• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is Philosophy?

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
In a vernacular sence. And rhetorics deffinately isn't just about that. Well, not the way I learned it anyway, wich is the ancient form... Rhetorics in a more modern form seems to have lost it's wild hairs, something wich I strongly deplore. Most modern rhetoricians would agree with you, though.
BTW, I don't want to leave a wrong impression. I don't employ hardcore rhetorics when actually doing philosophy. Just style, form and layout.

Well rhetoric in literature could then be used for quality expression, this is where we could see the beauty in language. But I think we better still keep that stuff away from science and philosophy anyways. I suspect that the ancient form of rhetoric has rescinded in the present era because a much higher premium has been placed on clarity of exposition than there has been before. So no Hegels or Heideggers will be getting their ideas out to the market in the near future, thank God!
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
Like I said, I hold the complete opposite. It's like knowing the left- and righthand path of these things. And it takes both hands to swim. :)
 

Bushranger

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
Philosophy is a label for anything that involves questions and an intent to find useful answers to those questions.

Science is what natural philosophy became when it grew up.

Metaphysics is what happens when you cease to care about useful answers.

The purpose of modern philosophy should be:
  • to help people better understand themselves and others
  • to help people find meaning and/or purpose
  • tackle questions that fall outside of empirical reducibility
  • discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers
 

Bushranger

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
Well rhetoric in literature could then be used for quality expression, this is where we could see the beauty in language. But I think we better still keep that stuff away from science and philosophy anyways. I suspect that the ancient form of rhetoric has rescinded in the present era because a much higher premium has been placed on clarity of exposition than there has been before. So no Hegels or Heideggers will be getting their ideas out to the market in the near future, thank God!

Rhetoric (or at least an understanding of it) still has a place in interpersonal communications as it can be used to reduce conflict as well as to incite it. If people were better trained to recognise it then ignorance and manipulation would be smaller problems that they are now.
I do agree that it should be eliminated from important discussion as much as possible. There have been times that it has held back human thought for decades, perhaps centuries.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Rhetoric (or at least an understanding of it) still has a place in interpersonal communications as it can be used to reduce conflict as well as to incite it. If people were better trained to recognise it then ignorance and manipulation would be smaller problems that they are now.
I do agree that it should be eliminated from important discussion as much as possible. There have been times that it has held back human thought for decades, perhaps centuries.

Are you familiar with the catastrophe of 19th century German Idealism?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Which catastrophe are you referring to?

That of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Those were some serious crimes against the German language, many assert that this in turn allowed for them to debauch logic also. Figures, they would make ridiculous conclusions about their cases and assert that their arguments were impeccably logical and their readers would much rather take that in on trust than go back through that rebarbative prose.

This is what Schopenhauer had to say about that matter...

"Moreover, such a man will not always be explaining anew what has already been explained once, as Kant does, for example, and other main concepts. Generally such a man will not incessantly repeat himself, and yet, in every new presentation of an idea that has already occured a hundred times, leave it again in precisely the same obscure passages. On the contrary he will express his meaning once distinctly, thoroughly and exhaustively, and leave it at that. But the greatest disadvantage of Kant's occassionally obscure exposition is that it acted as an example inducing one to imitate its defects. In fact it was misinterpreted as a pernicious authorization. What was senseless and without meaning at once took refuge in obscure exposition and language. Fichte was the first to grasp and make use of this privelege; Schelling at best equalled him in this, and a host of hungry scribblers without intellect or honesty soon surpassed them both. But the greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel. It became the instrument of the most ponderous and general mystification that has ever existed, with a result that will seem incredible to posterity and be a lasting monument of German stupidity."
 

Bushranger

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
Don't know much about it, but will add it to my "to be researched" list.

From my perspective the tragedy of rhetoric is that many took the view that a convincing argument is better than an accurate one.

The question that interests me here is whether Hegel et al. where dishonest, stupid, or guilty of self deception. I haven't read any of them so I can't make any judgements.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Don't know much about it, but will add it to my "to be researched" list.

From my perspective the tragedy of rhetoric is that many took the view that a convincing argument is better than an accurate one.

The question that interests me here is whether Hegel et al. where dishonest, stupid, or guilty of self deception. I haven't read any of them so I can't make any judgements.

Schopenhauer thought that Hegel was a charlatan: did not have much legitimate philosophical skill or talent and only wrote with such high-sounding bombast to conceal that. You'd need to have extensive knowledge of philosophy to pull the trick off, so there was something there, but not much.I doubt this is true, it is probably the case that he got lost in his head and suffered from a genuine difficulty to express himself. He was our type, as we INTPs know how easily it is to get stuck up there with your hyperactive Ti. And how difficult it is for us to talk to ordinary people and at times to have our ideas understood.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Philosophy is a label for anything that involves questions and an intent to find useful answers to those questions.
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.
The purpose of modern philosophy should be:
  • to help people better understand themselves and others
  • to help people find meaning and/or purpose
  • tackle questions that fall outside of empirical reducibility
  • discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers
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.
 

Bushranger

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
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

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
"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

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
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 :headphne: ). 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.
 

wyrdsister

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
Ape
Philosophy - theories of existence that cannot be falsifyable.

Therefore is it really any *better* than religion?

Better, meaning truthful or real.
 
Last edited:

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
106
MBTI Type
Ape
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

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 
Top