rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney) (01/01/70)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <76@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >[..] >If someone wants to be brave and proffer a definition of philosophy, I'm all >for it! Here goes (nice to know you're behind me, Sarge!): Philosophy is the activity of attempting to discover and/or propagate conceptual truths where a conceptual truth is one which is true by definition (a tautology) or whose logical premises are conceptual truths. Thus formal logic, when dealing only with concepts, is the `purest' form of philosophy. Other forms of philosophy are less formal, but (hopefully) still logical methods of juggling concepts. Before the rise of experimental methodology, all serious thinking was philosophical. (Which is not to say that it was good philosophy.) When a branch of philosophy began to have (or be capable of having) its theories tested by experimentation, it became a science. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary: philosophy n. Seeking after wisdom or knowledge, esp. that which deals with ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and principles of things and ideas and human percep- tion and knowledge of them, physical phenomena (natural philosophy); advanced learning in general (doctor of phil- osophy); philosophical system; system of principles for conduct of life; serentity, calmness. [ME f. OF filosofie L f. Gk PHILO (sophia wisdom f. sophos wise)] This to me is an outdated and/or laymans definition of the word. It obviously does not provide a means of contrasting philosophy with science. My definition is (hopefully) that of a modern philosopher. (Perhaps I should say - a British/American academic philosopher.) Robin rjf@ukc.ac.uk ..mcvax!ukc!rjf
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/01/87)
[Not food] In article <71@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: |I like my criterion for differentiating philosophy and science: |Philosophy has the purpose of arriving at non-empirical truths; science has |the purpose of arriving at empirical truths. | |I await with interest a serious challenge to this notion. Does this mean that introspection is a branch of philosophy? It certainly has the purpose of arriving at non-empirical truths. I will also note that, by this definition, when "natural philosophy" became "science", this did not represent a maturing of the discipline, but a recognition of its separate nature (or, perhaps, a redefinition of the word "philosophy"). This is not necessarily wrong, but I think it needs some defense. -- Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/03/87)
In article <2279@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >In article <71@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >|I like my criterion for differentiating philosophy and science: >|Philosophy has the purpose of arriving at non-empirical truths; science has >|the purpose of arriving at empirical truths. >Does this mean that introspection is a branch of philosophy? It certainly >has the purpose of arriving at non-empirical truths. > You are right, of course. I did not mean to give a *definition* of philosophy or science, just a means for differentiating the two. See my reply to Biep. If someone wants to be brave and proffer a definition of philosophy, I'm all for it! -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge
sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/08/87)
I greatly admire your courage in offering a definition (it exceeds mine). And I agree with you when, in article <3251@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rjf@ukc.ac.uk you (Robin Faichney) write: >Before the rise of experimental >methodology, all serious thinking was philosophical. (Which is not to say >that it was good philosophy.) When a branch of philosophy began to have >(or be capable of having) its theories tested by experimentation, it became >a science. But when you say: >Philosophy is the activity of attempting to discover and/or propagate >conceptual truths > >where a conceptual truth is one which is true by definition (a tautology) or >whose logical premises are conceptual truths. > >Thus formal logic, when dealing only with concepts, is the `purest' form of >philosophy. Other forms of philosophy are less formal, but (hopefully) still >logical methods of juggling concepts. we part company. Surely this definition is a REdefinition that encompasses far less than what is normally thought of as philosophy. To me, your definition seems to reduce philosophy to a combination of semantics and logic, when it used to be "love of wisdom". I agree with Biep when he says, "I like the part about concepts," But it seems that you are only describing the "linguistic analysis" form of philosophy. I also agree with Biep when he says, >I think in this way you cut off the more fundamental parts of philosophy. >What about thinking about whether "truth" is a valid notion? What about >ethics, aesthetics? Of course, logicians have tried to set up deontic and >other logics, but then again, an aestheticist might view truth in terms of >beauty. Where would you classify what Biep is talking about, if not under philosophy? Mere fuzzy-headedness? I don't think the truths sought in philosophy are merely truths about the way words are used. At least it seems to me philosophy has a more grandiose purpose than that. But I do confess not to have a sufficient brainstorm to know exactly what that purpose is and therefore what philosophy is, other than that it involves the discovery of non-empirical truths. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge
chrisa@tekig5.TEK.COM (Omega) (08/10/87)
In article <83@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > >I don't think the truths sought in philosophy are merely truths about the way >words are used. At least it seems to me philosophy has a more grandiose >purpose than that. I do not look for the purpose of philosophy. To me philosophy is simply HOW we look at the world. Whether it is trying to achieve a goal, follows a methodology, or can be expirimentally tested is unimportant. A philosophy is a system of thought by which we observe. -- Chris Andersen (Omega) UUCP: chrisa@tekadg or chrisa@tekig5
sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/12/87)
In article <1763@tekig5.TEK.COM> chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Omega) writes: >In article <83@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >> >>I don't think the truths sought in philosophy are merely truths about the way >>words are used. At least it seems to me philosophy has a more grandiose >>purpose than that. > >I do not look for the purpose of philosophy. To me philosophy is simply HOW >we look at the world. Whether it is trying to achieve a goal, follows a >methodology, or can be expirimentally tested is unimportant. A philosophy is >a system of thought by which we observe. So you would have philosophy as a mere methodology? I think any activity, be it science, philosophy, or underwater basket-weaving, should have a purpose and that that purpose should be at least a *part* of its definition. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge
rjf@eagle.UUCP (08/14/87)
<83@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > >I greatly admire your courage in offering a definition (it exceeds mine). And >I agree with you when, in article <3251@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rjf@ukc.ac.uk you >(Robin Faichney) write: > >>[..how a branch of philosophy becomes a science..] > >But when you say: > >>Philosophy is the activity of attempting to discover and/or propagate >>conceptual truths >> >>[..etc..] > >we part company. Surely this definition is a REdefinition.. >..when it used to be "love of wisdom". > >I agree with Biep when he says, "I like the part about concepts," But it seems >that you are only describing the "linguistic analysis" form of philosophy. I >also agree with Biep when he says, > >>I think in this way you cut off the more fundamental parts of philosophy. >>[..about truth, ethics, aesthetics..] > >Where would you classify what Biep is talking about, if not under philosophy? >Mere fuzzy-headedness? Certainly not. I'll admit to attempting a redefinition. But I don't want to throw away everything which does not fit my description. Just to recategorise it. Let me emphasise: I'm a big fan of beauty, I think ethics certainly fascinating, and maybe indispensable in a civilised society, and I'm even quite keen on theology. BUT: I think beauty is the subject of art and of psychology, that ethics has aspects which are philosophical, but also others which are sociological, psychological, etc., and theology is better understood as a quasi- (or perhaps even pseudo-) philosophical subdivision of religion. All of these things have connections and overlappings (?) with philosophy, but that does not make them subdivisions of it. I would submit that those aspects which do not fit quite happily within one of the other arts or sciences, could be reduced to conceptual analysis. (Not sure this identical to linguistic analysis. Haven't thought about that yet.) I suppose I am trying to say that philosophy is not a subject area, but a method (I won't tease Biep by saying a methodology) which is applied to various subject areas. In article <2495@ames.arpa> yamo@orville.UUCP (Michael J. Yamasaki) writes: >[..] >All philosophy is not Western, nor is it logical, and certainly formal logic >is not the paramount of philosophy. Please explain in the context of logic >the notion of no mind in Zen Buddhism or the Tao. Are these not Philosophy? Strangely enough, I was reading a book about Zen and Western Philosophy just the other evening. Matsuo Abe (sp?). I'd say no, these are not philosophy, they're religion. I believe that many have tried to make such things palatable to modern western academics by emphasising the philosophic and de-emphasising the religious content, but I think that is wrong. For the record - I practice meditation myself, am convinced that the world needs a major resurgence in interest in religion, and think that if it happens, it will probably be something vaguely like Buddhism or even Zen. But I don't think they're philosophy. I must admit to being heavily influenced by Wittgenstein, as is a great deal of modern British/American philosophy. But what's wrong with that? :-) (I believe that Wittgenstein was a practicing Christian, though I'm not sure about that.) By the way, though the above-mentioned book claimed to elucidate the philosophical foundations of Zen, it confirmed that the *practice* of Zen (which, for me, must be the most important part) is about as far from philosophy as you can get. If philosophical methods are used to examine the *theory* of it, that is another matter. >Truth is not necessarily deduced truth, Absolutely. >nor is it necessarily the result of causality. Not sure what this means. >Beauty is as good a criteria for Truth, as deduction and >experimentation is for truth. I'll go along with this for the sake of argument, but try telling it to a (usual sort of) scientist! >Science is a philosophy. Philosophy encompasses science. The bounds of >Truth are not found in science. Explain what Truth >one can know from a singular unique event using science. >Is this not Nothing? > > -Yamo- This a bit beyond me. Sorry. Robin rjf@ukc.ac.uk ..mcvax!ukc!rjf