What is Philosophy?

[Gh0s7]

I recently was reading a book and came across their answer to this question. It was simply put as the study of everything that counts. I basically remember it as another book put it. There are basically five different areas of philosophy with a few others intertwined.
1 - Logic: Whats valid or invalid
2 - Ethics: Whats wrong or right
3 - Epistemology: What do we really know, if anything
4 - Metaphysics: The roll of humans in the universe
5 - Aesthetics: What is beauty, judgement, etc
The others that are intertwined within all of these kinda in the middle would be as follows:
Ontology: The Study of being
Eschatology: End of line matters like death
Teleology: The study of an overall purpose
Idealism and Materialism are involved in all of this as well. I basically brought this up because I have wanted to talk and discuss all of this with someone or many people for the matter but its hard to talk to anyone about this, except hopefully here. This is all up for debate of course. Thanks!

[Willravel]

Simply put, philosophy is assigning meaning or purpose to things.

Still, I really like the simplicity of the explanations above.

[Plan9]

I think philosophy is man's noble, vain quest to separate himself from the other creatures on Earth.

Philosophy is the system that creates the ideas that we use to give purpose and meaning to the lie that our lives are special outside of eating, sleeping, and procreation. Art, math, science, chocolate pudding, the atom bomb... grand things... they fit in that somewhere.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I think philosophy is man's noble, vain quest to separate himself from the other creatures on Earth.

Hey, damn it, I was going to go off on how philosophy is masturbation but you beat me to it. (get it? beat? sorry...)

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by willravel

Hey, damn it, I was going to go off on how philosophy is masturbation but you beat me to it. (get it? beat? sorry...)

I can't do it when you watch.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I think philosophy is man's noble, vain quest to separate himself from the other creatures on Earth.

I think this is more of a side effect.

EDIT:
Why do we do things like make art?



(And why do cats, for that matter?)

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I think this is more of a side effect.

Originally Posted by Stephen King

I think; therefore I am. There are hairs on my face; therefore I shave. My wife and child have been critically injured in a car crash; therefore I pray. It's all logical, it's all sane. We live in the best of all possible worlds, so hand me a Kent for my left, a Bud for my right, turn on Starsky and Hutch, and listen to that soft, harmonious note that is the universe turning smoothly on it's celestial gyros. Logic and sanity. Like Coca-Cola, it's the real thing.

We created that world. We allowed that world. Hell, we like that world. Millions of years of evolution and we still cater to the least common denominator. So often we are proud, foolish animals trying to assemble some sort of higher meaning out of the chemical reactions that created us and govern every aspect of our short lives.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

We created that world.

No we didn't. We observe it as it unfolds before us. Never ending. Ever changing.

Originally Posted by Crompsin

We allowed that world.

No we didn't. We simply adapted and continue to adapt to the chaos.

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Hell, we like that world.

No we don't. One cannot like something that cannot be seen and is always changing.

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Millions of years of evolution and we still cater to the least common denominator. So often we are proud, foolish animals trying to assemble some sort of higher meaning out of the chemical reactions that created us and govern every aspect of our short lives.

This is what makes us different from any other being in the known universe.

[albania]

If you're looking at it from a purely descriptive standpoint what you have up there is more than adequate.

Though, my personal take on philosophy is as follows. Philosophy is on a good day 95% bullshit 5% genius, on an average day 98% bullshit and 2% genius and on an off day 100% bullshit. I say this while being an avid reader of philosophy books and having more than an enthusiastic appetite for the field as a hobby.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Genius stuff...

As a species over time? I disagree. I feel we, as a whole race, created our version of the "best of all possible worlds" in each population at any given time in known history. This is not to say the individual experience was awesome (slavery, Holocaust, Friends reruns), but our "hot animal machine" goals have always been the same it seems.

I think our primary instincts are no different than that of a flesh-eating bacteria. Take away our toys and how philosophical are we? About as philosophical as a carrion-eater circling above the African savanna during a drought.

