What does philosophy do?

[blazeofglory]

Everyone has a philosophy of his or her own and philosophy is a prism through which he observes the world and his relationship with it. And philosophy is in fact a way of observation.

Today philosophy has been so much systematized to make more and more complicated in point of fact.

[matinflames]

From my view, philosophy is plain perception. While it does provide the individual with some form of satisfaction, perception is a word with limits. I believe everyone is a philosopher to some degree because as entities we all hold an attraction to reality.

In a black and white world, philosophy holds no purpose because people can eat, sleep and reproduce. However we naturally see our surrounding in color and emotion so we want to think beyond the animal. In a sense I just contradicted myself because eating, sleeping and sex can be a philosophy.

In conclusion the mere idea to think brings about philosophy.

[atiguhya padma]

It is interesting that a philosopher should say that it is her job to tell people how to lead their lives. I would have thought that it is the preachers of the world who believe this to be their role. Had she said "it is the philosophers job to show people how to lead their lives" this would have distinguished philosophers from preachers and I might have agreed with her.

I think philosophy might be the attempt to find an irrefutable position. One could say that minds are like a big box with five inputs that feed information inside. The problem is, if we are the internal workings of the big box, we have no way of verifying the information we receive, as we cannot exit the box. And, as we have no internal perception, we don't know what it is that receives the information. So all we have is information, the quality of which we do not know.

On the other hand, if your starting point is empiricism, there seems no way to confirm the existence of an internal life or world beyond the physical components of the brain. And thus you have the battle between monists: idealists versus materialists. It seems you can start with the body and conclude there is no mind or you can start with the mind and conclude there can be no body. But where you start is merely a matter of preference.

Which is why philosophy is the attempt to create a fixed and irrefutable starting point, by demolishing all previous attempts and revealing where their flaws lie. Obviously, it has yet to accomplish this.

A philosopher once told me that there are two standard definitions:

1) Philosophy is the critique of all other subjects including itself
2) Philosophy is the attempt to create a weltanschauung.

[blazeofglory]

We kind of theorize philosophy and argue that it is exclusively the domain of philosophers. I do not agree at all. It can be the domain of anybody. It is simply the perception or our understanding of some basic facts like the universe and our relationship with it, God, immortality, afterlife, life and death, heaven and the like. These are grave subjects and no one has authority over this subject and of course we have opinions, canons about these subjects but we cannot assert with authority. We know basic science, and some knows more and others less, but regarding some basic things we are pathetic and do not know even if we are greatly erudite

[12kris]

What does philosophy do?

I claim that the task of philosophy is to look inward to find the basis for the presuppositions that form the foundation for all human created theories. I claim that in our first effort to look inward primitive humans saw thier mortality; they hated what they saw and immediately sought a means to successfully repress that thought. That solution turns out to be what we today call religion.

Long ago a professor of philosophy said to me, after my asking him what philosophy is all about, “philosophy is a radically critical self-consciousness”. It took me 30 years to comprehend what he said.

“But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in an article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061601766.html

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.

I guess no one (but an old fashioned teacher) has the right to tell anyone how to live. Yet, the truth is that those of us who live with certitude, as if we have forgotten a very pertinent question that we once asked ourself, need something as abrupt as that (someone telling us the priorities of life) to shake us out of a life which can be termed 'basic existence'.
Even for those of us who feel that there is a pressing need for Ontology, 'Philosophy' gets reduced to a word within quotes. In this we are encouraged by those around us who feel ill-equipped to handle the basic questions (or answers, for that matter) to ignore them and move giving priority to expediency!

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact philosophy is a multilayered term and this term has been worded and paraphrased in a way to give an air of intricacy in point of fact. Writers with their pomposity, affectedness have sophisticated this topic. Generally speaking, philosophy deals with human points of view, and it should be in point of fact integrative, that is it must interpret ideas, views of all, not some pedantic and conceited scholars with their wordy and fussy ideas. Scholars have obscured philosophy. Philosophy today is more of wordiness than factuality. Philosophy should be explicated to all across all genres and strata of people. And then philosophy will teach something to us.

[coberst]

Which is why philosophy is the attempt to create a fixed and irrefutable starting point, by demolishing all previous attempts and revealing where their flaws lie. Obviously, it has yet to accomplish this.

