The purpose of Philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » The purpose of Philosophy » The purpose of Philosophy

The purpose of Philosophy
Pointlessness

Page: 1 2

The purpose of Philosophy

The_Wanderer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Location: Essex
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/07/08 - 08:35 AM: Subject: The purpose of Philosophy	#1
I hope I am not retreading old ground with this question/debate/opinionated post, I am a new member. I have been dabbling in philosophy for a few years in my spare time, I am not a student of philosophy (I now partly wish I was). Recently I have been studying Sartre's nausea, existentialism and humanism and Nietzsche's Genealogy of morals and I was just about to tackle Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and I wondered to myself why am I doing this? I went back to the last chapter of Bertrand Russell's the problems of philosophy to remind myself of his answers, that there is no definitive purpose but to remove ourselves from ignorance and to escape the prison of common sense. I just wondered whether any one here studies philosophy for a more focused reason? Now and again I get bouts of pointlessness, does anyone else? How do you deal this?
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1327

Posted 04/07/08 - 10:08 AM:	#2
I study philosophy to help with my writing. For some reason, people like it when the literature seems smart and might teach them something. On the same end, philosophy acts as a workout for our brain muscles. It makes us more aware, smarter, and better able to understand the circumstances of our lives.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1197

Posted 04/07/08 - 11:21 AM:	#3
The_Wanderer wrote: I I wondered to myself why am I doing this? That is a philosophical question. When you ask this sort of question, you are already doing it (wondering/ philosophy). People who don't ask questions like this may well be more sensible, happier, more productive, etc. I wonder why we do this too, and that, in my view makes me a philosopher too - it's the questions that make philosophy, not the answers. It might even be a silly question, like asking why there is something rather than nothing, or why we can't read each other's minds, or why there are only two sexes... but I can't help but wonder, and that is probably as close to an answer as you will ever get.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/07/08 - 06:00 PM:	#4
Well, to answer your question you only have to define philosophy -- the love (or frendship) of knowledge. I think you should read Aristotle's Metaphysics before Ethics -- this book will definately answer your question; and in Heidegger's opinion, go back to the true question of philosophy. Also, philosophy is not pointless, it's just useless. To be pointless would mean that it has no personal utility; however, it is useless in that it does nothing for society (quick, realized results). Book Alpha the greater touches on this subject nicely.

a_Tortoise
just someone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/07/08 - 06:56 PM:	#5
I new here... I also learn philosophy and its hard to ask why I choose to do it. For me maybe it cos' I just cant help myself to not to philosophize things. is it human nature?

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/07/08 - 10:44 PM:	#6
a_Tortoise wrote: I new here... I also learn philosophy and its hard to ask why I choose to do it. For me maybe it cos' I just cant help myself to not to philosophize things. is it human nature? It has been recently argued that there is no human nature, but according to Aristotle, the desire to know is a part of human nature.

koko81
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/08/08 - 09:15 AM:	#7
philosophy is the mode of thought which throught by critical and reasonable interogation, abstraction and never-ending questioning which attempts to brake the closure of inherited representations, thought and perceptions in order to intellectually grasp and practically realize what is true, what is just and what is aesthetically beautiful. ut what is true, just and eautiful is always a social creation or construct, which nevertheless must succeed in having a reference to reality. Given this complexity, philosophy's endeavour is never-ending. The desire to know is not a part of human nature. A brief look at anthropological findings and the history of civilizations makes evident that most societies in world history did not desire to know more and more. Egyptians constraint their findings in Mathematics and Astrology, Native american Indians tribes might know the sound of every bird and animal but they are certainly not concerned about quantum mechanics. The only thing that human nature is, is creative. It creates social forms, institutional arrangments, forms of knowledge and most of all meaning. Philosophy and the the desire to question, interrogate and know is present only in Ancient Greek and Modern Europe, and only recently (in the previous century) did this desire become almost universal (colonization, capitalism and globalization certainly retains an explanatory value for this).

