What is philosophy and what can it accomplish?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » What is philosophy and what can it accomplish? » What is philosophy and what can it accomplish?

What is philosophy and what can it accomplish?

Page: 1 2 3

What is philosophy and what can it accomplish?

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 09/22/09 - 05:27 AM: Subject: What is Philosophy and what can it accomplish?	#1
Id like to discuss this question with reference to the history of Philosophy and to different schools of philosophy, both historically and contemporary. Philosophers (discounting "natural philosophy" which today means science) have had different notions of what philosophy is and what it is capable of accomplishing. Notions so different that to identify them all as Philosophy would seem to lead to a very broad unhelpful notion. What are some of these varying ideas of what philosophy is and of what it is capable of accomplishing? Which view do you share and why? This question is very general. As a starting point Id like to ask, CAN PHILOSOPHY EXPLAIN REALITY OR "ONLY" ANALYZE THE CONCEPTS WE USE TO EXPLAIN REALITY?. What is the relationship between the two? Do the two even merge inseperatly together at times? Personally I dont think philosophy can give us knowledge of the world. For me its a method of analysing the CONCEPTS we use to understand reality. How can the absence of empirical investigation allow us to understand the world? Unless a question is analytically true or false what can philosophy possibly answer? However as in the case of freedom and determinism, the analysis of various concepts of freedom seem to show that some types of freedom are possible and some are not, or at least are seemingly incoherent. So maybe in some sense philosophy can give us non trivial knowledge of reality. Anyways I hope I expressed my self clearly. Hope to see people's own views and arguments. Thanks. Edited by mark73 on 09/22/09 - 07:50 AM

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/13/09 - 10:56 AM:	#2
"Personally I dont think philosophy can give us knowledge of the world." Ever heard of the philosophers such as Rene Descartes , Copernicus , Aristotle etc the list goes on and on. These philosophers contributed loads to modern society mainly SCIENCE, alot of their ideas sparked off other ideas. They had a heavy influence on culture , understanding of the world, Ethical issues politics. So saying philosophy solves nothing or whatever you wrote I didn't bother reading because it was mostly negative I assume. You think philosophy is just about analysing concepts...which to some extents your right. But things which I have listed above pretty much account for our human existence and wouldn't be here if not questioned by philosophers and intellects alike.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 10/13/09 - 11:54 AM:	#3
Let me propose two different trpes of reality enmeshed as life and by so doing I will be able to demonstrate why philosophy consciousness and the infinite are interrelated whereas the philosophy of science is mere discovery of the physical world. The two types of reality are physical and mental, Physical reality seems fixed to certain sets of laws but mental reality has no definite rules of engagement except the ones society requests. Take a look at the Stoics and the methods they itilized since their philosophy was geared for them to enjoy life. Garments for life and garments from life are subtly different. Edited by nousPLOTINU on 10/13/09 - 12:23 PM. Reason: rend a tear
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

BenderTheMagnificent
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009
Location: Aurora,CO

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 12

Posted 10/13/09 - 01:54 PM:	#4
nousPLOTINU wrote: The two types of reality are physical and mental, Physical reality seems fixed to certain sets of laws but mental reality has no definite rules of engagement except the ones society requests. You are making a huge assumption in this statement. What do you even mean that mental reality has "no definitive rules of engagement"? Are you aying that our brain is not subject to the physical laws that everything else follows? I could be wrong, but either way, please explain as I don't know what you mean. Mental reality (the way our brain works) seems to follow all the same physical laws that everything else does. As to the original post, I agree with what Nihilism said.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 10/13/09 - 02:05 PM:	#5
mark73 wrote: As a starting point Id like to ask, CAN PHILOSOPHY EXPLAIN REALITY OR "ONLY" ANALYZE THE CONCEPTS WE USE TO EXPLAIN REALITY? That is a bad starting point. It opens with too many assumptions. What do you mean by “explain reality”? First of all, there is no need to “explain reality”. The formulation is used fairly often; however, in fact, reality is self explanatory. Just look around you, and there you go: reality! What you see is as vivid and complete as explanations of reality ever get. It is, however, not the only language which can represent reality. The human ability for creating conceptual synonyms is probably our most powerful evolutionary advantage. By taking an image of, say, a window and representing it in written or verbal form, we can suddenly communicate about it on a whole other level. We can also use it in contexts which would be unavailable if we had to point at a physical window every time we wanted to communicate the concept across, or we can use only parts of a concept rather than the whole. Most disciplines have their own languages, created either through specialized syntax or grammar, to specifically cater to the objectives the users of that language are trying to accomplish. The language of science is designed is such a way as to provide us with the tools to manipulate and shape physical reality. On the other hand, it does nothing for people's psychological or spiritual needs. To fill in those gaps, we have religious and various therapeutic languages. The question, therefore, is what niche is filled by the language of philosophy? Well, look at the concepts philosophers use: morality, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc. Now look at the characteristics of these concepts. First of all, they are not things readily available in the physical world. So, if you're looking for empirical powers, you're out of luck. That's not what philosophy is about. Secondly, these are all concepts that define limitation. What should or shouldn't we do – morality and ethics; what is beautiful – aesthetics; what is there that can be known – metaphysics; what means do we have to know – epistemology. The last thing I would draw attention to is that the concepts of philosophy strive to penetrate all aspects of life. Whereas, for example, math could no more penetrate religion than heat can freeze, philosophy goes everywhere and looks at everything. What this says to me is that utility of a philosopher is much like a map maker of the mind. Philosophy is the study and identification of limits and borders in all human pursuits. Philosophers strive to identify what can be known and define what is known, thus inspiring others to fill in the balance; philosophers set limits on behavior, providing society with tools to define criminals; and so on and so forth, for all disciplines. In my opinion, that is the greatest contribution of philosophy and it is that inspirational, light giving, function that has preserved it as it's own discipline for over more than 2000 years.
"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