Consume, procreate, consume, procreate. We assign meaning to the consumption to make it a more viable option due to all our free time thanks to "modern" luxury.

[Baraka_Guru]

If it weren't for a philosophical mind, we would have never invented the wheel. We aren't the same as other animals. "Modern" luxury? Philosophy is thousands of years in the making.

Yes we are slaves to our biology, but that biology includes a mind far more complex than any other animal. We see the world in a completely different way. We think in ways that are impossible for other creatures.

Save the "eating, shitting, and fucking" for the existentialist thread. If you want to discuss it here, then at least pull out some Sartre quotations. They're actually quite fun.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

If it weren't for a philosophical mind, we would have never invented the wheel.

You're confusing problem solving and innovation with philosophy. Philosophy has nothing to do with the invention of the wheel.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by willravel

You're confusing problem solving and innovation with philosophy. Philosophy has nothing to do with the invention of the wheel.

I should clarify. I don't mean to say that philosophy was employed in inventing the wheel. I meant to say that a mind with the capacity for philosophy was able to do so. Philosophy is a broad term. In this respect, I mean to say that the human mind is capable of logic, reasoning, and understanding cause and effect in the universe as it sees it. It is this power of mind that allows humans to do such things as invent wheels. The closest we can get to a direct relation here is by calling philosophy the pursuit of knowledge. Without such a pursuit, would the wheel have ever come about?

[Willravel]

BG, I see what you mean now. Thank you for clarifying.

Honestly? I consider philosophy to be a form of entertainment. There's no such thing as inherent meaning. It's all subjective.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by willravel

Honestly? I consider philosophy to be a form of entertainment. There's no such thing as inherent meaning. It's all subjective.

Postmodernism is dead. Prepare for the next shift in philosophy and cultural theory. Our French friends had their run, and now it's time to start making some sense of things.

If anything, you're going to have to extend the phrase "it's all subjective." It's not all subjective, actually. This is an illusion. It's only mostly subjective.

If it were all subjective, 9/11 has little meaning. Does 9/11 have significant meaning?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Does 9/11 have significant meaning?

Meaning? Not even a little. Consequences? Of course.

One of the nice things about becoming atheist is that I was able to, as an adult, be totally honest in my reconstruction of my understanding of the universe. Things are or aren't. The only way something can have meaning is if it's assigned meaning by the person or entity that's examining it.

[Hain]

I will read this whole thread when I have time, but I feel philosophy is the logical conclusion of understanding the nature of the universe.

1. The universe was made of inanimate matter that reacted and became the galaxies, suns, planets, and eventually us - Physics
2. We became curious as to our role with each other, and had to understand - Psychology
3. We wanted to find what was the real intention of our being with the rest of the universe - Philosophy

Or put otherwise:

• This one tell you where you're going [Philosophy]
• This one tells you where you are [psychology]
• This one tells you where you were [Physics]

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by willravel

The only way something can have meaning is if it's assigned meaning by the person or entity that's examining it.

There are many entities who have "examined" or are "examining" 9/11 and its consequences.

Only a postmodernist could argue that it was meaningless--that since it was observed through a proxy of the media, 9/11 is merely yet another tidbit of simulacra.

Baudrillard is dead too. Literally.

The question of this thread, "What is philosophy?" is an important one today. Our mode of thinking coming out of the 20th century is necessarily going through a shift. As an atheist, you likely know that the one aspect of this shift includes a rise of a global secular society (while simultaneously maintaining spiritual counterparts). But this shift as a whole is far more complex than any one of us can imagine. With the advent of communication technology (and virtually every other form of new technology today), the degrees of abstraction that surround us simply boggle our minds.

Philosophy is just as important today as it ever was.

[Ustwo]

Philosophy is where your personal intelligence, logic, and education break down and you have to start bullshiting with what sounds good and makes sense to you despite not having all the variables you need to make a valid judgment.