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/08/08 - 10:34 AM:	#8
koko81 wrote: philosophy is the mode of thought which throught by critical and reasonable interogation, abstraction and never-ending questioning which attempts to brake the closure of inherited representations, thought and perceptions in order to intellectually grasp and practically realize what is true, what is just and what is aesthetically beautiful. ut what is true, just and eautiful is always a social creation or construct, which nevertheless must succeed in having a reference to reality. Given this complexity, philosophy's endeavour is never-ending. The desire to know is not a part of human nature. A brief look at anthropological findings and the history of civilizations makes evident that most societies in world history did not desire to know more and more. Egyptians constraint their findings in Mathematics and Astrology, Native american Indians tribes might know the sound of every bird and animal but they are certainly not concerned about quantum mechanics. The only thing that human nature is, is creative. It creates social forms, institutional arrangments, forms of knowledge and most of all meaning. Philosophy and the the desire to question, interrogate and know is present only in Ancient Greek and Modern Europe, and only recently (in the previous century) did this desire become almost universal (colonization, capitalism and globalization certainly retains an explanatory value for this). You're making quite a lot of false claims here. Philosophy is not a mode of thought, it's a the love of knowledge (regardeing the etymology). In effect, all philosophy is is the desire to know. The answer you gave was just a bunch of big words that missed the point -- it happens a lot in philosophy, unfortunately. What is true, just and aesthetically beautiful? Just deals with ethics, aesthetics is the philosophy or art, and truth is very loosely dealt with in philosophy as a whole; however, you must also include their negations. Philosophy deals with what is ugly, injust, and false as well -- not to mention many other things such as what is a virtue, what exists, what doesn't exist. what is evil, what is good (which are indedpentant of justice). I could go on all day. But to limit philosophy to three things is a travesty. Your comment on the desire to know; however, is opinion and should be stated as such -- not as if it were a fact. Like I had said, Aristotle believed it was -- just like you can easily find Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau's views on human nature easily as well. However, your justification for Aristotle being wrong is constrained to tunnel vision. So because certain groups of people didn't extend their knowledge beyond certain disciplines, that is proof that they didn't desire to know? Because the Indians didn't want to know about quantum mechanics? They didn't even have physics let alone even begin to know quantum mechanics! How can you claim this as evidence when it was impossible for them to do what you're claiming they didn't want to do? Regardless, did they not also desire to know what wouldn't kill them or what would when they ate? did they not desire to know how to cure the sick? Did they not also desire to know how to sate their passions? Did they not also desire to know the mysteries of nature (very evident in every religion)? Again, I could go on. Also, you have to understand what Aristotle meant by the statement as well -- and I believe it is one of the most poorly interpreted statements in the Metaphysics across the board. Humans are a sum of their parts -- most importnatly here, their sensory organs. Sensory organs, regardless of conscious desire, long (desire) to know. As Aristotle puts it, the eyes most of all. No matter what you wish, your sensory organs will always long to know. You can't stop your eyes from seeing, you can't stop your skin from feeling or your nose from smelling. And Aristotle, among others after, classified sense perceptions as knowledge. As far as your definition: I'm not going to touch your theory of human nature. There are a lot of other, more base functions and desires that humans share categorically besides creativity -- like survival, procreation, etc. Anyway, the question of human nature is a good one, and many many bright people have written works on it. I think it would be best if the original poster was guided to these. My suggestion is read Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Aristotle.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 04/08/08 - 11:34 AM:	#9
It has long been recognized that the primary function and benefit to society of Philosophy is to keep certain personality types busy endlessly arguing with one another who otherwise would be out annoying the general public instead. Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

The_Wanderer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Location: Essex
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/08/08 - 01:53 PM:	#10
Sanchez wrote: You're making quite a lot of false claims here. Philosophy is not a mode of thought, it's a the love of knowledge (regardeing the etymology). In effect, all philosophy is is the desire to know. The answer you gave was just a bunch of big words that missed the point -- it happens a lot in philosophy, unfortunately. What is true, just and aesthetically beautiful? Just deals with ethics, aesthetics is the philosophy or art, and truth is very loosely dealt with in philosophy as a whole; however, you must also include their negations. Philosophy deals with what is ugly, injust, and false as well -- not to mention many other things such as what is a virtue, what exists, what doesn't exist. what is evil, what is good (which are indedpentant of justice). I could go on all day. But to limit philosophy to three things is a travesty. Your comment on the desire to know; however, is opinion and should be stated as such -- not as if it were a fact. Like I had said, Aristotle believed it was -- just like you can easily find Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau's views on human nature easily as well. However, your justification for Aristotle being wrong is constrained to tunnel vision. So because certain groups of people didn't extend their knowledge beyond certain disciplines, that is proof that they didn't desire to know? Because the Indians didn't want to know about quantum mechanics? They didn't even have physics let alone even begin to know quantum mechanics! How can you claim this as evidence when it was impossible for them to do what you're claiming they didn't want to do? Regardless, did they not also desire to know what wouldn't kill them or what would when they ate? did they not desire to know how to cure the sick? Did they not also desire to know how to sate their passions? Did they not also desire to know the mysteries of nature (very evident in every religion)? Again, I could go on. Also, you have to understand what Aristotle meant by the statement as well -- and I believe it is one of the most poorly interpreted statements in the Metaphysics across the board. Humans are a sum of their parts -- most importnatly here, their sensory organs. Sensory organs, regardless of conscious desire, long (desire) to know. As Aristotle puts it, the eyes most of all. No matter what you wish, your sensory organs will always long to know. You can't stop your eyes from seeing, you can't stop your skin from feeling or your nose from smelling. And Aristotle, among others after, classified sense perceptions as knowledge. As far as your definition: I'm not going to touch your theory of human nature. There are a lot of other, more base functions and desires that humans share categorically besides creativity -- like survival, procreation, etc. Anyway, the question of human nature is a good one, and many many bright people have written works on it. I think it would be best if the original poster was guided to these. My suggestion is read Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Aristotle. Well said, I agree with most of your arguments here. And thank you for the recommendation Sanchez, I may purchase Metaphysics.
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

