I was arrogant and reclusive long before I got into philosophy.

Touché.

"Hexagram 18, nine at the top means:
He does not serve kings and princes,
Sets himself higher goals.

Not every man has an obligation to mingle in the affairs of the world. There are some who are developed to such a degree that they are justified in letting the world go its own way and refusing to enter public life with a view to reforming it. But this does not imply a right to remain idle or to sit back and merely criticize. Such withdrawal is justified only when we strive to realize in ourselves the higher aims of mankind. For although the sage remains distant from the turmoil of daily life, he creates incomparable human values for the future."
-"I Ching", Wilhelm translation.

Absolutely not. In some trivial sense, everyone does philosophy in that they, perhaps sometimes on a lonely night, 'wonder what it's all about', or have disagreements with other people about certain things. But I think that to do philosophy as a craft requires the taking up of certain commitments regarding the long-term refinement of one's own thinking, a willingness to open up all belief and values to revision, as well as a worldly-engagement of praxis in dialectical relation with one's philosophy. All of this is by no means guaranteed, and in fact rare because it's hard work.

Actually I'd even argue that one has to engage with the actual discourse and philosophical texts before one can 'do it', or otherwise a community where you can engage dialectically so that specific discursive features and a shared language are developed that can be recognized as 'philosophical'. I'm not sure if it makes any sense for philosophy to be done by a solitary individual with no context of a community: concepts and language are socialized. It isn't something totally innate and guaranteed...what would we need to refer to to make such an argument? — Shevek

I pretty much agree with this, but I think there's another way of looking at it. Kant regarded metaphysics as a natural disposition, and if this is the perennial originary seed of philosophy as a "science" (in Kant's terms, meaning a rigorous and productive discipline) it is far from trivial. To say that the ability or inclination to do philosophy--by which you mean to do it right--is something rare, and not characteristic of human beings, is not to deny darth's comment that "philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being". It almost looks like a professional philosopher's apologia, the demand that he is taken seriously as a professional alongside scientists, doctors and lawyers ("not just anyone can do this job!"). This idea of philosophy as a job or craft, more than the thought that philosophy is innate, might itself be seen as a trivialization of philosophy. To philosophize is not a success verb, and it can be done well or badly, rigorously or lazily.

Anyway, this is nitpicking by way of looking at things differently. Your criticism of the picture of the solitary philosopher, perhaps sitting in a chair pondering, is well put.

Science touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields. The point of science is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world.

So what about philosophy? — darthbarracuda

"... is to settle our curiosities"

No... not really.

Science creates and exposes more curiosities than it settles. Science makes a great deal of explorations; thus makes a great deal of discoveries. Subsequently, these discoveries are things/events/actions that are introduced as 'data ex post facto' and changes the question being asked, but not necessarily understood; thus more questions are created... so exactly what is settled?

What is settled are less refined questions, as with each an every advance in explorations in science the questions are newly refined; thus the generalizations are slowly filtered out. (often with the answer that 'settles' is that the question is not really refined enough, so we need to re-ask the question in the light of our new discoveries)

We can make somewhat more accurate predictions via the accumulation of data, the collected set of correlations, the eliminates of 'magical thinking'...

... philosophy does the very same thing.

The reason why it appears that questioned are not settled in philosophy is that the questions are in a constant state of being refined, but this works in the 'world of thought and language' (rather than the 'world of laboratory and hands on exploration/experimentation') it just seems like petty bickering and mental masturbation.

Why can't we simply not say that science is in the business of exploratory masturbation?

To be fair, science in all it's explorations/experiments does not more 'settling' of things than philosophy achieves.

Science really only settles old and outdated questions, as more than not... the questions were simply not refined enough to answer; thus the explorations has changed the perspective of the questions.

How's this?

Philosophy touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields (ethics, epistemologies, value theories...). The 'point' of philosophy is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world, by filtering out less refined questions and hasty generalization; thus building more and more questions to investigate and contemplate.

Meow!