Discussing philosophy is therefore when two unprovable opinions collide and becomes an exercise in mental masturbation as no one can really prevail no matter how absurd the others position. It can be amusing though when one can at least, from a argumentative position, show how ridiculous another's philosophy seems, but they will still believe in the cosmic zombie when its over.

Its even more fun when one persons limitations in knowledge and intelligence create a philosophy that is directly disprovable by someone with superior education and intelligence. In these cases, the 'loser' will normally take their ball and go home. At times though, you will get someone who thinks they are in the superior position, when in fact they are just not worth talking to and those people will therefore think they won the argument, when in fact you just stopped wasting time.

As you can see philosophy is more fun than a barrel of space monkeys.

[MirrorsrorriM]

Philo=love of
sophy=thinking

Philosophy means, literally, "the love of thinking"

why do we love thinking? Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism, (and that '69' symbol thingy) the great chinese philosopher says it is because we are too lazy and stupid to actually do anything. we generalize our reality because we are too stupid to concieve of things in their true,, particulate form. In other words, reality is too complex for us, so we try and simplify it, with laws, axioms, proverbs, etc, etc. (even the 'etc, etc' part was laziness of thought.)

Our animal nature, however, is what makes us dogmatic in our thinking and philosophy. We want to impose our thinking, impose our will on others by making them, or tricking them into thinking what we want them to think. People, either consciously or perhaps, to the extent our own animal nature is subconscious, subconsciously preach what we want OTHER people to believe, in other words, we lie to them, in order to domesticate, pacify, or confuse them with words and render them either neutral, or we are communicating in order to achieve a common goal based on mutual surivival, propogation.

Christianity is a good example of our subconcious animal nature, Televangelists preach a doctrine that tells you to give all your money away, to achieve oneness with God, but they aren't giving YOU money, they want YOU to give them YOUR money. It's like saying, 'here, drink this poison and it will make you stronger' only you fake like you're gonna drink it then don't drink it at the last second, hoping the other person gulps his cool-aid down.

[filtherton]

Philosophy also provides a great opportunity for intellectual elitism, like when someone assumes that superior education has anything to do with the ability to reason effectively from a philosophical standpoint, as if credentials matter in a discussions about things unknowable. Usually, these folk make pretty blatant mistakes in characterizing their positions, like making bold statements about reason and logic and in doing so unwittingly giving away the fact that they don't really know much about what reason and logic actually are.

[MirrorsrorriM]

Philosophy also provides a great opportunity for intellectual elitism, like when someone assumes that superior education has anything to do with the ability to reason effectively from a philosophical standpoint, as if credentials matter in a discussions about things unknowable. Usually, these folk make pretty blatant mistakes in characterizing their positions, like making bold statements about reason and logic and in doing so unwittingly giving away the fact that they don't really know much about what reason and logic actually are.

Exactly. It's mostly just feeling up eachother, probing eachother for weakness or strength. I didn't mean to imply Christianity is inferior to any of the other traditional poisonous religions, for example, Taoism teaches the same thing, essentially as Christianity, it teaches you to just be still, do nothing, lay there, let other people fuck you. the passive principle, to be the nail, the thing acted upon. to be the slave to the stronger will, to be animated by the forces that surround you, rather to attempt to be the animator, because there is nothing you can really do about it, anyways.

The Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquillity.
In this way all things would be at peace.

But you are right, we are what we are, we are animals with a mind that allows us to concieve of our animal nature, but it does not change it. We can pretend to be superior by shaping our personality in the image of the anti-Beast, but even then, we are really expressing our beastiality, by pretending to be anti-Beast, and thus superior.

Only when we can agree with another person, that you and me are superior, to those other people, can we really have a sense of true equality and comraderie.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

There are many entities who have "examined" or are "examining" 9/11 and its consequences.