A philosopher once told me that there are two standard definitions:

1) Philosophy is the critique of all other subjects including itself
2) Philosophy is the attempt to create a weltanschauung.

I do not know weltan... but with the rest of it I agree.

All domains of knowledge start with some basic assumptions. There is only one domain of knowledge that has the credentials to make judgment as to the adequacy of these assumptions: philosophy.

What are the assumptions that form the foundation of philosophy?

When written history began five thousand years ago humans had already developed a great deal of knowledge. Much of that knowledge was of a very practical nature such as how to use animal skins for clothing, how to weave wool, how to hunt and fish etc. A large part of human knowledge was directed toward how to kill and torture fellow humans. I guess things never really change all that much.

In several parts of the world civilizations developed wherein people learned to create laws and to rule vast numbers of people. Some measure of peace and stability developed but there was yet no means for securing the people from their rulers. I guess things never really change all that much

Almost everywhere priests joined rulers in attempts to control the population. Despite these continual wars both of external and internal nature the human population managed to flourish. Egypt was probably one of the first long lasting and stable civilizations to grow up along the large rivers. Egypt survived almost unchanged for three thousand years. This success is attributed to its geographical location that gave it freedom from competition and fertile lands that were constantly replenished by the river overflowing its banks and thus depositing new fertile soil for farming.

Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”.

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/302/folkmeta.htm

[Anna_MAlkovych]

My friend said once that it is an agument about teapot beeing a teapot or not and about how if it exist people should use it. This way it made me laugh, but well it is truth. It is phrase-mongering nothing more. We still do not know what world is - but we do not fail to live in it. We are not sure how electricity works, but we use it. While others thinl about the meaning of their life, others live a life.

[ShoutGrace]

“And finally in Aristotle philosophy was honored in all her boundless scope and majesty; all her mansions were explored and made beautiful with order; here every problem found a place and every science brought its toll to wisdom. These men knew that the function of philosophy was not to bury herself in the obscure retreats of epistemology, but to come forth bravely into every realm of inquiry, and gather up all knowledge for the coordination and illumination of human character and human life. They understood that the field of philosophy is not some pretty puzzle hiding in the clouds and destitute of interest or influence in the affairs of mankind, but the vast and total problem of the meaning and value and possibilities of man in a boundless and fluid world.”

I claim that in our first effort to look inward primitive humans saw thier mortality; they hated what they saw and immediately sought a means to successfully repress that thought. That solution turns out to be what we today call religion.

I have two questions on this point; I don't wish to be contentious, I'm genuinely curious.

Where in the literature do we find this view staked out and defended? I understand that Feurbach (sp) had a version of this idea. Where is the evidence for such a claim?

Also, how are religions that have no conception of immortality viewed in light of this supposition? I know that Buddhists don't always find comfort or familiarity in the terms “religion” or even “philosophy” when they are used to describe their beliefs and lifestyle, but Buddhism would seem to be an example of a religion, philosophy, system of thought, etc. that goes against this grain, no? Or perhaps, according to this view, one way to repress the idea of annihilation is by devising a scheme of immortality, the other is to attempt to accept it and convince yourself that it is what you truly desire. (“Desire” probably being the wrong word, it being such a meaningful one in Buddhist thought.)

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

It has been said that the question is not whether we will be philosophers, but rather whether we will be good ones.

I once had a professor who, when asked this question: "What does philosophy do?" -- he said, "It offers us little ways to make our lives better." I've always like that small, simple answer.

I don't mind that answer either. I do think that while it may not be wrong in any sense, it just may fail to tell the entire story.

Today philosophy has been so much systematized to make more and more complicated in point of fact.

In point of fact philosophy is a multilayered term and this term has been worded and paraphrased in a way to give an air of intricacy in point of fact. Writers with their pomposity, affectedness have sophisticated this topic. Generally speaking, philosophy deals with human points of view, and it should be in point of fact integrative, that is it must interpret ideas, views of all, not some pedantic and conceited scholars with their wordy and fussy ideas. Scholars have obscured philosophy. Philosophy today is more of wordiness than factuality. Philosophy should be explicated to all across all genres and strata of people. And then philosophy will teach something to us.

I agree wholeheartedly, blaze.

