Dammit, Spock! I'm a doctor, not a metaphysician! — 180 Proof

:lol:

Philosophy can be summed up completely in the following:

What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? No matter.

This is from a story told by Bertrand Russell.

Figured this was a good place to put it— I found it amusing.

an ongoing discussion of the nature of being.

Given the word philosophy is in the very title of this forum, it seems like a fairly straightforward question, "What is philosophy?"

The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means. — Xtrix

I was just asking this on another thread! I'll have to read through the responses....

The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means. — Xtrix

It's a good point this one. I used to assume this meant the love of attempting to find wisdom. I've often wondered how someone how isn't wise can recognize wisdom when they see it. There seems to be a small contradiction inherent in this for me. Many years ago my wife said to me - "I've met a guru who may be enlightened and is so wise that I am going to become a follower." I asked how she knew the gurus was wise. "They told me so and he looks it."

Science is fact, What we believe is Dogma and Philosophy is the stuff in between.

Science is fact, What we believe is Dogma and Philosophy is the stuff in between. — GBG

Eh. We believe plenty of things in science as well.

Science is fact, What we believe is Dogma and Philosophy is the stuff in between. — GBG

The central dogma of molecular biology...

What is your aim in philosophy? – To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle. — 180 Proof

What is philosophy?

To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle...into another fly bottle/directly into the kill zone of a fly-swatter.

:grin:

Western philosophy: Dominate nature (become king, there's no king)
Eastern philosophy: Submit to nature (become subjects, we already have a queen, mother nature)

Why misquote me?

Western[Reductive] philosophy: Dominate nature (become king, there's no king) — Agent Smith

Duality (identity (monad)). Transcendence. Necessity.

Eastern[Holistic] philosophy: Submit to nature (become subjects, we already have a queen, mother nature)

~Duality (~identity (relation)). Immanence. Contingency.

Why misquote me? — 180 Proof

It wasn't me, it couldn't have been me! I was dead! I was on the moon! :lol:

Science doen't matter if we believe in it or not it is still real. Whereas Dogma needs belief to exist.

Western[Reductive] philosophy: Dominate nature (become king, there's no king)
— Agent Smith
Duality (identity (monad)). Transcendence. Necessity.

Eastern[Holistic] philosophy: Submit to nature (become subjects, we already have a queen, mother nature)
~Duality (~identity (relation)). Immanence. Contingency — 180 Proof

:up:

Seems though that a monad is still a monoid in the category of endofunnctors.

Science doen't matter if we believe in it or not it is still real. Whereas Dogma needs belief to exist. — GBG

Science too needs believe to exist. It does matter if we believe it or not. Even in the science itself dogma exists. The central dogma of molecular biology, for example.

Science doen't matter if we believe in it or not it is still real. Whereas Dogma needs belief to exist. — GBG

It’s just not that simple. No matter how much Richard Dawkins we read.

Science was (and is) natural philosophy. The very concept of “nature” and “physics” has a long history. Defining “reality” as anything physical or natural is also not uncontroversial, so to make sweeping declarations like this is just childish.

I suppose my childish view is to simplify. Try to keep what is real real and what we believe as real as Philosophical reality. Not to say that it only exists because we believe it exists but it must exist because the science says it must. I agree it is definitely not just that simple and although you consider my view to be childish is it less relevant?

Given the word philosophy is in the very title of this forum, it seems like a fairly straightforward question, "What is philosophy?"

The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means.

Interested in hearing various interpretations. — Xtrix

There is a pretty simple answer to the question "what is philosophy" and that is that philosophy is a subcategory of something called critical thinking. Of course one might ask the question what is critical thinking and the two simplest definitions I can think of is that it is method of thinking used to solve what are otherwise complex issues and the other is that it is the means that we use to "think about thinking"
While critical thinking and philosophy may sometimes sound like the same thing, I believe the areas of critical thinking that is considered to be philosophy (or perhaps just philosophy) is when such methods are used to solve real world issues and not just ponder academic ones, although I could be wrong about this.

