How do you define philosophy? What is it you dislike about it?

How do you define philosophy? What is it you dislike about it? — DingoJones

Does it matter about my personal beliefs about philosophy?

Here is how I would define philosophy: I say philosophy is what philosophers do. It's the ideas and arguments that thinkers who sit around in armchairs come up.

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life.

You dont think critical thinking or the rules of logic are philosophy then I take it?

You dont think critical thinking or the rules of logic are philosophy then I take it? — DingoJones

Logic and critical thinking are skills. I never found it useful to look up rules of logic when arguing with someone.

So thats no? They arent under the purview of philosophy?
Im asking because if they were a part of philosophy then that would mean the claim philosophy is not at all practical is false as those things are clearly very practical. Have you considered that implication?

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Doesn’t Socrates’ way of living refute this? Or Diogenes perhaps? What about Buddhism, or Hedonism?

So thats no? They arent under the purview of philosophy? — DingoJones

Not so fast. There's a difference between being logical, and studying logic. The former is an ability: the latter, philosophy.

Doesn’t Socrates’ way of living refute this? Or Diogenes perhaps? What about Buddhism, or Hedonism? — Pinprick

I am not so familiar with those schools of thought. Perhaps my mind can be changed. I also try to keep an open mind.

But the key here is you don't have to listen to other people either...I'm happiest this way, because I make my own decisions and if it doesn't work out, the only person to blame is me...

Then why join a philosophy forum?

To test my ideas? I don’t mind who it’s coming from. But it’s not like an authority figure that tells you to do things and doesn’t give any explanation why, or is open to debate. I make my own decisions.

I would agree with that, I think.

Sure, thats fine. Im asking you if you think those two things fall under “philosophy”. Like, if you were to study critical thinking or logic, would I be taking a philosophy class or something else? Its like if I asked you if geometry or calculus are under the purview of math....you wouldnt say “not so fast, using geometry isnt the same as studying geometry”, thats non-sequitor.
Do you think critical thinking and logic fall under the purview of philosophy?

The right thing to do is what makes us feel good, without breaking the law — Maya

You advocate for morality out of empathy. This requires however that the laws and justice is created out of empathic ideals as well, otherwise, empathic morality will end up in conflict with laws and justice.

You just weigh it, pros and cons of a decision. I personally wouldn’t break the law because I’d feel so bad of the consequences, the punishment of society, like society’s being mean to you, would be too much to bear.

You just weigh it, pros and cons of a decision. I personally wouldn’t break the law because I’d feel so bad of the consequences, the punishment of society, like society’s being mean to you, would be too much to bear. — Maya

What if there were laws that needed to be broken to expose a broken system? How does one live in a society that, for example, have totalitarian laws and keep empathic morality? Like the recent laws in China which can put people in prison for life just for speaking out against oppressive politics. Breaking that law would be considered fine by most people. But if you are raised in that society, you and others around you might view those laws and justice as the status quo. Therefore you accept that breaking a law that forbids something most other people in the world would consider a human right, would make you feel bad.

So how do you combine empathic morality with a justice system that doesn't equal to true empathic values and human rights? If breaking the law is a good thing, but makes you feel bad, how does that combine with your ability to value pros and cons of that choice?

I still wouldn’t try to change a law if it was wrong, I don’t have time to change the world it’s just not worth the time. I suppose I still have trust in my society, maybe if I lived somewhere where the laws were making my life miserable, maybe I’d try to get out of that country, even if illegally, because it would be worth it, by weighing the pros and cons. Otherwise if I broke the laws of that society and was punished maybe I wouldn’t feel bad. I would cry out at the injustice of the situation and I would feel better because I’m sure I wouldn’t be alone.

Do you think critical thinking and logic fall under the purview of philosophy? — DingoJones

Perhaps they do. I like logic and critical thinking.

You arent answering the question, Im not sure why but you keep giving me Wishy washy non-sequators. Ill take the hint and leave you be.

I still wouldn’t try to change a law if it was wrong, I don’t have time to change the world it’s just not worth the time. I suppose I still have trust in my society, maybe if I lived somewhere where the laws were making my life miserable — Maya

But we can't create an empathic morality theory based on the status quo of one country. You also have to keep in mind that laws change all the time, nothing of that is static. If a government all of a sudden change laws into something that is not good for the people, that would need to be overthrown by the people. Otherwise, you are advocating for a totalitarian regime in which you would follow any leader who put into play any type of law.

You need a viewpoint on morality that is forming justice and laws, not that is coming out of it. That's the whole purpose of ethics; how we form society based on a set of philosophical moral guidelines.

