What is philosophy?

[flyingchicken]

Philosophy is like science, only without so much rigor!

 

[Winston Hughes]

Philosophy is like science, only without so much rigor!

But without philosophy there is no science!

 

[aelf]

And we have our first question: Buddhism holds that everything is in a constant state of flux. This is what Heraclitus meant when saying that no one can step into the same river twice. So this is not specifically a Buddhist claim, but rather a general assessment.

Tat tvam asi.

So the question is: is this true? Is everything in a constant state of flux? It actually seems like a paradox, if not a contradiction, a constant state of flux; a constant state suggests inertia, while flux does the opposite.

Now this is sophistry. Since when does the idea of flux exclude a constancy of itself? Even saying that nothing is certain except uncertainty is more troublesome.

 

[Agent327]

Philosophy is many things. It is the pursuit of fundamental truths, but it usually boils down to sophistry and semantics.

How so?

But without philosophy there is no science!

Exactly.

Now this is sophistry. Since when does the idea of flux exclude a constancy of itself? Even saying that nothing is certain except uncertainty is more troublesome.

Is it sophistry? Or is it, as I mentioned, just a paradox? That nothing is certain except certainty is, by the way, remarkably similar to Socrates' dictum of "I know nothing except that I know nothing" - another paradox.

As a general comment I'd like to reiterate that, although I appreciate the various musings of the respondents so far, the subject of this thread is philosophy, not What is philosophy?

 

[aelf]

Is it sophistry? Or is it, as I mentioned, just a paradox? That nothing is certain except certainty is, by the way, remarkably similar to Socrates' dictum of "I know nothing except that I know nothing" - another paradox.

As a general comment I'd like to reiterate that, although I appreciate the various musings of the respondents so far, the subject of this thread is philosophy, not What is philosophy?

I'm not sure the paradox has anything but literary value, but maybe it's just not my area of interest.

But you might be interested in the fact that Arcesilaus turned the whole "know nothing except that I know nothing" thing on its head. He claimed that he knew nothing, even of the fact that he knew nothing. Somehow, I think that's more of a paradox.

 

[GoodGame]

But without measurements there is no science!

Corrected.

Philosophy helps shape the process of scientific inquiry.

 

[Agent327]

But you might be interested in the fact that Arcesilaus turned the whole "know nothing except that I know nothing" thing on its head. He claimed that he knew nothing, even of the fact that he knew nothing. Somehow, I think that's more of a paradox.

I may go into this more in depth later. but for now it suffices to point out that the statement "I know nothing, even of the fact that I know nothing." is not a paradox, but a pure contradictio in terminis. "I know nothing" supposes there are no facts to be known, whereas "the fact that I know nothing" states a fact - "that I know nothing". Superficially it seems to refine Socrates' dictum, but to say that it turns it on its head is an overstatement, surely.

As an afternote, what's most known of Socrates, apart from this dictum which, while he supposedly citicized the sophists, apparently copies their sophistry (but he may have been making fun of them in this manner), is his method, whereby he systematically questioned his opponents about their apparent knowledge - the so-called socratic method. The sophists' reported love for wordplay (like with Socrates, they did not leave any actual writings to consult) may have tarnished the reputation of philosophy even at this early stage. The real early philosophers were ofcourse the presocratics, which I may discuss shortly.

 

[Winston Hughes]

How so?

Because of this:

the desire to appear wise in the presence of others.

And this:

more often than not it is merely an exercise in intellectual vanity.

You could say this isn't 'true' philosophy, but that just brings us back to semantics.

 

[aelf]

I may go into this more in depth later. but for now it suffices to point out that the statement "I know nothing, even of the fact that I know nothing." is not a paradox, but a pure contradictio in terminis. "I know nothing" supposes there are no facts to be known, whereas "the fact that I know nothing" states a fact - "that I know nothing". Superficially it seems to refine Socrates' dictum, but to say that it turns it on its head is an overstatement, surely.

