Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: What does philosophy do?

  1. #1 What does philosophy do? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    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...061601766.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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'll give him an F.
    If a philosopher has a job it is to ask the questions that may provide insights into how people should lead there lives.

    Please tell me how you can reconcile your demand that people adopt critical thinking with this notion that philosophers should 'tell people how they should lead their lives.' If people are told how to live their lives and are happy to accept this guidance where is the critical thinking? You really don't seem to have thought this one through.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman nightex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7
    Philosophy gives curiosity, emotions, inspiration, questions... Those questions is seeds of knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Posts
    36
    Philosophy uses logic and reason to investigate things which are outside the realm of empirical science. One of the objects of investigation in philosophy, by the way, is the scientific method itself. This is the field called "philosophy of science".

    In fact, I think that even a scientist performs philosophy in a regular basis. Science is the act of gathering data from experimental analysis, but every time you reflect upon that data, make predictions, generate theories and new hypothesis, you are making philosophy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    CT (Critical Thinking) is philosophy light. Learn CT and take the first step toward learning philosophy.

    Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking


    ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Are some of you referring to philosophy as logical thinking?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Are some of you referring to philosophy as logical thinking?
    Philosophy is a radical form of Critical Thinking. More accuratly, CT is philsoophy light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Philosophy is a radical form of Critical Thinking. More accuratly, CT is philsoophy light.
    That's a circular definition.

    While we are at it do you intend to answer my question raised in an earlier post? Namely,
    how you can reconcile your demand that people adopt critical thinking with this notion that philosophers should 'tell people how they should lead their lives.' If people are told how to live their lives and are happy to accept this guidance where is the critical thinking?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Philosophy is a radical form of Critical Thinking. More accuratly, CT is philsoophy light.
    That's a circular definition.

    While we are at it do you intend to answer my question raised in an earlier post? Namely,
    how you can reconcile your demand that people adopt critical thinking with this notion that philosophers should 'tell people how they should lead their lives.' If people are told how to live their lives and are happy to accept this guidance where is the critical thinking?
    You would have to study CT to comprehend my answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I have studied CT, Logic, and Philosophy. Your answer was silly and appeared to be an intentional dodge of the question
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Critical thought can be radical, in comparison to ignorance; but philosophy is anything but radical, because there is no opposite for it to be compared to.

    Philosophy and Critical Thought are not the same thing, or dependant on one another. They are superficially similar, but radically different.

    Philosophy has no purpose, critical thought does. Critical thought is as much an object of observation to the philosopher as ignorance, both of which offer wisdom, as does everything else, to the person who recognizes it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I have studied CT, Logic, and Philosophy. Your answer was silly and appeared to be an intentional dodge of the question
    I am interested in discovering what our schools and colleges are teaching when they teach "CT". Could you give me a brief outline of what this concept means to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Critical thought can be radical, in comparison to ignorance; but philosophy is anything but radical, because there is no opposite for it to be compared to.

    Philosophy and Critical Thought are not the same thing, or dependant on one another. They are superficially similar, but radically different.

    Philosophy has no purpose, critical thought does. Critical thought is as much an object of observation to the philosopher as ignorance, both of which offer wisdom, as does everything else, to the person who recognizes it.
    I disagree.

    I am convinced that philosophy is radically critical self-consciousness and that CT is philosophy light in that CT is not radical.

    I am convinced that to say that "Philosophy has no purpose" is hardly a comment coming from someone who knows much about the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    You would have to study CT to comprehend my answer.
    Of course it hasn't even occured to you that I teach critical thinking as an element in the training I deliver in my work. It hasn't occured to you that I may know as much or more about critical thinking than you. It hasn't occured to you that rather than discovering critical thinking rather recently I have been employing critical thinking for close to half a century.

    Equally, you seem unaware that others (lurkers, for example) may be interested in an answer to the question. You may think I cannot understand it, but it is presumptuous and arrogant to presume that they cannot understand it.

    So, please answer my question: "how you can reconcile your demand that people adopt critical thinking with this notion that philosophers should 'tell people how they should lead their lives.' If people are told how to live their lives and are happy to accept this guidance where is the critical thinking?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Philosophy cannot have a purpose and still claim to be the love of wisdom.

    If you possess a purpose you are lacking a non-purpose.

