Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens — Gnomon

He didn't.

Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) — Gnomon

Good point, but the goal was not to know in order to change the world.

Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". — Gnomon

In what sense is this metaphysical?

Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. — Gnomon

Certainly that is one approach or way of doing philosophy, but not the only one. Systematic attempts can force things to fit in place within the system or leave them out.

Sure, philosophy, like plumbing, can be done very badly. And when it is done badly, it is smelly and messy.

Is the answer to not do any plumbing? — Banno

The real problem is that most "philosophers" do "plumbing" while they think they are doing Philosophy.

Love of wisdom can mean different things. — Fooloso4

-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings.
I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". I find it really simple and precise.

. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world. — Fooloso4

-No that's not true. Problem solving is an inescapable side effect, a pragmatic necessity that bind any wise claim about our world.

It is outward directed. — Fooloso4

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me).

This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world. — Fooloso4

-Your last sentence provides you the answer. Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world).
From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions.

You and I are often in agreement about philosophical issues, but I disagree with just about all of your points here. — T Clark

-That's true ! I must say though I was pretty sure we were going to disagree on this one!

No surprise - the definition and meaning of metaphysics is one of the most contentious and confusing issues on the forum and, I assume, in philosophy in general. — T Clark

- I agree , words don't have absolute meanings, they have common usages and they tend to change over time.
My problem is not with which definition one uses but my argument is that only the Aristotelian definition (well Andronicus of Rhodes came up with the word/ definition) is relevant to philosophy.
And by that I mean: the Metaphysical hypotheses/questions sprouting(starting point) from credible epistemology are meaningful and have the chance to be evaluated for their wisdom.
i.e. Only after knowing the existence of gravity we can conclude about the wisdom of a claim that includes using a top floor window as a shortcut to our car.

Religions are a great example on how epistemically divorced metaphysical claims(they also happen to be supernatural) can be so unwise.
I am really interested to hear examples of epistemically disconnected "metaphysics" which can or have guided us to wisdom.

I moved in Greece really early in my life, where Philosophy was a standard dish in school. The definition(metaphysics) we were taught was the classical one (Using our epistemology to theorize beyond our current knowledge and understanding). So Carrier's definition was nothing special or new to me. These last 15 years I found out that many use the meanings of the words "meta/μέτα" and "yper(super)/υπέρ" interchangeably.

I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". I find it really simple and precise. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't disagree (how can I, when I have no real view on the matter?) but I'd like to explore this with you some more if that's ok.

Is not a 'wise statement' always measured or understood against some form of value system or worldview? How do you account for the perspectival nature of such values? What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others. What does philosophy tell us about identifying the wise from the faux wise?

Love of wisdom can mean different things.
— Fooloso4
-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings. — Nickolasgaspar

You give a very good example:

I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". — Nickolasgaspar

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live.

In the Republic the philosopher is compelled to return to the cave. The life of contemplation cannot be lived unless the philosopher is wise with regard to political life. Socrates' trial is a case in point. Xenophon is instructive here as well. In his Socratic dialogues Socrates deals with quotidian practical matters, not just intellectual endeavors.

No that's not true. — Nickolasgaspar

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge.

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me). — Nickolasgaspar

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just.

For more on inward versus outward directedness see Descrtes provisional morality above.

Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world)./quote]

Look at what happens in the Republic when the philosopher is compelled to return to the city/cave. Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth. There is clear empirical evidence of philosophy's corruptive influence. They came to question the beliefs and values of their ancestors.

How we evaluate empirical results can differ depending on our state of self-knowledge, with what we value and take to be important.
— Nickolasgaspar

From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions. — Nickolasgaspar

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want.

I don't disagree (how can I, when I have no real view on the matter?) but I'd like to explore this with you some more if that's ok. — Tom Storm

-its more than ok!

