• _db
    3.6k
    I originally posted this on the other forum but didn't get as many responses as I was hoping for. Maybe this forum will be more energetic.

    One of the most fascinating parts of philosophy, in my own eyes, is one that tends to be neglected and taken for granted: that of meta-philosophy. What is the purpose of philosophy? How should philosophy be conducted? How do we tell the difference between philosophy and not-philosophy? Is philosophy even possible; is the philosophical method reliable and coherent?

    To begin, I will assess the possibility of philosophy.

    Philosophy is indebted to our intuitions. Intuitions are intellectual perceptions, to steal from Plato. Certainly, not all intuitions are reliable, and studying philosophy can and often will show this to be true. But when philosophical thought is analyzed, what we see is that all of our philosophical beliefs are based upon intuitions. It's intuitive that the law of non-contradiction is sound, for example. We cannot imagine a way around this.

    What this means is that there is an inherent veil of ignorance between what we are presented with and what there actually is (Kant). That is not to say that all of our theories about the external world are automatically false; rather, it just means that we must be extra cautious when theorizing to make sure we do not overstep our cognitive abilities.

    But how do we know that the law of non-contradiction is sound in the external world? Well, we can make a reasonable assessment that if we are a product of natural selection, an intuitive belief of the soundness of the law of non-contradiction would be extremely valuable if the world actually operated under this law. Evolution produced rational beings that can use this rationality to explore its own origins and validate itself. An irrational creature would not survive long in its environment, so we can at the very least proclaim that our cognitive faculties are reliable in our everyday environment.

    Of course, we could doubt our abilities to see the world around us as it actually is, which is what I referred to as the veil of ignorance. Although it is impossible to know for certain that our beliefs are true, it would also be begging the question to doubt all of our abilities when there is no good reason to doubt them. As far as we know, our reasoning skills have and continue to serve us well, is there any reason to doubt their abilities? Is there any reason why we should assume the world around us operates in a different fashion than what we perceive? How would it be that the external world operates differently from us, and yet we have a different modus operandi, when we are made of but the same stuff?

    But what even is philosophy? Most of us know when we see philosophy, and also know when we smell bullshit. So where is the demarcation between the two? What are the boundaries of philosophy?

    Philosophy, as I understand it, is rational speculation. With this definition, any internal theorizing constitutes as philosophy. When a theoretical physicist looks at data found by experimental physicists, they come to a conclusion about this data. They form a theory. This action of forming a theory is philosophy. The data does not organize itself into a theory: this requires an agent of sufficient cognitive capabilities.

    This means that the pop-culture "war" between science and philosophy is a myth, a myth sustained by the increasingly large amount of ignorance regarding what the hell science and philosophy even are.

    With this in mind, the conclusion to this would be that all scientists are philosophers, but not all philosophers are scientists.

    So what is the purpose of philosophy?

    The "traditional" approach to philosophy is that philosophy is an intellectual enterprise that aims to answer the fundamental questions about reality. This is not exactly wrong, but I believe it needs some tinkering.

    Philosophy, in my opinion, should be aimed at clarifying and explaining concepts while staving off the threat of ignorance, dogma, delusion, and stupidity.

    Whether or not philosophy gives positive results is irrelevant. Unfortunately it seems like modern philosophy has to "prove" itself to the rest of academia, especially the sciences. Modern philosophy has broken itself in its attempt to be on the same level of scientists.

    What this means is that philosophy should, ideally, be a way of life rather than a strict academic field. We should turn to philosophers for advice and clarification. The pursuit of wisdom should not be limited to the attainment of it, it should extend to the development of the individual into that of a wise person.

    No wonder the public often has a disdain for philosophy: because modern philosophy has castrated itself in its insecurity. Philosophers have lost sight of what philosophy is even meant for. They attempt to provide positive results on the scale that science does, and unsurprisingly fail, which leads them to be seen by their peers as worthless.

    Philosophy has given positive results, which often spawn scientific fields. But it's pathetically insecure for philosophers to tout these positive results around like they are an example of the entire field as a whole.

