Is philosophy a field of study?
Is it the critique of thinking?
What makes a thought philosophical?
It’s definitely not what I thought it was at first. I thought philosophers actually tried to solve things and help others. They seem to be incapable of doing this, at least most of them. They argue and argue and never get anywhere, at least most of them. They don’t seem to want to help each other either. I notice here that if you have an idea they will try and cut you down until there is nothing left. Why don’t they try and help by telling you how to do it better. I think being a philosopher is like having artificial intelligence, it sounds good but there is no substance.
Ah, a topic that has been on my mind for a week since
a recent ILP blowup.
After 30+ years thinking about philosophy, I think it really becomes
a means to understand the universe and more importantly
a means to understand our ASSUMPTIONS about the universe.
We live our first years hearing from many different sources,
that the universe is this or that, and we get from school,
media, church, and books all these assumptions about what
the universe is. You enter adulthood with this amazing amount
of crap about what the universe is or isn’t. Philosophy is
one way to cut out the crap and really understand what
our assumptions of the universe is and what the universe really is.
Because of assumptions, we see the universe through some
weirdly colored glasses/assumptions and we think the
assumptions are the universe. First of all, the basic
point of the universe is, IT IS NEUTRAL.
We assigned value to the universe, but the universe itself
is neutral. We may say, it is good or bad or whatever, but
that is assumptions at work. The universe itself is neutral.
There is no good, bad or evil or any assigned value to the universe.
It simply is. The idea of god or the devil is to assign a value to
the universe. A human value. The point of philosophy is to
really understand our assumptions about the universe and
the values we place on a neutral universe.
The universe does not have a conscience, it does not
deal with good or bad, it is not for or against us.
It simply is. It clearly exist. But only humans
assign value to the universe (as far as I can tell)
and that is philosophy. Understanding those values we
assign to the universe. Understanding the value of
the word “GOOD”. What does "GOOD’ mean in a neutral
universe? Does the word “Good” have value in a neutral
universe? Does the word “justice” have value in a neutral
universe?
Philosophy is about human assumptions regarding the universe.
Why these assumptions and not those assumptions?
Indeed, why any assumptions? Why are assumptions needed
and/or useful? In a neutral universe, what is the value of
human assumptions? Now you might say, that it is an
assumption to call the universe neutral? That is philosophy
hard at work. Indeed, why is the universe neutral?
Kropotkin
I like to think the philosophy of philosophy is more concerned with raising questions then finding answers, becuase we really can never be sure of anything, as reason and logic don’t hold much ground outside their own realms.
You could also just take the literal translation from the dictinary, “Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.” beign my favorite
Start a poll here asking people to select one of two choices, namely:
I do not have any official Philosophy qualification and the profession on my passport is not listed as “philosopher/educator”
-or-
I do have an official Philosophy qualification and my profession is “philosopher/educator”
Until you have done this, be very suspicious of whether or not you actually know the first thing about Philosophers as a result of using the internet. I wager you know next to nothing about actual Philosophers and what actual philosophers do. Would you base your opinion of doctors on the goings on of a handful of medical students and people who enjoy reading medicine books and discussing medicinal practices? Might it be a better idea to actually meet some Doctors before forming such strong convictions about them?
edit: Philosophy is: learning about how to think. Challenging assumptions, thinking clearly, rationally. Understanding how conclusions are reached, what separates good reasons from bad reasons. Becoming armed with this important knowledge and understanding, it naturally follows that today many philosophers go on to discuss pertinent and intriguing issues from all spheres of knowledge such as science and politics etc. some light reading on a related subject:
This type of meta-science is philosophical. To what extent the use of special vocabulary or of special language such as math, makes a statement scientific is debatabe on philosophical, nor scientific grounds. Science would just say that if the statement is within the bounds of a particular science then it is scientific.
Similarly, if a statement is within the boundaries of a philosophical issue, then it is philosophical. The boundaries are invented/ discovered by philosophers. People who invent philosophical boundaries or make statements within those boundaries are philosophers.
Only a few students here and a few more professors at Arizona State University. So I guess you are right. How many have you met and talked with in person.
Outside of medicine, technology or technical endeavors (and legitimate trades), no give gives a rats ass you have a degree. Certainly no one cares if a ‘philosopher’ has a degree. Hell, most of the most influenctial philosophy works were laid down millenia before it occured to anyone that there could be such a degree.