And to those individual minds it has subjective meaning, but outside of people unwilling to simply take it as it was it's meaningless. There's no meaning behind that.

Ustwo - well said.

[roachboy]

in my world, the most basic element in philosophy is the recursive statement.

i am writing the statement: "in my world, the most basic element in philosophy is the recursive statement."

across this shift, one moves from an arrangement of linguistic particles that rearrange and reconfigure elements selected from a perceptual field (if you expand the notion of field to include workings of incoming data, memory and the social co-ordinates that enable the former to be for us and which enable that being to be communicated), to a level that indicates the relations to these arrangements.

if that's right, then epistemological relations are those which obtain within the first sentence. so the situation--which is what epistemology describes---is immediate in a sense and so pre-philosophical.

the recursive statement bumps you to the level of considering what conditions that immediate relation.
this level of ontology.
philosophy is primarily ontological argumentation--all about modes of being.
there is no single Question of Being---being is regional. being as a social-historical process. being is emergent.

ontology is not transcendent, then: it is simply a level of logical generality greater than that which obtains in the immediate. it is a space that enables consideration of process rather than a contemplation of relations that are formalized as states. verbs, not nouns.

so philosophy is a form of doing characterized by developing a capacity to engage in a process in ways that are shaped by an awareness of what conditions that process. to philosophize is to create something--this creation is not description--like robert anton wilson says in this film i watched last night (i've been saying this too, but it's better coming from a different talking head) the map is not the territory---it refers to, it indicates, elements drawn from the social-historical, but the *ways* in which indication happens, the relation between what you write or say and the phenomena in the world, whatever that is, that are indicated through it, is not "natural" or given, but seems more a space for the application of what you might think of as procedures. so indication is a type of conceptual art. so our experience is as well. so representations of the world are.

philosophy is a practice that can place you in genuine danger of being free.

we move through the world as a space of significations maybe--bundles of referrals--which are given in a sense (instituted) but which we continually take over, rework, reuse, reshape--which we make and remake (instituting). the fact of the instituted means that the making (the instituting) is conditioned by certain constraints. our relation to what results repeats our relation to constraints.

personally, i think that if you are doing philosophy you are not bound by instituted forms of philosophical expression. you can do it through any forms you take on.

the production of glosses on a body of Authorized Texts is at the center of academic philosophy. this is a midaeval relic. it is not useless, but it is also what it is--if what matters is the relation to constraints, this production comes explicable as a huge example of what happens when you stop extending your understanding of constraint to the genre you write through. if sentences do rather than say, if they perform the organization that they purport to describe, then this production of glosses performs a view of the world as given in advance across hierarchies which are natural. this sits on a conception of the world in which meanings are given in advance and so are found. like there is a god who made the world and in making the world endowed it with meanings that are the same always. if that's the case, we don't really make anything--we just find what is already there.

this is naive: it has nothing to do with how we are in the world--it is only an indication of how a particular region of social being accounts for being in the world mediated by a particularly rigid set of assumptions.

conventional philosophy is good mostly for the discipline it provides---ways of structuring argument, ways of interrogating experience, etc.--but it is not therefore a good example of what you can do with those tools, once you acquire and learn to use them.

everyone implicitly does philosophy all the time.
you do it each time you ask a question like "what the hell am i doing?"
where you go from there is a direct function of other assumptions about what it means to be in the world.
these assumptions we make binding on ourselves.

there is a strange question that arises from this, though: a virtuouso is someone who can be understood in two ways: either as having so thorughly internalized the ways of doing particular to an field or a tradition sedimented around a medium as to become free with them--or as someone who approaches that medium from outside and has a highly developed sense of how to move with a medium as well. but if you think about it, both have to be true at the same time.

anyway, from this viewpoint, a virtuouso in the first sense is the paradigm of subordination that gradually turns into its inverse. the second is effectively a theory of regeneration from the outside. so you have the monk and the wild man. this is what remaining locked into the dominant way of thinking gets you to.

virtuosity seems to me all about the relation to constraints which enable a freedom in one's relation to technique. so it is a mode or a space of interaction first. it is also the result of a committment to precision--even as the idea of precision moves away from exact description in the sense that would obtain is meanings were found in the world (and not made) and toward developing control at the level of the medium through which indications are fashioned.

like the good mister wilson says:
we made the map.
we invented the lines.
the map is not the territory.

