What the heck is “supreme” or “high” logic? There is logic, that is all. But logic is not the only component of philosophy.
Hate is not the opposite of love. Not-love is the opposite of love. So since Philosophy is quite literally
philio: love,
and sophia: wisdom
I would say that the opposite would be the non-love of wisdom.
I would not say that the love of non-wisdom would be the opposite because of the fact that one can love things that are not wisdom but still love wisdom. Love is the actual subject, and so we would do right to talk about the opposite of the actual subject rather than what kind of love it is referring to.
Then again, usually when someone talks about philosophy nowadays, they are referring to the feild of philosophy and not the literal meaning. The opposite of philosophy is non-philosophy. I don’t know what this entails, and I don’t believe that there is too much of anything that is not philosophy.
but surely by this logic the opposite of love in not love and the opposite of wisdom is non-wisdom
ie. the non love of non wisdom…
ie… the love of wisdom
but then if philosophy is everything and everything is philosophy then maybe there’s no opposite.
feeling a bit tipsy not sure i’m making sense
Sarax, I guess my point was not to give the opposite of both love and wisdom. There is one subject with three words…You have found the opposite of two of the three words and put them together. The subject as a whole is “love of wisdom”. There are not two subjects, in other words we do not separate love and wisdom as separate subjects–love and wisdom. But “love of wisdom” is put together into one word “philosophy” to show that it is one subject. So the opposite of love of wisdom which I will denote as A would be ~A (or not-A or null-A). So when we say not A, we mean not love-of-wisdom as one subject. But it was kind of a literal meaning of the word anyways…and I don’t think that is what this post is concerning. I think that it is concerned more about the feild of philosophy. That’s why I put that I don’t think there is much that is not-philosophy or not-the-field-of-philosophy (one subject). I can’t think of anything that is not-philosophy, and if I could then it would probably not be not-philosophy thereby making it philosophy. I haven’t proven anything really, I just know that the opposite of anything B is not-anything ~B.
the opposite of philosophy would then be
nothing
now the question is… “is nothing, something?” 
but if philosophy is in everything then surely the opposite is not nothing, but you have to define philosophy in terms of all the little things it is part of and find the opposite of that
eg. the opposite of ethics
the opposite of religion
of dualism
orlogic
etcetc
ahhhhhhhhhh
i’m soooo confused
i’m sleepy bedtime methinks
nunight
back in the morning
I’m glad you ask this. Do you not believe each time when we study and observe everything, and every actions and words and slangs from tv and from friends, your logic grows and your capacity to understands gets deeper and therefore making smart ass comments sometimes? And the more education and information you recieve the more smarter you are growing? The more you observe verses, phrases, puzzles, dealt with more equations, poetry, the more your imagination or creativy grows?
When you were young you were taught not to do this, if not you get hurt. Thus the beginning of logic. The more you are taught and be discplined, the better understanding of logic, and if you took philosophy classes there are intro to logic, intermediate logic, and perhaps advance logic.
However, everything has a limit, and this limit I called it supreme logic, the incomprehensible that has put into form.
Using an example of Berekly. We cannot see God, but we know he exists. Ex; there is a blackboard infront of a door, due to its condition does not mean there is no door behind the blackboard, even though we cannot see it we know it exists.
Ask me anymore questions, for I am curious to know what you gotto say
Now on with the other posts.
light-eclipta has this point over sarax. For Philosophy is the lover of wisdom. However, in the modern days we know philosophy is really a thinker. And if you say the opposite of philosophy is non-philosophy ( ~p )
which makes it one who does not love wisdom. Which is equivalent to ignorance again. However, what is this cause of ignorance ? Either the love of wisdom is useless or philosophers are in the wrong path all along.
But I do not think so. Isn’t because of reasons why people are ignorant, for they believe such and such, by what their friends or people think, they can no longer think for themselves.
This makes more sense of sarax, if you conclude philosophy is everything then the opposite is nothing. Nothing has to be something, because there are protons and electrons. Therefore the opposite of philosophy must be something that is useful just as philosophy itself. Practical reason, ex: plain living without thinking. Get a job, make money, have a family and die, natural scientific way.
I believe this is the innumerable qualites of describing an object, talked by Locke in human understanding. But a better postition of this would be of Hume, about ideas are from impressions. Or maybe, Kant, on instincts or pure reason.
erosophy
agapesophy
-
The opposite of philosophy is ignorance.
-
The meaning of life is a construct and structure made of over 1000 submeanings.
-
God is a flaming fish that lives inside of the sun, quantum entangled with light energy, causing life on earth to evolve and eventually become holy.
-
PackMan is the anit-christ.
“…your mind is gone, now all is well.” Euripides, Bacchae
well some platonic philosophers have thought that the opposite of chair is non-chair, so why not the opposite of philosophy be non-philosophy.
It depends how you define philosophy, technically quite tricky, but I think the scope here is far to big. Things like the religion forum are not really philosophy.
Philosophy is often for example contrasted with literature, or science (so having a creative writing forum and natural sciences forum seem silly to).
So Philosophy is not merely thinking, everyone thinks but not everyone is a philosopher, and it has become patently obvious that hardly anyone [here] is a decent philosopher, or perhaps even a philosopher at all.
05.09.06.1292
I am very sure this topic has been spoken of before, and at greater lengths. Please observe…
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=142506
Let it be a lesson, to check before you post; or rather, to look before you leap.
Oh sorry. Lesson learned!
I should have guesed to go back to threads started on “Tue Dec 14, 2004” before posting in this one.
05.09.06.1294
I would be humored by your sarcasm if I didn’t have the wits to say something like: Alas, you should always keep in mind that time matters not! If a thing existed then, it exists now. My thread holds as much relevance as yours now than it did when I posted it.
Why not white be not white, then black?
Why not left be not left, then right?
Then ignorance should be a good thing, and should be observe and to act.