koko81
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/08/08 - 10:30 PM: Subject: reply	#11
1) Excuse me for not making clear that whatever I stated above was strictly my opinion and did not consider them as undisputable facts. 2) You state: You're making quite a lot of false claims here. Philosophy is not a mode of thought, it's a the love of knowledge (regardeing the etymology). In effect, all philosophy is is the desire to know. The answer you gave was just a bunch of big words that missed the point -- it happens a lot in philosophy, unfortunately. What is true, just and aesthetically beautiful? Just deals with ethics, aesthetics is the philosophy or art, and truth is very loosely dealt with in philosophy as a whole; however, you must also include their negations. Philosophy deals with what is ugly, injust, and false as well -- not to mention many other things such as what is a virtue, what exists, what doesn't exist. what is evil, what is good (which are indedpentant of justice). I could go on all day. But to limit philosophy to three things is a travesty.' I believe that one may arguably suggest that the questions of ‘truth’, ‘justice’ and ‘aesthetics’ are the defining problematiques of philosophical thinking. This categorization is profoundly conventional and not exhaustive, one may philosophize on anything thinkable, and of course i know the etymology of the word ‘philosophy’. Your critique and counter-examples are weak in my opinion. You suggest that what is good, what is evil and what is virtue are independent of the notion of 'justice'. In my opinion they are not. The question of justice for me concerns social values, ethics and norms. The question of being, 'what exists' (ontology), is always a question of truth. Heraclitus', Parmenides', Kant's, Heidegger's metaphysical speculations resolve around the question of 'true' being. You also emphasize that I should include the negations of the concept of truth, justice and aesthetics. This goes without saying, since, by definition, it is impossible to determine what something 'is' without simultaneously stating what it 'is not'. 3) You state ‘Your comment on the desire to know; however, is opinion and should be stated as such -- not as if it were a fact. Like I had said, Aristotle believed it was -- just like you can easily find Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau's views on human nature easily as well. However, your justification for Aristotle being wrong is constrained to tunnel vision. So because certain groups of people didn't extend their knowledge beyond certain disciplines, that is proof that they didn't desire to know? Because the Indians didn't want to know about quantum mechanics? They didn't even have physics let alone even begin to know quantum mechanics! How can you claim this as evidence when it was impossible for them to do what you're claiming they didn't want to do? Regardless, did they not also desire to know what wouldn't kill them or what would when they ate? did they not desire to know how to cure the sick? Did they not also desire to know how to sate their passions? Did they not also desire to know the mysteries of nature (very evident in every religion)? Again, I could go on’ What I meant is this: the ‘desire to know’ in the sense of Aristotle (philosophy, in other words), is essentially the desire for knowledge per se, for its own sake, through critical rational interrogation. This ‘critical rational interrogation’, which for me is the distinctive characteristic of philosophy in relation to theological, mystical and mythological thought, has been invested with a positive value only in Ancient Greek and Modern Western societies from the end of the dark ages onwards and is certainly not a universal quality of human beings. As I stated in my previous post, ‘truth’, ‘justice’ and ‘aesthetics’ are social constructions, in my opinion. That is to say, different societies and civilizations conceive differently the forms of knowledge which are to be desired and what knowledge will be considered of value for an individual of the society in question to acquire. So, for example, theocratic societies, such as Byzantium or fundamentalist Islamic nations, consider theological knowledge a virtue, Native Indian societies regard war-oriented and hunting-oriented knowledge an asset. But only in Ancient Greek and Modern European civilization form the 13th century onwards, that is to say in societies which underwent a democratic transformation, the desire of knowledge through critical rational interrogation for the sake of knowledge per se emerged as substantial intellectual movement and came to the forefront in an often conflictual relationship with the dogmas of the church and tradition. Of course you may say that numerous western philosophers (Descartes for example) retain many theological elements in their thought. Nevertheless I believe that without the democratic struggles of the Modern Western societies against the supremacy of the Christian Church and the less dogmatic re-interpretation of the Holy Scriptures which took place, a lot of philosophical and scientific treaties would have never seen the lights of the day – in other words the desire to belief in many ways has been historically stronger than the desire to knowledge. Actually, I find quite surprising that you regard religion, and I suppose mythology as well, an expression of the desire to know the mysteries of nature. In my opinion, they express the desire for meaning and not knowledge. Religion does provide answers to ultimate questions such as the creation of the world, the meaning of life and death and so on, but does not entail an impetus to knowledge (at least not necessarily) – even today religious circles deny the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as his scientific findings contrast the religious dogmas….and personally I would certainly not consider studying the ‘Koran’ and its interpretations as ‘philosophy’. And if you accept Aristotle definition of knowledge as sense perception then by definition religion and theology is not knowledge, since you cannot hear, smell or see God(s) (except if you believe that every being is a revelation of God, but again this would be simply a hypothetical belief and not knowledge) 4) Finally you state: Also, you have to understand what Aristotle meant by the statement as well -- and I believe it is one of the most poorly interpreted statements in the Metaphysics across the board. Humans are a sum of their parts -- most importnatly here, their sensory organs. Sensory organs, regardless of conscious desire, long (desire) to know. As Aristotle puts it, the eyes most of all. No matter what you wish, your sensory organs will always long to know. You can't stop your eyes from seeing, you can't stop your skin from feeling or your nose from smelling. And Aristotle, among others after, classified sense perceptions as knowledge. Well, may I disagree with Aristotle? And may I clarify that I was not interpreting him in my previous post, but simply stating my opinion on philosophy. As far as Aristotle’s view is concerned, I believe that sense perception is only one form of knowledge, certainly dominant and most easily verifiable. However, not only Kant’s transcendental idealism demonstrates that knowledge which begins but does not arise from experience is possible but also most of the hermeneutical, critical and psychoanalytical schools of thought are concerned with knowledge which is not sensual, but in a sense invisible and implicit.