Bad doctors kill people. Bad philosophers tend to either do the same thing good philosophers do or write country songs.
Or become politicians.
Obw - that’s crap. Profesional philosophers write and are published. To know what they do, read their books.
a philosopher that is “bad” isnt a philosopher just a thinker who hasnt got very far
(good) philosophers either dont care or try to make a difference.
[/quote]
I guess a ‘bad’ philosopher would really just be one who didn’t manage to sell many books. At least nowadays.
LOL 
wouldnt necesarily be a bad phillosopher, because not that many books were sold 
maybe just not a phenominal one. an unhyped philosopher…
I think you’re confusing “the professor of philosophy” with “the philosopher.” Paperwork and position may make you a professor of philosophy, and may qualify you to teach it, but that’s not what a philosopher is. There are only a few philosophers around at any moment. In the twentieth century, we can name a few: Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper – and possibly Heidegger – are the biggest names. But think about where these men stand in relation to Plato or Kant. Truly great philosophers are rare, and we should never mistake a professor of philosophy for a philosopher.
Uh-oh.
Faust, Phaedrus - us three have been here before, I think we all remember one another’s positions on this debate fairly freshly.
I just wanted to make a couple of points specifically over the accusation that philosophers are useless [paraphrased], particularly as I found it ironic he was obviously basing that opinion (just look at how he wrote it) on internet interactions.
CDF- I think I have a good point- take it on board or don’t, it’s up to you… I have no interest in discussing who has met more philosophers.
dejardi- You can romanticise the position (authority?) of “The Philosopher” all you like. At the end of the day, we live in a world where people have jobs and qualifications to certain ends. Where these happen to be engineering qualifications, we find engineers. Where they happen to be computer skills, we find computer experts. Where they happen to be philosophy skills, we find philosophers. The degree of how expert an individual expert might be in that particular qualification is entirely irrelevant and to suggest all professors might somehow be of one ilk is categorically ignorant of you. I suggest you change your opinion to be a distinction between “great” philosophers and just plain old, “working” philosophers. Most professors of philosophy will not be the next Kant, but most engineering teachers will not design the next suspension bridge.
Obw - I can’t speak for Phaedrus, and wouldn’t, since he thinks I am a liar, anyway. The fact is that most artists do not have degrees in art, and a great many are amateurs in every sense of the word. They are still artists. This was true of scientists, until there was money to be made in science. Professional philosophers are philosophers - but many are bad philosophers. Still, I have no problem with that appellation.
I know a great many people, and I am sure you do too, that make money repairing computers, for instance (which usually means fixing software problems, or merely replacing parts) that have no formal education in the field.
It’s your reliance on credentialism that I disagree with. I can accept credentials, but also accept that credentials aren’t everything - in a great many fields.
Well said, faust.
I completely agree with you Faust. You place a very great weight against credentials, whereas I respect them as I do the credentials of a GP - I still check if that particular individual doctor is known as a good or bad doctor, despite his credentials.
This debate has always been me in defence of academics/professional philosophers/credentials and not pushing them as somehow more special and important than they really are. Don’t try to switch it around on me please or I will get hopelessly lost.
So, to be clear, I don’t rely on credentials but I do feel they should be respected and had I to choose between two anonymous “philosophers” picked at random from two sample groups, I would always choose the one with more credentials to be my philosopher. I just see this as common sense and have suspected, and often been shown to be right, that many naysayers of credentialism are simply jealous types or somehow diaffected from those very groups themselves. Either that or hollywood stereotype adopters who think ivory towers actually exist.
I do not put you in any of those negative categories, which is as I said previously, why you having a negative view of credentials annoys me. I worry you might have a point but am yet to see it.
But you so seldom do see my point, Obw.
There are philosophers who cannot address common needs of individuals. There are philosophers who can. Seek out the latter.
For me philosophy can be mitigation between absolutist ideas in science and religion, ideas that divide us. If philosophy is to be love of wisdom, it must stand above all bifucations of human experience.
Philosophy is our natural desire to know, to know how and why we know and to know that our knowing is meaningful. The basic human psychological needs are for survival, security and identity. The best philosophy addresses these needs