Critical thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
https://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking/what

Dammit, Spock! I'm a doctor, not a metaphysician! :nerd: — 180 Proof

:up:

Whatever isn't too stimulating for the admins and sexually or, seemingly, politically repressed people on this board

While critical thinking and philosophy may sometimes sound like the same thing, I believe the areas of critical thinking that is considered to be philosophy (or perhaps just philosophy) is when such methods are used to solve real world issues and not just ponder academic ones — dclements

I agree that philosophy is a kind of thinking. I'm sure it involves aspects of critical thinking, too. But not all critical thinking is philosophy.

When I want to solve a puzzle or practical problem, I can employ critical thinking skills, but the question or problem at hand isn't necessarily a philosophical one. So I think you have it backwards in the last sentence: when something is done to solve real world issues, it's often not called philosophical.

Again I come back to my own opinion on this, which is that philosophy is a kind of thinking distinguished by its questions. The question of questions, in my view (and here I'm channeling Heidegger), is the question of being. The next question, equally important, is "What is good?" (in the sense of a good life, and thus how to live, and thus morality).

Not to say that it only exists because we believe it exists but it must exist because the science says it must. — GBG

The "science" in this case being based on human reason, intelligence and creativity. Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief. "Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view. It puts faith in the methods of science. Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism." It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. This is why nearly everyone who wrestles with these questions should read Descartes and Kant, at minimum, or at least familiarize yourself with their arguments. Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful.

At the end of the day, I think what's called "science" is the best we have for making predictions and understanding causal relations. But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy."

Philosophy begins with the abstract and moves toward the concrete. "Here is the question, now what is the answer?"
Science begins with (what it considers) the concrete and moves more toward abstract explanation. "Here is the answer, now what is the question?"

Philosophy begins with the abstract and moves toward the concrete. "Here is the question, now what is the answer?"
Science begins with (what it considers) the concrete and moves more toward abstract explanation. "Here is the answer, now what is the question?" — Yohan

For me these would be a definition of mediocre philosophy and even worse science. Philosophy spends significant time and energy on working to clarify what the actual questions might be. This is not always apparent.

Science is frequently a creative enterprise that begins with an imaginative hypothesis and tests it. Answers are a tentative model based on the best available evidence at the time. As you'll note, science is an ever changing iterative pathway to the best available models and is frequently limited or wrong. Then there are all those moments in science where discoveries are made by accident - like penicillin and lithium and the germ theory of disease.

Philosophy, as it is stated by the etymology of the world is the intellectual endeavor where thinking agents use current available knowledge and try to produce wise claims about our world.(Wisdom).
Philosophy is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of comforting our selves.
Unfortunately most people place their comforting ideas under the "umbrella" of philosophy, but that doesn't make them philosophical ideas.

Science is the best way to do Philosophy since it respects and expands our epistemology allowing our philosophical claims to get wiser.

-"Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief."
-Science respects Objectivism. Emprirical methodologies are accepted due to their ability to produce objective frameworks....not because of an arbitrary belief. Any method being able to produce objective facts is and will be highly respected.
Now what we verify as real in science is the product of an objective evaluation of available facts.
This isn't a philosophical belief but a Pragmatic Necessity based on the epistemic Acknowledgment of the limitations of our methods of investigation and observations.
We don't need to be absolute certain on what we identity as real, we only need to base our claims on the current available facts. This is an on going process of evaluation.

-""Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view."
-No real is whatever we can objectively verify to be manifesting in our observable reality. What science tells us is not the criterion here. Its what we can demonstrate objectively and science has the tools to do that with high Systematicity.
ITs the rules of logic and evidence that point to what is real. Science just provides the objective evidence for us to make the ruling.

-"It puts faith in the methods of science."
-No, we don't need faith to trust the methods of science. Those methods have been proven credible every single time we use them. Faith is believing in something without good reason. Science provides a mountain of good reasons to accept its frameworks and methods.

-" Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism.""
-No scientism is the belief that only science can provide knowledge claims and scientific methods can answer everything. Having a belief in a system that has proven itself again and again its called "being reasonable". Science is the most reliable, methodical and systematic method we currently have. That increase our confidence in our judgments but it also allow us to revise those judgments in the future because all scientific frameworks have a falsifiable nature.(objectivity ensures that).