    For example if you go to the grocery store with the purpose of buying milk, you do not have the purpose of not buying milk, so in that specific situation, with the conscious intention to buy milk, you cannot experience the conscious intention to not buy milk. If you sought understand one, you cannot understand the other without a change of mind, in which case you can still only understand one, and not the other.

    Philosophy, as the love of wisdom, cannot have a purpose, because in having a purpose, philosophers -- who claims to love wisdom -- would be kept from the very thing they seek. So either philosopher is synonymous with hypocrite, which some would not contest, or many hypocrites wrongfully call themselves philosophers.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Philosophy cannot have a purpose and still claim to be the love of wisdom.
    Wittgenstein suggested that for him, philosophy allowed him to defend his own mind against the philosophies of others. If you look at Wittgenstein's work, the arguments are extremely reductive and they work to undermine many strategies of argument that philosophy tends to use. So perhaps the best thing about philosophy is that it allows you to pick and chose your arguments and avoid ones that run into the standard range of philosophically-built-up messes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Philosophy cannot have a purpose and still claim to be the love of wisdom.
    Wittgenstein suggested that for him, philosophy allowed him to defend his own mind against the philosophies of others. If you look at Wittgenstein's work, the arguments are extremely reductive and they work to undermine many strategies of argument that philosophy tends to use. So perhaps the best thing about philosophy is that it allows you to pick and chose your arguments and avoid ones that run into the standard range of philosophically-built-up messes.
    Orfrom: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ )

    Still, it is precisely via the subject of the nature of philosophy that the fundamental continuity between these two stages, rather than the discrepancy between them, is to be found. In both cases philosophy serves, first, as critique of language. It is through analyzing language's illusive power that the philosopher can expose the traps of meaningless philosophical formulations. This means that what was formerly thought of as a philosophical problem may now dissolve "and this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear" (PI 133). Two implications of this diagnosis, easily traced back in the Tractatus, are to be recognized. One is the inherent dialogical character of philosophy, which is a responsive activity: difficulties and torments are encountered which are then to be dissipated by philosophical therapy. In the Tractatus, this took the shape of advice: "The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science … and then whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions" (TLP 6.53) The second, more far- reaching, "discovery" in the Investigations "is the one that makes me capable of stopping doing philosophy when I want to" (PI 133). This has been taken to revert back to the ladder metaphor and the injunction to silence in the Tractatus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "to say what can be said"
    Indeed, although I do not think, if there is such thing as true purpose, it is something that can be said.

    I do not believe in existence, not in the sense that I believe in non existence, but in the sense that I don't believe in a static reality. Nothing is "being" something, things are "becoming" something, always changing, never the same.

    This can be found on the quantum level, the atomic level, the molecular level, the cellular level, the psychological level, the social level, and beyond. Excuse my use of the term "level," it is rather arbitrary but it gets the point across.

    My point is that purpose implies stasis, that a hammer will always be a hammer is not true, but effectively, it is. The purpose of a hammer is to be used to hammer nails, if it's a claw hammer it also has the purpose of pulling nails. Some people use their hammer to pull apart things as well, while others would use their pry bar. Purpose is in the eye of the beholder, limited only by one's creativity. Philosophy helps you rise above the limitations of concepts, and become a creative force.

    Critical thinking is not so grand, and not necissary at all. The basis of critical thinking is to weight support for an opinion, this weighing can be limited by concepts.

    Critical thinking and philosophy work together quite well, critical thinking needs an understanding of philosophy to come to fruition, but philosophy needs nothing, it is it's own fruit, it's own purpose.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    My point is that purpose implies stasis, that a hammer will always be a hammer is not true, but effectively, it is. The purpose of a hammer is to be used to hammer nails, if it's a claw hammer it also has the purpose of pulling nails. Some people use their hammer to pull apart things as well, while others would use their pry bar. Purpose is in the eye of the beholder, limited only by one's creativity. Philosophy helps you rise above the limitations of concepts, and become a creative force.

    Critical thinking is not so grand, and not necissary at all. The basis of critical thinking is to weight support for an opinion, this weighing can be limited by concepts.

    Critical thinking and philosophy work together quite well, critical thinking needs an understanding of philosophy to come to fruition, but philosophy needs nothing, it is it's own fruit, it's own purpose.
    I use philosophy to help me frame questions. For example, one thing that puzzles me now is:

    Is every interpretable object necessarily inside a culturally-set interpretation?
    This seems like a philosophical question since there are some hidden trade-offs or questions inside the question such as what's an interpretation? and what's a culture?