GREG

I pretty much agree with this, but I think there's another way of looking at it. Kant regarded metaphysics as a natural disposition, and if this is the perennial originary seed of philosophy as a "science" (in Kant's terms, meaning a rigorous and productive discipline) it is far from trivial. To say that the ability or inclination to do philosophy--by which you mean to do it right--is something rare, and not characteristic of human beings, is not to deny darth's comment that "philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being". — jamalrob

This is a fair observation and one that I wouldn't object to. But I think there's something worth pointing out about philosophy as a craft. As per my earlier comments regarding Heidegger's observation that a human being is a kind of being (Dasein) for which its own being is a concern, I don't think this is enough in my eyes when we're talking about philosophy. I would agree with H's observations that it's a fundamental aspect of the kinds of beings we are (qua being-in-the-world) to take issue with, and care and concern, with the world in which we're engaged. So for example, it's an aspect of being human to consider the natural world as 'mine', i.e. make sense of it as an extension of utility or how it relates to humanity, and thereby transform natural resources to shape one's surroundings in a world, this does not necessarily mean that we are all carpenters. The 'natural disposition' is there behind the activity, motivating it and shaping its form, but how this modality is expressed is not guaranteed. We must be embedded in a community of carpenters (a 'world') for the craft to make any sense to us as a craft, with examples of how its done, and we won't really know until we jump in and engage in it.

So philosophy isn't comparable to something so specific as carpentry, you might say, but gets at something more broad and fundamental about being human. I suppose this is right, but I think the metaphor is useful for the sake of toying out the point I'm trying to make. We all have metaphysical systems in some sense that inform us of the coordinates of the world and structure our orientation toward it, and we all yearn to 'ontologize', make sense of, and fit the world into a network of meaning. But to me, doing philosophy (and not just 'doing it well'), involves taking up certain commitments to engage in concept creation, and a development of (self)-understanding, and the systematic incorporation of this cognitive work into one's basic reflexive orientation toward the world and others. It's one thing to yearn for meaning, it's another to take a certain disposition toward this search for meaning that is philosophical.

Sure, most, if not all, human lives are full of imagination and a need for meaning in the form of passive day-dreaming, or passively accepting the concepts and worldviews of others, which need not be acted on. But to do philosophy and to learn to think well involves putting these imaginings and concepts to the test, a transformation of this cognitive activity into reality that isn't passive; putting it on paper or engaging in a dialectic, and to live one's philosophy in the world. There needs to be a free-thinking disposition and the willingness to transcend and challenge immediate experience and accepted ways of thinking/worldviews. None of this is guaranteed by being human. This transformation of the imaginative into reality is the meaning of philosophy as a craft.

It almost looks like a professional philosopher's apologia, the demand that he is taken seriously as a professional alongside scientists, doctors and lawyers ("not just anyone can do this job!"). This idea of philosophy as a job or craft, more than the thought that philosophy is innate, might itself be seen as a trivialization of philosophy. To philosophize is not a success verb, and it can be done well or badly, rigorously or lazily. — jamalrob

Well I don't think this 'artformist view', if we can call it that, of philosophy requires a professionalization. Actually I think more often than not, the pressures and demands of professional institutions get in the way.

Are you sure you mean conclusions or do you mean consensus? — Mayor of Simpleton
Yes, that is what I meant. Last time I checked, the scientific consensus for global warming was 97+%. The philosophical consensus for the nature of time, for example,...mixed and it always will be.

Do philosophers gain any new knowledge? Does a philosophical theory count as knowledge? Or is it just unprovable speculation? This is the biggest point I'm getting at here. If there is no way of verifying something, then why assert it? Why even try if it is futile? Has philosophy given us any knowledge? Is there any consensus on anything?

It doesn't make any sense, to me, to formulate complex arguments, debate and critique and assert and attempt to get to the "truth" if it is impossible to get to it. It's completely worthless.

Yes, ethics and political philosophy can help us in the real world, I will give you that. But metaphysics? How the hell do we verify if a theory in metaphysics is correct? We can't! It's absurd!