    Philosophy should not be worried about providing positive answers, it should be worried about providing clarification to questions and dispelling the anxiety surrounding them. Philosophical questions are inherently existential in nature; they speak to the "soul", so to speak. It is inevitable that a person asks a philosophical question: and it should be the duty of a philosopher to address these questions and attempt to create an environment of equilibrium in which uncertainty is no longer a problem.

    How do we know what a philosophical question even is? I personally do not have an answer to this, but to me it seems that the very first action philosophers must do before undergoing more serious philosophical work on a question is to make sure what they are investigating is in fact even a question, and not either a linguistic issue or a problem deemed better suited for the empirical sciences.

    When a philosopher (or an idiot like myself) attempts to provide a philosophical thesis, it should not be taken as a claim of knowledge. Instead, it should be seen as simply another idea added to the mix. If I were to bake a cake, and you saw that I was missing sugar, you would be apt to add sugar to the mix before putting it in the oven.

    I am not alone in this sentiment. The quietism of Wittgenstein, as well as Rorty, McDowell, and Nozick all advocate for a far more passive meta-philosophical stance.

    It is quite interesting that philosophy is the only profession that has the ability to question itself. Unfortunately, I believe this ability has been neglected, leading to a general nihilism and apathy towards the field.
  • Moliere
    4k
    I share your interest in meta-philosophy. But I find it hard to respond to this because it seems like you are brainstorming and chewing more than looking for a response. You have a lot of questions in there, and it was interesting to read, but I'm just letting you know my difficulty in saying something.
  • BC
    13.1k
    Do you think philosophy is closer to being a "thing" or a "process"?

    Baroque music is finished -- it's a thing. That is, the era is now long closed and there is a body of music written which can be played, arranged, and interpreted, but no one is writing new baroque music, and won't be in the future. [Writing music in the baroque style doesn't count.] Similarly, 18th Century British Literature is a thing. It's done. It can be read, enjoyed, discussed, and researched, but there are no 18th century writers any more (except in their graves and books).

    Computer science and genetics, on the other hand, are more like processes, because new knowledge is being created (discovered) and this makes way for new avenues of research, machines, programs, and substances which feed back into new discoveries and knowledge.

    Most of the body of knowledge called philosophy is a thing, Aristotle finished his career over two millennia ago -- he hasn't written anything since. One can read Aristotle for the first time, but it is unlikely that the latest new reader will produce any ground-breaking new insights. After all these years, the field of Aristotle has been plowed too many times for something new to be discovered. Still, Aristotle is worth reading.

    Just because something is "finished" and is a "thing" doesn't lessen it's value. I love baroque music and listen to it a lot. But there are no latest hits from J. S. Bach.
  • BC
    13.1k
    I originally posted this on the other forum but didn't get as many responses as I was hoping for. Maybe this forum will be more energetic.darthbarracuda

    You might be biting off more that you, or we, can chew in short posts. I don't want to read a semester course worth of posts.

    One of the most fascinating parts of philosophy, in my own eyes, is one that tends to be neglected and taken for granted: that of meta-philosophy. What is the purpose of philosophy? How should philosophy be conducted? How do we tell the difference between philosophy and not-philosophy? Is philosophy even possible; is the philosophical method reliable and coherent?darthbarracuda

    Contrary to its being neglected, meta-philosophy seems to be doing just fine. Meta-something, anything is a characteristic of a very mature field, or a new endeavor. Philosophers have been flailing away at reality for 2500 years, now. What's left, but to return to old questions (or as the Bible puts it, a dog returning to its vomit).

    ...we must be extra cautious when theorizing to make sure we do not overstep our cognitive abilities.darthbarracuda

    Indeed. How do we do that?
  • BC
    13.1k
    But what even is philosophy? Most of us know when we see philosophy, and also know when we smell bullshit. So where is the demarcation between the two? What are the boundaries of philosophy?darthbarracuda

    Experience should have revealed that the smell of philosophy and the smell of bullshit is not always so distinctly different. Consider processes again.

    New mown hay has a lovely fragrance. Cows (bulls too) love hay. They bite it off, it goes into their 4-chambered stomach, they burp it up and chew it some more, swallow it again, ferment it, and produce milk and meat, leather, soup bones, and cute little calves once a year. And shit, of course. That's the process. The business of philosophy is, perhaps, not so very different than digesting hay.

