I've noticed a few people say things like "I disagree, because I'm a "something"-ist". That would fall under "arguing philosophy" in your description I think.

I agree that engaging in philosophy is what's important. Although arguing philosophy is important too. You have to be able to state what you think clearly and with good arguments to back it up. So arguing a preset position has its uses. You at least find out what reasons for supporting it are good, and which are not.

I am beginning to notice a difference between arguing philosophy and engaging in philosophy.
For this purpose I will view philosophy as if standing on a road, from my perspective the road stretches to a vanishing point in the distance.

I want to distinguish between my position on the road and the view down the road.
It seems that quite often we are arguing from our position on the road.
I'll define this as arguing philosophy.
I define engaging in philosophy as attempting to move down the road, extending the vanishing point .
By this view, philosophy is never perfected, yet , always moving down the road.
Do you see the difference I am suggesting.?
Are we more often, arguing "A" philosophy, rather than engaging in philosophy?
If you are interested, use this thread to demonstrate and explore the difference.

I make no bones about the fact that a lot of what I contribute does not fall strictly under the heading of 'philosophy'. I even wrote blog entry to that effect about a month after I joined. A lot of what interests me does not form part of the philosophy curriculum, and ipso facto much of what I write would not pass muster in a philosophy class. I do like to 'challenge and be challenged', but I am often 'out-of-bounds' with regards to the strict definition. (But then the header on the site says 'science religion philosophy humanity' which is quite a lot broader than the strict definition.)

Anyway, for what it is worth, I have changed my views in response to feedback from others here; there are some lines of argument I have realised I was wrong about and others I realise nobody will ever respond to. I have looked up books and articles that others have quoted. So it is a learning experience. But I have also realised I am here a lot because when I was a lot younger, I used to hang out with a group who spent a lot of time talking about life, the universe, and everything, and now we are all dispersed, and mortgaged, and nobody does that any more.:whistling:

Suppose someone engages in philosophy, and argues for his view; I suppose that is possible. Indeed, if he does not argue for his view, then he must be supposing that his word will just be taken that his view is true. Should he suppose that? And let's suppose he does argue for his view and he says something dumb (or argues unsoundly). Should that simply be allowed to pass? If philosophy is about anything, it is about arguing for a certain position, or arguing against a certain position. There is no great, or even reputable, philosopher who does not engage in philosophy by means of argument. Argument is the very soul of philosophy. For philosophy is just critical thinking as applied to philosophical problems. As Socrates is reported to have said, "We must follow the argument wherever it leads". But, if anyone thinks differently, he is of course free to pursue "engaging in philosophy" as he pleases. It is a free country. Only, I predict he will find himself unable to engage in philosophy with other philosophers. Can anyone who advocates engaging without argument name any philosopher of any repute who has done that? If so, we'll have something to engage in. Indeed, it is worth noting that even those who seem to be advocating engagement without argument are arguing for that very point of view! And I am, of course, arguing against it! I await their rebuttal of my argument.

There is no great, or even reputable, philosopher who does not engage in philosophy by means of argument. Argument is the very soul of philosophy.

I agree though. My understanding of the OP is that his "arguing philosophy" is people starting with a conclusion that they are unwilling to question, and then throwing whatever fallacies and distractions they can just to defend it. Acting like a lawyer rather than a scientist. Or refusing to engage in an actual discussion of the premise at all. And "engaging philosophy" would be when they are willing to engage, obviously. The word "arguing" should probably be changed in "arguing philosophy" though, to make it clearer.

Why on earth would you take he OP as saying that? What the OP said is that what he called "engaging in philosophy" should be different from arguing in philosophy. He said nothing at all about arguing fallaciously and the rest. He just doesn't think that philosophers should present arguments for their views? Who, do you think wouldn't agree that philosophers should not argue fallaciously and with bias. Do you really think that the OP is saying simply that argument is fine unless it is proper argument without fallacies and bias? Why even bother to say that?

When they do that, they are arguing like a lawyer (making the best argument they can, but with the direction of their argument a foregone conclusion)

I think everyone would agree that we should not argue fallaciously and with bias. However, we often do. The OP is asking how often.

He says "arguing from our position on the road" and "arguing 'A' philosophy" which suggests to me close minded, biased arguing in favor of a position that the arguer holds (the word arguing seems to be used in the sense more like bickering than debating).

I think it is a worthwhile subject. Many times people will reject a argument simply because the conclusion goes against a belief that they hold dear. When they do that, they are arguing like a lawyer (making the best argument they can, but with the direction of their argument a foregone conclusion) rather than a scientist (or, one might say, a real philosopher).

It's a natural tendency I think, which you have to strive very persistently to suppress.

Why on earth would you take he OP as saying that? What the OP said is that what he called "engaging in philosophy" should be different from arguing in philosophy. He said nothing at all about arguing fallaciously and the rest. He just doesn't think that philosophers should present arguments for their views? Who, do you think wouldn't agree that philosophers should not argue fallaciously and with bias. Do you really think that the OP is saying simply that argument is fine unless it is proper argument without fallacies and bias? Why even bother to say that?

I agree though. My understanding of the OP is that his "arguing philosophy" is people starting with a conclusion that they are unwilling to question, and then throwing whatever fallacies and distractions they can just to defend it. Acting like a lawyer rather than a scientist. Or refusing to engage in an actual discussion of the premise at all. And "engaging philosophy" would be when they are willing to engage, obviously. The word "arguing" should probably be changed in "arguing philosophy" though, to make it clearer.

Books, once written, never change.
Shouldn't every philosopher seek to expand, to move along the road.

Why on earth would you take he OP as saying that? What the OP said is that what he called "engaging in philosophy" should be different from arguing in philosophy. He said nothing at all about arguing fallaciously and the rest. He just doesn't think that philosophers should present arguments for their views? Who, do you think wouldn't agree that philosophers should not argue fallaciously and with bias. Do you really think that the OP is saying simply that argument is fine unless it is proper argument without fallacies and bias? Why even bother to say that?

Kenny,

From my infrequent visits to PF, it seems to me you are truly one of the brightest minds around, particularly in debate. Yet I struggle to recall how many times, if ever, I've read your admission of an "oops -- I hadn't thought of it that way -- perhaps you are right". Again confessing the infrequency of my visits to PF, perhaps I am wrong about this point -- am I?

rebecca

When I "oops" I admit it. And when I oops, it is usually a beaut. But, I try not to oops, and maybe I don't as often as you seem to expect me to oops. After all, you can admit you oops only when you do oops. That's logic. What oops of mine have you noticed that I have not admitted. That would be the place to start a criticism. I would not think that a good place to start a criticism is, "I have not noted you admitting any oopses" without noting some oopses I have not admitted. Would you?
Anyway, visit more often, and you can glow in my radiance.