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/10/08 - 10:29 AM:	#12
koko81 wrote: 1) Excuse me for not making clear that whatever I stated above was strictly my opinion and did not consider them as undisputable facts. The statment begining "philosophy is" is very different than one stating "I think philosophy is." Usually I wouldn't be so bothered by that, but when someone outside of philosophy asks questions, I think the responsible thing to do is demarcate fact from opinion -- and even furthur, accepted opinion and delineated opinion. Your statement made it as though you were either stating fact or the overriding opinion of what philosophy is -- which is very misleading to somebody who may not know any better. koko81 wrote: 2) You state: You're making quite a lot of false claims here. Philosophy is not a mode of thought, it's a the love of knowledge (regardeing the etymology). In effect, all philosophy is is the desire to know. The answer you gave was just a bunch of big words that missed the point -- it happens a lot in philosophy, unfortunately. What is true, just and aesthetically beautiful? Just deals with ethics, aesthetics is the philosophy or art, and truth is very loosely dealt with in philosophy as a whole; however, you must also include their negations. Philosophy deals with what is ugly, injust, and false as well -- not to mention many other things such as what is a virtue, what exists, what doesn't exist. what is evil, what is good (which are indedpentant of justice). I could go on all day. But to limit philosophy to three things is a travesty.' I believe that one may arguably suggest that the questions of ‘truth’, ‘justice’ and ‘aesthetics’ are the defining problematiques of philosophical thinking. This categorization is profoundly conventional and not exhaustive, one may philosophize on anything thinkable, and of course i know the etymology of the word ‘philosophy’. Your critique and counter-examples are weak in my opinion. You suggest that what is good, what is evil and what is virtue are independent of the notion of 'justice'. In my opinion they are not. The question of justice for me concerns social values, ethics and norms. The question of being, 'what exists' (ontology), is always a question of truth. Heraclitus', Parmenides', Kant's, Heidegger's metaphysical speculations resolve around the question of 'true' being. You also emphasize that I should include the negations of the concept of truth, justice and aesthetics. This goes without saying, since, by definition, it is impossible to determine what something 'is' without simultaneously stating what it 'is not'. So where does logic fall in with truth, justice and aesthetics? Last I heard, logic was one of the fundamental areas of philosophy as well. Again, I think you're pidgeonholing the term by attempting to even categorize knowledge. And yes, I do think good, evil and virtue are independent of justice -- especially seeing as how justice is a virtue. When you allow justice to subsume good and evil, you remove the distinction from right, wrong, good, and evil. Justice does not always deal with what is good and evil -- this will all depend on the grounds with which the ethical system in question was derived. koko81 wrote: Actually, I find quite surprising that you regard religion, and I suppose mythology as well, an expression of the desire to know the mysteries of nature. In my opinion, they express the desire for meaning and not knowledge. Religion does provide answers to ultimate questions such as the creation of the world, the meaning of life and death and so on, but does not entail an impetus to knowledge (at least not necessarily) – even today religious circles deny the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as his scientific findings contrast the religious dogmas….and personally I would certainly not consider studying the ‘Koran’ and its interpretations as ‘philosophy’. And if you accept Aristotle definition of knowledge as sense perception then by definition religion and theology is not knowledge, since you cannot hear, smell or see God(s) (except if you believe that every being is a revelation of God, but again this would be simply a hypothetical belief and not knowledge) I really have no idea what you're getting at here. I think your desire to place some sort of fine dichotomy between religion and philosophy is very indicative of your apparent disdain for religion as a whole. I'm guessing you are an athiest? Have you ever studied Eastern religions? Tell me exactly how Taoism is not almost identical to much of what Aristotle was saying. In fact, the whole "desire for meaning and not knowledge" is quite rediculous. It is true, they use their knowledge for other purposes (such as creation, natural disasters, life, etc.), but lets not forget they have a 'desire to know.' I would not chastise a logican for not wanting to study metaphysics. I would not chastise an ontologist for not studying aesthetics of music. Our desires stem from certain places in all of us, but to say one desire is greater than the other is just pretenteous. As for your last line there: I believe that Aristotle believed that an indicator for human nature (what is beyond our personal desires) in the realm of knowledge was sense perception. I in no way indicated that sense perception was the only knowledge. If you would read furthur into Book Alpha the Greater, you'd find he has a decent epistemology. Again, this is not to say that I even agree with Aristotle -- I was just blatently using him as an example of people's thoughts on human nature (mainly showing that it isn't true knowledge) rather than claiming fact. Lastly, if you're going to base things primarly on empirical knowledge you wont just disprove any God, but science as a whole falls into this problem you say is confined to religion and how they treat knowledge. As an example, I'd like for you to show me how we can know any cause stricly from empirical evidence. You never see the cause, but only the apparent cause and the effect. You can only deduce causes from the knowledge you gain from sense perception just like you can only deduce a god from sense perception. And if you ride this train to it's destination, you arrive at idealism just as Hume did.

