What is philosophy to you?

[belligerent drunk]

Disclaimer: the following thread is more of a question to the P&S gang than a real philosophical discussion. As such, if it doesn't fit the forum, then I apologize and await its removal. Also, if you can't make sense of what I'm saying, I don't blame ya.

I've been a frequent reader and poster in this subforum for a few months, since the beginning of 2016 I believe. I noticed one fairly interesting thing that I would like to discuss with you and hear your opinions on. What does philosophy mean to you? In short, it is defined as the love of wisdom, or truth. It concerns such fundamental questions as the meaning of life, what happens after death, what consciousness is, and so on. It is often hard to link those topics to the observable reality in a coherent manner, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't try to do so, does it?

What I noticed is that in most discussions, complete out-there speculations are more favored as arguments than something scientific. Of course, science doesn't have a lot to say on a lot of these topics, but still one can make reasonable assumptions based on scientific theories. However, it seems that such arguments are discarded as being... boring? It seems to me that people would rather talk about how the flying spaghetti monster created aliens that procreated with pink fairies to produce humans and other life on Earth, than say that there's no evidence for such statements whatsoever.

The reason I have a problem with this is that to me, it devalues the discussion. If everyone's opinion on the matter is not grounded in fact, but is more of a "I feeeeel this way" type of speculation, then there is not much to discuss, is there? Bottom line for me is, philosophy may be about very abstract questions or concepts, but in the end they're still about reality. So the arguments should be based on reality as well. Do you feel the same way, or am I wrong?

Looking forward to your input.

 

[Nixiam]

Just woke up. 4 a.m.

To me, philosophy will always be about seeking explanation as well as finding the best way to do so. Science is description, that's why philosophy and science go so hand in hand, imo.


But of course, I carry a personal twist on it. Explanation to those who seek it is about making them happy, so philosophy is both selfish and propelling. I have trouble recalling another thing like it.








Great thread b_d, I think we should ask more often what tools mean to us before we use them, not to stop their use but to understand it's condition before build with them.

 

[drug_mentor]

Personally I consider philosophy both a pursuit of self-discovery, and a pursuit of truth more generally. I would qualify the latter claim by saying that I think in most areas, contemporary analytic philosophy has a tendency to proceed by figuring out what kind of answers to hard questions don't work, which stands largely in contrast to the scientific approach of searching for truth by accumulating positive facts.

I share your distaste for an out-there speculative approach to philosophical enquiry, particularly in cases where no serious attempt is made to define the vague concepts people employ in their arguments. To be fair, this is a philosophy AND spirituality forum, and you do have to make room for the latter aspect as well, although I generally have no interest in participating in those discussions.

I don't agree that philosophy should be based on fact, if by fact you mean empirical evidence. I think empirical evidence should be used when it is relevant, but in many areas of philosophy this kind of evidence will not get you very far. When discussing abstract concepts it is often the case that there is little value in trying to appeal to empirical evidence, these tend to be the kinds of questions which philosophy considers. In these cases the standard by which philosophy should be judged is how well it conforms to logic and reason, not empirical evidence.

I am currently reading The Foundations of Arithmetic by Gottlob Frege. I am considering making a thread on philosophy of mathematics or logic when I finish my exams, is this the sort of thing you would be interested in contributing to?

 

[belligerent drunk]

That's exactly the reply I was looking for, drug_mentor.

To be fair, this is a philosophy AND spirituality forum, and you do have to make room for the latter aspect as well, although I generally have no interest in participating in those discussions.

Well, this is why I'm only talking about philosophy, and not spirituality. I have no interest in the latter either. This thread is only about philosophy. However, it brings about another question. Why are these two lumped together? As if it already suggests that they require a similar approach (which is obviously not the case, spirituality can hardly be based on evidence or logic).

I don't agree that philosophy should be based on fact, if by fact you mean empirical evidence. I think empirical evidence should be used when it is relevant, but in many areas of philosophy this kind of evidence will not get you very far. When discussing abstract concepts it is often the case that there is little value in trying to appeal to empirical evidence, these tend to be the kinds of questions which philosophy considers. In these cases the standard by which philosophy should be judged is how well it conforms to logic and reason, not empirical evidence.

I figured that a lot of people feel this way, but something doesn't sit right with me about this. I understand what you mean by saying that there is often little value in trying to use empirical evidence, but my question is... well, as opposed to what? I agree that in some cases it is enough if sound logic is used, however it still in the end comes back to what we know about the observable reality. Because if it is NOT based on that, then what is it based on? I may be splitting hairs here, so I apologize for it.

