What do you think about philosophy?

[pilchardo]

I just read a post by Hackenslash, which made me think. He said that philosophy is good for teaching you how to think, but not what to think (I'm paraphrasing you, Hack, of course). I've met people who consider philosophy to be just as if not slightly more important than science, whereas others think it has it's uses, and others still have no time for philosophy at all.

I know what I think about philosophy but where do you stand?

[Whitney]

I think it's very important to contemplating life's questions.

But like any equation you have to put in quality information in order to get the correct answer.

[LegendarySandwich]

Philosophy is good.

That's all I really have to say on the matter.

[Existentialist]

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

[pilchardo]

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Brilliant.

[penfold]

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

[Recusant]

Well said, penfold.

I appreciate philosophy myself, and have spent happy hours puzzling over philosophy books. However, I find the overuse of philosophical jargon to be an impediment to discussion rather than a facilitator of it.  I guess that at best I might be described as a shade-tree philosopher. (And not a very good one at that.)

[Sophus]

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

I agree, except at the personal level. Perhaps the political level too. Science builds but philosophy directs.

[Tom62]

I don't have the right mindset to appreciate philosophy. For me, philosophy is nothing more than loads of blah, blah, blah about nothing.

[hackenslash]

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

Spot on, except for one small but critical point. Science is philosophy. The thing is, though, that science has a particular advantage over all other schools of philosophy, in that its core tenet is that it must be measured against reality. Poor Plato (or it could have been Aristotle. I forget which) didn't understand this, which is why he managed to reason that men have more teeth than women. If he'd been familiar with falsifiability, he would have looked a bit less silly in this erection, by the simple expedient of asking a female acquaintance to open her mouth and counting.

There are certain types of philosophy for which I have no time, namely those that think that things can be defined into and out of existence.

Cicero put it best when he said that there is no proposition so absurd that some philosopher won't make it.

[wildfire_emissary]

I read this once in Thumpalumpacus' sig. "Pondering the useless in search of the obvious." It's great!

[Ultima22689]

Where is Thump? He hasn't been on lately.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm gonna make use of WordWeb a bit here.

Philosophy:
1) A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
I'll let that pass for now.

2) The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
Sounds good on the face of it.

3) Any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation
Well I suppose it would be preferable to use a bit of 2 in arriving at 3.

Rationalise:
2) Defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning
Lying to yourself, not beneficial for a good relationship with self.

Introspection:
1) The contemplation of your own thoughts and desires and conduct
Only one definition for this one, I've probably overdone this one at times but I think that's better than undergoing it.
I would hope this is an honest appraisal of your own thoughts, and not merely self justification.

The Golden Rule (Wiki) :
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Not much of a philosophy, you can try to avoid saturated fat and dancing bananas I suppose.

[pilchardo]

Philosophy is everything.  Science itself must defer to philosophy, in my view.  The scientist who claims to have found any aspect of truth is a poor scientist, for science is about the discovery of models that may or may not reflect reality: we just don't know.  Philosophy is revolutionary, it claims the right to question everything, it grants the right to hold opinions without evidence, it exposes the absurdity of proof.  Philosophy and philosophers can be suppressed by the demand for the concrete construction of interlocking notions, but on being suppressed, philosophy simply goes off and finds a metaphorical wrecking ball and tears such pathetic structures asunder.  People should fear philosophy.  It defines who they are, and imprisons the weak in the contradictions of their own design.

Philosophy is nothing. At its best it chases at the coat-tails of science. The philosopher who claims to have found any aspect of the truth is a poor philosopher; the scientist, on the other hand, has no need of the truth, she builds cities, cleans the water and makes the medicine. Philosophy is revolutionary, it forever chases its tail. All structures are absurd; that speaks nothing as to their utility. People should fear philosophy, it is a narcotic of the mind; recreational use only; take it too seriously and you'll lose your footing.

"O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's."

Spot on, except for one small but critical point. Science is philosophy. The thing is, though, that science has a particular advantage over all other schools of philosophy, in that its core tenet is that it must be measured against reality. Poor Plato (or it could have been Aristotle. I forget which) didn't understand this, which is why he managed to reason that men have more teeth than women. If he'd been familiar with falsifiability, he would have looked a bit less silly in this erection, by the simple expedient of asking a female acquaintance to open her mouth and counting.

There are certain types of philosophy for which I have no time, namely those that think that things can be defined into and out of existence.

Cicero put it best when he said that there is no proposition so absurd that some philosopher won't make it.

I'm afraid that each philosophy could argue that it has an advantage over others. When you measure against "reality", what you're measuring against is your idea of reality. Science sure is a philosophy, you're quite right.

[penfold]

Science is philosophy. The thing is, though, that science has a particular advantage over all other schools of philosophy, in that its core tenet is that it must be measured against reality.

Well human intellectual activity is a gestalt thing, so to even try and draw lines between 'philosophy' and 'science' is always going to be more art than rule. I think the central characteristic of science is its method. Scientific method's total reliance upon empiricism excludes metaphysical questions. Bluntly the scientist needs not ask "what is an electron?" but can focus on "how does an electron behave?"

It is true that the scientific method found its earliest voice in philosophy; in fact many of those we now divide into philosophers and scientists were really both: Descartes, Bacon, Goethe, Leibniz, Newton etc... My point was not that the science and philosophy are really distinct, but that the empirical method of science yields results, so much so the world now changes out of recognition generation to generation. The metaphysicians on the other hand run circles on the same well worn problems.

I have a friend who is working his way into academic philosophy (fascinating areas - philosophy of neuroscience and philosophy of probability). The impression I get from him is that philosophy is not driven by some progressive notion of the correct answer to problems, but rather it is driven by fashion and academic politics. Maybe the workhouses of Oxford and NYU philosophy departments will one day come up with an actual answer to a fundamental question; but I'm not holding my breath.