What is philosophy for?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is a question that has come to mind with the debate in the other thread about Analytic and Continental philosophy. The approach of the two often seems to be defined (well, as far as we can consider them unified entities) by their own preconceptions about philosophy is, what is it's purpose, what it can achieve and so on (and often the politics of the people involved too, but less so than usually imagined I think.)

Now when I ask this question I'm more interested in say academic or philosophy-as-a-whole rather than of a 'debate' two people may have over god or the universe when they are bored.

So is philosophy:
1) A tool to help people to use logical analysis to solve problems, philosophy is therefore logic and epistemology mostly.
2) An attempt to solve problems in other academic disclipines, especially the natural sciences, using logical methods and analysis (following on from one) - this can include of course helping solve scientific problems by showing what is 'wrong' with one theory or other or pushing one towards a different theory or idea without being generally scientifically involved - example: The philosophy of mind?
3) Following on, an attempt to discover or refine metholodogies in research or to invent useful paradigms - providing we think that paradigms are a good analytical tool - this can be more in the shape of the humanities and social sciences?
4) A critique of our current theories of knowledge, or even a critique of the idea of desiring knowledge itself?
5) Or to be less straightly logical, a system of thought which can help us to define our own existence, our own being-in-the-world so to speak?
6) A form of social or personal criticism?
7) Something else which I haven't mentioned (there could hundreds, after all Philosophy is a disclipine with no defined methodology or even purpose?)

Opinions please.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

[Bono]

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

A massive eyeroll.

Anyway, I think it was Alvin Plantinga who said that philosophy is the refining of our intuitions, or at least something that amounts to the same thing.  A person holds many naive(with no pejorative sense) intuitions about the world that when examined carefully conflict with each other or with perceived reality. Philosophy is the disentanglement of this web into a consistent, logical and clear tapestry. View Wittgenstein and his "fight against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language".

This is part of why I dislike Continental philosophy. It obscures rather than illuminate, because it gets hopelessly lost in relativism and pseudo-intellectual jargon.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

I don't doubt that (though I believe Bono would... actually my would be potential academic career would be meaningless if I didn't think that.)

But I just think that view of things limits the imagination somewhat, one may draw on ideas that exists, but the presentation can always be new, the ideas new.. I don't believe like some contential philosophers seem to do that philosophy is finished or meaningless (what would we define by those terms anyway). If everything was just from the ideas present, then history would be impossible.

Also I don't doubt that #1 and #2 have their advantages and shouldn't be used, but I do believe that philosophy should not annex itself to science, as if that is the only possible truth.

Interesting Article here by Bernard Williams (RIP): http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=39

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet you reject historicism (and what I may I call "socioculturalism")? I don't disagree with any of this, but...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

A massive eyeroll.

Anyway, I think it was Alvin Plantinga who said that philosophy is the refining of our intuitions, or at least something that amounts to the same thing.  A person holds many naive(with no pejorative sense) intuitions about the world that when examined carefully conflict with each other or with perceived reality. Philosophy is the disentanglement of this web into a consistent, logical and clear tapestry. View Wittgenstein and his "fight against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language".

This is part of why I dislike Continental philosophy. It obscures rather than illuminate, because it gets hopelessly lost in relativism and pseudo-intellectual jargon.

     I don't necessarily disagree with that, though I suggest that that role would be an aid to that of social criticism, rather than its main purpose.

     The caveat I would add is that the disentanglement must be of practical use to society. While streamlining one's beliefs for the sake of doing so can be a good exercise to improve mental rigor, it shouldn't become the subject of academic debates. Philosophy needs to focus on clarifying ideas that can be used to improve society (what those ideas are is open for debate & depends on one's own political philosophy). Attempting to clarify ideas that have no such value is a purely academic exercise, & one that is not as productive a use of time.

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

I don't doubt that (though I believe Bono would... actually my would be potential academic career would be meaningless if I didn't think that.)

But I just think that view of things limits the imagination somewhat, one may draw on ideas that exists, but the presentation can always be new, the ideas new.. I don't believe like some contential philosophers seem to do that philosophy is finished or meaningless (what would we define by those terms anyway). If everything was just from the ideas present, then history would be impossible.

Also I don't doubt that #1 and #2 have their advantages and shouldn't be used, but I do believe that philosophy should not annex itself to science, as if that is the only possible truth.

Interesting Article here by Bernard Williams (RIP): http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=39

     I agree that philosophy is by no means finished. However, science is the means by which we seek to understand the mechanics of the world. Other disciplines, such as literature & philosophy, are the means by which we understand the mechanics of ideology. Basically, while it is definitely possible to use philosophy as a tool to further science (in the case of Kuhn's reinterpretation of the nature of scientific progress), I suspect it would be put to better use in order to improve society by casting off incoherent ideas.

[Bono]

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

A massive eyeroll.

Anyway, I think it was Alvin Plantinga who said that philosophy is the refining of our intuitions, or at least something that amounts to the same thing.  A person holds many naive(with no pejorative sense) intuitions about the world that when examined carefully conflict with each other or with perceived reality. Philosophy is the disentanglement of this web into a consistent, logical and clear tapestry. View Wittgenstein and his "fight against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language".

This is part of why I dislike Continental philosophy. It obscures rather than illuminate, because it gets hopelessly lost in relativism and pseudo-intellectual jargon.

     I don't necessarily disagree with that, though I suggest that that role would be an aid to that of social criticism, rather than its main purpose.

     The caveat I would add is that the disentanglement must be of practical use to society. While streamlining one's beliefs for the sake of doing so can be a good exercise to improve mental rigor, it shouldn't become the subject of academic debates. Philosophy needs to focus on clarifying ideas that can be used to improve society (what those ideas are is open for debate & depends on one's own political philosophy). Attempting to clarify ideas that have no such value is a purely academic exercise, & one that is not as productive a use of time.

Why should it be "of value to society", whatever that is? For one who is supposed to be a libertarian, you sure seem to have a lot of collectivist ideas.

What you are proposing would basically eliminate metaphysics, and a good part of epistemology, and yet it is metaphysics that deals with the questions that have always plagued mankind.

I reject this base utilitarism, and this obsession with criticizing society; you won't find many analytical wannabe-philosopher kings. Continental philosophers, on the other hand...

[Rob]

Intellectual masturbation

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is precisely the question that Richard Rorty cared most about.

     I would lean towards option 6, as would Rorty if I remember correctly. After all, our views of the world our heavily influenced by the preconceptions of the society that we grow up in. The things that we view as problems in society are the things that our philosophy would likely be based on. Drawing on Nietzsche, our philosophy is our self-confession.

     My English teacher plays with this idea all the time. He'll have us read books & watch movies to demonstrate how they either reflect the ideas of their time or react to other works of their time.

A massive eyeroll.

Anyway, I think it was Alvin Plantinga who said that philosophy is the refining of our intuitions, or at least something that amounts to the same thing.  A person holds many naive(with no pejorative sense) intuitions about the world that when examined carefully conflict with each other or with perceived reality. Philosophy is the disentanglement of this web into a consistent, logical and clear tapestry. View Wittgenstein and his "fight against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language".

This is part of why I dislike Continental philosophy. It obscures rather than illuminate, because it gets hopelessly lost in relativism and pseudo-intellectual jargon.

     I don't necessarily disagree with that, though I suggest that that role would be an aid to that of social criticism, rather than its main purpose.

     The caveat I would add is that the disentanglement must be of practical use to society. While streamlining one's beliefs for the sake of doing so can be a good exercise to improve mental rigor, it shouldn't become the subject of academic debates. Philosophy needs to focus on clarifying ideas that can be used to improve society (what those ideas are is open for debate & depends on one's own political philosophy). Attempting to clarify ideas that have no such value is a purely academic exercise, & one that is not as productive a use of time.

Why should it be "of value to society", whatever that is? For one who is supposed to be a libertarian, you sure seem to have a lot of collectivist ideas.

What you are proposing would basically eliminate metaphysics, and a good part of epistemology, and yet it is metaphysics that deals with the questions that have always plagued mankind.

I reject this base utilitarism, and this obsession with criticizing society; you won't find many analytical wannabe-philosopher kings. Continental philosophers, on the other hand...

     Recognizing that there is a society that we are a part of is different from being a collectivist. It's not as if most libertarians would not suggest that we forget about trying to influence society's politics because it is a collectivistic construct. From the libertarian standpoint, it is of value to society to increase individual freedom, through eliminating laws that oppress the individual & reduce the freedom of the economy.

     That aside, I wonder if the questions that have always plagued mankind are really worth asking. After all, Nietzsche said that the falseness of a judgment is not necessarily an objection to that judgment. Maybe it would be better to leave questions unanswered if they can't be of any real use to anyone in any real way.

[Person Man]

This is a question that has come to mind with the debate in the other thread about Analytic and Continental philosophy. The approach of the two often seems to be defined (well, as far as we can consider them unified entities) by their own preconceptions about philosophy is, what is it's purpose, what it can achieve and so on (and often the politics of the people involved too, but less so than usually imagined I think.)

Now when I ask this question I'm more interested in say academic or philosophy-as-a-whole rather than of a 'debate' two people may have over god or the universe when they are bored.

So is philosophy:
1) A tool to help people to use logical analysis to solve problems, philosophy is therefore logic and epistemology mostly.
2) An attempt to solve problems in other academic disclipines, especially the natural sciences, using logical methods and analysis (following on from one) - this can include of course helping solve scientific problems by showing what is 'wrong' with one theory or other or pushing one towards a different theory or idea without being generally scientifically involved - example: The philosophy of mind?
3) Following on, an attempt to discover or refine metholodogies in research or to invent useful paradigms - providing we think that paradigms are a good analytical tool - this can be more in the shape of the humanities and social sciences?
4) A critique of our current theories of knowledge, or even a critique of the idea of desiring knowledge itself?
5) Or to be less straightly logical, a system of thought which can help us to define our own existence, our own being-in-the-world so to speak?
6) A form of social or personal criticism?
7) Something else which I haven't mentioned (there could hundreds, after all Philosophy is a disclipine with no defined methodology or even purpose?)

Opinions please.

Well, I like to think of philosophy and religion as a form of scientology (not the religion, but the way one learns to know).

As post-modernists say, when you create a paradigm to see the world, you will not be able to see any occurances that cannot be explained by that paradigm. However, with that paradigm, you can see what you could not see before. In a way, philosophy is a tool of perception, more so than even logic or values.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is a question that has come to mind with the debate in the other thread about Analytic and Continental philosophy. The approach of the two often seems to be defined (well, as far as we can consider them unified entities) by their own preconceptions about philosophy is, what is it's purpose, what it can achieve and so on (and often the politics of the people involved too, but less so than usually imagined I think.)

Now when I ask this question I'm more interested in say academic or philosophy-as-a-whole rather than of a 'debate' two people may have over god or the universe when they are bored.

So is philosophy:
1) A tool to help people to use logical analysis to solve problems, philosophy is therefore logic and epistemology mostly.
2) An attempt to solve problems in other academic disclipines, especially the natural sciences, using logical methods and analysis (following on from one) - this can include of course helping solve scientific problems by showing what is 'wrong' with one theory or other or pushing one towards a different theory or idea without being generally scientifically involved - example: The philosophy of mind?
3) Following on, an attempt to discover or refine metholodogies in research or to invent useful paradigms - providing we think that paradigms are a good analytical tool - this can be more in the shape of the humanities and social sciences?
4) A critique of our current theories of knowledge, or even a critique of the idea of desiring knowledge itself?
5) Or to be less straightly logical, a system of thought which can help us to define our own existence, our own being-in-the-world so to speak?
6) A form of social or personal criticism?
7) Something else which I haven't mentioned (there could hundreds, after all Philosophy is a disclipine with no defined methodology or even purpose?)

Opinions please.

Well, I like to think of philosophy and religion as a form of scientology (not the religion, but the way one learns to know).

As post-modernists say, when you create a paradigm to see the world, you will not be able to see any occurances that cannot be explained by that paradigm. However, with that paradigm, you can see what you could not see before. In a way, philosophy is a tool of perception, more so than even logic or values.

While I don't disagree with that there are two problems here:
1) THAT idea itself is a paradigm to see the world (ie. An Abstraction)
2) All thoughts therefore amount to a philosophy of sorts, but again there are problems - some ideas are 'less untrue' than others: Compare Aristotlean and Einsteinian Physics for example and yet this is a way of negating philosophy, by arguing that all paradigms are just abstractions and never complete then they logically follow that paradigms are the same. Which is bogus.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I would answer by a comparison with religion:

Philosophy is looking for answers on how work things in the rational.

Religion is looking for answers on how work things in the rational plus the irrational.

Religion use to be more powerful than philosophy because the human being has both sides: the rational one and the irrational one.

Sorry if I hijacked.

[Gustaf]

Philosophy, in its most basic linguistical sense, is about searching for truth. Originally, it encompassed all science. For various reasons much of it has spun-off into its own sciences (or in some cases pseudo-sciences).

So it is "for" answering those questions left within its realm or searching for the truth in those matters. Like Bono I reject any idea about there being any need for usefulness in it. It is useful to the extent that people find it worthwhile and many still clearly do.

[ilikeverin]

Philosophy is but a byproduct of evolution

[pbrower2a]

So is philosophy:

1) A tool to help people to use logical analysis to solve problems, philosophy is therefore logic and epistemology mostly.

That is a very basic aspect of philosophy -- a means of determining the validity of conclusions given an argument.  As such logic allows one to conclude:

"All tigers have stripes

Sultan is a tiger

Therefore Sultan has stripes".

--or --

"All tigers have stripes.

Rin-Tin-Tin (a dog)   has many tiger-like traits, but no stripes  

Therefore Rin-Tin-Tin is not a tiger".


But definitely not:

"All tigers have stripes

Zebras have stripes

Therefore zebras are tigers".

I was introduced to formal logic in geometry... so logic is a very elementary part of philosophy.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All significant studies originate in philosophy -- whether physics, jurisprudence, or linguistics. Even such pseudoscience as astrology has origins in philosophy as does astronomy. When people at the apex of a study start having questions they often turn to  philosophy to establish a structure for determining truth. An example: twentieth-century statisticians wanted a means of determining whether one could have a level of certainty for describing certain phenomena. They turned to the philosopher Karl Popper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social scientists who have not studied formal philosophy are crippled in their efforts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is often a critique of our claims to knowledge. The desirability of seeking knowledge? In view of the technologies of data storage, the mere collection of data may not be as essential as it once was. Having access to knowledge and being able to judge what claims to be knowledge is even more essential.

Knowledge may false.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus said Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes that is noting more than personal crankiness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a structure for inquiry of the basic realities of life, the universe, human relationships, and all else, it is the cornerstone of all means of discerning truth and separating truth from nonsense -- especially the attractive nonsense that often pops up.