What is philosophy for?

juvenissun · Sep 3, 2016

SithDoughnut said:
You realise that Christianity is a philosophy as well as a religion, right? The Bible is all about philosophy.

Exactly. That is how philosophy should be.
Read the Bible, instead of any professional philosophy book.

juvenissun · Sep 3, 2016

SithDoughnut said:
I know reality can be discussed, but often philosophical discussion goes into the realm of hypotheticals, which are obviously not reality. I think that even if something is entirely hypothetical, it's still worth discussing, whether the answer has any bearing on our interpretation of reality or not.

"We should love our enemy" is a philosophical thought.
You take it as a hypothesis. Some others take it as a challenge. Some others try hard to do it in their real life.

Real philosophical thoughts are very real.

juvenissun · Sep 3, 2016

Chriliman said:
Huh, just realized how old this thread is. Oh well

It is OK. The question is still a valid one.

There was a thread, in which I defended that I AM a philosopher because I have a doctor degree in "Philosophy" (Ph.D.), even I have never read a philosophy textbook. People don't like it. But I don't care. The degree title is always my witness. I am a scientist, AND a philosopher.

goshjosh · Sep 3, 2016

modern scholarship and such
often leaves much to be desired
as having lost its older philosophical true roots

same goes for psychology which means study of the soul
etymologically
probably most psychologists don't believe in the soul or spirit...sigh

philosophy ..love of wisdom

kinda like the merriam Webster dictionary in the 60s went to the dark side --- relativism and usage
as the basis of its definitions
rather than a spiritual philosophical basis
mr Webster is probably turning in his grave....

as his main inspiration to do a dictionary was an aid for bible study

ahh yes postmodern philosophy...sigh
generally denying the power and connection with the universal absolute

ToddNotTodd · Sep 3, 2016

goshjosh said:
the greek word for philosophy appears only once in the new testament
col2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

and the teacher of this true philosophy after Christ
would be the holy spirit
Jhn 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

now even tho the holy spirit is referred to as a he
not so tho as in proverbs wisdom is a woman
thus the holy spirit..the nurturing aspect of the holy trinity is the feminine part of the trinity

Proverbs 8 ►
King James Bible

The Excellence of Wisdom

1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.

15By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

16By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.

22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

32Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

33Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

34Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

35For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

36But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

A. It's bad form to necro threads.
B. You're not really supposed to proselytize in the Philosophy forum.

lesliedellow · Sep 3, 2016

Verticordious said:
Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke. Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there.

Is that why the philosopher Karl Popper's definition of what constitutes a scientific theory almost universally accepted by scientists today?

Before displaying your contempt, try correcting your ignorance.

DogmaHunter · Sep 5, 2016

mindlight said:
I have been really distressed recently by the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Whether with word games, nihilistic non questions, smart alec jargonisation, posturing and abstraction, or logical nonsences the conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight of the real purpose of philosophy.

Philosophy should be about the meaning of life. It is for life and about life. It is the pursuit of the kind of wisdom that changes cultures and provides the seminal thinking that defines the next generation.

The methodologies of philosophers- logical argumentation from clearly defined premises, the ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various positions, the ability to see a system as a whole and explore and improve its systematic consistency should be subordinate to this task. Philosophy in a sense is the belief that a mans mind has enough light in it to be able to reason its way to meanings and by exploring them to deepen ones awareness of them. It has the humility to recognise its limits and by its arguments demonstrates the limits of reasons and is more connected to the real issues of its culture and time than much of the relativistic and jargonised nihilistic rantings that passes for philosophy these days.

Has philosophy lost its way? Has it become the minority pasttime of jargonised professionals and lost the common touch that once allowed to define eras and lay the foundations for future actions for better or for worse?

First off, I don't know a lot about "philosophy", nore am I really interested in it at this point.

But as I understand it, philosophy has undergone some kind of displacement over the centuries.

There was a time where "philosopher" was pretty much synonymous with "scientist". Indeed, it centered around logical argumentation and "common sense" to draw conclusions about the world.

But overtime, science started make more and more discoveries, particulalry in physics, where our "common sense", and even our fundamental ideas about what is "logical" and what isn't, came under pressure and in some cases completely irrelevant.

To quote Lawrence Krauss (not sure if he came up with the statement, but I heared him say it anyway): "Our common sense evolved to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa. It did not evolve to understand quantum mechanics".

Slowly but surely, philosophy became rather "obsolete" in the matter of the natural sciences. We can no longer base ourselves on our "common sense" to draw conclusions about the world.

In that sense, in the sense of progress and learning about reality, philosophy is as dead as road kill.

That does not mean that philosophy is dead, full stop. It still has its place... I guess.

Just to say... philosophy as a field of study TODAY, is not what it used to be some 400 years ago.

And what I observe is that most people who still insist on using "philosophy" to answer open scientific questions, are people who are engaging in religious apologetics.

In fact, I can't come up with an example that isn't religious apologetics.

EDIT: fell for the necromancy again........

lesliedellow · Sep 5, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
First off, I don't know a lot about "philosophy", nore am I really interested in it at this point.

But as I understand it, philosophy has undergone some kind of displacement over the centuries.

There was a time where "philosopher" was pretty much synonymous with "scientist". Indeed, it centered around logical argumentation and "common sense" to draw conclusions about the world.

When Plato wrote his Republic he wan't writing about science; he was writing about politics. Aristotle is best remembered today for his work on formal and informal logic; which is very much relevant to today's physical sciences. Epistemology is likewise very much relevant to today's physical sciences.