    In my view, if we take mainstream culture as a culture, then most of a culture is outside of its standard/mainstream culture.
    So how does mainstream culture define itself? By excluding or downplaying anything that isn't mainstream.
    How do we know when we appraoch the margins of this mainstream definition?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I don't know what you mean by "is inside an interpretation"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I don't know what you mean by "is inside an interpretation"
    See? That's some useful philosophy.

    However, to attempt some clarity: a common model of how you know what cultural objects are is that you have some (structuralist-definable) framework
    that lets you very quickly read what the object is. So you could say a cultural object is always already inside an interpretation, ie the reading given by the cultural structure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    sorry, but your using language I don't understand to explain language I don't understand

    what is a "cultural object" vs an "object"



    Psychologists have done lots of studies on why we see things the way we do, and why this differs from person to person, or culture to culture. Philosophers can only ask, but science seems to have the answers.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    sorry, but your using language I don't understand to explain language I don't understand

    what is a "cultural object" vs an "object"



    Psychologists have done lots of studies on why we see things the way we do, and why this differs from person to person, or culture to culture. Philosophers can only ask, but science seems to have the answers.
    So if I see a rock with a red painted x on it, only psychology can tell me why I wonder what the x might mean? I'm asking as a philosopher, but I have a philosophical rather than a psychological answer in mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    So if I see a rock with a red painted x on it, only psychology can tell me why I wonder what the x might mean?
    Even better... Evolutionary biology can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    No, why a rock has a red x painted on it is not necissarily in the realm of psychology.

    You quoted that philosophy is saying that which can be said, either you don't agree with that, or you just threw that example together without thinking too much.

    Asking why implies that you are asking for a cause, which scientific methods can help to determine. Philosophy only helps you understand things, it doesn't help you explain things. There is more to learning than asking questions and reflecting on possibilities, although this will exersize some part of your brain, which may help you learn in the future, it will not directly cause you to learn anything. You don't need to know what a computer is to use a search engine. You don't need to know music theory, or anything about physics to play guitar. You can understand the relationship between notes, without being able to explain it.

    Likewise, being able to explain something doesn't mean you understand it.

    Understanding that a red x on a rock is a red x on a rock is about as much as you can understand, if that's all the information about the red x on the rock that you have access to.

    Merely asking why is not philosophical, but looking for the answer is.

    Forensics investigators and archeologists might be able to help you determine why the red x is on the rock, but philosophers will only be able to ask questions about it to understand the relationship of the red x and the rock, not the reason for it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    No, why a rock has a red x painted on it is not necissarily in the realm of psychology.

    You quoted that philosophy is saying that which can be said, either you don't agree with that, or you just threw that example together without thinking too much.

    Asking why implies that you are asking for a cause, which scientific methods can help to determine. Philosophy only helps you understand things, it doesn't help you explain things. There is more to learning than asking questions and reflecting on possibilities, although this will exersize some part of your brain, which may help you learn in the future, it will not directly cause you to learn anything. You don't need to know what a computer is to use a search engine. You don't need to know music theory, or anything about physics to play guitar. You can understand the relationship between notes, without being able to explain it.

    Likewise, being able to explain something doesn't mean you understand it.

    Understanding that a red x on a rock is a red x on a rock is about as much as you can understand, if that's all the information about the red x on the rock that you have access to.

    Merely asking why is not philosophical, but looking for the answer is.

    Forensics investigators and archeologists might be able to help you determine why the red x is on the rock, but philosophers will only be able to ask questions about it to understand the relationship of the red x and the rock, not the reason for it.
    If you define philosophy as the kind of "wisdom" that is completely stumped by a red X on a rock, then by your definition philosophy is utterly useless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I don't define philosophy as such; but that doesn't make my definition of it usefull. Whether or not it is, isn't for me, or you, to decide. All we can do is observe effects, and evoke logic here and there.

    Feel free to draw conclusions about why my philosophy doesn't have a red x on it and doesn't appear to be a rock, if you care to share your conclusions, I'm most interested.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    So if I see a rock with a red painted x on it, only psychology can tell me why I wonder what the x might mean?
    Even better... Evolutionary biology can.
    Even better....by what type of reasoning do we decide that evolutionary biology can tell me why I wonder about what a red x on a rock might mean, but not allow a useful reflection on why I might wonder what a red x on a rock might mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I don't define philosophy as such; but that doesn't make my definition of it usefull. Whether or not it is, isn't for me, or you, to decide. All we can do is observe effects, and evoke logic here and there.