a_Tortoise
just someone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/10/08 - 10:30 PM:	#13
koko81 wrote: philosophy is the mode of thought which throught by critical and reasonable interogation, abstraction and never-ending questioning which attempts to brake the closure of inherited representations, thought and perceptions in order to intellectually grasp and practically realize what is true, what is just and what is aesthetically beautiful. ut what is true, just and eautiful is always a social creation or construct, which nevertheless must succeed in having a reference to reality. Given this complexity, philosophy's endeavour is never-ending. The desire to know is not a part of human nature. A brief look at anthropological findings and the history of civilizations makes evident that most societies in world history did not desire to know more and more. Egyptians constraint their findings in Mathematics and Astrology, Native american Indians tribes might know the sound of every bird and animal but they are certainly not concerned about quantum mechanics. The only thing that human nature is, is creative. It creates social forms, institutional arrangments, forms of knowledge and most of all meaning. Philosophy and the the desire to question, interrogate and know is present only in Ancient Greek and Modern Europe, and only recently (in the previous century) did this desire become almost universal (colonization, capitalism and globalization certainly retains an explanatory value for this). I don’t like the suggestion that philosophy is Greek. There also Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, and Islamic philosophy. They are also "philosophy"???

discourse
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
Location: Estonia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/11/08 - 01:24 AM:	#14
Philosophy is an art. It's an aesthetical pleasure what you will get from having an insight into the essence of some problem and explaining it out with the joy of using the logical wit.
Naturally simple as it has always been!