    Here we have a pile of bullshit and there we have a pile of philosophy. How do we tell the difference?
  • BC
    13.1k
    This means that the pop-culture "war" between science and philosophy is a myth, a myth sustained by the increasingly large amount of ignorance regarding what the hell science and philosophy even are.darthbarracuda

    Right -- there is no pop-culture war. The pop-culture railroad couldn't possibly bear the freight of a war over science and philosophy. I just don't see gum-chewing nitwits getting into it.

    But really, who is confused about this? probably not scientists.
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    661
    What is the purpose of philosophy?darthbarracuda

    I'll just do one question at a time... to many to deal with at once.

    I'm not too sure if this is a question or really an implication(which I am far more inclided to think it is).

    (here I go again...)

    If you had asked "what is a purpose of philosophy", I could feel OK about answering that, but you asked "what is the purpose of philosophy" and I really cannot answer this without damning myself to a position of idealism.

    The use of a definite article (the) rather than a indefinite article (a) plays a major role in what the 'question' entails. By the use of a definite article you have made an appeal for an absolute or ultimate purpose, leaving no room for there being an absense of an absolute or ultmate purpose.

    One thing I will make note of, sort of getting ahead of myself, is that if something is relative it does not imply or indicate that it is also irrelevant and useless. I can indeed state a good number of purposes that philosophy can be intended to fulfill, but all of these examples are relative to a specific context... change that context and the purpose my well not stand, but that does not mean the purpose of the other context while it is relative to that context is irrelevant and useless.

    In short... I contest that this 'question' "what is the purpose of philosophy" is far less a question that it is a loaded statement that is wearing a question's clothing.

    Meow!

    GREG
  • BC
    13.1k
    So what is the purpose of philosophy?

    The "traditional" approach to philosophy is that philosophy is an intellectual enterprise that aims to answer the fundamental questions about reality. This is not exactly wrong, but I believe it needs some tinkering.

    Philosophy, in my opinion, should be aimed at clarifying and explaining concepts while staving off the threat of ignorance, dogma, delusion, and stupidity.
    darthbarracuda

    Is the supply of "fundamental questions about reality" unlimited? What if they have been answered to the best of philosophy's ability to do so.

    I definitely do not want to leave "staving off the threat of ignorance, dogma, delusion, and stupidity" to philosophers alone. What horrors! Isn't this a common socialized task? "Philosophers" as such are frankly not carrying much of the load. Unless, of course, you want to define "philosopher" very broadly.
  • BC
    13.1k
    Philosophy should not be worried about providing positive answers, it should be worried about providing clarification to questions and dispelling the anxiety surrounding them. Philosophical questions are inherently existential in nature; they speak to the "soul", so to speak. It is inevitable that a person asks a philosophical question: and it should be the duty of a philosopher to address these questions and attempt to create an environment of equilibrium in which uncertainty is no longer a problem.darthbarracuda

    WTF?
  • BC
    13.1k
    Of course, we could doubt our abilities to see the world around us as it actually is, which is what I referred to as the veil of ignorance. Although it is impossible to know for certain that our beliefs are true, it would also be begging the question to doubt all of our abilities when there is no good reason to doubt them. As far as we know, our reasoning skills have and continue to serve us well, is there any reason to doubt their abilities? Is there any reason why we should assume the world around us operates in a different fashion than what we perceive? How would it be that the external world operates differently from us, and yet we have a different modus operandi, when we are made of but the same stuff?darthbarracuda

    So, is there a veil of ignorance or not?
  • BC
    13.1k
    It is quite interesting that philosophy is the only profession that has the ability to question itself. Unfortunately, I believe this ability has been neglected, leading to a general nihilism and apathy towards the field.darthbarracuda

    Somebody mentioned bullshit somewhere along the line.

    O Darth Barracuda! So many ideas bubbling away in your capacious brain pan. I commend you in all ways for your long post. Why don't you edit this post to add some headings? You have lots of good material here, but it needs to be sectioned for the convenience of your reader. Leave it all here? or Spread it out in several posts? Don't know. Depends how much response develops.