    Feel free to draw conclusions about why my philosophy doesn't have a red x on it and doesn't appear to be a rock, if you care to share your conclusions, I'm most interested.
    Do ordinary objects from the real world just happen not to have any role in your discourse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "by what type of reasoning do we decide that evolutionary biology can tell me why I wonder "

    I'm not sure I know the different types of reasoning, my education is limited. As far as I know there are only two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive.

    You can induce anything that you can deduce, only without as much evidence. So suggesting that there is a flawed type of reasoning is silly, there can only be a flawed conclusion. There can be flawed conclussions using induction as well as deduction. neither type of reasoning is flawed, but each has it's usefullness.

    Were deduction is more reliable, it takes time to concider particular bits of information on the particular object of reasoning. Induction just needs to concider prior experiences with like objects and generalities that seem relivant. So deduction is what is commonly use in court cases and formal debates, induction is what is commonly used in day to day reasoning.

    Nonetheless, I will say that evolutionary psychology, not biology, will help explain to you why you wonder about anything. The bottom line is that wonder has helped your ancestors survive and compete with those who didn't wonder, in an environment that favored the wonderer. This is a major simplification, but it seems you don't understand science, if you don't realize that a scientific explination can tell you a lot more than a philosophical inquiry. Philosophical inquiries lead to scientific experiments, because there is a point that the philosopher wants to be able to explain cause and effect, not merely their own thoughts on it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    "by what type of reasoning do we decide that evolutionary biology can tell me why I wonder "

    I'm not sure I know the different types of reasoning, my education is limited. As far as I know there are only two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive.

    You can induce anything that you can deduce, only without as much evidence. So suggesting that there is a flawed type of reasoning is silly, there can only be a flawed conclusion. There can be flawed conclussions using induction as well as deduction. neither type of reasoning is flawed, but each has it's usefullness.

    Were deduction is more reliable, it takes time to concider particular bits of information on the particular object of reasoning. Induction just needs to concider prior experiences with like objects and generalities that seem relivant. So deduction is what is commonly use in court cases and formal debates, induction is what is commonly used in day to day reasoning.

    Nonetheless, I will say that evolutionary psychology, not biology, will help explain to you why you wonder about anything. The bottom line is that wonder has helped your ancestors survive and compete with those who didn't wonder, in an environment that favored the wonderer. This is a major simplification, but it seems you don't understand science, if you don't realize that a scientific explination can tell you a lot more than a philosophical inquiry. Philosophical inquiries lead to scientific experiments, because there is a point that the philosopher wants to be able to explain cause and effect, not merely their own thoughts on it.
    So suppose I don't understand science and I use philosophical arguments to suggest why I might wonder what a red x on a rock portends?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman stephenthemay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    So suppose I don't understand science and I use philosophical arguments to suggest why I might wonder what a red x on a rock portends?
    I wouldn't say that a purely philosophical approach to this question would necessarily be wrong or pointless. I do think, though, that engaging in such philosophical inquiry without considering relevant scientific knowledge might lead one to ask wrong or unnecessary questions. For instance, you might question whether 'wonder' is an inherent trait or if it is learned through experience or social interaction and if 'wonder' is a result of our sense of beauty, or of order and chaos, etc.

    However, these questions wouldn't be as useful if scientific research suggested that a sense of wonder was the result of a physical brain structure that is coded in our DNA and is thus equally present in every human.

    In this case, it seems it would be most useful to let scientific knowledge inform and frame philosophical inquiry. Instead of simply asking why we wonder, the philosopher could question, for instance, whether our sense of wonder is entirely dependent on the “wonder program” in our brains or whether it is an inevitable consequence of our intelligence.
    Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.
    --Galileo Galilei
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    So suppose I don't understand science and I use philosophical arguments to suggest why I might wonder what a red x on a rock portends?
    In such a case you will come up with interesting thoughts that are incapable of verification. This is equivalent to sophisticated, deep thinking, or mental masturbation, depending upon your perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    So suppose I don't understand science and I use philosophical arguments to suggest why I might wonder what a red x on a rock portends?
    In such a case you will come up with interesting thoughts that are incapable of verification. This is equivalent to sophisticated, deep thinking, or mental masturbation, depending upon your perspective.
    It's interesting that the problematic thing about wondering about a red x is seen as where the "wondering" comes from. I guess I was thinking of the problem as being more one that had to do with cultural signs. I have no "scientific" reason for thinking that wondering about a red x has more to do with the significance of signs and less to do with wonder. Is this a case of sophisticated deep thinking or mental masterbation or is it just my perspective?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    do we masturbate to alter our hormonal states, and/or do our hormonal states change when we masturbate for another reason?