-" It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. "
-It signifies a certain way to evaluate irrational claims and irrational claims...not Truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truths since its frameworks are tentative based on current objective facts and observations( observations advance,facts change thus our science may change).
4.300 conflicting religious dogmas, 160+ spiritual supernatural worldviews etc have proven the untrustworthiness of subjective interpretations, feelings and opinions used as foundations for ontological claims. Science does provide the evidence that render those interpretations irrelevant and useless. This ruling comes from logic..science only provides the evidence.

-"This is why nearly everyone who wrestles with these questions should read Descartes and Kant, at minimum, or at least familiarize yourself with their arguments. "
-Those two great philosophers have really bad arguments on metaphysics and what is real. Everyone should read them but they should also be informed of the epistemology and Basic Logic which render their arguments unsound and bad philosophy.

-" Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful."
-They are useful ...only in an idealistic frame of reference. Within Methodological Naturalism and Instrumentalism they are useless. Its a waste of time and a huge argument from ignorance in my opinion.

-"At the end of the day, I think what's called "science" is the best we have for making predictions and understanding causal relations."
-Well those two things is what renders Natural Philosophy superior, because we can verify that a philosophical claim has value from its ability to describe causes and provide predictions (instrumental value). Wisdom has nothing to do with absolute knowledge, or ultimate truth. It has to do with expending our understanding of our world with meaningful frameworks based on our Limited Knowledge and limited observations.
The "absolute and ultimate" is a subject of theology, not philosophy.

-" But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy." "
-That is a factually wrong statement.
First of all science doesn't assume the world is material, mechanical etc.
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism meaning that we understand that the limits of our current methods of investigation and observations are limited within the Natural realm. So investigating the Natural aspects of the cosmos (matter, physical properties) is a Pragmatic Necessity, not an arbitrary philosophical bias.
That said, science doesn't reject the supernatural as wrong or not real. It rejects it as untestable, unobservable and unverifiable. The moment one comes up with methods that can objectively verify that realm, science will be using the principles of Methodological Supernaturalism.
Secondly science doesn't assume that the world is just mechanical. Complex/Emergent Science and Quantum Mechanics Prove that different scales of nature display different qualities and "behaviors".
You are attacking a strawman of science...not the actual system of methodologies.

I don't disagree with you that much. However, I view science as entirely creative, like any other field with the goal of discovery or novelty.
Rules don't make something non-creative.(Not saying that you said or implied this...) They are rather guidelines to creating the sort of thing one wants to create.

-"Philosophy begins with the abstract and moves toward the concrete. "Here is the question, now what is the answer?"
-I will agree with Tom

For me these would be a definition of mediocre philosophy and even worse science. — Tom Storm

Both, science and philosophy are motivated by observations and epistemology.
This is where we come up with our questions. Science (the methodological part) allow us to produce better questions and answers by expanding our epistemology through objective and systematic methodologies of investigation.
Natural Philosophy and Philosophy in general both should respect our establish epistemology and both should inform their metaphysics on new available knowledge( latest science).
For a reason many think that our Metaphysics should not be limited by our current body of knowledge and for a even weirder reason, they believe their conclusions should be accepted as philosophy.
That is not possible. Ignoring knowledge is not wise and philosophy is in the business of providing wise claims about the world.

Now science and philosophy both describe the world through theoretical frameworks.
If a philosophical theory is based on our epistemology and the conclusion is verified....this is called science.
If it isnt' verified, it remains part of our philosophy (metaphysics).
IF a theory isn't based on any of our knowledge and the conclusion is unfalsifiable, we deal with pseudo philosophy.

:up:

For me, philosophy consists in reflectively reasoning to better, more probative, questioning (i.e. an answer (concept) is just a question's way of 'implying' other questions) whereas science, it seems, consists in abductively reasoning to better, more comprehensive, conjecturing (i.e. a solution (explanation) is just a problem's way of 'implying' other problems). And so questioning often can (paradigmatically) frame conjecturing, no? :chin:

reasoning to better, more probative, questioning — 180 Proof

reasoning to better, more comprehensive, conjecturing — 180 Proof

Poetry.

How come science and philosophy aren't used together(except minimally) as a single philosophic-scientific method?

It seems like a divide and conquer tactic.

It's just as important to verify that a hypothesis is self-consistent(logically sound?) as it is to verify that it is consistent with objective reality. Isn't it?
(I'm sure scientists do use logic, obviously, but with the same rigour as philosophers?)