What does philosophy do? Options

[coberst]

What does philosophy do?

I claim that the task of philosophy is to look inward to find the basis for the presuppositions that form the foundation for all human created theories. I claim that in our first effort to look inward primitive humans saw thier mortality; they hated what they saw and immediately sought a means to successfully repress that thought. That solution turns out to be what we today call religion.

Long ago a professor of philosophy said to me, after my asking him what philosophy is all about, “philosophy is a radically critical self-consciousness”. It took me 30 years to comprehend what he said.

“But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in an article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061601766.html

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.

[astroidea]

I liked the title of the text used in my philosophy class.
Does the Center Hold?
Philosophy aims to give everyone a sense of coherence of this universe, a sense of structure in our society so that we can have some predictability and order, rather than uncontrolled chaos. It's to give people a sense of a compass in their lives.
Otherwise, why should we do anything? How do we know anything that we believe actually even means anything or holds any truth? It would seem that we would be little different than other animals, feeding, mating, and acting on other impulses.
So yes, I'd agree that philosophy does tell people, if not an entire society how to lead their lives.

[Rick]

Maybe it tells them how to tell their selves how to live. I take orders from nobody but me (and my employer, within limits).

Another thing it does is helps you figure out what's true and what's not true.

[astroidea]

Maybe it tells them how to tell their selves how to live. I take orders from nobody but me (and my employer, within limits).

Another thing it does is helps you figure out what's true and what's not true.

You take orders from no one, but where would you say you've gotten your personal life compass from or how you live your daily life?

How much of it is innate to you, and how much of it came from external influences?
Where would you say these external influences originated from?

I would be betting that most of them originated by people thinking about these five questions
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html
And your viewpoint is largely from a collective viewpoint within societies that have evolved over the history of mankind. And you come up with your own original viewpoints from your own personal experiences, in which you will influence into the collective as well. So in a way, you are a philosopher too.

[Rick]

Interesting link. Yes, I've been a philosopher for as long as I can remember.

[catseye]

the best philosopher is one who asks how?, in answer to the why

hello

[Hey Hey]

The best philosopher is a dead philosopher. Then he/she can answer the ultimate question!

Not!

[coberst]

We live in world of great complexity; we live in the crystalline world and the biological world and we live in a a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion.

In the crystalline world atoms combine in ways determined by atomic structure that never varies. Whereas in the biological world, especially after this world has taken on a conscious component, we can begin to speak about creation in that this biological world is reflexive. It is a world with multiple feedback loops wherein the outputs affect the inputs and this is often determined by complex and constantly variable interactions.

I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Normal science, as defined by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need Critical Thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

I conclude that American citizens are not sophisticated enough to make the kind of decisions that are required to prevent the destruction of our civilization. It seems to me that we must put a much greater emphasis upon this weakness. I think that the foundation for such an increase in intellectual sophistication requires that, at a minimum, a much greater proportion of our citizens must develop a comprehension of the fundamentals of Critical Thinking.

Much more is required of our adult population; but this is a minimum.

[Lindsay]

What does philosophy do? ...

It is said that all science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art. When it helps us develop the art of living it become our philosophy of religion--how we handle life.

[oanadoledo]

What are the nature and limits of knowledge? What is more fundamental to human existence, knowing (epistemology) or being (ontology)? How do we come to know what we know? What are the limits and scope of knowledge? How can we know that there are other minds (if we can)? How can we know that there is an external world (if we can)? How can we prove our answers? What is a true statement?

[GodConsciousness]

What are the nature and limits of knowledge? What is more fundamental to human existence, knowing (epistemology) or being (ontology)? How do we come to know what we know? What are the limits and scope of knowledge? How can we know that there are other minds (if we can)? How can we know that there is an external world (if we can)? How can we prove our answers? What is a true statement?

starting to sound like one of my philosophy classes here.

in the historical sense (at least), philosophy was considered 'the great mother of all sciences' attempting to reconcile and fit together all that we know into some kind of coherent whole. i still believe this is philosophy's ultimate aim- to figure out how all the disparate domains of knowing and understanding can go together into a logically consistent unity of human comprehension in regards to the universe and our place within it.

what is particularly perplexing about our present moment is the fact that we have so much going on in so many different fields that it has become increasingly more difficult to connect the dots from one field to another. from physics to neuroscience to computer science to our knowledge about space and beyond- we are seeing rapid development in all these fields. One of the great strengths of BM, however, is that we have people on these boards reflecting on developments in such diverse fields and at least attempting to make some sense of them in the grander scheme of things.

[Trip like I do]

What are the nature and limits of knowledge? What is more fundamental to human existence, knowing (epistemology) or being (ontology)? How do we come to know what we know? What are the limits and scope of knowledge? How can we know that there are other minds (if we can)? How can we know that there is an external world (if we can)? How can we prove our answers? What is a true statement?

starting to sound like one of my philosophy classes here.

in the historical sense (at least), philosophy was considered 'the great mother of all sciences' attempting to reconcile and fit together all that we know into some kind of coherent whole. i still believe this is philosophy's ultimate aim- to figure out how all the disparate domains of knowing and understanding can go together into a logically consistent unity of human comprehension in regards to the universe and our place within it.

what is particularly perplexing about our present moment is the fact that we have so much going on in so many different fields that it has become increasingly more difficult to connect the dots from one field to another. from physics to neuroscience to computer science to our knowledge about space and beyond- we are seeing rapid development in all these fields. One of the great strengths of BM, however, is that we have people on these boards reflecting on developments in such diverse fields and at least attempting to make some sense of them in the grander scheme of things.

.... have you been in contact with a thousand plateaus

[GodConsciousness]

1001

[Trip like I do]

1001

do you understand my question?

[GodConsciousness]

perhaps not. Are you referring to this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=B9xLrS6mp...page&q=&f=false

[Trip like I do]

yes, that's the one!




have you read any of it?

[GodConsciousness]

yes, that's the one!




have you read any of it?

I perused it briefly and looks interesting.

[Trip like I do]

I would suggest reading from page 3 to 29 and upon true coherence reassess your previous statement that follows....

attempting to reconcile and fit together all that we know into some kind of coherent whole. i still believe this is philosophy's ultimate aim- to figure out how all the disparate domains of knowing and understanding can go together into a logically consistent unity of human comprehension in regards to the universe and our place within it.

what is particularly perplexing about our present moment is the fact that we have so much going on in so many different fields that it has become increasingly more difficult to connect the dots from one field to another. from physics to neuroscience to computer science to our knowledge about space and beyond- we are seeing rapid development in all these fields. One of the great strengths of BM, however, is that we have people on these boards reflecting on developments in such diverse fields and at least attempting to make some sense of them in the grander scheme of things.

[GodConsciousness]

Interesting quote:

"What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real. The map does not reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the unconscious. It fosters connections between fields, the removal of blockages on bodies without organs, the maximum of bodies without organs onto a plane of consistency. It is itself a part of the rhizome. The map is open and connectable in all of its dimensions; it is detachable, reversible, susceptible to constant modification. It can be torn, reversed, adapted to any kind of mounting, reworked by an individual, group, or social formation. It can be drawn on a wall, conceived of as a work of art, constructed as political action or as a meditation. Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of the rhizome is that it always has multiple entryways; ..." (pgs 13-14)

[Trip like I do]

.... and does any of that make any sense to you?

[hrld]

What does philosophy do? ...

It is said that all science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art. When it helps us develop the art of living it become our philosophy of religion--how we handle life.

How is it that I'm in your comment? Anyway talking about startling, I found and article in the NY Times a couple of years ago. Maybe you have heard it. The job of the conscious mind it to make decisions and question the thoughts and intuitions that come to mind to correct them if necessary and give it permission to go ahead on some issue or other.
Most of our thinking is done just below our awareness and most even more below awareness. It is not some idiot, but the genius inside, if we are informed and have logical thinking. It may even be more logical then us, mechanical, but logical and unbiased deeper in.
That's hard to get your mind around, but it does work and I have to believe that it is the correct explanation and the correct use of the mind, because the results are so phenomenal. Oh, well, back to Boethius on the Consolations of Philosophy, a free audio book.

[hrld]

What are the nature and limits of knowledge? What is more fundamental to human existence, knowing (epistemology) or being (ontology)? How do we come to know what we know? What are the limits and scope of knowledge? How can we know that there are other minds (if we can)? How can we know that there is an external world (if we can)? How can we prove our answers? What is a true statement?

starting to sound like one of my philosophy classes here.

in the historical sense (at least), philosophy was considered 'the great mother of all sciences' attempting to reconcile and fit together all that we know into some kind of coherent whole. i still believe this is philosophy's ultimate aim- to figure out how all the disparate domains of knowing and understanding can go together into a logically consistent unity of human comprehension in regards to the universe and our place within it.

what is particularly perplexing about our present moment is the fact that we have so much going on in so many different fields that it has become increasingly more difficult to connect the dots from one field to another. from physics to neuroscience to computer science to our knowledge about space and beyond- we are seeing rapid development in all these fields. One of the great strengths of BM, however, is that we have people on these boards reflecting on developments in such diverse fields and at least attempting to make some sense of them in the grander scheme of things.

[hrld]

What are the nature and limits of knowledge? What is more fundamental to human existence, knowing (epistemology) or being (ontology)? How do we come to know what we know? What are the limits and scope of knowledge? How can we know that there are other minds (if we can)? How can we know that there is an external world (if we can)? How can we prove our answers? What is a true statement?

starting to sound like one of my philosophy classes here.

in the historical sense (at least), philosophy was considered 'the great mother of all sciences' attempting to reconcile and fit together all that we know into some kind of coherent whole. i still believe this is philosophy's ultimate aim- to figure out how all the disparate domains of knowing and understanding can go together into a logically consistent unity of human comprehension in regards to the universe and our place within it.

what is particularly perplexing about our present moment is the fact that we have so much going on in so many different fields that it has become increasingly more difficult to connect the dots from one field to another. from physics to neuroscience to computer science to our knowledge about space and beyond- we are seeing rapid development in all these fields. One of the great strengths of BM, however, is that we have people on these boards reflecting on developments in such diverse fields and at least attempting to make some sense of them in the grander scheme of things.