Standard definition for Philosophy

[wajed]

Is there a standard definition for Philosophy? If not, why?

Do you think it is useful to have one?

AFAIK, there is no standard definition, because there is no common characteristics between all bits of Philosophy. I think we can solve this problem by concentrating on what is most relevant, and leaving the rest for other fields, maybe new fields.

[Faust]

Consider Bertrand Russell’s rendering (specific to mathematics) in the first paragraph of chapter on of his “Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy”:

Mathematics is a study which, when we start from its most familiar
portions, may be pursued in either of two opposite directions. The
more familiar direction is constructive, towards gradually increasing
complexity: from integers to fractions, real numbers, complex
numbers; from addition and multiplication to differentiation and integration,
and on to higher mathematics. The other direction, which
is less familiar, proceeds, by analysing, to greater and greater abstractness
and logical simplicity; instead of asking what can be defined and
deduced from what is assumed to begin with, we ask instead what
more general ideas and principles can be found, in terms of which
what was our starting-point can be defined or deduced. It is the
fact of pursuing this opposite direction that characterises mathematical
philosophy as opposed to ordinary mathematics. But it should
be understood that the distinction is one, not in the subject matter,
but in the state of mind of the investigator. Early Greek geometers,
passing from the empirical rules of Egyptian land-surveying to the
general propositions by which those rules were found to be justifiable,
and thence to Euclid’s axioms and postulates, were engaged in mathematical
philosophy, according to the above definition; but when
once the axioms and postulates had been reached, their deductive
employment, as we find it in Euclid, belonged to mathematics in the
ordinary sense. The distinction between mathematics and mathematical
philosophy is one which depends upon the interest inspiring
the research, and upon the stage which the research has reached; not
upon the propositions with which the research is concerned.

This is a good definition of the philosophy of mathematics. The sciences are also fields of study separate from philosophy, albeit that we can say that science found its beginnings in philosophy. Some fields of science are further “weaned” from philosophy than others. But for those fields of study important to our civilisation that have not progressed into a true science, and to the extent that they have not, philosophy also involves exploring and explicating the ramifications and implications of those assumptions we reach in the process that Russell describes. Thus, psychology was fairly recently the purview of philosophers (and novelists) and still is to some extent, but the tide is turning towards science, as we learn more about brain function and apply clinical method to behavior.

Since morality is far from being a science, we may say that philosophy must do all the work there - but that’s not a universally held view, now. That is a recent development, which also has been brought about by biological and social sciences.

Overall, philosophy steps in where science cannot or has not. Just where we draw that line is also a matter of controversy.

[wajed]

Very interesting answer. I just skimmed over it and I’ll reread it.

But now I have a question. How is science now separated from Philosophy?
I mean, from Wikipedia:-

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as … It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

So, what does science have more than that? Or, how is science different?

And, still, the question is, why isn’t there a standard definition for Philosophy? It is useful to have one, so human thought knows where it is going and where it is not.
The Wikipedia’s definition seems useful. But different people will work with different definitions in their minds. And I don’t know if it is a reliable one. The same applies to any other definition.

[north]

@Faust

Consider Bertrand Russell’s rendering (specific to mathematics) in the first paragraph of chapter on of his “Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy”:

Mathematics is a study which, when we start from its most familiar
portions, may be pursued in either of two opposite directions. The
more familiar direction is constructive, towards gradually increasing
complexity: from integers to fractions, real numbers, complex
numbers; from addition and multiplication to differentiation and integration,
and on to higher mathematics. The other direction, which
is less familiar, proceeds, by analysing, to greater and greater abstractness
and logical simplicity; instead of asking what can be defined and
deduced from what is assumed to begin with, we ask instead what
more general ideas and principles can be found, in terms of which
what was our starting-point can be defined or deduced. It is the
fact of pursuing this opposite direction that characterises mathematical
philosophy as opposed to ordinary mathematics. But it should
be understood that the distinction is one, not in the subject matter,
but in the state of mind of the investigator. Early Greek geometers,
passing from the empirical rules of Egyptian land-surveying to the
general propositions by which those rules were found to be justifiable,
and thence to Euclid’s axioms and postulates, were engaged in mathematical
philosophy, according to the above definition; but when
once the axioms and postulates had been reached, their deductive
employment, as we find it in Euclid, belonged to mathematics in the
ordinary sense. The distinction between mathematics and mathematical
philosophy is one which depends upon the interest inspiring
the research, and upon the stage which the research has reached; not
upon the propositions with which the research is concerned.

This is a good definition of the philosophy of mathematics. The sciences are also fields of study separate from philosophy, albeit that we can say that science found its beginnings in philosophy. Some fields of science are further “weaned” from philosophy than others. But for those fields of study important to our civilisation that have not progressed into a true science, and to the extent that they have not, philosophy also involves exploring and explicating the ramifications and implications of those assumptions we reach in the process that Russell describes. Thus, psychology was fairly recently the purview of philosophers (and novelists) and still is to some extent, but the tide is turning towards science, as we learn more about brain function and apply clinical method to behavior.

Since morality is far from being a science, we may say that philosophy must do all the work there - but that’s not a universally held view, now. That is a recent development, which also has been brought about by biological and social sciences.

morality , is just common sense

Overall, philosophy steps in where science cannot or has not. Just where we draw that line is also a matter of controversy.

science is anotherword for KNOWLEDGE

[HexHammer]

@wajed

Is there a standard definition for Philosophy? If not, why?

Do you think it is useful to have one?

AFAIK, there is no standard definition, because there is no common characteristics between all bits of Philosophy. I think we can solve this problem by concentrating on what is most relevant, and leaving the rest for other fields, maybe new fields.

May I ask why you havn’t googled your question?

[Floyd]

@north

science is anotherword for KNOWLEDGE

What?!