A philosopher once told me that there are two standard definitions:

1) Philosophy is the critique of all other subjects including itself
2) Philosophy is the attempt to create a weltanschauung.

I very much agree with the first definition. There is a philosophy of every intellectual discipline, and for good reason.

While others thinl about the meaning of their life, others live a life.

But what if you end up living the wrong kind of life?

I know that question may be viewed as a quaint one, but it greatly troubled people for millenia. Philosophers once struggled to identify “the good life,” back it into a corner, and wring it out.

[Anna_MAlkovych]

ShoutGrace, is there really a way to live it wrong? no there is none. One cannot live it in the right way or the wrong way, they can live or not live. It seems like people stand and wait for someone to come, walk and you way think if you like.

[IceM]

Philosophy is Man's attempt to be rational and answer the questions that empirical evidence hasn't yet answered.

And, Philosophy is Man's attempt to quell the lust for enlightenment by claiming to find enlightenment.

[Telemann]

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

That is, simply, a very dangerous thing to state. In fact, it is so dangerous, I will ask the inevitable questions that come from such statements:

What is real/ reality?
What is knowledge?
What is moral action?
How does the mind work?
and, for that matter, what is the "mind"?

[billl]

Teleman, I haven't seen coberst post in quite a while (unfortunately). I'm not saying that he actually is right about anything, or that I agree with him, etc., but if you really are interested, you can find a lot of posts by him if you scroll back maybe 1 page or so on the list of philosophical writings. I mention not only that you might find out his thinking on some of this, but perhaps moreso that you might read the discussions as well, and maybe find something you'd be interested in adding to.

I have just now (since I am waiting on something else and am happy to occupy myself with this) looked through his postings and tried to (in an admittedly slap-dash way) to find some of his posts that might best address his, um, "postings" on at least a little of what you're asking about. His position is nuanced and not "obviously" reckless all of the time. But you still might end up outraged about one thing or another, or exasperated or whatever, maybe develop a headache, doze off, etc. Or come across a gem.

What is the mind? How does the mind work?
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=47999
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=44667

What is moral action?
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=45825
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=45438

What is knowledge?
The postings about the mind (above) might apply here, depending... There is probably at least one thread started by him that tackles this head on in a focussed way, but my scanning didn't lead me to it on one run-through.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=46475 (not comprehensive, but a typical approach to one facet/take on the question.)
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=46024 (perhaps indirectly addresses the issue, again depending on if it's an appropriate tack, in your opinion.)

What is real/reality?
Well, the the bit you quoted and its context is probably as good as I could provide for his position. He might've focussed a thread on it, I don't know.

Maybe he'll come back and reply directly. Ah, good old coberst... Maybe he'd thank me for this, as opposed to his usual habit of repeating his OP, etc. (j/k)

[virginiawang]

I think people should be able to choose among different ideas, come up with their own, and form their own conclusions. I think a good philosopher would have much to say about things, without necessarily knowing how "the best way to live" might pan out from another's perspective. Same with politics. No one knows enough to know that they are really right about things from every possible perspective at every possible time.

If someone has some philosophy for how to live life that someone else can't shoot holes in, I'd like to hear it. So far, I've only heard a lot of very good ones--useful and beautiful ideas, but none of them perfect and/or complete.

I agree. Not a theory can comprehend all phenomenons that have ever happened from time immemorial till now, in all cornors on earth, so it will be a joke if someone claims that he/she is omniscient, or even omnipotent and intends to impose beliefs on others.
In fact I've never been ill-disposed towards a philosopher in my life even if he/ she sets heart on teaching me because that person can never know what I am really thinking about when I say , yes. I have the freedom to think whatever I like without offending a philosopher when he preaches, and I can do it with impunity. However it was the abstract approach through which they view life that sometimes attracts me, so it will be interesting to read some abstruse pharagraphs written by some philosopher, even if I can
not fully grasp the meaning of them. It blurs my vision of the world.

[blazeofglory]

In fact no branch of philosophy is complete or can have authority over truth. Of course science and philosophy have delineated mundane realties and natural phenomena. Beyond observable facts we know very little. God, creation, afterlife, the universe are some of the issues we have never been able to demystify and no philosophy has reached the stage where at times spiritualists can say. For truth is not always measurable and knowable.