What is Philosophy?

[Bushranger]

This I would argue is not quite correct. I find that the best philosophy is not one which aims to provide answers at all, as such are limited to those constrictions which were employed when the answer was produced, but rather it provides questions which lead to insights into life and the human experience of it. With questions, good ones, they can be applied to several situations and some can be applied with almost total disregard for the circumstances.

"insights into life and the human experience" = useful answers

Edit: I had debated whether I should mention answers. I mentioned them because there has to be some measure of value or progress. Questions demand satisfaction.

I note you do not include in this list anything regarding truth. That I would agree upon. The search for truth is one task similar to a dgo chasing it's tail. Once you catch it, you can only nibble at the itch before you lose it again and resume circling yourself endlessly.

On the point of 'discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers', does this point intend to target those philosophies which are frowned upon, those which seem not to provide answers which fit within our current understanding? If so then I'd suggest that this is the opposite of philosophy. If philosophy were concerned with use then it would not study things such as "I think, therefore I am" as it is completely irrelevant to the human experience. Why you are is not as important as what you do and what you are. Such things reduce humans to ineffective goo when thought upon too much.

What I would consider to be a true philosopher is someone who would not disregard the words of the village idiot less he miss some nugget of wisdom. Even the most innaccurate and biased piece of writing or quote can hold wisdom, it is the job of the philosopher to find that wisdom, not to judge the source.

By all means listen to the village idiot. If they say something useful then remember it. But when people quote ideas that some guy in a toga came up with a couple of thousand years ago then they should only be given credence if those ideas are still valid. There must be some element of continuous refinement in the practise of philosophy, else it degenerates into a farce.

[Xander]

"insights into life and the human experience" = useful answers

Edit: I had debated whether I should mention answers. I mentioned them because there has to be some measure of value or progress. Questions demand satisfaction.

Well I always was the kinda person who was quite happy to let demands go unfulfilled.

By all means listen to the village idiot. If they say something useful then remember it. But when people quote ideas that some guy in a toga came up with a couple of thousand years ago then they should only be given credence if those ideas are still valid. There must be some element of continuous refinement in the practise of philosophy, else it degenerates into a farce.

This much is true but to forget the origional even slightly will distort it's message and perhaps lead you to discard it unduly and miss the wisdom which you are seeking.

[Bushranger]

Well I always was the kinda person who was quite happy to let demands go unfulfilled.

Sometimes a question can hang for a long time. It took calculus to properly answer Zeno's paradox.

This much is true but to forget the origional even slightly will distort it's message and perhaps lead you to discard it unduly and miss the wisdom which you are seeking.

Fortunately we are not dealing with dogma (if someone mentions theology I'll put my fingers in my ears ). It is acceptable, and often necessary to discredit part of a philosophy without abandoning it completely. Mistakes that are remembered are more important than successes that go unexplained.

[Xander]

Mistakes that are remembered are more important than successes that go unexplained.

I think that is decent philosophy right there.

[wyrdsister]

Philosophy - theories of existence that cannot be falsifyable.

Therefore is it really any *better* than religion?

Better, meaning truthful or real.

[SolitaryWalker]

Philosophy - theoroes of existence that cannot be falsifyable.

Therefore is it really any *better* than religion?

Better, meaning truthful or real.

Yes, because it is based on reason and religion is based on authority.

[wyrdsister]

Yes, because it is based on reason and religion is based on authority.

I disagree and I think the Buddha would have disagreed with you there.

[SolitaryWalker]

I disagree and I think the Buddha would have disagreed with you there.

What I mean is that philosophy gives an argument to explain how the world works and religions say that we dont need an argument as the book of dogma can tell us everything that we need to know and it cant be wrong because it comes from a higher being who is infallible.

[wyrdsister]

What I mean is that philosophy gives an argument to explain how the world works and religions say that we dont need an argument as the book of dogma can tell us everything that we need to know and it cant be wrong because it comes from a higher being who is infallible.

Perhaps but I think that you are focusing more on the Judao-Christian religions in your answer. You are also inferring that within religious circles there are no discussions about the nature of reality or questioning of texts, which is again wrong I'm afraid.

[SolitaryWalker]

Perhaps but I think that you are focusing more on the Judao-Christian religions in your answer. You are also inferring that within religious circles there are no discussions about the nature of reality or questioning of texts, which is again wrong I'm afraid.

Nevermind religions, lets just talk about eschatology. That I am saying is outside of the province of philosophy because it requires an appeal to authority for legitimation which is a logical fallacy.