All it can give us is a warm little feeling of "I think this is the way the universe is" but nothing more. The only confirmation we are going to get from a normative ethical position is "well, this makes sense to me..." There's never going to be an E=MC^2 of philosophy. There's not even going to be an agreement on what the definition of a word is. — darthbarracuda

Well...

... how many consensus ideas held within science were just dead wrong?

I can sort of remember stuff about flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe and stuff like that.

Take care not to confuse consensus with conclusions.

Remember, science does not have all the answers and science is 'fully aware' of this (sorry the personification of science... it's a metaphor).

If science had all the answers it would simply stop.

------------------------------------------

As far as metaphysics is concerned, I personally consider that, as well as theology, to be to philosophy what the vermiform appendix is to biology. It was a once useful organ that, due to evolutionary processes, has been rendered a redundant organ. For the most part it exists in a benign state, but can become inflamed with the potential of causing harm to the body to the point of endangering it's continued existence.

At this point in time, the best know procedure to remedy this harm or endangerment of removal of this redundant organ.

-------------------------------------------

Also...

... apropos unprovable speculation:

Exactly how much 'proof' can we come up with regarding the 'origin' (previous state) of the known universe of time and space, that is the universe that includes the advent of time and space, where we have a language founded upon time and space, and we somehow have to speak (coherently) about a time before time and a space before space?

Sorry I cannot describe this better, as there is not language in our lungs to express things prior to space and time, but science seems to be making efforts to establish theories that have ONLY an internal logical consistency, but NO PROOF.

It is also amazing how people simply freak out about criticism of 'pet theories' of completely unproven and probably unprovable notions.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge — Mayor of Simpleton
I used to think this of philosophy as well. I used to think philosophy was an underrated thing that held countless intellectual secrets. I thought by reading philosophy I would gain knowledge about the world and be wise, know the fundamentals of the universe and become like a guru almost. — darthbarracuda

Have you considered that in spite of philosophy being the love of knowledge that this love is not extended to love of criticism?

Same goes for science...

... the problems you have sited here are not problems of philosophy or science, but of people.

btw...

Since when does philosophy include gurus?

Since when does philosophy somehow create a 'plug and play' connection with being 'wise'?

Indeed... the vast majority of those who have studies philosophy and science would agree they have the feeling that they really don't know all that much, but instead have endless questions that will more than likely go without answer, but that does not stop one from investigation.

And this doesn't make any sense now. From my perspective, philosophy is just a mis-mash of disagreements and confusion.

Why isn't science part of the "love of knowledge"? Surely science has given far more than philosophy has. — darthbarracuda

Actually science is the same mis-mash of disagreements and confusion, regardless of the ease with which on can achieve somewhat of a consensus... especially when one looks at the history of scientific consensus and where science simply got it dead wrong, but look on the bright side... getting ti dead wrong is all part of the process of filtering out hasty assumptions.

I feel science has no more to offer us than philosophy. Science is a bit more accessible and entertaining as it tends to put on a nice show. Working with semiconductors is a lot more entertaining to the eye than discussing a thought game, but the truth is depending upon the context in which one finds themselves the value of both varies, thus in one case philosophy might trump science and in the other science might trump philosophy, but neither trumps the other in all cases.

EDIT: To add one more thing: what are you expecting to get out of philosophy? — darthbarracuda

Probably that I have the good sense to stop expecting things to come out of things for me.

I find that expectations lends itself to a tunnel vision. Indeed I'll focus on things now and then, but if I begin to expect things to be the certain results, I'll probably get just that... and only just that.

Science does indeed look for things that are expected results, but not exclusively, as this would be a bias of observation.

For what it's worth this might be the only thing I've ever said that was worth anything:

"Pointlessness allows a great freedom to actual live rather than just be alive; to experience rather than just fulfill; to investigate rather than just to be told to know; to adapt rather than just stagnate" - MoS

Take it with a grain of salt...

