What do you consider philosophy to be?
 

I am often surprised by the topics and questions on this forum which are considered to be philosophical. The word 'philosophy' roughly translates as 'Passion for wisdom' which is pretty much what I understand it to be.

There are many threads on this forum which don't seem to reflect that, but maybe I'm missing the inherent wisdom. What say you?

I'd say this forum has become more a collage of random opinions and arguments, mostly a forum of who thinks they are right versus those that think the first ones are wrong.

If this was to be a rather interesting Philosophy Forum there should be different sections of different philosophies and way of thought/belief. For instance, I'm a transcendentalist, so I made "Transcendentalism and You" for anyone to look at what I think. Then there should be an Existentialist thread, so the Existentialists can talk. Even the Nihilists deserve there own thread. I haven't forgotten religion, there can be different religions here, I'd think the biggies here would be Pagans and Christians, but what would I know?

These separate styles of thought and reasoning that we take with us wherever we go are the philosophies I guess we should be talking about.

I don't want to put you on the spot JH, but do you mind giving an example (or if you'd prefer, a hypothetical example)? I personally don't believe that religion should be included in Philosophy, and that it should get its own place, Tilted Theology for example. But the same goes for Psychology, Sociology and for example, Physical Science.

The trouble is, whenever you run out of road on an established subject, you end up treading in the misty realms of Philosophy - it's very hard to pin down. If you start demarking the boundaries, then what's left? The original Greek Philosophers were thinkers, scientists, orators and teachers, while those in the east occupied administrative positions within the government, or clambered through the mountains as hermits.

Ah, now I was trying to tactfully avoid this one, for fear of seeming to have a go at anyone, which I'm certainly not doing. The whole reason I started this thread wa that I was looking at another thread and thought to myself "Bah! That's not philosophy, philosophy is... er... um..."

Some hypothetical "non-philosophical" threads:

Will technology destroy us all?
Have you ever had an out of body experience?
What's your favourite book of the Bible?
Wouldn't it be cool to have a bionic arm?
Why Einstein/Darwin was wrong!

The sort of threads that elicit wild conjecture and opinion, rather than any kind of critical thinking and investigation. These sort of threads can be quite interesting, but don't give us any real insight into the world outside our own heads.

In fact now I look at it, this thread is an example of a bad thread, because it asks "What do you think philosophy is?" rather than asking "What is Philosophy?".

[QUOTE=John Henry]I am often surprised by the topics and questions on this forum which are considered to be philosophical. The word 'philosophy' roughly translates as 'Passion for wisdom' which is pretty much what I understand it to be.

I think the basic definition of philosophy is "whats real" (the attempt to discover an explanation for the whole of existence or reality.

eg. what is the nature of nature? what is truth? what is morality? what is the purpose of life?

In relation to your proposed non-philosophical threads... say "Will technology destroy us all", will we not take the question and give it some critical thought and investigation as to what it means in our philosophical framework and then submit a response based on the same? Are not our thoughts and opinions based on our philosophical beliefs?

I would think the main difference would be that instead of blindly argueing viewpoints, we would hopefully remove all emotion and discuss it objectively?

But many people's philosophies are heavily influenced by their religion, if they follow one. Philosophy also aks questions about religion, and debates using source material.

I don't think that all theological topics should be excluded from Tilted Philosophy. Although threads such as "Is religion the root of all evil" would seem to be more at home on the Politics board and personal lifestyle threads such as "Why are you a Pagan?" are surely better suited to Members area or General Discussion, there are theological, rather than religious, threads which open themselves to philosophical debate. Concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience, for example raise interesting questions about infinity and paradox, which could easily lead to deeper understanding of some kind.

I like where this could go, because it was brought up in my English class.
"Did Apollo have something against Oedipus?" I argued that yes Apollo did have a grudge against Oedipus. Apollo, a god that can view the world without time so he knew that Oedipus would kill his father after the prediction was made. Had Apollo not told these events, would Oedipus's father have sent his baby son out to die? I had to argue no, for the events foretold were the reason for the events to occur.

Anyhow, that is a philosophical argument about omnipotence: does having the power to foretell the future allow the fact that you will interact in the present with that future knowledge? Does this lead to some deeper understanding: no. Could it be a good subject to write a science fiction story: yes.

Can philosophy be simplified into a way of life, or the way you dream your life to be? I consider it to be the way one lives and the choices we make.

Most times, I consider philosophy to be a collection of aggravating imponderables that consistently escape the grasp of science.

Some consider philosophy to be the bridge between the social academics, an amalgamation of liberal arts such as sociology, psychology and (to a limited extent) physics.

Academically, philosophy exists as the intellectual dregs that have not been (or cannot be) systematically assembled into a science. As a philosophy major most of my classes center around epistemology (what humans can know and how they can know it), ethics (utility, objective "good") and metaphysics (reality, existence). Other classes have dealt with the philosophical aspects of such things as art and law, but these are not the principle interests of modern philosophy. Modern philosophy is grounded in logic: only arguments that are founded upon sound and valid logical structure carry weight.

To me 'philosophy' is simply the human experience: any careful thought derived within a human mind, wether it be turned inward or outward, constitutes a philosophical inquiry.

I agree with this 'definition' of sort. Philosophy is really defined as a sort of 'negative space' in the intellectual world.

I'm not sure I like such a negative definition of philosophy. That being said, it's really hard to come up with a positive definition that includes everyone you want to include and excludes, well, anything at all. I usually stick with the "I know it when I see it" line, but if I had to give a definition I'd say "Philosophy is thinking rigorously about stuff".

Philosophy is: (in my opinion)


The exploration of the inherent curiousity of mind.
The attempt to understand experience.
Opinion based, affirmation of observation.

But above all- An experiment into the workings of human knowledge

Philisophy is an enigma to some extent, as are humans and why they think and post the threads the choose to.

Philosophy can look different to each person. That is the point.

In philosophy, there is no inherent "This is it and this it not", that would defeat the whole point of discussing it.
While some of the threads on here do not nessasarily reflect traditional philosophy ideas, for the most part, they still conjure thought.

thanks,

Sweetpea