of the latter, because, as he has made quite clear in other thread, he disdains most, if not all, of the products of the latter and wishes the former to have the esteem that he gives it and that most others have given to the latter.

Moreover, he proposes that the label of the former should be "philosophy", because the label of the latter was derived from the love of what it creates (i.e., knowledge/wisdom), and the former creates "true" knowledge while the latter does not. In other word, Complexity simply wants to remake philosophy in to what he esteem while maintaining the cachet of the thing he disdains, much like creationists want creationism to be since without actually having to do the work of science.

I'll wait for Complexity to tell me what he knows and ignore your crude attempts to read his mind.


As to what Complexity wants, I think he's the best judge of that.


ETA: dodging of question noted

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'll wait for Complexity to tell me what he knows and ignore your crude attempts to read his mind.

It's mind-reading; it's stated in slightly words in the OP.

As to what Complexity wants, I think he's the best judge of that.

Again, you can figure out exactly what Complexity wants by reading his OP.

ETA: dodging of question noted

I did no such thing. What I conflate philosophy with is irrelevant to my criticism that Complexity is taking what he thinks philosophy should and insisting that it should be called "philosophy" because it truly reflect a "love of knowledge", and it therefore true to the etymology of the words in a way that "erecting systems of thought" is not.

It's a cheap parlor trick worthy of the worst of his caricatures of philosophers. Furthermore, he is basically a stamp collector trying to pass off his stamp collection as the history of postal delivery systems.

 

[Complexity]

I didn't look at this thread once I posted the OP until now - I wanted it to brew for a bit.

'Philosophy' has never lost the meaning of 'lover of wisdom', so what I am doing is not proposing a new interpretation of the term but reminding people of what it has always meant.

Many have grown used to 'philosophy' meaning a narrow type of academic writing that tries to weave castles in the air to further agenda. Some have sought this narrowing of the word's meaning to advance their careers, to control, and to exclude.

I shall draw a distinction in this discussion between the narrow, academic meaning of the term, 'formal philosophy', and the word in its broader, truer sense, 'philosphy'.

While science and mathematics originated in formal philosophy, they have grown into their own, incorporating the best of what formal philosophy had to offer and leaving the rest behind. There are rich traditions of a 'philosophy of science' and a 'philosophy of mathematics', but these have less and less to do with the major threads of thought in rest of modern formal philosophy.

I shall use the term 'remnant philosophy' in this discussion to represent the fields of formal philosophy excluding the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, science, mathematics, and logic (which truly is a foundational field of mathematics now).

There is some good work being done in remnant philosophy, but most of it is self-indulgent trash.

Remnant philosophy is often concerned with questions that I do not find meaningful - why are we here, what is our purpose, what will happen to us, what is beauty, etc.

Remnant philosophers often suffer from science-envy or science-fear and try to fence off aspects of reality from scientific inquiry, so that their thoughts, methods, and conclusions won't be held up to the harsh light of of a skeptical, scientific worldview, so that they can carve out domains in which they fool themselves that they are not subject to science and reason.

In response to punshhh's remark that I have some 'lovers of wisdom' on my Ignore list, I can only say that, in my judgement, the people I have ignored are not lovers of wisdom - that, indeed, is why they are on the list.

With regard to mijopaalmc's remarks, I find nothing deserving a response.