Is there any rigid methodology to philosophy that would qualify it as a science? And a science of what? truth? good ideas? meaning?
And if any rigid methodology is lacking, or is pittifully inadequate, could we then say that philosophy is an art? Do we just pick a position on any topic and creatively whip up an argument to support it? What makes a good argument then? Is it logic? Is it rhetoric? Is it the support of listeners?
I liken philosophy to computer programming in a way. Computer programming is sort of an art in that one can create any program one imagines - that is, there is a way to get computers to do more or less anything you want - and the possibilities are limited only by how creative you can be. On the other hand, there is a science to it, a methodology, for one can’t just type “Do such-and-such” and expect the computer to obey. One must carefully think about the structure of the program that would realize one’s vision in every detail. The syntax must be perfect as must the logical flow of the execution and its freedom from bugs. This requires a great deal of understanding and rational thinking.
Could philosophy be thought of in a similar light - rough speaking of course - in that one can take whatever position on any topic one wishes - limited only by his imagination - so long as he carefully and methodically crafts a rigid and robust argument in support of it? Can he be both artist and scientist in building his philosophy? Or is it more one than the other?
philosophy comes from the truth within everyone- when trying to express the truth that one feels they must put it into words- this can be considered a science of its own
the truth is above science but when you take the truth and put it into another form such as expression- the very act becomes a science or mathematics of language or art because it is loosing clarity or quality
so i would say that science, math, art, these are all expressions- what’s most important to understand is that all of these expressions are pieces of the truth- every perspective is true in some way because it comes from feeling- every art is true in some way because it comes from feeling- but we must realize is it is only part of the truth and the entire truth would be far greater than these parts that we see.
now as far as one expressing his truth- he can certainly be more creative or artistic than another person- such as using poetry versus mathematical equations- both represent truth but one is more flexible and the other more rigid
i am fond of using word equations- this is what i do…i prefer words over numbers…but others express different truths and express them differently as well- but all of it comes from feeling of truth-
another way to look at it is truth within us is its own world- when we use our mind to express our truths we can not completely transfer our feeling over into words or expressions therefore we create a seperate world - a world not of truth but a world of expression which is a result of truth
you can intermix the expressions infinitely and still come up with truth- create a mathematical audio/visual equation musical- you see the better we get at expressing ourselves the closer our expressions themself become the actual truth and power within us- the best way to understand this is through faith- existence is already belief- once we strengthen our belief we will not have to reduce the truth to lesser expressions and instead use the truth directly and affect others directly- belief changes your brain formation and makes it better and better until the point where one can use the truth far better and easier and more willingly than others
I’m with academia on this one. Philosophy as a discipline is not only not merely a science (Natural Philosophy has left the building in that respect, or at least moved into its own self-governed annex), it’s not even a social science. Philosophy is a Humanities! It allows (or at least ends up nonetheless attending to ) hand-waving, poetic allusions, intuitive abstractions and all sorts of alogical modes of intellectual display. Attempts to say that these aren’t legitimate manners of philosophical expression are, in my admittedly self-serving opinion, at odds with what the grander philosophical enterprise has always entailed. This, of course, will not be unanimously agreed to…
So based on your replies, what would you say about philosophy? Is it more art than science? More science than art? Neither? Both? Is the question misapplied?
I think too many folks misunderstand what philosophy study is. They believe in what others say and so follow it. Apparently philosphy studies has become a producer of followers thanks to modern education. To follow one doctrine of thought is to blind oneself. What passes for study now is niether art nor science it is indoctrination.
I think philosophy is much closer to art than science or anything else. Some artists work with paint and canvass, others with sound and musical instruments, and the philosopher with ideas and logic. So whereas anyone can slap together a patchwork of arbitrary ideas without any firm basis, so too can anyone scribble on paper, but it takes real genius to create a masterpiece.
not that i entirely disagree - but there is the additional fact that philosophy deals to some extent in what is correct and incorrect, true and false, accurate or inaccurate, right and wrong, etc, which art does not, and so philosophy has to operate within those added confines. there’s definitely an artistic element to doing philosophy, but there’s an artistic element to doing just about anything well - even things like mathematics
i think argument and debate, in and of themselves, can fairly be called artforms, tho …
Very true, but it doesn’t so much determine what’s true and false - that’s science’s department - but uses truths and falsehoods as its building blocks. It’s much like saying a painter uses red, blue, green, yellow, etc. paints in order to create his works. The fact that he can’t change the color of his paints (i.e. red paint will always be red paint) doesn’t mean that he’s any less of an artist.