[Baraka_Guru]

roachboy: Thanks for your input; it gives me some things to think about.

Ustwo: I think what you are describing is actually the Internet forum, not philosophy per se.

In philosophical thinking and discourse, one is supposed to disagree and detract from other ideas. This is how philosophy develops. If everyone agreed with one another, our minds would be akin to the Classical Greek's. How weird would that be?

If you trace the "great" philosophers, you will note that they both borrow from and disagree with their predecessors. Some outright disagree.

I wouldn't call philosophy mental masturbation; it's more of an orgy. I would consider neither a bad thing.

[roachboy]

reprocessing what comes before is a fun game--necessary too because through it you create your own contexts.

meta-discussions are important in generating orientation, but if philo is a doing, it makes sense to start doing it explicitly and not substitute meta-discussions for it. if it is a way of thinking about and doing writing, then work on that.
if it is a way of thinking or being-in-the-world, work on that.

control and/or precision: this is what/these are what enable you to play this game. these are not things, they are not purchasable, you just have to put in the time and the work so that you can take over the notions of control and precision for yourself and make them operative for you. they aren't criteria imposed from the outside--if you want to make stuff, you have to take them over for yourself. precision is a mode of instituting and to the extent that it's also a notion that we can refer to is also instituted.

internet forums are little tests of your control. if you can make posts that say something, you are working on control. compression comes with the terrain. compression is neither good nor bad--it is a constraint. that's all.

personally, i think that without recursive activities, we are all slaves to what is. i have never understood the american-style contempt for the activity--it's almost like folk have decided that to free yourself and to be subordinated to what is are the same.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Philosophy also provides a great opportunity for intellectual elitism, like when someone assumes that superior education has anything to do with the ability to reason effectively from a philosophical standpoint, as if credentials matter in a discussions about things unknowable. Usually, these folk make pretty blatant mistakes in characterizing their positions, like making bold statements about reason and logic and in doing so unwittingly giving away the fact that they don't really know much about what reason and logic actually are.

No reason to be defensive grasshopper. I never said formal education, education is what you learn, some of it may be formal some informal. Touching a hot stove is part of ones education as much as a PhD thesis. My education despite my wall of paper is mostly informal, as should anyone who wants to be more than a parrot.

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Ustwo: I think what you are describing is actually the Internet forum, not philosophy per se.

I wouldn't call philosophy mental masturbation; it's more of an orgy. I would consider neither a bad thing.

I see very little difference.

The basic currency in life is sex and power, no philosophy can change that.

For most people it really doesn't matter much in their lives. You can look at the world any way you want to, but the world will look at you the same.

Great discoveries tend to be philosophy free, science doesn't require it. It doesn't matter if you are a pragmatist, a existentialist, rationalist, the speed of light doesn't change.

Even politics should be pragmatic (heh), as some political philosophies of the 20th century have lead to utter catastrophe.

So my philosophy is that philosophy as a unique discipline is mental masturbation. Nothing important changes.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No reason to be defensive grasshopper. I never said formal education, education is what you learn, some of it may be formal some informal. Touching a hot stove is part of ones education as much as a PhD thesis. My education despite my wall of paper is mostly informal, as should anyone who wants to be more than a parrot.