I am currently reading The Foundations of Arithmetic by Gottlob Frege. I am considering making a thread on philosophy of mathematics or logic when I finish my exams, is this the sort of thing you would be interested in contributing to?

I would be interested in reading what you have to say, because most of your content has been worthwhile and provoked interesting thoughts. I don't know how much I can contribute to that, because I'm actually just a "hobbyist" in philosophy. I deal with natural sciences, which is probably obvious from my posts. I'm not well-read on philosophy or related subjects, so my views are more of that of an amateur. Still, I have a big mouth, so I'd probably have a lot to say.

 

[drug_mentor]

Well, this is why I'm only talking about philosophy, and not spirituality. I have no interest in the latter either. This thread is only about philosophy. However, it brings about another question. Why are these two lumped together? As if it already suggests that they require a similar approach (which is obviously not the case, spirituality can hardly be based on evidence or logic).

This used to bother me as well. They get lumped together because a lot of the fundamental questions which philosophy tries to answer overlap with the questions which spirituality and religion attempt to answer. It is fairly natural that people of a spiritual persuasion would bring these beliefs and biases in to their philosophical approach, with that said I wish people of this persuasion had a greater tendency to clarify some of the concepts they rely on.

To be fair, spirituality can be based on logic, insofar as one can rule out spiritual beliefs which conflict with reason. Consider a theist who rejects Divine Command Theory because they were receptive to Plato's Euthyphro argument against it, for example.

I figured that a lot of people feel this way, but something doesn't sit right with me about this. I understand what you mean by saying that there is often little value in trying to use empirical evidence, but my question is... well, as opposed to what? I agree that in some cases it is enough if sound logic is used, however it still in the end comes back to what we know about the observable reality. Because if it is NOT based on that, then what is it based on? I may be splitting hairs here, so I apologize for it.

There are such things as logical truths, much like mathematical truths one might consider them as instances of knowledge which people are capable of having independent of experience. I would say that these correspond to reality, but they are not based on empirical evidence. To a certain extent things like intuition can be useful when exploring certain concepts, particularly moral concepts, but this methodology has obvious limitations.

An example I would like to employ here is the argument from evil, which is intended to refute the notion that God can be both benevolent and omnipotent. If you find the argument convincing (and I do) then you might think it is impossible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent, irrespective of whether a God exists at all. This is the kind of truth which can be discovered completely absent of any empirical evidence. I am a little short on time so I hope this example highlights the larger argument I would like to make about the ability of humans to discover quite a lot of truths through the exercise of our reason, independent of any scientific evidence.

I would be interested in reading what you have to say, because most of your content has been worthwhile and provoked interesting thoughts. I don't know how much I can contribute to that, because I'm actually just a "hobbyist" in philosophy. I deal with natural sciences, which is probably obvious from my posts. I'm not well-read on philosophy or related subjects, so my views are more of that of an amateur. Still, I have a big mouth, so I'd probably have a lot to say.

I will make the thread when I find time. As someone who deals with natural sciences I imagine you know a great deal more about mathematics than I do, I would be interested to hear your take on the topic.

 

[belligerent drunk]

There are such things as logical truths, much like mathematical truths one might consider them as instances of knowledge which people are capable of having independent of experience. I would say that these correspond to reality, but they are not based on empirical evidence. To a certain extent things like intuition can be useful when exploring certain concepts, particularly moral concepts, but this methodology has obvious limitations.

An example I would like to employ here is the argument from evil, which is intended to refute the notion that God can be both benevolent and omnipotent. If you find the argument convincing (and I do) then you might think it is impossible for God to be both benevolent and omnipotent, irrespective of whether a God exists at all. This is the kind of truth which can be discovered completely absent of any empirical evidence. I am a little short on time so I hope this example highlights the larger argument I would like to make about the ability of humans to discover quite a lot of truths through the exercise of our reason, independent of any scientific evidence.

I see. I have to admit, I hadn't really considered this. I would like to state the following, however. Logic can be used to arrive at certain conclusions without empirical evidence being used to back it up, but logic itself is still derived from reality, thus if it's sound logic, then in the end it is still based on reality. For example, 2 + 2 = 4; I fail to think of an experiment that would empirically validate that claim. What logic does is the opposite - it's a tool we use to describe reality. Everyone understands what I mean when I say that 2 + 2 = 4. I'm sure what you were saying is pretty much the same, I just wanted to clarify what exactly I was trying to say in my first statements.