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 10/14/09 - 12:32 AM:	#6
Well the first question should be whether reality is somehow different from the concepts we use to explain reality ....
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 10/14/09 - 05:59 AM:	#7
BenderTheMagnificent wrote: You are making a huge assumption in this statement. What do you even mean that mental reality has "no definitive rules of engagement"? Are you aying that our brain is not subject to the physical laws that everything else follows? I could be wrong, but either way, please explain as I don't know what you mean. Mental reality (the way our brain works) seems to follow all the same physical laws that everything else does. As to the original post, I agree with what Nihilism said. I agree with you. It is only that I omitted to mention a category from where mental reality emerges. The distinction to which I was alluding places emphasis on physical laws in accordance to Providence (nothing personal) like electric fields and ionization. Seeing that you yourself accept physical reality as a law abiding place I must therefore hurry on to examine the interactions of consciousness done mainly on the photonic/signal level (eye contact/vibrations) that is emerging from Providence. At this moment when I try to measure the rules of engagement within mental reality, that is between non-idential consciousness termed minds, the only definitive answer I find is a quantum mechanical proposition that guarentees an interaction and any measured result is contingent on the sum of histories once a true measurement is sought. Unlike a test charge q, when placed in a known magnetic field, the interaction\ between minds has no defining rules of engagement because of its contextual nature that signifies a specific sum of histories, while the mind acts as a selection committee selecting shortcuts over sums of histories. You can well imagine meeting me,., Edited by nousPLOTINU on 10/14/09 - 01:07 PM. Reason: a replacememt
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 10/16/09 - 10:11 AM:	#8
Tobias wrote: Well the first question should be whether reality is somehow different from the concepts we use to explain reality .... That's a very ambitious question. Unless you're questioning the very existence of the thing-in-itself, a position that leads to solipsism, it would be terribly arrogant to assume that the thing-in-itself possesses no qualities beyond our concepts. The distinction between concepts and reality seems essential toward the existence of any external world. Perhaps a better question might be whether the difference is necessary toward one's methodology or if one can simplify his thinking/language by assuming it isn't there.
"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

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 268

Posted 10/16/09 - 11:22 AM:	#9
Certainly there is a difference in procedures of distinguishing reality among individuals. We may agree or disagree on the existence of some such thing if we agree we are using the same procedures of distinction. Also, in order to describe a unity you must also specify all the background in order to carve it out. Discussing qualities beyond our conceptual descriptions is "something we cannot speak about." As a scientist you must prove its there. You must observe a phenomena, make your idea and then describe a mechanism and describe other phenomena in the background as well. Then you say Ahha! You make your explanation: until you find other phenomena that are generated by the first, and at that time it is no longer a scientific explanation, until you can describe the new phenomena and so on. Because of change, what you describe applies to an invariant. No explanation can remain satisfactory forever.
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

SynAps
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 10/16/09 - 03:18 PM:	#10
I recently read in a book, "Philosophy is the synthesis for wisdom". To my understanding, philosophy is a strong application of logic in order to gain wisdom, and the search for application of choice. What we should do, when and why. We do so much without thinking very deeply of our motives and the relations of our motives to a variety of factors. But of course, much of philosophy is also about self-interpretation, or opinion (to a logical extent), although when I personally have philosophical debates, I seek not to win the argument but to meet a common goal, and find a common answer. Perhaps this is the goal or all philosophical debates.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.