Philosophy as the art of thinking

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Here is an essay and I would be greatly thankful if you read it and give me your opinion.
This is quite a new idea of mine and I didn’t had more time to think about it. Also, this is the first time i post something of this kind here so please be gentle.

In the general classification of academic fields, that are studied and lectured, all of those fields are divided in two. The first one is science and the other one is art. Fields like literature, psychology, chemistry, music etc. are all divided in either art or science. Now, the problem is where does philosophy belong. What of those two is philosophy? That’s probably the biggest question in philosophy ovreall, and is thought about throught history. Some people thought about philosophy as a type of science, some as a tool of thinking.
Now, all this vast majority of definitions and explanations about philosophy, you actually get a choice. And this is where it all starts. The ability of choosing. Now, I thought about philosophy and its origins a lot. I thought about where to put philosophy. And in all this thinking, I stumbled upon an idea that seemed to be completely radical and, in a way, stupid. I decided to classify philosophy as a type of art. And the main reason of that decision is, the previously said, ability to choose. That’s the biggest difference between art and science. For example, as you can choose what music piece you like more, or what book you like more, you can also decide what philosophy school or which philosopher you decide to follow. You actually get a choice. That’s the beauty of art. That’s the beauty of philosophy. Now, on the contrary, the reason that philosophy can’t possibly be classified as science is the lack of empirical evidence. Because, science is formed and filled with evidence, with theories that are proven. Philosophy completely lacks any kind of empirical evidece and is based on thoughts that aren’t proven. Although the property of science is explaining the world we live in, which philosophy actually does too, the explaining in philosophy is done completely by thought and not experiment. Science sticks to one answer for one question. There’s no unnecessery theories or speculations. Even if there is, which is proven by theoretical physics, all of the theories that aren’t proven are deleted and forgotten forever. Let’s try and give an example here. For instance, imagine that you have one question and four possible answers (like in the show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire). Now, in the aspect of science you would need to choose only one answer that is 100% right, and other three would be completely wrong. On the other hand, in the aspect of art, you can choose all four answers, because all four of them are potentially right. It depends on you which one is correct. You have the ability to choose. Or some other example. If you ask someone how many planets are there in our Solar system the answer must be 8. There is no choice here.There aren’t people who think different about that question. The answer is proven to be 8. And philosophy doesn’t do that. In the questions that philosophy asks, you choose which one you believe. Whether you want to be a nihilist, an existentialist, or a marxist it’s only you who is right. That’s why, to me, philosophy is an art.
The human understanding is the canvas and the philosopher’s intellect is his brush with which he paints beautiful pieces of art. The bigger the canvas is, the more beautiful and complex the work is too.

2

I don’t think you can categorize disciplines as black and white as you do. There is always some art in any discipline and always some science. You could argue that philosophy is more on the art side of the spectrum, but the question of whether it is an art or a science is the wrong one to ask.

3

I agree. Actually, many of the arts are not so different from the sciences anyway, when they are being done well. History, for example, includes examining evidence and forming theories and conclusions based on the evidence.

Philosophy too looks at evidence and attempts to form conclusions based on the evidence. It also treats systems of beliefs in a scientific manner - trying to find inconsistencies and irrationalities.

Science aims at producing one answer to one question. As does philosophy. Neither discipline manages this all of the time, though.

4

I agree with you. But, what I meant was that philosophy has different answers for same questions that are equally possible. Science has basically the same principle, but those theories are tested and the wrong ones are discluded. And, I was too hasty in my idea. I came to this yesterday evening, so it’s still pretty fresh. Also, it’s my first time to post here anything and I’m not really familiar with the traditions here.( I know this shouldn’t be an apologize).

5

I agree with you. But what I thought was that philosophy has many answers for one question that are equally possible. Science does the same thing, although those theories are tested and the wrong ones are discluded. And, I was too hasty with the writing of this topic. I stumbled upon this idea yesterday evening so it’s still pretty fresh. Also, I’m new to this forum (I know this shouldn’t be an apologize) and I’m not very fimiliar with the traditions here so please, if you could, point me where I was wrong. I would appreciate it.

6

Don’t sweat it. This discussion is going the same way as many many before it.

7

What do you mean by going the same way as many before it?
And, even if I’m wrong, I still think that philosophy leans more on the art side. Because, even if it attempts to form conclusions based on the evidence, it’s still not enough to call it science. It’s too much based on thoughts that aren’t proven. And scientists are really strict about the idea of approving a discipline to be a science when it’s not based empirical evidence. And come on, don’t tell that a scientist like Carl Sagan (I don’t have anything against that man, I even love to read him) would ever approve a concept such as Plato’s Ideas which work like “gods”. Even some scientists don’t like philosophy overall. For example right now I’m reading Cosmos of Carl Sagan and he states that Plato and Socrates set back the progress of philosophers like Thales or Democritus (which, by him, were doing something useful).

8

One cannot define Christianity by the rantings of Christians.

The Philosopher is not merely the one who proposes questions for which there are no reasonable answers, nor the one who proposes answers for which there are no reasonable uses, but the one who proposes useful answers for which there are no reasonable questions.

9

I mean it`s going normally.

sure!

BTW, if you`re right, and philosophy is more of an art than a science, then I should be able to disagree with you without being wrong.

10

Hmmmm. Perhaps what gib is referring to is that you have arbitrarily decided that there are only two ways to characterise a field of study. It was then suggested to you that there may be an alternative way to look at this problem. Which point you have ignored, only to make the point that philosophy shares a single characteristic with art (you can choose philosophies the way you choose a song to listen to), so it must be art!

You see, what many members here expect is a dialog. What we sometimes get is The Really Bright Idea that seems impervious (to its author), despite any objections.