koko81
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/11/08 - 04:10 AM:	#15
Sanchez wrote: So where does logic fall in with truth, justice and aesthetics? Last I heard, logic was one of the fundamental areas of philosophy as well. Again, I think you're pidgeonholing the term by attempting to even categorize knowledge. And yes, I do think good, evil and virtue are independent of justice -- especially seeing as how justice is a virtue. When you allow justice to subsume good and evil, you remove the distinction from right, wrong, good, and evil. Justice does not always deal with what is good and evil -- this will all depend on the grounds with which the ethical system in question was derived. 1) First of all I already stated that this categorization is conventional and not exhaustive. I don't want in any sense to reduce every subject of philosophical speculation to these three categories but simply consider them as central and effective in understanding the basic problematiques in the history of philosophy. AnywayS, about logic: to my knowledge and understanding the philosophy of logic is concerned firstly, with logic as a method of inquiry, and secondly, logic as the proccesses, structure, limits and possibilities of what we may call 'rational thought'. Most philosophers so far (post-modernists and few other exceptions aside) postulate that if something can be grasped rationally/logically then it is true (hence the inquiry upon logic is ultimately connected with the notion of 'truth'). Hegel for examples famously urged that 'What is rational is real and what is real is rational'. Other philosophers, such as Vico, argued that conventional logic can only grasp the quantitative aspects of reality, while we need 'fantasia' to understand most other domains of the human world (feeling/motives/belief e.t.c.). 2) Yes I am an atheist/agnosist, nevertheless I do not downplay religious thought. Many religious scripts contain a great deal of wisdom, and yes, Eastern religions and Taosism in particular, shares a lot in common with Western philosophy as it is less dogmatic than Judeo-Christian Monotheism. But what is the qualitative difference between religious and philosophical thought then? Is theology and philosophy the same for you? In my opinion most religions I know of are usually characterized by some holy scripts or a few authoritative figures/intellectuals, and hundreds of interpretations. While this is partly true in philosophy (Marxism is perhaps the best example), what is distinctive about philosophy is the immense plurality of thinkers, schools of thought and interpreters which characterize the few periods in history when philosophy flourishes. One usually perceives an incredible critical intellectual movement with a vast variety of productive thinkers speculating on innumerable subjects and while great thinkers do become influential, none of them escapes critique. So, for example within two centuries (7th-5th century B.C.) about 80 different philosophers emerge in Ancient Greece and hundreds emerge in Western Modernity. Of course God and religion are oftenly present in western thought (i.e. Descarte, Payle) yet for me this is a shortcoming which philosophy needs to overcome, and indeed has overcome. No philosopher I know of will tell you nowadays that this is so and so because this is what the Bible tells us. He might say that this idea resembles this part of the Bible or that this conception is similar to that of Taoism, but no one will regard these similarities as a proof of the concept's truth. 3) a Tortoise states that : 'I don’t like the suggestion that philosophy is Greek. There also Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, and Islamic philosophy. They are also "philosophy"??? ' Well I don't like it either, but Ancient Greece is the place where philosophy, as I understand it, was created. And in saying this, I do not want in any sense to suggest that the Western civilization is greater than others. I simply regard that philosophy was born in Ancient Greece a historical fact. In my opinion, while alsmost every civilization is characterized beautiful mythological and religious thought, it is only in Ancient Greece and Westen Modernity that a truly critical, radical and rational intellectual movement (philosophy) takes place and flourishes. So, while human thought is present everywhere there is human civilization, philosophy was created and re-created in Ancient Greek and Modern Europe, more or less in the same sense that while everywhere there is 'politics' only in Ancient Greece and Modern West there was a democratic movement.

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/11/08 - 07:23 AM:	#16
koko81 wrote: 2) Yes I am an atheist/agnosist, nevertheless I do not downplay religious thought. Many religious scripts contain a great deal of wisdom, and yes, Eastern religions and Taosism in particular, shares a lot in common with Western philosophy as it is less dogmatic than Judeo-Christian Monotheism. But what is the qualitative difference between religious and philosophical thought then? Is theology and philosophy the same for you? In my opinion most religions I know of are usually characterized by some holy scripts or a few authoritative figures/intellectuals, and hundreds of interpretations. While this is partly true in philosophy (Marxism is perhaps the best example), what is distinctive about philosophy is the immense plurality of thinkers, schools of thought and interpreters which characterize the few periods in history when philosophy flourishes. One usually perceives an incredible critical intellectual movement with a vast variety of productive thinkers speculating on innumerable subjects and while great thinkers do become influential, none of them escapes critique. So, for example within two centuries (7th-5th century B.C.) about 80 different philosophers emerge in Ancient Greece and hundreds emerge in Western Modernity. Of course God and religion are oftenly present in western thought (i.e. Descarte, Payle) yet for me this is a shortcoming which philosophy needs to overcome, and indeed has overcome. No philosopher I know of will tell you nowadays that this is so and so because this is what the Bible tells us. He might say that this idea resembles this part of the Bible or that this conception is similar to that of Taoism, but no one will regard these similarities as a proof of the concept's truth. I think if you studied religion a bit more you'd find many similarities between it and philosophy -- which is why philosophy and religion are often under the same department in most universities. What you say you find distinctive about philosophy and what sets it apart from religion is not truely the case. There has been the same things found in religion since the dawn of time. Look at the problem of the trinity in christianity -- on that one question there were many different thinkers including aquinas, augustine, etc. In Islam, as far as incorperating aristotalean views there was Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, and quite a few others. Then you bring in the mystic reformation in each of the three Western religions which all happend during the same periods. You had the hellenistic period of religion as well where world religions where being reformed to allegory. Hell, even during the time of Jesus, there were I think four differnt sects of Judaism. Look at the exhaustive list of Christian schools of thought these days. You can trace each of them to a time period where reform was happening among many thinkers and one won out. The same can be said for the Eastern religions as well. As to your #1 that I didn't quote, I still stand by my original comments. If you don't intend to answer the question of what philosophy is by either giving a blanket statement or an exhaustive list of what domains philosophy covers, you're being misleading with your answer. If I ask what a tiger is and somebody tells me it's a living being with hair, they are not wrong, but they are misleading as all mammals are living beings with hair.

