Philosophy is . . . discuss

[Wiccan_Child]

Allow me to humbly burn your flag down to the ground.

Philosophy, as a discipline, contains four branches: logic, metaphysics, axiology, and epistemology. We'll key in on the first.

Logic is nowhere discussed in the Bible. Yet you have utilized logic in making your post. Your argument breaks down as follows:

1. God has not given us philosophy
2. All that is useful in life is given by God
3. Therefore, philosophy is useless

Funny how you used philosophy (in this case, the branch of logic) to make your case. Actually, in condemning philosophy as a whole--and therefore logic implicitly along with it--you have committed yourself to what we philosophers call a "performative contradiction."

A performative contradiction would be something like me telling you that fire is useless at the same time that I set your flag ablaze.

I smell smoke.

Of course, this all relies upon the presumption that logic is, in fact, a discipline of philosophy. Given that logic itself is required to formalise notions of 'set' and 'subset', I should think that the two are separate fields entirely.

 

[Vigilante]

Of course, this all relies upon the presumption that logic is, in fact, a discipline of philosophy. Given that logic itself is required to formalise notions of 'set' and 'subset', I should think that the two are separate fields entirely.

Sure, we can roll that way if you like. Two points:

1. Historically, logic has been included as a philosophical discipline, and you're virtually certain to find the logic classes of every university within their philosophy departments. If you propose a 'Logic Department,' more power to you. Maybe we wish similarly for 'Austrian Economics Departments' to divorce themselves from the broader 'Economics' or 'Science' departments. That might be nice.

2. More to the point, I think your claim is that certain positions regarding logic must be assumed before 'philosophizing' can be done, and therefore it isn't properly a part of philosophy as such. We might just as well claim, though, that epistemic assumptions (such as, "I am able to analyze logic"), metaphysical/ontological assumptions (such as, "I know I exist so that I can analyze logic"), and possibly even ethical assumptions (such as, "I know that it isn't immoral to analyze logic") must be made beforehand as well. In fact, take even one of those examples out: "I know I exist so that I can analyze logic." This itself, in addition to making the obvious ontological assumption, makes subtle logical, epistemic, and possibly ethical assumptions as well.

They all come as a basket and they are inseparable. If we toss out one because we must assume certain things about it before we can chop it to pieces and build it back up, then we have lost all of philosophy. Assumptions of all the branches must be made practically simultaneously. Philosophy, pursued this way, would become hopelessly vacuous.

There is no Starting Point, whatever the Cartesians proposed to the contrary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sure, we can roll that way if you like. Two points:

1. Historically, logic has been included as a philosophical discipline, and you're virtually certain to find the logic classes of every university within their philosophy departments.

Naturally: besides mathematics, it doesn't really have any other place (or, indeed, use). One of my friends is doing Philosophy at university, and he takes a course in logic.

If you propose a 'Logic Department,' more power to you. Maybe we wish similarly for 'Austrian Economics Departments' to divorce themselves from the broader 'Economics' or 'Science' departments. That might be nice.

Perhaps. I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but whatever floats your boat.

2. More to the point, I think your claim is that certain positions regarding logic must be assumed before 'philosophizing' can be done, and therefore it isn't properly a part of philosophy as such. We might just as well claim, though, that epistemic assumptions (such as, "I am able to analyze logic"), metaphysical/ontological assumptions (such as, "I know I exist so that I can analyze logic"), and possibly even ethical assumptions (such as, "I know that it isn't immoral to analyze logic") must be made beforehand as well.

How so? The axioms of logic are self-evident truths (for want of a more satisfactory phrase) which no one would deny: any statement that denies the law of identity, for instance, would reduce the statement to an arbitrary series of physical phenomena. Thus, to make a philosophical claim requires adherence to logic in the first place.

In fact, take even one of those examples out: "I know I exist so that I can analyze logic." This itself, in addition to making the obvious ontological assumption, makes subtle logical, epistemic, and possibly ethical assumptions as well.

Indeed, but the logical assumptions must be made before anything makes sense. Philosophy is built upon logic.

They all come as a basket and they are inseparable. If we toss out one because we must assume certain things about it before we can chop it to pieces and build it back up, then we have lost all of philosophy. Assumptions of all the branches must be made practically simultaneously. Philosophy, pursued this way, would become hopelessly vacuous.

There is no Starting Point, whatever the Cartesians proposed to the contrary.

I disagree. Philosophy is built upon what is derived by logical analysis, but logic does not require philosophy; we could get all the way to sociology* without ever invoking philosophy.

*logic -> mathematics -> physics -> chemistry -> biochemistry -> biology -> neurology -> psychology -> sociology. Possibly onto politics, then economy?

 

[mpok1519]

so, philosopy is failure, and dogma is success?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

so, philosopy is failure, and dogma is success?

Well, the former is impotent, and the latter is just dangerous.

 

[brinny]

interesting thread....sometimes 'philosophising' can be a hobby, just for the sake of glorifying in our own brain power...which reminds me of Ecclesiastes....

our own efforts become like vapor....as we become but dust......blowing away in the wind....

 

[Vigilante]

Wiccan_Child:

I just wrote a response for you, and though I feel it was promising, I feel just as strongly that the ideas reflected in it are as yet incomplete. I’m jettisoning the reply (probably indefinitely) so I can tinker with its contents.

I don’t want to waste your time (or mine) with half-baked argument, so please consider your point ceremoniously conceded. :]

 

[mpok1519]

isnt dogma just philosophy disguised as something claming to be better?