Is not a 'wise statement' always measured or understood against some form of value system or worldview? How do you account for the perspectival nature of such values? What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others. — Tom Storm

-True. As humans we are curious and we value learning facts about our world. Its human nature. We observe it in small kids asking "why this/why that" all the time. We observe it in "older kids" who go on and make up their own "answers" and what is right or wise to do (religions with rules traditions and dogma).
Making sense of the world is what we are "hardwired" for. Anil Seth describes our brain function as a "prediction machine", an organ constantly scanning our environment for facts helpful in the prediction of near future events .
ITs so valuable that we also have a biological mechanism ready to reward us with a "soup of endorphins" every time we realize we are right on an assessment.
It turns out , this specific characteristic increases our percentage of survival and flourishing.(increase happiness/avoid suffering).
So a Wisdom is not just a " great story" , it also carries an instrumental value and as empirical beasts we do like practical "advises".

What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that doesn't reduce the value of wisdom in a claim! i.e. The value is not affected by the magnitude of our excitement. i.e. An order "don't use an elevator during an earthquake" is wise to be followed and we teach it to our children even if it sound banal to grown ups who live in tall buildings.

What does philosophy tell us about identifying the wise from the faux wise? — Tom Storm

-That's a very good question! Natural Philosophy abandon the Academic "ship" and became an independent Philosophical "category", established really strict peer reviewing process and high standards of evaluation just to be sure for the quality of Wisdom in its Theoretical Frameworks.
We systematized Logic in order to be able to evaluate the sound foundations of our claims.
If you look up the definition of "Wise" you'll see that almost all include the following.
"Good judgment/Having or showing good judgment(to say, to decide, to act)".
So there must be something to judge in the first place.
In Philosophy its knowledge, in everyday life ..facts.
Not my best post...but its really late over here! =)

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live. — Fooloso4

I think we have a misunderstanding here.
You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method. His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life.
Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements. This can be achieved by gathering facts, assembling them in to knowledge and finally reflecting on them to find meaning. If that is done successfully the produced framework contains wisdom.

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge. — Fooloso4

-No I don't mean that. Bunge points out that when a statement is wise,it can be used to address real world issues. (sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more).

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just. — Fooloso4

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy.Try finding an example of a well accepted wise statement that isn't based on verified knowledge(any type).

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want. — Fooloso4

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise". This is why Mario includes "problem solving" and Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.

She started describing the historic sequence of political philosophies and how the changes in metaphysics proceeded. That's something I've thought about a lot, but more in the precinct of ontology than ethics and politics. I haven't spent as much time thinking about them. I think that's because I live my life mostly through my intellect and I'm most interested in becoming more self-aware about how I think. — T Clark

You seem to imply that the intellect has little to do with ethics and politics...

You seem to imply that the intellect has little to do with ethics and politics... — Banno

That certainly wasn't my point, which was that I am most interested in the intellectual process itself, not the results of that process. The experience of thinking. What thinking, feeling, knowing feels like. Not as much the conclusions the discussions come to. I am interested in ethics and aesthetics, but, again, mostly about what moral and artistic feeling and thought feel like. How I experience them. There's a structure to thought, knowing, and language which is at the heart of my interest.

Interesting. So on a rough line, which approach, which perspective, comes closer to the interests you express here - Bunge's "real man" approach, decisive and practical, or Midgley's open, piecemeal, remedial approach?

So on a rough line, which approach, which perspective, comes closer to the interests you express here - Bunge's "real man" approach, decisive and practical, or Midgley's open, piecemeal, remedial approach? — Banno

I was unimpressed by Carrier's presentation of Bunge's approach. My philosophy, such as it is, is far from any kind of academic approach, so I don't feel any need to fix it. My approach is very personal. As I mentioned, I got into Midgley's essay in the second half.

You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method. — Nickolasgaspar

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole.

His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life. — Nickolasgaspar

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism.

Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements. — Nickolasgaspar

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole.

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more — Nickolasgaspar

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it.

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others.

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise". — Nickolasgaspar

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge?

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method. — Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.

(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.

(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems.

My criticism is that there are no philosophers, and haven’t been in decades. We get people like Zizek. I think it’s a low point in philosophy.

Apprecaite the feedback.

My criticism is that there are no philosophers — Mikie

I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Can you say some more?

I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

Sure. Who would you point to as a living philosopher? Not a chronicler.

