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.

[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...

[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.