    (the most probably answer is "and")

    Purpose, reason, meaning: these(and other concepts) are subjective, unless you are referring to causes in which case, when you ask "why" you really mean "how"

    See which will get a more definitive answer
    "Why do you think that philosophy has a purpose?"
    "How do you think that philosophy has a purpose?"

    While some may answer each question in the same way. "Why" implies that you are asking for someone's thoughts and opinions on the matter of thought and opinion(recieving a reflection of a reflection, which may be more like the original, but depending on the angles of reflection, may be quite eschewed), whereas "how" implies that you are asking for the causes of the thoughts and opinions that one has.

    When talking to the majority of people, I suspect that asking for their own opinion about their own opinion, will only lead to great confusion and petty discourse.


    With that explained

    Asking "why is there a red x on that rock" is not as productive as asking "how has this red x come to be on this rock" although it may satisfy some existential muse to give your thoughts on something, why not give your thoughts to the exploration and dissemination of facts, instead of the development of more wonderful opinions?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    do we masturbate to alter our hormonal states, and/or do our hormonal states change when we masturbate for another reason?

    (the most probably answer is "and")

    Purpose, reason, meaning: these(and other concepts) are subjective, unless you are referring to causes in which case, when you ask "why" you really mean "how"

    See which will get a more definitive answer
    "Why do you think that philosophy has a purpose?"
    "How do you think that philosophy has a purpose?"

    While some may answer each question in the same way. "Why" implies that you are asking for someone's thoughts and opinions on the matter of thought and opinion(recieving a reflection of a reflection, which may be more like the original, but depending on the angles of reflection, may be quite eschewed), whereas "how" implies that you are asking for the causes of the thoughts and opinions that one has.

    When talking to the majority of people, I suspect that asking for their own opinion about their own opinion, will only lead to great confusion and petty discourse.


    With that explained

    Asking "why is there a red x on that rock" is not as productive as asking "how has this red x come to be on this rock" although it may satisfy some existential muse to give your thoughts on something, why not give your thoughts to the exploration and dissemination of facts, instead of the development of more wonderful opinions?
    Okay, how might I wonder what a red x on a rock portends?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    If you trully want to know, start studying neurology and other related fields of research.


    Everything psychological has a phisiological correlation. By changing the levels of phisiological chemical states, and noticing relative psychological changes, we confirm causation.


    "How do I wonder?" is not a very definitive question either, it leaves too much ambiguity. What do you mean? "What are the causes of your wondering?" or "What about yourself, allows you to wonder?"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I withdraw my previous assertion that "how" is better in a certain contex than "why," although each undoubtedly has their own uses, they are not innate uses, but are limited to how they are used. So it is not so important as what word you choose, as it is, how you choose to use it.

    Just know what your trying to say, and then worry about saying it. Just picking words because they sound right, although might work for poets and politicians, is a recipe for misunderstandings in both philosophy and science.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Philosophy is mostly a discourse on semantics...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Philosophy is mostly a discourse on semantics...
    What do you mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    If you trully want to know, start studying neurology and other related fields of research.


    Everything psychological has a phisiological correlation. By changing the levels of phisiological chemical states, and noticing relative psychological changes, we confirm causation.


    "How do I wonder?" is not a very definitive question either, it leaves too much ambiguity. What do you mean? "What are the causes of your wondering?" or "What about yourself, allows you to wonder?"
    I was asking a philosophical question about the context of wondering about an x on a rock. That moves past the physiology of having a nervous system in about a tenth of a second.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Philosophy is mostly a discourse on semantics...
    What do you mean?
    HAHAHAHA... going into the memorable quotes thread


    I miss your point, you've already defined the context of the red x and the rock by saying: the red x is on the rock
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •