Before we start thinking about what philosophy is, why should we? What can we hope to gain by understanding what philosophy is? We may not know what we can gain from understanding? No, it is more trouble than its worth for my taste. You can spend the time talking about what is philosophy. Enjoy! Gosh, I must be bored for even answering this.
In brief, the answer is "no". To hold such a position would simply serve to display a paltry, if not compete, lack of knowledge of philosophy. However, your question is further problematized by placing the scope of the question within metaphysics. This is wholly incorrect. The analysis of the objective of any analytical approach to understanding cannot be metaphysical. It may investigate the metaphysical, but obviously, cannot be such itself. On a pragmatic note, jayleew makes a good point here:
to observe the discipline as having a purpose. Why would anyone want to observe any others philosophy? To share to others that there is no foundation of the pursuit except for seeking comprehension and that quest is ever evolving and still unfinished. Does understanding merit a value or gain to have worth? Or does understanding enable a life to comprehend, which is considered valuable?
I assumed that this was true when I posed the question. There is value, but not enough for my taste, I have much more meaningful things to think about. Gaining understanding does have an amount of value. The sky is sometimes blue. How valuable is that? You will burn your bare hand if you touch boiling water too long. How valuable is that? The value comes from the ratio of time needed to understand to the the effect of the understanding. Hopefully, this is the end and you won't unnecessarily add more complexity than need be to this thread. Every answer can add another question. When do we say enough is enough and let it be? I feign ignorance to the question, "What is philosophy?" for the sake of my valuable time. I just hope you move on and don't get stuck in life. I don't know why you made this thread, but I have my suspicions, I just don't know which is true. Farewell.
you the second biggest poster on the thread. o from all the years you have been learning, do you have any solutions for us all? I asked a simple question in the OP, you unnecessarily added the concept of 'what is philosophy' good luck to u2
Yes, the best solution to any problem is to keep an open mind. Then, you will find the answers you seek.
I read the thread but I'm not sure I understand the answer. I'm a relatively old person and have always had a natural interest in science. After retirement I took up an interest in cosmology. That evolved into a beginning interest in philosophy because I was forming opinions and speculating about unanswered questions in cosmology. So seeing this thread, if opinions can be called a persons philosophy then we all have one, but that doesn't seem to me to be enough to elevate opinion to be called a philosophy. However there must be a strong connection between opinion and philosophy. Would a set of opinions all related to or leading on toward a particular belief constitute one man's philosophy?
makes sense One or many, i would think. Meaning, if many opinions are learned then of character a philosophy could evolve, i believe.
I agree with this. However, I cannot agree with the premiss from which you take it: My problem here being the usage of the term "constitute". An agglomeration of opinions does not a philosophy make. A necessary missing element here would by some sort of structure, or developmental synthesis. Without such organization, all one would have is a collection of opinions, and one would lack the key element of consistency. I think q_w suggests as much here:
Agreed. I don't think Bishadi's statement implies that the opinions would be disconnected, an agglomeration as such, but the clarification of glaucon is more precise. Would it be more appropriate to say that in the process of developing one's opinions about the universe, infinity, life and God, the set of opinions and speculations that go beyond science could constitute that persons philosophy?
I love logic as a tool for exploring the meanings and foundations of assertions, but I'm not sure that I am terribly philosophical. I went through my phases with Neitzche and Sarte and some smattering clips from major philosophers, but I find that much of it seems contrived around whatever general credo each philosopher follows. I suppose that philosophy could indeed be called an extended opinion. I'm a Christian now, and I suppose that makes me more than just philosophical about the creed that I'm try to live, but I see philosophy as something less than religion. I have read the Confessions of St. Augustine and other writings by Christian philosophers, and I see their intellectual struggles with their faith, but that is more than philosophy from my point of view. I'm just not terribly interested in opinions that are not personally useful to me, and thus I am lukewarm to philosophy. Very Respectfully, Ray Donald Pratt
It almost seems that everyone in my close family had their own philosophy but not one of them ever mentioned a real philosopher by name. They all had their own opinions and I guess that is why I became opinionated. All of my close relatives are gone and so I miss the opinionated discussions. They seemed honest to me and we knew each other’s philosophy by hearing them and by seeing how close they came to living them. I try to understand people and express myself to people but everyone has their own personal philosophy if I go by my experiences with family and friends. When you know someone you get to know their philosophy. If you get to know a Christian Mystic you are getting to know their philosophy and can see how their lives were centered around their philosophies, almost like their philosophy went beyond their religion. In that respect their philosophy could be said to be more than religion couldn’t it? I agree with you on the use of logic in evaluating assertions, speaking from the definition of “logic” as being something that could be considered “common” as opposed to the scientific discipline of formal logic. I’m not downplaying the science of logic but the application of logic that I am thinking of is a simple or common logic that I would say people generally have and use. When someone seems to be being illogical it is a clue to me that they might have an agenda that I'm not aware of. I would use the diehard scientist or the diehard religious advocate as examples. If logic as I know it seems to leave the discussion very early then I look for the agenda. It usually doesn't take long for it to come to the forefront. The die hard scientist that I refer to is one who has no respect for religion or unquantifiable speculation, and the die hard religious advocate has no tolerance for strict science as an end-all or for opposing religious views that go against their own personal dogma (no offense, but it is my view that some religions have exclusionary dogma just like the scientist or the atheist have no tolerance). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Whereas my personal philosophy has no agenda other than to serve as a benchmark against which I compare my personal philosophy to your personal philosophy (or views if you don’t call your related opinions on a subject your philosophy). Why do that? It is what I learned to do as I grew up and it has become useful to me in knowing who I am dealing with in life. My perspective on God is that if the universe has always exited (my opinion), and since the concept that people have of God is an immanence and/or transcendence that has always existed, maybe God and the universe are one in the same. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is a matter of faith as to what you believe.
As it evolves, sure! Notice how when people mature, the development furthers over time (suggesting this without the nature of good and bad involved). Your next post shares almost the same; the mind is evolving (by choice). I liken this to the question of 'is there a closed system between mind and existence?'
I agree with those views. But I would say that among all people there are those who's views will evolve and those who don't choose to evolve their views. We are talking about a subset of people who think about their views and the views of others and make an effort to further the development of their personal philosophy. I would on the surface answer "no". The system of evolving one's views as I see it requires being open to the world around us and to the opinions and philosophies of others. What do you think, closed or open?
a fine observation but to observe 'their' philosophy becomes a matter of choice such that if you feel it, then "can it be true?" some attribute the concept of a closed system to science. to know that science, then there is no such thing as a closed system. So why would a mind break what is true except by opinion?! Each learn each moment (open) knowingly or not. That's what i believe.
If I understand you properly, you are saying that it is a persons choice as to whether or not they pay attention to someone else's philosophy. You might be saying that if you feel your philosophy is correct, if someone has a different philosophy then they cannot be correct; so why pay attention to theirs at all? Would that be a closed mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!? I don't understand. Can you rephrase that? I don't follow this either. Can you rephrase for me? Should I be losing confidence in my comprehension. I agree. We cannot help but to learn with each passing moment. But I will add with some regret ... some people ignore some of the things that they could learn with each passing moment Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
yep.... see post #4 not sure how. the term 'closed system' is a scientific one. So to know what that means, then in reality, there is no closed system (unless 'partial sums') an open mind has no need to render a fib as true (absolute) meaning; that to be capable of evolving with knowledge, then the mind (system) is "open" i myself have known this fault; so i continue to trudge, even with mud on the face and a thorn in my foot.
I really wanted to get involved in this forum because I have some questions, but I am finding that I don't speak the same language as some of you here. I just do not understand post four either. Let me test my understand of that. What you are saying is that in science there closed systems that have special attributes or characteristics but those systems are always only a part of greater universe. When you open up the system and include the greater universe then the attributes and characteristics of closed systems no longer apply? Exactly. Try as we will we seem to be destined to repeat some of our basic mistakes and the mistakes of others whom we could have or should have learned from.