Still, I think one has to be careful with this. It's easy to apply conventional logic to questions that are very far from the reality we know, and arrive at erroneous conclusions. A good example is not even far away from reality - quantum mechanics. Classical logic, for the most part, is futile in really explaining what goes on at that level. That is because classical logic is derived from "classical reality", and our brains evolved to process "classical information". What I'm trying to get at is that while you can apply logic to all kinds of things, I prefer not to venture too far away from using empirical evidence to back up my claims. I don't know, maybe that's my bias.

Thanks for your answers, though, it's been insightful.

 

[drug_mentor]

I agree logic cannot be applied to everything, and classical logic does have some interesting limitations. There are subsystems of and alternatives to classical logic which aim to deal with some of these limitations and other philosophical issues, but that is another conversation for another day.

I agree that logic relates to reality (for the most part). It seemed to me that you were conflating facts/reality with empirical knowledge, and I was trying to make it clear that parts of our understanding of reality are not based on empirical experience or scientific knowledge.

Whilst I would happily concede there is no practical way to apply classical logic to quantum mechanics, my understanding is that quantum mechanics is very far from understood. Logic does require some set of axioms or assumptions, but based on my limited understanding there is relatively little about quantum mechanics which could function in this way. This may not be an example of the limitations of logic so much as an example of something we don't understand well enough to apply logic to yet.

I would suggest that, generally speaking, there are significantly fewer philosophical problems which result from making inferences based on classical logic compared to making inferences based on quantum mechanics. The latter is something which seems particularly common in philosophical discussions that relate to causal determinism. Quantum mechanics is actually a perfect example of empirical evidence which, except when introduced very selectively by those who know what they are talking about, can have an overwhelming tendency to reduce the amount of clarity present in a given discussion.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Whilst I would happily concede there is no practical way to apply classical logic to quantum mechanics, my understanding is that quantum mechanics is very far from understood. Logic does require some set of axioms or assumptions, but based on my limited understanding there is relatively little about quantum mechanics which could function in this way. This may not be an example of the limitations of logic so much as an example of something we don't understand well enough to apply logic to yet.

Yes, we have been able to model the quantum world to a staggering precision, but I don't think anyone really understands what really goes on in there. The two are separate. Which is why I believe that it shows the limitations of classical logic, or even the limitations of our brain at this point in time. We can make predictions in quantum mechanics with incredible accuracy, but we don't understand how it works? That is because quantum mechanical principles are different from the way things seem to work in our classical world. We usually understand things by drawing analogies to something we can see/touch/whatever. And I would argue that, that is what classical logic is based on. Which is why we cannot explain QM using it, because the same analogies do not apply. And considering that QM is indeed a part of reality... well it is reality, and the fact that we cannot successfully use classical logic there, is an example of why one should be careful with using logic as the only support for their claim.

For example, one could say that making conclusions about very abstract concepts such as god using classical logic may not be very correct (not that I can propose a better way to discuss it). It may seem that a god cannot be benevolent and omnipotent at the same time, but then again it's hard to see how a particle can be in many places at once, or how it can be doing everything at once, and so on. Again, I'm not arguing against such discussion, I'm just explaining why I'm somewhat bothered by it.

I would suggest that, generally speaking, there are significantly fewer philosophical problems which result from making inferences based on classical logic compared to making inferences based on quantum mechanics. The latter is something which seems particularly common in philosophical discussions that relate to causal determinism. Quantum mechanics is actually a perfect example of empirical evidence which, except when introduced very selectively by those who know what they are talking about, can have an overwhelming tendency to reduce the amount of clarity present in a given discussion.

Sadly, that is true. Just in case, I will say, I don't think one should try to use principles of the quantum world in philosophical discussion unless absolutely necessary (such as your example of the question of free will/determinism), that is not what I was trying to say.

 

[drug_mentor]

I have slightly different views on the nature of logic than you, I don't really have time to go into them now and it would be a touch off-topic. I understand where you are coming from and there is certainly merit in what you have to say.

Sadly, that is true. Just in case, I will say, I don't think one should try to use principles of the quantum world in philosophical discussion unless absolutely necessary (such as your example of the question of free will/determinism), that is not what I was trying to say.

I know you never made the claim that quantum mechanics should be used to reason about the world. It just seemed when you brought up QM it was a perfect opportunity for me to illustrate the point that empirical evidence, when not applied carefully, can actually be a much less useful tool for understanding certain issues than logic is.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I have slightly different views on the nature of logic than you, I don't really have time to go into them now and it would be a touch off-topic. I understand where you are coming from and there is certainly merit in what you have to say.