Nagel is still alive, and Charles Taylor and John Searle and Dan Dennett…I guess they’re considered philosophers, but I’ve never been particularly impressed. Seems like professionalization run amok. Where’s our truly original thinkers? In my opinion the last one died in ‘76.

But that’s me.

Where’s our truly original thinkers? — Mikie

Original thinkers perhaps go elsewhere?

Nagel is still alive, and Charles Taylor and John Searle and Dan Dennett — Mikie

Hmm... it's not really Mount Rushmore is it?

In my opinion the last one died in ‘76. — Mikie

Heidegger or Ryle?

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others. — Fooloso4

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole — Fooloso4

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom?
Can you list such breakthroughs and the methods used?
How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge?

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism. — Fooloso4

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim.
You are confusing the content of his philosophy with the general quality of all philosophical statements.

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole. — Fooloso4

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement!

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more
— Nickolasgaspar

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it. — Fooloso4

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others. — Fooloso4

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product. Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical. This can only be achieved through epistemic verification.

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge? — Fooloso4

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example.

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.
— Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.
(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.
(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems. — Fooloso4

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect . After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems.
But he is correct, not all knowledge is wisdom. I.e. tautologies (deduction) / simple facts are not wisdom. Induction/abduction demand judgement. Aka wisdom

there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work. My opinion is that we the audience are polluted by worldviews( pseudo philosophy) keeping us from appreciating their work.

Original thinkers perhaps go elsewhere? — Tom Storm

Where? I’m talking about worldwide.

Heidegger or Ryle? — Tom Storm

Heidegger.

there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work. — Nickolasgaspar

Who?

Where? I’m talking about worldwide. — Mikie

No idea, but I wonder to what extent people are interested in participating in public discourse any more. Apart from the social media tosspots.

anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions. Just pick a field, Natural Philosophy (science),Philosophy of Science, Atheism, Secular Ethics etc. btw Scientific Literature is a great way to find great Philosophers.

anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions. — Nickolasgaspar

A Ph.D.? Thousands of those are handed out. That makes you a philosopher? In terms of important contributions — yeah, exactly. Who?

Well PhD's aren't necessary, what's important are the contributions to our Philosophy.
Hoyningen, Sanders, Harris, Kraus, Carroll,Sapolsky,Solomon,Harari,Searle,Becker,Adams, Carrier, Al Khalili, Solms, Wilczekm, Greene, Seth, Bloom, Mate', Fischer,Ariely, Diamond,Dawkins, Hawking,Wyman,Fallon,Churchland,etc etc etc etc.

Haidt,Zimbardo,Weinberg, Fresco,Josheph, Sandel,Kagan,Ogilvie,Ramachandran and I am not sure if I must include Pinker

You seem to be simply naming people you’re familiar with. Haidt and Zimbardo aren’t philosophers. Neither is Sean Caroll or Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking, just to name a few. If we’re considering anyone we like to be philosophers, then “philosopher” becomes relatively meaningless.

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different.

First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers.
Second important point is that they all publish literature reflective on our current knowledge and its implication on specific fields of study and beyond.
Any one can be a philosopher as long as he contributes to a specific category. Some philosophers (i.e. Chalmers) are way worse in contributing even if they carry the label.

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different. — Mikie

He has major contributions to Philosophy of mind, language and social philosophy.
His ideas on the mind are verified by Neuroscience today.

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom? — Nickolasgaspar

What two basic steps?

Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom.

How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't see how they could.

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim. — Nickolasgaspar

This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements".

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement! — Nickolasgaspar

I don't know what this means. Statements have content.

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates — Nickolasgaspar

Plato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim.

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product. — Nickolasgaspar

"Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue. That we cannot arrive at a "final product" is the point. We are left without wisdom. We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise.

Now you may not agree, but your disagreement does not mean that the dialogues are excluded from philosophy.

Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical. — Nickolasgaspar

This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical.

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example. — Nickolasgaspar

Self-knowledge is the example.

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect — Nickolasgaspar

Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption.

Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding.

After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems. — Nickolasgaspar

According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science.

First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl:

Bye.

Ignorance is bliss...I guess