What does "doing philosophy" mean to you?

[Ecmandu]

Philosophy to me is simple:

Prove an argument so that if it’s false, it’s impossible for existence to exist; it’s impossible for you to read the argument.

That’s how I do philosophy.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

@Ecmandu

Philosophy to me is simple:

Prove an argument so that if it’s false, it’s impossible for existence to exist; it’s impossible for you to read the argument.

That’s how I do philosophy.

Yes and it’s not what you think , but how you learn to think and how through learning acquire the tools needed to use skill of thinking about how philosophy works.

[obsrvr524]

@thinkdr

@obsrvr524

.
Isn’t philosophy greatly about the methods of doing things?

…Once a method is established (a “philosophy”) - that method becomes a field within the higher umbrella of philosophy
distinguished by name (such as “science”, “Buddhism”, “Christianity”, “Satanism”, “Engineering”, “Judicial review”, “capitalism”, “communism”, and a million others) .

What Magnus, as well as observr, speaks of as “establishing a method” is what I called ‘clarifying a concept – to the point where a new science is born.’ Recall that in the o.p. I claimed that Philosophy is the “Mother of Sciences”! They are just saying this in a different way. Thus what he regards as “finding answers to questions” and “creating new categories” …all of that is the clarifying of concepts so that they become more crisp, exact and correlated; hence made into a new discipline, a science. [To avoid any misunderstandings, in my previous post, just above, Iexplicated exactly what I mean by a “concept." It is not just a matter of language. YThere you noted that a concept contains within it the extension (its referents) along with the intension (its meaniang or description).]

All the –isms that he cites are philosophies. Engineering I define as: applied science. Engineers are artists and designers; they take a conclusion of, say, Physics, and they find a creative way to apply that conclusion, preferably into something useful.

When a new science emerges, we will always have “Philosophy of (that) Science” …as long as any vagueness remains in the ideas and concepts of the scientists in that new field.

Where do you stand on any matter that has been brought up? What does it mean to you “’to do philosophy ?

I guess that you - and a great many others - have missed the whole point in philosophy.

I think the whole point of philosophy is to figure out the best way to do - to accomplish - something. No matter what you might choose to try to do - there will be a best way to get it done from wherever you started - and that is called “the philosophy” of it - “the love of the wisdom concerning it”.

Science is merely one method - one way - of discovering what is not true to consistency and reality.

There is a philosophy for getting people to listen
There is a philosophy for getting to the actual truth.
There is a philosophy for establishing the most fruitful ethics.
There is a philosophy for accomplishing - anything that is accomplishable.

Philosophizing - is the effort to find that philosophy.

That’s my opinion anyway.

[thinkdr]

@obsrvr524

I think the whole point of philosophy is to figure out the best way to do - to accomplish - something. No matter what you might choose to try to do…

In scientific Ethics we make a distinction between Efficiency and Effectiveness.

Efficiency is defined as: getting something done with the least expenditure of energy, cost, materials, effort, time, bother, etc.

In contrast, Effectiveness – also spoken of as “efficacy” by some Psychologists – is defined, in this new paradigm for Ethics, as:
Intrinsically-valuing the people you encounter along the way to your goal. This entails being considerate, authentic, deferential, compassionate, responsible, ready to be of service, expressing love if you can, or at least being respectful, empathic, kind, transparent as to your motives, being willing to be held accountable for your performance …or some combination of all of the above.

It also entails using means compatible with the end you have in view on the assumption that your have a worthwhile, moral end in view.
You still 'get something done; yet you are aware of how Effectiveness is the best way.

Yes, Ethicists prefer that things be efficiently done, but they consider it even-more valuable to get things done effectively as well as efficiently

What do you, Readers, think about all this? Where do you stand?