I appreciate your point of view and I definitely don't think my point of view is perfect, which is why I'm open to discussion and suggestions!

It just seemed when you brought up QM it was a perfect opportunity for me to illustrate the point that empirical evidence, when not applied carefully, can actually be a much less useful tool for understanding certain issues than logic is.

Definitely. Well, it'd be great if we could base our claims on QM, because that is as close to the basis of reality as it gets, but we're unable to, yet. So yes, it's rather counter-productive to try to do so, and may be misleading.

 

[sigmond]

random comments perhaps I'll attempt to post a more thorough response in the future.

certain philosophers or realms of philosophy have attempted to elucidate universal truths about humanity which have failed and with modern science its apparent that this is a futile endeavor. i agree with nixiam in regards to finding better explanations for questions; if you are expecting facts, philosophy is probably going to be painful for you - the best you can hope for is rational justified beliefs.

anyway, philosophy helps me make sense of myself, my relation to others and historical events. it illuminates how i experience life..

 

[sigmond]

 

[Kittycat5]

That was a cute thought experiment (one aspect of philosophy that can be useful in my opinion) but still quite lacking. Just because these cruel scientists enslaved Mary to a black and white room so she cannot see red, does not mean the knowledge base of mankind does not as well. They picked the worst person to impart all the knowledge of red upon, plain and simple.

 

[Nixiam]

I don't see an issue with speculation in philosophy as long as it doesn't spiral out of control, but the very nature is typically objective (from what I've read and observed here) so I find it difficult to pcture something like that.

Out of control i.e. religion. Not to bash.




What about you KC?

 

[Kittycat5]

I agree. My problem with a lot of philosophy is that the philosopher is often too caught in the or more often their own argument to even care if there is an answer.

Im pretty sure we agree on religion Nixiam but dont care what others choose to believe.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

For me philosophy is just a way to deal with my mortality and the fact of my general unimportance.

 

[Enlight Spurrett]

Everything! Literally everything to me but it's also everything to everyone. Philosophy is a bit of a poor word really, but then language is pretty poor anyway when it comes to explaining the way humans think. Philosophy is simply the act of thinking. It can involve many things such as reading, listening, talking etc, but it really is just the act of thinking. If anybody like me is thinking about a way to answer this, then you are philosophising. Simple!

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

So if I'm thinking I need to take a shit that's philosophy?

 

[Phil.McKeer]

Philosophy (latin for "love of knowledge") is largely defunct now due to the advent of science. The most important remaining fields of philosophy are epistemology and logic. The rest were "Science 1.0" and with the advent of the scientific method and the proliferation of scientific literacy, most of philosophy became obsolete.

So, to me, philosophy is science's little brother. Instead of elucidating the truth through experimentation, in philosophy we do so using logic/reason and our senses and experiences alone. But like I said logic and epistemology are very important fields and should probably be a part of every high school curriculum.

 

[drug_mentor]

Philosophy (latin for "love of knowledge") is largely defunct now due to the advent of science. The most important remaining fields of philosophy are epistemology and logic. The rest were "Science 1.0" and with the advent of the scientific method and the proliferation of scientific literacy, most of philosophy became obsolete.

Whilst it is true that originally science was called natural philosophy, these fields never made up the entirety of philosophy and so their departure from it in no way makes philosophy obsolete. What you are saying completely disregards philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, value theory and philosophy of language. All of these fields have been productive in recent history and have produced insights that were relevant to other fields of enquiry.

Besides, to state that philosophy is obsolete because it does not accumulate as many positive facts as science is to misunderstand the point of philosophy in the first place. I could just as well do the opposite, and say that science is obsolete because it does not provide any insight into questions of value, but that would be ridiculous. The point I am trying to illustrate is that it does not make sense to measure the success of a particular field of enquiry against the goals of a completely different field of enquiry. You might consider that the reason science and philosophy split is because they generally try to understand different sorts of questions.

If what you meant to say is that science has replaced philosophy as the preeminent source of human knowledge then I don't disagree with that statement at all.

So, to me, philosophy is science's little brother. Instead of elucidating the truth through experimentation, in philosophy we do so using logic/reason and our senses and experiences alone. But like I said logic and epistemology are very important fields and should probably be a part of every high school curriculum.

If you want to use family metaphors then philosophy would be a parent of science, since science is simply a method which combines various insights from philosophy and mathematics.

One thing we can agree on is that logic and epistemology should be taught in schools.