Techeth
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 280

Posted 04/11/08 - 09:21 AM:	#17
koko81 wrote: 2) Yes I am an atheist/agnosist, nevertheless I do not downplay religious thought. Many religious scripts contain a great deal of wisdom, and yes, Eastern religions and Taosism in particular, shares a lot in common with Western philosophy as it is less dogmatic than Judeo-Christian Monotheism. But what is the qualitative difference between religious and philosophical thought then? Is theology and philosophy the same for you? In my opinion most religions I know of are usually characterized by some holy scripts or a few authoritative figures/intellectuals, and hundreds of interpretations. While this is partly true in philosophy (Marxism is perhaps the best example), what is distinctive about philosophy is the immense plurality of thinkers, schools of thought and interpreters which characterize the few periods in history when philosophy flourishes. One usually perceives an incredible critical intellectual movement with a vast variety of productive thinkers speculating on innumerable subjects and while great thinkers do become influential, none of them escapes critique. So, for example within two centuries (7th-5th century B.C.) about 80 different philosophers emerge in Ancient Greece and hundreds emerge in Western Modernity. Of course God and religion are oftenly present in western thought (i.e. Descarte, Payle) yet for me this is a shortcoming which philosophy needs to overcome, and indeed has overcome. No philosopher I know of will tell you nowadays that this is so and so because this is what the Bible tells us. He might say that this idea resembles this part of the Bible or that this conception is similar to that of Taoism, but no one will regard these similarities as a proof of the concept's truth. Well that all depends on your definition of a philosopher. In my mind the moment someone knowingly begins a philosophical argument they become a philosopher (during that time at least). In any case whether you know someone or not it would still be philosophy if the person was willing to argue. I may be wrong but I thought philosophy was the search for the answer not the answer it’s self. It's as though you think of philosophy as many atheists think of science. The presence of God in philosophy is natural and until the existence of God can be disproved I don't see why it shouldn't be present. (I would like to make the distinction between God and religion or religious scripts as I see them as separate) The point of philosophy is to apply reason to better understand and in turn to find truth. If the statement began "It is true because the bible says so because..." then to me this is the beginning of a philosophical discussion whether or not the person is right. koko81 wrote: Well I don't like it either, but Ancient Greece is the place where philosophy, as I understand it, was created. And in saying this, I do not want in any sense to suggest that the Western civilization is greater than others. I simply regard that philosophy was born in Ancient Greece a historical fact. In my opinion, while alsmost every civilization is characterized beautiful mythological and religious thought, it is only in Ancient Greece and Westen Modernity that a truly critical, radical and rational intellectual movement (philosophy) takes place and flourishes. So, while human thought is present everywhere there is human civilization, philosophy was created and re-created in Ancient Greek and Modern Europe, more or less in the same sense that while everywhere there is 'politics' only in Ancient Greece and Modern West there was a democratic movement. I would just like to add that although it may have been the place where "critical, radical and rationally intellectual philosophy thrived" it is important to remember Greek philosophers did travel, they did visit other nations and people from whom they gathered much. So where as it arguably may have been born in Ancient Greece I think they would be the first to admit they did not conceive it by themselves and the same in the very least is true for modern democracy.
Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

jposamen
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/12/08 - 08:17 PM:	#18
I'm just so darn curious. Philosophy poses so many puzzles, and I enjoy seeing how they play out. Practically speaking, philosophy helps me frame and organize issues and points of view. Jordan

@#
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 14

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:40 PM:	#19
Another, more simple perspective . . . It occurs to me that >being< philosophical is none other than the intentional act of uncovering that which, has always existed hidden before our eyes. To some, that may seem like a vague ‘definition’, if it can be defined at all. But it isn’t. Philosophy seeks to provide explanation to what we 'experience'. Some things we experience (as we all know) contain in themselves mysteries, which at first glance seem unexplainable. However, what we normally call truth is none other than the expressly uncovered nature of that which is concerned. Thus, the act of philosophy consists of forming questions which provide opportunity to give explanation to our perplexity.
"This schematism of our understanding as regards appearances and their mere form is an art hidden in the depths of the human soul, the true devices of which are hardly ever to be divined from Nature and laid uncovered before our eyes." -Kant

