Strict method for philosophy?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Can someone give me a strict method for doing philosophy? (Maybe that’s what they call analytic). Anyway, I don’t think all philosophy should be done in one strict method, but it helps to try and adhere to one ideal. I imagine you could make a formula sort of like bedmas for math. I picture it in the following way, maybe you can give me a reference to something similar or correct me if needed?

(1) Identify an argument from anywhere. It must have the form: Premise, details, conclusion.

(2) Arrange supposed logical statements from the writing. (Natural spoken languages are prelogical, but are still used for some logical structure). Isolate the premise and the conclusion.

(3) Form the statements into as many axioms as possible. (People don’t usually provide axioms in all their statements. Axioms are usually implied). Use notation to illustrate which statements are not actually said by the author, but are assumed for the sake of axioms.

(4) Assess the soundness of the premises. Merit one agreed, disagreed, or questioned point with the statement from your perspective. (Somewhat like “True, False, Indeterminate”)

(5) Assess the validity of the statement by refutation tree. (From the premise, prove the conclusin or its negation)

(6) Add any relevant comments by footnoting various passages. Keep separate logical statements from non-logical.

(7) If comments are long, summarize comments if possible.

2

Yup, that’s what they call analytic. Not easily summarised though.

3

Gaia,
There is no strict method for philosophy. One cannot think of some general rule that would put Kant and Nietzsche on the same page. What is common to both, however, is that they each responded to what they saw as the human condition with ideas intended to clarify what was seen. What more could be asked of a philosopher than this?

4

It has always been misconstrued by sophists and other institutionalized minds that to conduct ‘stringent philosophy’ or to consider any opinion relevant, one must, by necessity, use established voices in place of our own.

In other words, it is often considered serious philosophy, as opposed to trivial, amateurish philosophy the endless quotation and discussion of what has already been said by another.

We believe we are thinking by merely adopting another’s perspective of the world and we call ourselves thinkers because we’ve memorized and we’ve ‘understood’ what this or that previous thinker has said.
Then we become translators of another’s words and we no longer look upon the world for inspiration but we look within a book.

But how long can you talk about Spinoza or Nietzsche or whomever before you take what they’ve taught and speak for yourself?

Stupidity isn’t falling into logical error; stupidity is never learning from it.

5

Satyr,
I agree; but without the promptings of a Neitzsche or Sinoza, someone who thinks deeply, how many others would have challenged such opinions and would have come up with their own takes on the matters they discussed? Of course major philosophers as listed in textbooks are not representatives of incontravertible scripture. The best are those who move us to know ourselves, then think for ourselves. And philosophy, at best, is no regurgitatiion of former formulations; it is forming one’s own ideas, sometimes with the help of goading, prompting or strirring ideas from someone who has been there, done that.

6

True.
We draw inspiration and guidance from the past, but when all we have to say is based on a formula then is this thinking?

Creativity isn’t the construction of something unique, it is the assimilation and recombination of what is past into new forms and new expressions.

I ask:
Are we being philosophical when speaking about philosophy?

Furthermore, are mentors to be overcome or forever raised into the pedestal of authority?
Does the teacher cease learning when he teaches?
Is the world our inspiration or are we to only be inspired by the world of men?

7

It is all too common to gather in knowing and substitute it for understanding. The hardest part of knowing of the past is to release the knowing and using the understanding to create the present. One may create an “operators manual” to study philosophy, but as Satyr points out, the thoughts of those past are fingers pointing, they cannot substitute for today’s understanding…

8

Satyr, your view of institutions does not reflect what most philosophy institutions in the United Kingdom are actually like - I thought you might want to be updated. Don’t take my word for it, do go and visit them. I can’t speak for the US, however.

9

Obw,

I’m sure that there are many in academia capable of looking for understanding and thus, genuine philosophy, but regardless the country, the pendantic knowers are also present. It may be unfortunate, but they seem to garner the lions share of publicity, and the popular view of philosophy is too often framed in a unflattering view of ethereal discussion of meaningless wordplay. Maybe it’s just bad press…

10

I hope that it is so.

11

In the US, most philosophy departments are filled by two groups of people - one group who worships the established philosophers, and rehash their works as serious philosophy - and another group who does original philosophy, but does it very badly, mistaking simple definitional disagreements for important philosophical problems, and making other unfortunate mistakes as well.

The philosophers who actually contribute worthwhile and logically sound data to the sum of human knowledge are few and far-between.

Satyr, I couldn’t agree more with you regarding those who just rehash, digest and churn up the works of previous philosophers, and call themselves philosophers. Do something new! Those people weren’t perfect, they were just good at the time, and they made lots of mistakes. If we went off of the philosophy of Aristotle as important material, we’d be screwed - because sure, he was brilliant - but he lived thousands of years ago, and got a lot of stuff wrong! Think for yourselves, using the work of previous philosophers as stepping stones and guideposts, nothing more.

Gaia, I commend your question! Analytic philosophy is (erroneously) out of favor today, although it remains the most reliable way of doing philosophy short of actual proofs in logic, which are severely limited in context. I think your description was excellent, but I would like to mention that being aware of definitions - when a definition may not be agreed upon by someone else, when a problem is a problem of definition and nothing else - is HUGELY important, because literally most modern philosophers don’t have an appreciation of those factors.

An excellent example of this is the “Compatibilism vs. Incompatibism” debate, which entirely based on idiocy. The combatibilist stance says that the concept of “Free Will” is logically compatible with a determinist universe. The incompatibilist stance says that they are not compatible, that they are inconsistent with each other.

When people argue compatibilism, they’ll make complicated arguments along the lines of “even if the choice I make is determined, it’s still a choice!”, whereas incompatibilists will say “if my action was determined, I wasn’t free when I made the action!” Of course, the resolution to the argument is this: it depends on your defintion. If you define “free will” to be “the ability to choose”, compatibilism is correct. If you define “free will” to be “the ability to have done other than what I did,” incompatibilism is correct. Both of these definitions are intuitively reasonable, so you really have to both understand the role that definitions play in this debate, and be able to make this clear to others when you write papers. It’s very, very important in the philosophy of today’s world.

12

there is no rule to measure how to reason and think. The human brain is too unpredictable and genious and dumb to only use a set of rules.

Though rules may at times be a great starting point at times.

I personally think that the best way to get objective reasoning is to avoid sensical thinking too much. Try to be abstract, and then bring in your senses a little to ground the idea. But the basic point I try to go by is not be too sensical. But sometimes that is how I do a lot of thinking, just by the senses. This is just how I approach and try to approach thinking.

How I approach thinking deepends on the day, what my motivations are, and how much sleep I got the night (morning) before :sunglasses:

13

There are no rules for how to think, or for how to be creative, or innovative, or how to invent. There are rules for how to prove, to demonstrate truth. Historically, we theorize about truth using creativity and non-rule-based thinking, and then we demonstrate the irrefutable truth of our idea using hard and fast rules. That’s how it seems to work. Half of philosophy is creativity, the other half is following rules - and each of those parts seem to be absolutely essential.

14

Kierkegaard begins “The Gospel of Our Suffering” by noting that the teacher must go away before the student can advance in learning. A good teacher of philosophy would act as a guide through thoughts about the human condition that have persisted, historically, throughout shifts of human socio-political influence. The teacher would not present these thoughts as the final say on any topic discussed. The teacher would not accept regurgitations of rote concepts as espoused either by philosophers or their critics as learning.
Learning must be organic, dynamic, personal. Polishing the bones of dead philosophers is not learning; it is museum keeping. Analytic philosophy is currently out of favor because it is mostly impersonal. One can parse sentences until blue in the face without ever understanding the why of what was said. Wittgenstein learned that. The best system of philosophy is no system and every system.

15

Excellent responses.

My original question was motivated by one factor- publications and their cults. I’ve encountered so many people that feel themselves critical and intellectual because they read so much. But they don’t seem to consider that they may be reading books to make them feel good rather than books that teach. The traditional solution to this problem is to study critical thinking. Oh critical thinking? Well! Here’s 5 lifetimes worth for you to read, and once you’re done then you can start being critical about what you choose to read! Sorry, not too practical. That’s when I sought titles of literally “Critical Thinking.” But really I think I want something of that nature in the form of those QuickStudy laminated sheets (that often suffer from oversimplification)

It seems that propositional logic is a happy medium for this problem. It’s a quick setup which points to validity (though it does little for soundness). Analytic philosophy from what I’ve seen is for the bulk of this purpose. But once again, it suddenly piles up with lifetimes of reading. I come down to this kind of question . . .

Suppose that a bright young eight year-old comes to me and wants me alone to teach him how to be critical (whatever his absurd reasons for choosing me would be). He wants it within . . . the week. (He goes to boarding school after that. Whatever). Does it sound reasonable for me to plop a five meter stack of books in his arms? Does it sound reasonable for me to say: “Sorry. I can’t help you. You just have to figure things out yourself.” OR, is it most reasonable for me to say: “Well, you don’t have to agree . . . BUT . . . here is a formula with a few short steps.”

I want to see this discussion drawn out in whatever direction we can learn, as it has been doing. But the original objective is still simple. To know (for those that believe in the utility of such a thing): A guide, or direction to a guide, in the manner of “these few steps” process. One which almost goes literally from the entrance door of a book store to the cashier’s exit.

Perhaps the shortest answer for that is to look for any award-winning non-fiction.

We can’t think ourselves so intelligent that blind obedience to our principals will work. We can’t think ourselves so stupid that anyone would be polluted by our conventional guidelines.

Keep up the good writing.

16

Here’s how I learn. Those who agree with me may aid and abet my particular take on a subject. That’s good for my ego; and it may reinforce my striving toward answers to questions I consider important. Those who disagree with me, however, challenge my opinions and force me to consider options I had neglected to see. I’m open to the imput of both. As for considerable reading, I’ve done that. It all pales before the one individual who can offer a radical insight that sets all previous ideas on their ear. I think Nietzsche was able to do that; and, I see some here who can do that as well.

17

What a wonderful post, and especially the quote! I couldn’t agree with what you said more.

It is common pretense among today’s intellectuals to claim that critical thought, or correct belief, requires decades of study to attain. While it is true that we must always guard against the all-too-easy belief that we have done all the analysis necessary, and are thinking perfectly, critical thought is not that difficult to attain - and often, decades of study can mar what would have been true critical thought into something that is closer to “ancient thought” than critical. Because of the oceans of not-nearly-critical-enough thought in the history (and present) of philosophy, it is better to approach your first philosophy with a critical mind already in place, than trying to develop critical thought through exposure to philosophy.

18

no body has time to read into every relevant issue in the world before making a rational decision . . . unless they forsake other important things in their life like their friendships or using your physical body etc.

So, What we have to do if we want to be well versed is learn to skim, or get cliff notes. Wikipedia is great for that, though it is of course not always the most rounded. It at least allows for quick info, and if you take it with a grain of salt, and have a critical mind with it, it can improve your “bank” of knowledge.

But my opinion is that all reading, logic and philosophy has no merit, unless it is applied to our world and makes you a better person to yourself and others.