Maybe you're more of an expert in this, but to me it seems as if your idea of paradox has more of a literary value. As seen below:

As an afternote, what's most known of Socrates, apart from this dictum which, while he supposedly citicized the sophists, apparently copies their sophistry (but he may have been making fun of them in this manner), is his method, whereby he systematically questioned his opponents about their apparent knowledge - the so-called socratic method. The sophists' reported love for wordplay (like with Socrates, they did not leave any actual writings to consult) may have tarnished the reputation of philosophy even at this early stage. The real early philosophers were ofcourse the presocratics,w hich I may discuss shortly.

So isn't this you just saying that it was rhetoric? See, the meaning of the word "know" is conventionally opposite to meaning of the word of "ignorant", but they are not actually mutually exclusive in this context.

An analogy is saying that tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. Many people stumble at this because they think it's some sort of significant and difficult paradox, but it's not. The terms only appear or sound irreconcilable because conventionally they have opposite meanings. However, when applied to the context, there's nothing difficult about understanding how they come together.

Anyway, I'm under the impression that the sophists did not get their rep so much because they taught and practiced rhetoric, but that they charged high fees for essentially something seen as not that productive. It's like lawyers giving expensive lessons on argument.

 

[mangxema]

What is philosophy? That depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

 

[Agent327]

You could say this isn't 'true' philosophy, but that just brings us back to semantics.

Philosophy is not about semantics, though - even if semantics may come into it, as it is always important what someone means by using a certain word.

So isn't this you just saying that it was rhetoric? See, the meaning of the word "know" is conventionally opposite to meaning of the word of "ignorant", but they are not actually mutually exclusive in this context.

An analogy is saying that tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. Many people stumble at this because they think it's some sort of significant and difficult paradox, but it's not. The terms only appear or sound irreconcilable because conventionally they have opposite meanings. However, when applied to the context, there's nothing difficult about understanding how they come together.

Anyway, I'm under the impression that the sophists did not get their rep so much because they taught and practiced rhetoric, but that they charged high fees for essentially something seen as not that productive. It's like lawyers giving expensive lessons on argument.

If knowledge and ignorance are opposites, aren't they mutually exclusive? Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean?

"Tolerance is intolerant of intolerance" is indeed a perfect example of a literary paradox in the sense of an apparent contradiction by putting together two opposites; while apparently contradictory it is a perfect definition of both tolerance and intolerance.

Your observation on the sophists reputation being based upon their fee is correct. (In this sense they were actually quite modern: there are plenty of advisers and consultants today charging large fees for intangible results.)

 

[Winston Hughes]

Philosophy is not about semantics, though

But that statement is matter of semantics.

Why should we accept the meaning you attach to the word 'philosophy', rather than one of the many alternative meanings we might attach to it?

It's the easiest thing in the world to prove a point by deciding in advance what all the relevant terms mean, and this is precisely why philosophy (in the broadest sense, encompassing all reasonable definitions) often boils down to semantics.

Of course, if you wish to make a normative statement about the meaning of 'philosophy' (eg. philosophy should be taken to mean X), then go right ahead. Failing that, however, you give us little reason to accept your definition of philosophy as the one around which any further discussion is to be conducted.

 

[Agent327]

I'm sorry, but if you want a serious discussion, you shouldn't start with partially quoting people. What I said whas that philosophy is not about semantics, but semantics may come into it. That's all. As for a definition of what philosophy is, I supplied several accepted ones in the OP. Furthermore, I shall not discuss 'witty' answers to the question as to what philosophy is, if only because that is not the intention of this thread. This does not mean I discourage people discussing such issues, just that I prefer philosophical topics sec - similar to the What is poetry? thread started earlier.

 

[Abaddon]

Having too much time alone with your thoughts.

 

[Agent327]

Thales of Miletus, Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος in Greek, was the first philosopher.According to Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy "Philosophy begins with Thales." Many, including Aristotle, agree with him on this. The sources for Thales (and his fellow Milesian philosophers Anaximander and Anaximenes) are relatively close to it, like the historian Herodotus, who died 429 BCE, so that we know quite a great deal about Thales. He lived from around 624 BCE to 547 BCE (being credited with predicting the solar eclipse of 585 BCE, we can safely assume he was alive then). His fame granted him membership of the socalled Greek Seven Sages or "the wise men", of which Thales was acknowledged first in 582/1 BCE, so during his own lifetime.