Morris
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: Engaging Minds Ministry

Posted 04/29/08 - 09:55 AM:	#20
I have studied Philosophy for 8 years in an academic setting, and the reason I study philosophy is to find Truth. If you look at the very word Philosophy in the greek it means Love of Wisdom. Wisdom is by definition Truth. If one looks at the ancients and medieval Philosophers this was why that pursued Philosophy also. Edited by Morris on 04/29/08 - 10:03 AM

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:03 PM:	#21
"The purpose of philosophy is to sate our desires for knowledge and mental dominiation of the great mystery, and it is often arrogance incarnate as we justify within our own arguments our own opinions and viewpoints, and seek little truth." ~Me

nightingale
flutter 'n' swoop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Location: Australia.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:33 AM:	#22
jdrw wrote: It has long been recognized that the primary function and benefit to society of Philosophy is to keep certain personality types busy endlessly arguing with one another who otherwise would be out annoying the general public instead. Haha, well said.
The circus broke loose.

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/21/08 - 05:41 AM:	#23
The_Wanderer wrote: I hope I am not retreading old ground with this question/debate/opinionated post, I am a new member. I have been dabbling in philosophy for a few years in my spare time, I am not a student of philosophy (I now partly wish I was). Recently I have been studying Sartre's nausea, existentialism and humanism and Nietzsche's Genealogy of morals and I was just about to tackle Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and I wondered to myself why am I doing this? I went back to the last chapter of Bertrand Russell's the problems of philosophy to remind myself of his answers, that there is no definitive purpose but to remove ourselves from ignorance and to escape the prison of common sense. I just wondered whether any one here studies philosophy for a more focused reason? Now and again I get bouts of pointlessness, does anyone else? How do you deal this? Four simple words. TO THINK LIKE GOD

TheManWhoWasThursday
Careful Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Location: North Carolina
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:11 PM:	#24
Why do I study philosophy? I haven't found the answers yet, why else? It's a part of my nature, I've never been able to start a puzzle or a book without finishing it because I'm too curious to see what the picture looks like when all the pieces are in place. That's how I feel about philosophy. It is a big puzzle, with pieces that look like Aristotle, Kant, Hume, and Plato, and I want to see how the pieces fit together once the picture is complete. Part of me knows that I will not be able to enjoy it when, and if, the puzzle is ever completed, since I will likely have been dead for some time, but my one great hope is to fit at least one piece of that puzzle into place before I'm forced to shuffle off my mortal coil. This post feels a bit rambling but that is how I get when I discuss this question, just ask my friends. It's a hard question to answer in words because it is more a compulsion than a rational choice but the closest I can come to an answer is that I philosophize because I want to see the completed picture.
"I tell you naught for your comfort, Yea, naught for your desire, Save that the sky grows darker yet And the sea rises higher." G. K. Chesterton

2Ponder
[Insert witty title here]

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2008
Location: The space-time continuum
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 06/30/08 - 09:08 PM:	#25
I just figured that I'd resurrect this thread because I've had the same issues myself. Philosophy isn't my calling - I'm much more into literature and writing and all that fun stuff - but I have a real appreciation for it; I see how, when the concepts developed in the realms of philosophy are applied to the real world, they change it drastically. I have a real appreciation for that, and a biting interest to see what people have said and why the world is such a (messed up) place as it is now. That, and the fact that reading the works of the philosophers helps to inspire me into my own ideas, which I then incorporate into my own writing, makes me want to read the works of the philosophers and understand what they're trying to say. But at the same time, there have been many times when I'm sitting down, trying to read some philosophical work or other, and I suddenly wake up. "Why am I torturing myself like this?" I wonder to myself as a pounding headache sets in. Then I think about how philosophy is really like nothing more than a bunch of scientific claims without any actual support, and how there's no way to prove anything said in the world of philosophy until we start developing our methods in the social sciences, so we really don't know anything in the world of philosophy, so all of this is really a waste of time... Which, along with the terrible experiences that I had in 4 of the 5 philosophy courses that I ever took in college, make me want to run away, screaming, from anything having to do with reasoning, logic, ethics or philosophy in general. I guess all of this random rambling all boils down to a few questions: 1) What is the point of studying philosophy? 2) Are these headaches normal? 3) How do you stay sane?
"Not all who wander are lost."

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.