 

[quatona]

isnt dogma just philosophy disguised as something claming to be better?

I don´t think so. Dogma can do without philosophy quite fine.

 

[quatona]

so, philosopy is failure, and dogma is success?

No. How did you get there? Is that your opinion, or was this meant to be the summary of someone else´s post as you have understood it?

 

[mpok1519]

No. How did you get there? Is that your opinion, or was this meant to be the summary of someone else´s post as you have understood it?

someone else pointed out philosophy being a failure.....but i only assumed their conclusion was the result of their own dogmas...

 

[quatona]

someone else pointed out philosophy being a failure.....

I can´t seem to find that statement. It might be a good idea to quote a statement if you respond directly to it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan_Child:

I just wrote a response for you, and though I feel it was promising, I feel just as strongly that the ideas reflected in it are as yet incomplete. I’m jettisoning the reply (probably indefinitely) so I can tinker with its contents.

I don’t want to waste your time (or mine) with half-baked argument, so please consider your point ceremoniously conceded. :]

I do like ceremony . I'm happy to continue this discussion in the future, if and when you're ready.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by Madcoil
Philosophy. It's for the slaveowner who doesn't have to spend all day pulling grass out of the ground.

warmer..

just come out with it. what is it then?

 

[HoseaWife]

God declares and man later realises he was right all along

Philosophy is what you are left with when you ignore information given by God.
It is an attempt to give an explanation for what you don't know.

Philosophy is apologetics for agnostics.

Philosophy is the swansong of human failure.

I think your username sums it up pretty well.

 

[brinny]

hmmm....see post above...

I was gonna post something similar...

it seems that 'philosophy' is a dance of words and a very well developed mode of passing time whilst avoiding getting one's hands dirty from digging in to really alleviate or change suffering, oppression, and hopelessness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

it seems that 'philosophy' is a dance of words and a very well developed mode of passing time whilst avoiding getting one's hands dirty from digging in to really alleviate or change suffering, oppression, and hopelessness.

Only if you aren't doing it right.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mpok1519]

hmmm....see post above...

I was gonna post something similar...

it seems that 'philosophy' is a dance of words and a very well developed mode of passing time whilst avoiding getting one's hands dirty from digging in to really alleviate or change suffering, oppression, and hopelessness.

Actually, philosophy has been attributed to be a major player in many world-events, including some of the earliest human-rights movements we have in the new world; in France, writers weren't allowed to write philosophy, disagreeing with the divine right of kings; they had to write literature; non-fiction disguised as fictitious philosophy. However, in Britain, where the empiricists wrote most of their work, you would write to you heart's desire, and many of those modern-day philosophers are attributed to haveing an influence on the very framers/writers of our constitution and declaration of independence; Locke, a famous empiricists most notable for his political philosophy and social contract philosophy, has many ideas that were his embedded within our Bill of Rights, Constitution, DoI, etc, etc. He took alot of flack and alot of criticism for his philosophies, but he was also among the most praised and noteworthy. He believed in democratic republics, and disagreed with the divine right of kings(which the world had used for millenia), and his ideas are reflected within our society today.

He not only got his hands dirty for his views, but he's also considered to be one who influenced the revolution of the FREE world; I would have to disagree with you; he helped alleviate suffering through his words; he basically said to the world "Hey; you don't have to follow that king; God doesn't appoint leaders; we do. So join the revolution!"

He got his hands very dirty, but he also didnt get to live to see the positive impact he had on the world.

To say philosophy is just a bunch of pretty words without impact is a pretty strong statement to make, and also very incredible, and imho, ignorant.

 

[brinny]

ROFL! Well i guess you told me, eh? I must admit i did not quite have the view of philosophy that you posted. I stand corrected.

I was just looking at a brochure on a philosophy course at Johns Hopkins University today. Was considering signing up.....

Just wondrin'....would you consider God a Philosopher?

 

[mpok1519]

philosophy is a very interesting course, I'd advise taking courses; of course, the lecture can only be as good as the lecturer I guess, but theres so many philosophers with so many views throughout time, that we as people and humans constantly try to figure 'it' out through what may seem like a pretty dance of words, but truely can be attributed to the social change needed in society from time to time.

theres the philosophers in ancient greece that were quick to point out the corruption in society and in their leadership and judiciary.

the modern philosophers, Voltaire, Descarte, Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Spinoza, Kant, Neitzche, all credited in some in some way with very interesting ideas of how 'life' works. Dualism. Monism. Pantheism. Empiricism. very interesting stuff.

and of course Thoreau, and some say Hemingway was a philosopher in his own right.

God a philosopher? Most of the philosophers above would say He is the biggest philosopher of all. Its a good question, which is why I don't know really; why would one need to 'guess' about life if they knew everything, and there was nothing to really, 'think' about because said one already knows the answer? God can do whatever God wants to do, I suppose, though. I'm sure God has time to 'think' about 'life' and 'existence'. And perhaps also learns; omniscient and omnipotent to me could include the power to sometimes not want to know whats going to happen; being all powerful might include wanting a 'mental challenge' from time to time. Aristotle said "True knowledge starts with knowing one knows nothing."

But the church has always tried to have control in what philosophers said; Spinoza got excommunicated for his thoughts and philosophies on Pantheism(God=everything, so to speak). When the church controled the state, these writers were censored for their words, and sometimes were incriminated, and a few of them, executed; and damned if I am, I bet God disagreed with that.