    And... what, exactly, do you want from us? You are laying a lot out here; do you want compositional criticism? Do you want argument? Do you need help in clarifying some of your ideas?
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    With this in mind, the conclusion to this would be that all scientists are philosophers, but not all philosophers are scientists.darthbarracuda

    This has been historically the case until quite recently. Until the 19th century, most scientists were called, and called themselves, "natural philosophers." They still are, only that their name has changed to "scientists."

    Unfortunately, I believe this ability has been neglected, leading to a general nihilism and apathy towards the field.darthbarracuda

    I think this is in part due to the professionalization of the field. It's perceived to be an academic department at a university instead of the search for wisdom.
  • Janus
    15.4k
    The business of philosophy is, perhaps, not so very different than digesting hay.Bitter Crank

    Yeah, both are sometimes referred to as 'rumination'.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Basically, what I posted previously is a culmination of a shit ton of thoughts mulling around my mind that required a catharsis to relieve the tension. I understand completely that most of this is not exactly the best philosophy ever. But, like most here (I assume), philosophy tends to be something that we are drawn to automatically, by default, and it just so happens that the philosophical thoughts that I tend to have are that of skepticism of the validity of all the philosophical thoughts that me and everyone else has. And it is frustrating when, at times, it seems like these kinds of questions are either overlooked or taken for granted.

    Examples are: Is metaphysics possible (not that metaphysics is not meaningful [logical positivism; and we all know how that turned out], but rather, are we even able to make metaphysical claims, to make progress in metaphysics, etc, or are our brains just too limited to make any substantial theses?), what is the "point" behind philosophy (thanks for the great answer, , btw), how do we get from language to the world (what is the correlation, how is language a stable structure for philosophical theses), is it rational to hold any philosophical position, is there progress in philosophy, are philosophical questions merely linguistic misunderstandings, etc.

    Wittgenstein has been a saving grace for me; his conception of philosophy as therapeutic clarification, the distinction between what is a question and what is an answer (Witty would have said the answer is within the question), the rejection of the academic philosophical atmosphere, etc...Kant too.

    I definitely like 's answer, that there is no "one way" to do philosophy, there is just "a" way of doing philosophy (like the distinctions between analytic, continental, pragmatic, and quietist philosophy).
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.2k
    One can read Aristotle for the first time, but it is unlikely that the latest new reader will produce any ground-breaking new insights. After all these years, the field of Aristotle has been plowed too many times for something new to be discovered. Still, Aristotle is worth reading.Bitter Crank

    New readers of Aristotle (or Leibnitz, or Hume, or Kant, or Wittgenstein, etc.) produce new insights all the time! This is because their ideas are constantly being brought to bear on new issues that arise in human social and cultural context (and philosophical conceptions) that are constantly evolving.

    You may want to say that new insights into the philosophy of Aristotle merely are newer applications of an intellectual product that is, in itself, finished, as you suggest baroque musique is -- i.e. "a thing". But this is to confuse the individuals who were participants in an intellectual/artistic tradition with the tradition itself. The individuals are mortal, but the tradition only dies when it is forgotten. Baroque music, in general, and Bach's spirit, in particular, still live in the ongoing process of musical creation that finds nourishment in them (oftentimes indirectly). The same is true of Aristotle's thinking. He is, in a very real sense, still engaged with us in an ongoing dialogue that will go on until our civilization ends.

    On edit: As a conciliatory gesture, let me add that I agree that there is a way for an intellectual or artistic tradition to die and become a "thing" in the sense that you suggest. This occurs in the context where the dialogue is interrupted because some tradition is enshrined and becomes an object of mere reverence or dogmatic adherence. But then, it can still be resurrected by people who are willing to re-engage in a genuine dialogue with the ancient ideas or insights.
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    661
    I definitely like ↪Mayor of Simpleton's answer, that there is no "one way" to do philosophy, there is just "a" way of doing philosophy (like the distinctions between analytic, continental, pragmatic, and quietist philosophy).darthbarracuda

    That sort of makes me have concern for you...

    ... I'm not used to many people finding my quips to be of any use, so pardon my uneasy feelings.

    Knowing you taste in music, perhaps here's a 'way' if you will?



    If nothing else, it's a good tune.

    Meow!

    GREG
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.