RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's
What is Philosophy? thread:
A question of great importance would be to clarify and define a universal definition for philosophy. I believe philosophy at its heart to be a quest for wisdom, though what one man sees as wise may be deemed foolish by another man. Though I do agree with SolitaryWalker that we must be careful about our perception of wisdom, and that in this quest we seek to advance our understanding, he holds understanding is the sole purpose, and that using philosophy to some other end is incorrect. Philosophy should also be a means of achievement, that is, it should make us grow in greatness. He is right however when he further asserts how philosophy transcends the empirical nature of science, and that a metaphysical assumption must first be made before it can be empirically validated via experiment. Again though, SolitaryWalker incorrectly asserts that philosophy is purely about truth, rather than also accomplishing our inner desires, as he says how our prejudices (ironically from his own prejudice) pollute the truth. Some things however transcend truth, and that the ultimate meaning will be found within, with what is important to us and our beliefs, as reality is indeed shaped by our focus. He is gravely mistaken in asserting how philosophy does not keep in perspective any of our personal ends (the funny thing is though that he says personal growth follows from our inquiries, so in essence, he contradicts himself, since all along then it did indeed have a personal element). I do agree on his next point about forcefully dispelling ignorance being secondary to advancing ideas and offering the opportunity to learn. Again though, he aims to get solely at the truth, in rejection of all passions and inner desires. If anything, he needs to learn the critical distinction between passion and attachment, passion impelling us forward, and attachment restricting us, since passion is a vision of what we wish to be, but attachment is a lingering fog clouding our vision. Passion if used properly can be controlled, whereas attachment binds us by its strings and limits our personal freedom. His argument for philosophy and its power of explanation is indeed superior, as he correctly asserts, to the religious book of dogma. He then says how religion deals with questions incapable for rationalization, such as what happens when we die, which he claims cannot be reached by metaphysics. Again I am in disagreement, as if anything, nothing possesses greater power than the illumination reason can cast upon our world. All in all, SolitaryWalker has brought up some very interesting points, but we cannot accept any such assertions without a challenge.