... salt is a flavor enhancer. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Add to that a sharpening of our critical thinking which can be misunderstood in the non thinker world and seen as criticism.

The point of science is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world.

So what about philosophy? — darthbarracuda

Science:
from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’
and
Philosophy:
from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia ‘love of wisdom.’

There is clearly a difference between "know" and knowing-finding out-discovering, on the one hand and loving wisdom on the other. They are not opposed to each other, but they may not be complementary either.

There is a difference between "How are millipedes getting into my basement" and "Millipedes are welcome beasts at the feast of life." (Millipedes are vegetarians; centipedes are carnivorous. Apparently the centipedes are not eating the millipedes Why not? What are they eating, then? Clearly, the feast of life needs better management.)

Messing around with uranium to see if one can get a critical mass going is clearly a scientia, scire kind of thing. Something that guys do in the garage. Wondering whether one exists, and how one can tell, is not something guys do in the garage. That happens when the guy is alone, drinking beer, and cogitating with the help of cigarette smoke. (Cigarettes are peculiarly conducive to philosophical thinking. Exhaling smoke is existentially suggestive.)

Not all philosophers require beer and cigarettes of course. I have a feeling that Kant was the type that did without both, what with his Pietist upbringing. Sartre without cigarettes is unthinkable. Café au lait and cigarettes for Camus.

As far as metaphysics is concerned, I personally consider that, as well as theology, to be to philosophy what the vermiform appendix is to biology. It was a once useful organ that, due to evolutionary processes, has been rendered a redundant organ. For the most part it exists in a benign state, but can become inflamed with the potential of causing harm to the body to the point of endangering it's continued existence.

At this point in time, the best know procedure to remedy this harm or endangerment of removal of this redundant organ. — Mayor of Simpleton

I think I agree with you on this. Metaphysics, to me, seems like hogwash and can do more harm than good. I am extremely skeptical about metaphysical claims.

Since when does philosophy include gurus?

Since when does philosophy somehow create a 'plug and play' connection with being 'wise'? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not necessarily "guru" in the sense of an ascetic living on a mountaintop, but in the sense of having a heightened sense of intuition, general wisdom, knowing how to live the good life, etc.

I suppose I have noticed that I have been assigning a quasi-apotheosis to many philosophers, making them out to just know everything there is to know.

Thanks for the patient replies thus far MoS.

I think, like many people as well, I don't really understand what exactly philosophy is. I can recognize philosophy when I see it, but if asked to define what philosophy is or what it attempts to do, I would be stumped.

One of the reasons I believe I have been so confused lately is because I think I have misunderstood the goals of science and philosophy. Science is a philosophy, but philosophy is not a science. I was expecting philosophy to be as productive as science has been. Philosophy doesn't do that. Philosophy clarifies concepts, eliminates irrationality, explores new ideas, etc. I don't think there really is a point to philosophy, but unfortunately academic philosophers seem to treat it like it's extraordinarily important. It really is just a recreational activity, for the most part.

I think, like many people as well, I don't really understand what exactly philosophy is. I can recognize philosophy when I see it, but if asked to define what philosophy is or what it attempts to do, I would be stumped.

One of the reasons I believe I have been so confused lately is because I think I have misunderstood the goals of science and philosophy. Science is a philosophy, but philosophy is not a science. I was expecting philosophy to be as productive as science has been. Philosophy doesn't do that. Philosophy clarifies concepts, eliminates irrationality, explores new ideas, etc. I don't think there really is a point to philosophy, but unfortunately academic philosophers seem to treat it like it's extraordinarily important. It really is just a recreational activity, for the most part. — darthbarracuda

I have to agree with you here, as in science there is a degree of tangible things/abilities that are far more obvious than there are in philosophy.

A scientist needs to know how specific apparatuses (or apparati) function and how to use them, as well as possess advanced skills in maths (as in knowing what the 'maths hieroglyphics' mean when dealing with relativity and have the ability to speak that maths language - beyond just simple everyday maths skills) or understand more advanced chemistry or biology or physics... you get the point...