In Newton's day, what is today called science was called natural philosophy, and the word science itself had a much broader definition than the one it has today. That changed in the course of the nineteenth century.

juvenissun · Sep 5, 2016

lesliedellow said:
In Newton's day, what is today called science was called natural philosophy, and the word science itself had a much broader definition than the one it has today. That changed in the course of the nineteenth century.

Why did it change?
Why didn't they change my Ph.D. into Geo.D. or Chem.D.?

lesliedellow · Sep 5, 2016

juvenissun said:
Why did it change?

Because of the growing prestige of the physical sciences, when somebody said "science" it increasingly meant the area of endeavour which was forever turning up new discoveries.

Today we might have a slightly more jaundiced view of science, and we no longer think in terms of a brave new world, but they did.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 5, 2016

juvenissun said:
There was a thread, in which I defended that I AM a philosopher because I have a doctor degree in "Philosophy" (Ph.D.), even I have never read a philosophy textbook. People don't like it. But I don't care. The degree title is always my witness. I am a scientist, AND a philosopher.

It's just an anachronistic label. Being a Ph.D. doesn't mean you're a philosopher any more than having a Bsc. means you're a batchelor.

juvenissun · Sep 5, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It's just an anachronistic label. Being a Ph.D. doesn't mean you're a philosopher any more than having a Bsc. means you're a batchelor.

Not convincing.

The title of the terminal degree should not be taken lightly. If it is inappropriate, then it should be changed. If it is not changed, then it should still mean what the name literally mean.

I have a Ph.D. SO, I AM a philosopher, which is a title recognized by the academic degree system.

lesliedellow · Sep 5, 2016

juvenissun said:
I have a Ph.D. SO, I AM a philosopher, which is a title recognized by the academic degree system.

I see, so you you have no trouble in passing a first year undergraduate exam on Platonic metaphysics.

juvenissun · Sep 5, 2016

lesliedellow said:
I see, so you you have no trouble in passing a first year undergraduate exam on Platonic metaphysics.

That is where the question is. I can not pass that exam in two hours.

BUT, why do they give me the doctor's degree on philosophy? I would rather to have it called doctor on geology.

Also, the point is: I think I may be able to pass the example of ANY philosophy course if someone can help me to answer my questions related to those in the exam. I don't need years of study. I only need, with the help, about a few days.

Try me on a question about Platonic metaphysics (is that a philosophy course?). I think I don't need to take that course to answer the question.

lesliedellow · Sep 5, 2016

juvenissun said:
Try me on a question about Platonic metaphysics (is that a philosophy course?). I think I don't need to take that course to answer the question.

I am a mathematician, not a philosopher, but I am not arrogant enough to think that I could learn in five minutes what it takes a philosophy undergraduate three years to learn.

juvenissun · Sep 5, 2016

lesliedellow said:
I am a mathematician, not a philosopher, but I am not arrogant enough to think that I could learn in five minutes what it takes a philosophy undergraduate three years to learn.

I said I could answer a question in a philosophy exam as well as a philosophical student of any level can do.

This is only a hypothesis. I like to test it. Because I already have a doctor degree on philosophy.

Received · Sep 6, 2016

mindlight said:
I have been really distressed recently by the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Whether with word games, nihilistic non questions, smart alec jargonisation, posturing and abstraction, or logical nonsences the conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight of the real purpose of philosophy.

Philosophy should be about the meaning of life. It is for life and about life. It is the pursuit of the kind of wisdom that changes cultures and provides the seminal thinking that defines the next generation.

The methodologies of philosophers- logical argumentation from clearly defined premises, the ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various positions, the ability to see a system as a whole and explore and improve its systematic consistency should be subordinate to this task. Philosophy in a sense is the belief that a mans mind has enough light in it to be able to reason its way to meanings and by exploring them to deepen ones awareness of them. It has the humility to recognise its limits and by its arguments demonstrates the limits of reasons and is more connected to the real issues of its culture and time than much of the relativistic and jargonised nihilistic rantings that passes for philosophy these days.

Has philosophy lost its way? Has it become the minority pasttime of jargonised professionals and lost the common touch that once allowed to define eras and lay the foundations for future actions for better or for worse?

I think the "professionalization" of philosophy is largely how it has lost its way. It leads not only to increasing competition for unique ideas, which means less and less relevant ideas given the long history of philosophy and number of folks in academia, but also (much more harmfully) to the belief that philosophy is only something professors do, which leads many people to become blind to the philosophizing they might do on a daily basis without naming it as such.

At the same time, it's always easier to think than to live out the conclusions of your thoughts. So although I agree that philosophy should be about meaning, which is by definition applied abstraction, given the difficulty of actually, I don't know, living according to one's ideals it makes more sense that philosophy would break down to the dopamine kick provided by many times useless philosophical quibbles.

And if philosophy is really about the good feeling you get from thinking, you're just getting high and calling it sophisticated.

lesliedellow · Sep 6, 2016

juvenissun said:
I said I could answer a question in a philosophy exam as well as a philosophical student of any level can do.

This is only a hypothesis. I like to test it. Because I already have a doctor degree on philosophy.

For a supposed PhD, you talk an incredible amount of nonsense.

What is philosophy for?

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Member

Iconoclast

Member

Code Monkey

Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Member

... and God saw that it was good.

True love waits in haunted attics

Member

Similar threads