What is philosophy as method?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The method of philosophy is generally said to consist in thinking, thinking clearly and logically and objectively. And that is true. But one aspect of this I find interesting is how philosophy tends into the abstract and away from the particular. For example, a philosopher might talk about the nature of humanity or of technology but will rarely discuss the specific details of a specific person or specific piece of technology. A car is such and such [list of technical details specific to specific cars] but the philosopher is rarely interested in this and will instead talk about cars in the abstract (means of transportation, empowering personal freedom, dangers to others, polluters, examples of capitalist economics, etc).

In other words, philosophy deliberately ignores the most hyper-particular and specific material facts of something in order to be able to talk about that thing in more abstract and general terms. Taken to the extreme, philosophy talks almost exclusively only about the abstractions of abstractions, like with the car example: car → means of freedom → the nature of freedom as such. You can probably trace most if not all philosophical abstractions back through and into their hyper-particular corollaries, which isn’t to say that particulars cause or are necessary for the abstraction but perhaps more accurately that the particular acts as a means and situation for potentiating abstract thought. Some thing specific and material must initially exist so it can then be subtracted out of the analysis, leaving behind only the abstract levels. This seems to be an almost perfect antithesis of what engineers do, interestingly enough. Engineers do employ abstract ideas like mathematical formulas and physical laws and rules, but they use them more like tools, like hammer and nails to help them build something very specific and material.

1 Like
2

I often think about the connection between science and philosophy, particularly that the terms “natural science” and “natural philosophy” were at one point effectively synonymous, and ‘philosophy’ on its own meant something closer to what we now call science. Over time they separated into their modern meaning, but this sense evolution sheds some light on the distinction: they grew out of the same field, so there should still be some fuzzy margin where the distinction breaks down. As the concepts drifted apart, as the material understanding of the world expanded, science captured truths that were measurable, and philosophy was left with the residue.

So I’d argue science is an intermediate step between engineering and philosophy:

  • Philosophy sits at the highest level of abstraction, considering questions that are unanswerable (sometimes even in principle), but are nonetheless crucial for understanding everything else.
  • Science takes over when a question becomes objectively answerable, i.e. measurable, empirical. It still deals in abstractions, but only where abstractions can make predictions that can be tested by observation.
  • Engineering then makes use of science’s abstractions to build something concrete. In the past, this was just called ‘art’, before that term gained the modern connotation of frivolity and indulgence.

To use you example, questions about the car as a means of transportation, as a danger, as a source of pollution, those are scientific questions, they have measurable answers (if we could just collect enough data). When we talk about cars as means of freedom, we get to philosophy, because the question is not really measurable, depending on a vague and emotive concept of “freedom”.

I think of philosophy as the umbrella concept of abstraction, the big circle of the Venn diagram that includes everything else within it, because science gets its questions from philosophy as we grows in our ability to observe and measure, and since the questions at the top are unanswerable, the questions at the bottom are only ever contingently answerable. Engineering and art are in a separate circle, because they are applied, they are action.

There’s a bit of a tension in this dichotomy since philosophy is written; there’s an art to producing philosophy. But the Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao, and the writing is not the philosophy.

3

Science is applied philosophy, using codes, i.e. language, mathematics being a language.

4

No. Philosophy is critical thinking. Some do it better than others.

5

I guess more to the point of the exchanges here is that science is the motion of critical thinking.

Personally, I don’t see much of a distinction.

Critical thinking itself is motion.

6

Yeah, all sciences started or were birthed in philosophy, originally. But the methods are different now.

That’s a decent point, I can see what you mean.

I agree, I think this breakdown is more or less correct.

I agree, except that I think the idea of cars as means of transportation is also a philosophical consideration, not scientific. Unless you want to measure gas mileage specifically or mpg distances or overall energies able to be employed per units of weight or distance etc… But the basic concept of “this thing right here, which we call ‘car’, is a means of accelerated transportation compared to what came before it” seems closer to pure philosophy.

Right, engineers can only think about what is immediately or relatively nearly immediately answerable to them in concrete terms. I have seen this personally. Talking to engineers about philosophical abstract concepts is quite an interesting experience… they consistently subvert the discussion back into tangible concrete boundaries of the already-known or almost-already-known (almost-able-to-be-measured).

I don’t know about art, I haven’t tried to contextualize or place art within this setup yet. But art seems a bit more… raw, emotional, unrefined, unabstracted, personal, feigned even. Art is a whole other discussion, it seems to me.

Exactly.