Not really defensive, just kind of eye-rolly. The whole, "It's fun if you're as brilliant as i am and have conveniently rationalized your inability to respond to valid criticism as i have" spiel was cute. That's all.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Not really defensive, just kind of eye-rolly. The whole, "It's fun if you're as brilliant as i am and have conveniently rationalized your inability to respond to valid criticism as i have" spiel was cute. That's all.

Its amazing how someone calling something cute can interpreted as defensive.

[filtherton]

It would have been defensive if i thought what you said was anything more than you confusing what you want to be true with what actually happens.

[robot_parade]

Philosophy is mankind's biggest circle-jerk.

Alternatively, it is the love of knowledge. All other areas of science are both enclosed within and outside the realm of philosophy.

[lostaxe]

Wow... I stumbled upon this website looking for some information on Socrates and something called the "Greatest Story Never Told". 3 hours later.... I find myself a registered TFP member posting to this thread. Philosophy is, I think, the search for purpose. Even if I'm no more special or unique than a flesh-eating bacteria... how should I spend my life here? I don't think any other animal asks that question.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Philosophy is where your personal intelligence, logic, and education break down and you have to start bullshiting with what sounds good and makes sense to you despite not having all the variables you need to make a valid judgment.

Discussing philosophy is therefore when two unprovable opinions collide and becomes an exercise in mental masturbation as no one can really prevail no matter how absurd the others position. It can be amusing though when one can at least, from a argumentative position, show how ridiculous another's philosophy seems, but they will still believe in the cosmic zombie when its over.

Its even more fun when one persons limitations in knowledge and intelligence create a philosophy that is directly disprovable by someone with superior education and intelligence. In these cases, the 'loser' will normally take their ball and go home. At times though, you will get someone who thinks they are in the superior position, when in fact they are just not worth talking to and those people will therefore think they won the argument, when in fact you just stopped wasting time.

As you can see philosophy is more fun than a barrel of space monkeys.

(I love you)

Philosophy is a dirty jockstrap that only smells good to its owner.

[girldetective]

Philosophy is the study in the meaning or purpose of life, the essence of a human being, and how we relate to the world. I believe it begins personally and one pushes it out into the world and hopes for the best. Here is a sampling of my own personal philosophy. As meager as it is, it is all good. Of course there is a little more to me than this, but not much.

YouTube - Faithless "Why Go"

YouTube - Faithless "Why Go"

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

(I love you)

Philosophy is a dirty jockstrap that only smells good to its owner.

Love is a dirty jockstrap that only smells good to its owner.


So there.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Um...thankyou?

Philosophy is phun.

Love stinks.

(Although of course I love you, too, Wordsmith!)

And to all who have expressed their notions while thinking about thinking about thinking,
with many words, you've blown my mind.

Please do it some more.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Great discoveries tend to be philosophy free, science doesn't require it. It doesn't matter if you are a pragmatist, a existentialist, rationalist, the speed of light doesn't change.

Light, which normally travels the 240,000 miles from the Moon to Earth in less than two seconds, has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1....18/light.html

Couldn't resist.

Philosophy has it's place. It's a great mental exercise. Helps to keep the mind limber. It just people that think that because they can quote some asshole that has been dead for a few hundred years they are somehow better then the other sheep around them that give it a bad stench.

[Baraka_Guru]

Philosophy is the logic one uses before one has empirical experience. In many ways it is the avant-garde of knowledge. Science wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for philosophical pursuits.

[levite]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Simply put, philosophy is assigning meaning or purpose to things.

I would actually say that it is the process of investigating meaning and/or purpose in things.

Or, as one of my profs in college used to say: "Philosophy is the process of spending seven years in college and grad school, breaking your balls to try and figure out how a bunch of guys whom nobody understood when alive thought, only to get your degrees, and then break your balls trying to find someone who's willing to pay you to think for a living."

[filtherton]

I used to think that philosophy was nothing more than repeated bouts of intellectual masturbation. At some point I came to realize that "repeated bouts of intellectual masturbation" actually describes what philosophers do; philosophy is entirely different.