Furthermore, I would say that whether or not a philosopher is confined to acceeding the truths of science depends on how creative he is in forming arguments against those truths. I haven’t come across any such philosophers - most who like to deny the findings of science are more like fanatics with alterior agendas or simply lack the education to make a point worth considering - but I’m not closed minded to the possibility in principle.
But I’ll agree that, for the most part, truth and scientific fact do act as confining parameters that the philosopher is bound by, and therefore philosophy is not pure art but must work within a methodical system. The philosopher is better off using this system rather than circumventing it.
The same sorts of considerations could be observed about any other of the Humanities. Contesting conceptions of methodology and perspectives on “truth” also inform Classics, Comparative Literature, Religious Studies, etc. The principles of Science per se are much more consistently applicable throughout the Natural Sciences, and though they have their sector of relevance in Philosophy, I think there’s a broader (or even better, weaker) notion of “science” to be considered there, if we’re to be using that term appropriately. I know some would like Science to be the mentor for Philosophical perspective, but I think that presents artificial limits on the field.
Ya, always currying Daddy-Humanity’s favours with it’s “Oh, look what I can blow up” and its, “Hey, see how many light bulbs I can turn on!” Meanwhile, poor ol’ Philosophy’s workin’ in the mines, churnin’ out the ores of ethers and other primary substances of thought which Science will no doubt find ways to exploit to it’s own self-aggrandizement… bastard!!!
I don’t think of science as a mentor to philosophy, more like a supplier of its ‘raw materials’. But like any supplier, it is dependent on the demand for its materials, and not all philosophers are in such desperate need. However, this says nothing of the quality of their products.
Philosophy is the independent investigation of truth. It is the result of an urge to break free from accepted ways of thinking, to “think outside the box”, and attempt to gain a better understanding of existence (and consequently, nonexistence) and everything contained within it. It neither a science nor an art, but rather both. It utilizes language (an art) to convey complex (relative to our feeble human minds) ideas and opinions. It is most obviously a science because it logically studies causes and effects, uses inductive reasoning by observing tangible evidence and making conclusions about intangible ideas. So I do not think that one can put it in one category or another, because philosophy is both. Philosophy is everything.
Philosophy is father to science and the root of creativity.
The word “rigid” and philosophy don’t go together. While methodology may not be the right word, there certainly is a concept to philosophy. Briefly put, philosophy is the process of associating events such that patterns appear. You can think of patters as truths.
One could say philosophy is the art of thought, but that is both inaccurate and misleading. It isn’t rhetoric and support is irrelevant.
I don’t like how I phrased my response to the first quote. To rephrase; philosophy is the attempt at associating events such that patterns can be extracted.
Briefly put, philosophy is the attempt at associating events such that patterns can be extracted. You can think of patterns as truths. So when the mind is philosophizing, on a basic level, it goes through the library of experience and attempts to associate different events in a way that a pattern will appear. This pattern must be consistent. If it is, it is considered universal, hence universal truth.
i can’t go to sleep, so i join this forum and spend the night… how lame… if there was a mirror around i would check to see if there is an L written on my forehead.
i agree with you, philosophy is nether a art or a science, philosophy is by far above science and art, philosophy look for the truth within our human world, philosophy investigate both the science and the art, it is the justification of religion, art, and science.
philosophy is life and life is philosophy, to be alive is to study life and investigate the reality of life, so philosophy make us alive, when we are mentally aware, we are living .philosophy is life and life is philosophy.
It’s an art, or a science, in the original meaning of those words, which were, at one time, interchangeable, and did not mean what either do now. In other words, it’s a discliplined study.