I knew there was a reason you were in charge of this place. You understand these things.

7

Carleas believes in freedom of speech more than any forum online.

But he has a sophistication about it.

I mean seriously!!!

He lets me post on this forum!!

Humans cannot endure me. But he does.

8

I think you’re an intelligent, funny, talented, etc. person, but I’m just chopped liver.

Philosophy and science both require good reasons and evidence to support their conclusions, so I really don’t see the difference.

9

“We philosophers love to generalize. We always fail, but we still do it.” ~ Hilary Putnam

2 Likes
10

Surprising to see philosophers making jokes. We could use more of that.

11

The method of true philosophy is to sexually arouse the fit, using language to go elsewhere beyond known languages. The goddess Sophia, the focus of that special arousal, is no historical abstraction. She really begins to awaken, in a treasurable bodily way, inside her loving initiate. Sophia and Kundalini are not just conceptually sisters, they are identical, laughing twins.

Toward this great end:

Pathways of latent homoerotic arousal can be exploited by invoking “nobility”, “power”, “sword and fire”, “preserverance and uprightness”, “great will” - all such phallic imagery is to be placed squarely at the center of the worship of the Muse.

Female arousal patterns can be exploited by calling upon “bliss”, “peace”, “deepness”, “timelessness and eternity”, “unity”, “joy”, and various spectacles of cruelty, shared horrors, wailings and commiserations.

Mixed forms are possible and effective, as you can see in the Greater Dionysia.

We may be justified in whispering amongst ourselves that Philosophy is really Greater Theater, which also has the advantage of being fully portable: just bring a philosopher along for your trip and you’re all set, as a philosopher performs splendidly in all circumstances - the bodily presence of Sophia ensures unending and ever-fecund priapism.

It is these rites of thinking right that at once arouse and inflame us. The actual subject matter hardly matters, what matters is the depth of inlovement progenerated by the performers. As a result, there may be life-altering moral transformations that take place within the afflicted human beings. Not always for the better, from the perspective of society, but who very well cares about what dim society may think! The best Sophia-loving is still being done deep underground, and in secret grottos, and in cordoned VIP rooms.

-WL

12

“Pathways of latent homoerotic arousal”

Well i know who’s VIP parties i won’t be going to.

Taxi!

1 Like
13

I like your relating sexuality to philosophy here in terms of philosophy as method, thanks for that insight. I can see the connections across the various ways and directions, but in the end philosophy as method involves a lot more that is not really related to sexuality at all. Developing thought and the ability to think well, absorbing and synthesizing knowledge, achieving wisdom as comprehensivity of perspective and a found and hard-won mountain of truth stored inside one’s diamond-like mind, not even to mention overcoming the demons and errors within us that are rooted more pathologically and emotionally-instinctually. The method of philosophy involves so much, in fact it seems to involve almost literally ‘everything’ as far as I can tell. Not exactly everything, but close. Those things which it may not involve directly can still to relative degrees be simulated in order to extract enough essence of truth needed to continue growing the overall truth-structure in our universe of ideas. And that properly feeds into our personality as everything works on progressive stages of integration, growth and expansion seeking novelties and catharses, harsh reality encounters and new data-points and all back to impetus for further and wider integrations again.

Edit, I don’t know what’s going on with the quote function here… sorry about that.

14

What use does philosophy have for those who have convinced themselves that they have no choice and no agency?
Have they not linguistically placed themselves in a corner, facing a uniformly dark wall?

Are they not trapped in their own skulls…the Platonic cave, where all they see are shadows that appear to be similar?

15

I am an agent of chaos and despise all systematizers.

16

And that’s the source of all your troubles.

17

If the only thing that never changes (the only true system) is a particular kind of change… does being an agent of chaos mean you try to keep things the same as long as you possibly can?? Is that why you like to save all your mom’s cat poop?

18

If this is some kind of trick to get me, an agent of chaos, to take the catshit to the trash because if i don’t, I must be someone who likes order, I won’t fall for it.

I’m perfectly capable of being an agent of chaos without having to do that.

19

At last, Crito, I too was carried away by my incredulity, and asked Euthydemus whether Dionysodorus could dance.

But if he were to do so, it would not have been in harmony with his own nature; for as we are now saying of him, ‘He is like an old man who has lost all sense’.

Dionysodorus cannot dance because they belong to two different kinds of soul—those which live on earth or those which dwell in heaven.

20

“May your kingdom come, your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven!”

aka

Let’s dance on earth, as it is in heaven!