thanks. 
Okay, anyone else want to contribute a definition to philosophy? 
-
no, “knowledge” is a loaded term… I don’t believe knowledge is possible and not for socratic reasons but humean and nietzschean reasons… besides the fact that justified true beliefs are not justified often and when they are justified they are justified by definition so they don’t tell one anything about the world…
-
you did ask about original intent which is impossible to know as the original text remains absent.
-
none, I have no use for language games… they are as futile as metaphysics…
-Imp
Tell me what futility is and why futility is that without getting into Phil of Language or Metaphyisics.
LostGuy:
Um, I “lost” (no pun intended) you on that last post their.
What the best definition of philosophy is, is unknown to me at present, but one of the best definitions is what one of my university professors thinks is the best definition: “What is A?”
Very often people associate “WHY?” with philosophy. However, truly knowing WHAT an A (variable) is will also disclose WHY it is.
Hermes stated:
I think that Plato’s phrase you mention above is likely the most misunderstood phrase of all philosophical insights in all time. It isn’t true that one wouldn’t answer your post if they knew nothing. Atleast not if we understand ‘KNOW’ in terms of Plato’s explanation. The phrase is simply suppose to imply a way of dealing with life and knowledge. As soon as you attain, what you think is, knowledge you must at the same time be just as ready to withdraw it as knowledge. Only in this way can you truly be said to be living a virtuous life. You may notice throughout Plato’s dialogues that he very often will talk on for pages proving a point, he’ll finally prove it, and then say “But whether [enter philosophical point proven] is true or not only the Gods know”. In fact, in some parts of his works he is even open to the idea that possibly God doesn’t exist.
This “I know nothing” philosophy is incredibly important in life. It leads a person to realize that there are no real absolutes which leads one to live life understanding that life is lead by the best that we have at the moment. Furthermore, it leads people to be incredibly open minded to new ideas. Too often people have emotional responses to the things they learn, they look forward to moments where they will be able to show someone up with their new found knowledge, to show how wise they are. More importantly, people don’t see how numerous other beliefs are built upon ALL already existing beliefs in your head. Hence, if you learn something and cling to it for dear life you will soon find that certain conversations make you feel incredibly uncomfortable. You will also find yourself hating people, especially those who don’t agree with your viewpoint. Someone who isn’t clinging to ANY knowledge they have as absolute has no reason to be emotional at all about someone who disagrees with them. They know that they will think about what was said, and if it should seem that they agree then they will, and if not then they simply won’t agree with the other person. But there is no reason to get upset.
Knowledge to Plato was an absolute thing, yet contradictingly, he was ready to drop it all in view of any better argument.
In conclusion, if what I respond to your post I don’t consider as absolute, then I can spend my entire life responding to you will also claiming “I know nothing”
What’s your take?
BMW-Guy:
Oh, I’m just trying to call out the skeptic. To claim “knowledge is impossible,” in an unqualified way is to also claim that it is impossilbe to know what knowledge means or what it means to be impossible. Consequently, the statment ‘knowledge is impossible’ is little more than a grunt.
ANY statement is little more than a grunt.
-Imp
BMW Guy, I admire your Wittgenstein quote, but it seems awfuly close to a definition of Epistimology, a bracnch of philosophy, but not the whole thing altogether.
The definition I’ve been working with for a long time now comes from Bertand Russell’s introduction to “A History of Western Philosophy.” His definition picks up from 4.111, but goes off in a little different direction. He says:
“Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; nut like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or of revelation. All “definite” knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all “dogma” as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man’s Land is philosophy.”
Ahh, now I understand. thanks.
ooh…now here’s a definition I really like! Very well-stated. Russels definition doesn’t seem to be as clear-cut as Wittgenstein’s, but it seems to give even a deeper explanation of what philosophy is.
BTW:
Many of you probably already know the Russell and Wittgenstein knew each other (at least, that is what I’ve been told).
I was kinda hopeing you would say that. That statement is also tuatualogically a grunt. Whereas, other statements such at these, are not grunts tuatualically, even if its possilbe that they are grunts in truth.
If you want to convince anyone of that particular grunts, you will have to use non-tuatualogical grunts- although I’m aware that you probably don’t accpet the distinction. After all their are few distinctions in grunts, thats the whole point. Although for me, this is where things start to become really untennable. Obviously there is a mechanism for disinguish these two types of grunts, isn’t that at least the begining of meaning?
the meaning of grunts…
is it the thing in itself? never…
is it an arbitrary representation? yep…
arbitrary… grunt grunt grunt… the understanding of grunts…
could you translate that please?
which language of grunt? …
-Imp
Hmm, I thinkest that I have peggedth thou wrongly and am pleased in the discovery. Please allow me to beseach your continuted explination.
the statement “Knowledge is impossible” is false if it is true and true if it is false. It a statement of the same sort as the satement “Everything I say is a lie”.
Close. The statement your thinking of is “This statement is a lie.”
“Everything I say is a lie,” can be false with no problem, explicity when the speaker has made a least one true statement that is obviously not this one. However, it cannot be true for fairly obvious reasons.
The same goes for “Knowledge is impossible.” If its true, it seems to break down language and cause an impossibility in the truth of any statement, but if it is false rather then there is no problem. We can for instance know what the statement means. In fact, if we beleive that we know what the stament says, thats reason enough to beleive it false.
The quest for the vision of the world’s unity in totality.
-paraphrasing William James
A singular vision of the world, the complete world, the whole world, and everything in the world.
As opposed to more specialized fields of inquiry. Most fields of science are interesting only with their little part of the world. Social sciences only focus on social matters. Historians concern themselves with history. etc.
The philosopher looks at the entire world and seeks to find its unity.
xanderman,
Are you sure that we’re looking for unity? Is it possible that we’re looking for a way to explain human diversity? Give me an example of this unity we are looking for.
JT
Someone quoted Whitgenstein (speling?)…I’ve added some comments in squared brackets.
4.111 Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences. (The word ‘philosophy’ must mean something whose place is above or below the natural sciences, not beside them.)
[I don’t think this statement as actually said anything. He uses metaphors. This (above or below, not beside) could mean anything! ]
4.112 Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations.
[Fair enough. But this emphasises method only. A means toward what? How can you even know if a method is appropriate if you’re not clear about what your goals are?]
Philosophy does not result in ‘philosophical propositions’, but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries.
[Again, a means to an end - but what end? What’s the difference between a proposition and a clear proposition? Isn’t the expression ‘a clear proposition’ meaningless? Either way a proposition could still be nonsense. And I think the idea of ‘clear nonsense’ is the same as ‘vague nonsense’. It’s still all nonsense. And nonsense by its very nature is ‘vague’, and not thought out properly. I think the idea of ‘truth’ is trying to be avoided, but I think it’s inescapable. Avoiding it doesn’t make it go away.]
I honestly feel this is one of the clearest definitions of what philosophy is that I’ve ever seen.
Philosophy is about questioning beliefs, including your own.
I keep returning to this question, without an answer. I am unsure. Maybe philosophy does not look for unity. I don’t know.
French?