A philosopher needs to apply logic and language skills to actual/theoretical experiences and then (possibly) voice a statement or field a question... often sounding like an opinion.

Perhaps the problem is that science is very highly specialized; thus highly specialized skill sets are required, whereas philosophy can bee both very specialized and very generalized at the same time; thus the applications of these specialized skills is overlooked by the generalized skills employed... so philosophy looks like a bunch of 'mere' opinions.

-------------------------------------

Anyway... (here's a joke)

I can recognize a chair when I see on, but if asked to define what a chair is or what it does, I would be stumped.

I Kant do that either! :D

-------------------------------------

Anyway again...

As for the productive aspect:

Are you sure you mean productive or do you mean obvious?

Science has a tendency to produce things, specific things, things you can hold and use, things that are indeed used in events/actions, whereas philosophy is more the concepts/notions/statements behind events/actions.

Philosophers don't require special 'philosophical laboratories' or 'special philosophical equipment' to do what it is they do.

Philosophy is just not as obvious as science; thus we (tend to) attribute more production from that with is more obviously apparent.

-------------------------------------

Here's the deal...

... imagine (If it is at all possible) having any tangible things/events/action obviously scientific that is void of philosophical content?

OK... I can't do that at all.

Why?

The moment a thing/event/action has a value associated/attributed/assumed to or about it... philosophy is unavoidable.

Now imagine that no regard whatsoever is placed upon this value associated with any thing/event/action that is scientific and such a consideration of value was ignored...

... uhh, how horrific that would be, eh?

I feel that this is a very good case for philosophy.

The love of knowledge is the dislove of ignorance... ignorance come from the word ignore.

No matter how dry or boring such philosophical matters might seem, they do indeed have some degree of merit in that they are the disloving of ignorance.

OK... we are still talking about people here, in both philosophy and science. People do tend on occasion to become very self-important and try at all costs to hold onto their positions as being correct. This is why we have 'peer review' in both science and philosophy.

------------------------------------

One more thought about consensus.

Indeed we have a rather strong consensus among scientists that evolution makes sense and is accepted as to be as close to being a fact as is probably possible for something being a fact.

In addition to this, we have a rather strong consensus among philosophers that theistic god/deities are a false notion and that such a being indeed does not exist is a fact as is probably possible for something to be a fact.

Now let's look at the general population...

How much consensus do we have on these two points?

Problem here might well be that the general population can distinguish who is a scientist from a non-scientist with an opinion about science far easier that the general population can distinguish a philosopher from a non-philosopher with an opinion about philosophy.

-----------------------------------

These are just random ranting from off the top of my head (so to say), but I'd be a bit more cautious in tossing such a broad based field as philosophy into a small box.

Both science and philosophy touches every aspect of our lives, but the difference is that science is simply more obvious... but not necessarily more productive or more important. It's a cooperation and not a competition.

My take is that don't allow yourself to be put off of philosophy just because it isn't as obvious or appealing to the public eye.

As for points to things...

... points only exist when we have established them. Nothing in philosophy has a point until we establish one, but to be honestly... nothing in science has a point until we establish one as well... uhh... and isn't the establishment of a point... the establishment of a value... philosophy? So if science has a point at all, it owes that point to the philosophy behind the science, eh? ;)

Just have fun.

Meow!

GREG

Part of eudaimonia, living well, is to learn to think well, and then to go on and think well. I regard philosophy at its best as both an activity and a learning that clarifies good or right thinking.

In the debate about science, for me it's mainly through the arts that the world becomes less shadowy and more clearly formed for me personally. Science, perhaps because I'm not a practitioner, seems like a marvellous spectacle which has, as an earlier poster put it, embedded into it many of the fruits of past philosophising. See that! The amazing sight of the double helix! (with all those Mendels and Darwins and geologists and Poppers built into its very shape)

Philosophy just happens. I dont think it has an intention.