I still wouldn’t bother trying to change the laws or the status quo. Sure you can have your own views of ethics (see title) but I’ll never change anyone’s mind, not likely. I don’t need to say what everyone else should do, I’ll just say what I would do and see if anyone would come up with any problems with that idea. I do vote (Lib Dem). But they’ll unlikely ever win an election and I had a limited choice of parties to begin with. I am basically powerless, but my view is the title, which sort of includes the ethics live and let live.

Just to clarify. I think the laws are what are right and wrong. If you don’t like it, get out or cry out the injustice and make sure you’re not going to be alone before you do this. My opinion basically doesn’t matter if I come up against a law, and I don’t want to go to prison unless I have to and the laws of my country don’t make me miserable so I’m okay with them. Going to prison would make me miserable.

I am not so familiar with those schools of thought. Perhaps my mind can be changed. I also try to keep an open mind. — Wheatley

To be very brief and general:

Socrates insisted on questioning those who claimed to be an authority on knowledge, which led to him being convicted of “corrupting the youth” and sentenced to death.

Diogenes lived as a voluntary beggar, and modeled his actions after dogs; shamelessly masturbating and defecating in public, believing that it was a more authentic lifestyle. He is also the founder of Cynicism.

Buddhism prescribes a way of life that reduces suffering by severing your attachment to desire, called The Middle Way. Buddhists adhere to The Middle Way in their daily lives.

Hedonism is the belief that we act in one of two ways; avoiding suffering or increasing pleasure. Typically they answer the question “What is the good life” by stating that it is the life that maximizes pleasure while reducing suffering. Both courses have been taken to their extremes, resulting in Asceticism and what is typically thought of with the word Hedonism; a person who considers seeking pleasure as the highest good.

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Then the 'philosophy' you are referring to is not actually philosophy.

In summary, doing what is best for yourself and others is in fact what is best for yourself and others. — Judaka

A more substantial takeaway is: whatever feels good to someone (in their entirety, not just here and now) is what is good to them, and so what is good objectively, without bias toward anyone in particular, is what feels good to everyone.

You arent answering the question, Im not sure why but you keep giving me Wishy washy non-sequators. Ill take the hint and leave you be. — DingoJones

I believe logic and critical thinking fall under the purview of philosophy.

Socrates insisted on questioning those who claimed to be an authority on knowledge, which led to him being convicted of “corrupting the youth” and sentenced to death.

Diogenes lived as a voluntary beggar, and modeled his actions after dogs; shamelessly masturbating and defecating in public, believing that it was a more authentic lifestyle. He is also the founder of Cynicism.

Buddhism prescribes a way of life that reduces suffering by severing your attachment to desire, called The Middle Way. Buddhists adhere to The Middle Way in their daily lives.

Hedonism is the belief that we act in one of two ways; avoiding suffering or increasing pleasure. Typically they answer the question “What is the good life” by stating that it is the life that maximizes pleasure while reducing suffering. Both courses have been taken to their extremes, resulting in Asceticism and what is typically thought of with the word Hedonism; a person who considers seeking pleasure as the highest good. — Pinprick

Very good! It seems like you have proven yourself correct.

Ok, so are critical thinking and logic of practical value?

Edited for clarity.

yes, they are.

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Ok, so that seems to contradict what you said in the above quote. Philosophy seems to have some practical value after all, and is useful in everyday life.

I think that there is a lot of philosophy that is sort of arcane and impractical like you say but there is a lot thats useful as well.
It depends on how you define philosophy, I think a case could be made that philosophy can be applied generically, outside academia as well as within. To me, its more about thinking, how to think and thoughtful consideration than strictly academia or philosophical history.
The more impractical aspects of philosophy are also interesting as thought exercise, which I would say is of practical value.

To test my ideas? I don't mind who it's coming from. But it's not like an authority figure that tells you to do things and doesn't give an explanation why, or is open to debate. I make my own decisions.

So you join a philosophy forum to test your ideas. Great, that makes sense. That means listening to other people - it's other people's criticisms, valid or not, that are the test for your ideas. But you say the virtue of your idea is that you don't have to listen to other people. That makes your idea immune from criticism. So by what means are you going to test your idea?

Of course you make your own decisions. Moral philosophers want to enable you to make your own decisions, not to prevent you from doing so. Only a religious command ethic tells you what to do without giving reasons (other than "because God says so"). But to make your own decisions you need grounds for deciding one way or another. Different moral theories provide different grounds for decision making - but whatever the ground, the decision you make upon it will be your decision, no one else's. The problem with your idea is that the only ground you have for making a decision is how you feel about the decision you've made. This doesn't explain how you arrived at your decision in the first place or why you feel the way you do about it. If it's only the feelings that count in the decision, then the decision is beyond the possibility of criticism or revision in the light of evidence or reason. You are just stuck with your feelings about things, which means you are being told what to do by feelings you have no control over, rather than making your own decisions based on reason and evidence. In other words, your idea is self-defeating.