His being active in mathematics, astronomy, navigation as well as engineering (the latter being doubtdul according to Herodotus) granted him such fame as to establish the saying "That man is a Thales" to indicate an inventor. Reportedly he visited Crete, Phoenicia and Egypt and studied astronomy in Babylonia, resulting in the prediction of a solar eclipse to occur in 585 BCE. This indeed appears unlikely; whereas lunar eclipses where familar at that time and can be seen across half the globe, astronomic measuring wasn't accurate enough for such a prediction (even with half a year's margin) and solar eclipses only occur in narrow regions.

What is true is Aristotle's description of Thales as the originator of naturalistic philosophy, in the sense that he stripped natural phenomena of religious or mythological explanations. For instance, he speculated that the earth floated on water, which, considering the tectonic plates actually do float on a liquid substance, isn't all that far-fetched.

Secondly, following such explanations of natural phenomenae, Thales can be seen as the deciding factor in the development of the concept of natural processes.Thirdly, he proved some very elementary propositions of mathematics. For instance, he showed that the diameter of a circle divides it into two equal halves by literally placing them on top of one another, thereby using a henceforth important engineering tool, the model, while simultaneously establishing mathematics as an autonomous discipline.

In an age as permeated with religion as his was, it is not surprising to find Thales explaining his discovery of the electromagnetism of amber or “electron” (hence the name electricity), because they had “psyche” ( soul, life), as well as asserting that everything was full of gods.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Thales.htm
J. Mansheld, Die Vorsokratiker I, Stuttgart 1983, p. 39-55

 

[Lone Wolf]

But without philosophy there is no science!

The relationship between philosophy and science is a complex one. Both deal with time and human reason, but when examining the differences between them, it's necessary to understand that the things in themselves can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like formal logic, they have nothing to do with hypothetical principles. It is plain that cogitationes become modalized also in correlation with, by orienting the consciousness of internal time according to accured insights, things in themselves. Therefore, the cogitationes also can't furnish a true science. The practical employment of the Antinomies is the key to understanding time, and philosophy is the clue to the discovery of the paralogisms of human reason. Philosophy (and it remains a mystery why this is true) depends on our ideas. As is evident upon close examination, our ideas are the clue to the discovery of our a posteriori knowledge. Time, then, has lying before it the ideal of practical reason; still, the objects in space and time stand in need of the manifold.

 

[Greizer85]

Spoiler :

The relationship between philosophy and science is a complex one. Both deal with time and human reason, but when examining the differences between them, it's necessary to understand that the things in themselves can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like formal logic, they have nothing to do with hypothetical principles. It is plain that cogitationes become modalized also in correlation with, by orienting the consciousness of internal time according to accured insights, things in themselves. Therefore, the cogitationes also can't furnish a true science. The practical employment of the Antinomies is the key to understanding time, and philosophy is the clue to the discovery of the paralogisms of human reason. Philosophy (and it remains a mystery why this is true) depends on our ideas. The practical employment of the Antinomies is the key to understanding time, and philosophy is the clue to the discovery of the paralogisms of human reason. As is evident upon close examination, our ideas are the clue to the discovery of our a posteriori knowledge. Time, then, has lying before it the ideal of practical reason; still, the objects in space and time stand in need of the manifold.

You actually had me there for the first two sentences...

 

[Agent327]

The relationship between philosophy and science is a complex one.

And it starts with philosophy breaking the bonds of religion and mythology, i.e. with Thales.

Next up: Anaximander.

 

[Angst]

Philosophy is sophistry. Amirite? Its like a computer case, used only to impress others but otherwise superficial, used only for show.

Also, I get the impression that philosophy majors are douchebags, so theres my personal bias.

I'm saddened you're thinking that.

 

[Perfection]

Philosophy alone is.