What do you exactly call philosophy?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;105703 wrote:

Meta-philosophy can be philosophy if it is driven by love of wisdom and a desire to replace opinion with knowledge. Systems concerning philosophy built simply out of ambition do not involve sufficient amounts of either. If there exist, however, opinions derivative of such systems concerning the scope and place of philosophy, these are the proper objects of true meta-philosophy, which is, in this case, one and the same with philosophy. In other words, meta-philosophy is philosophy in the same sense in which political philosophy is philosophy.

Meta-philosophy is the philosophy of philosophy. The central question of which is, what is the nature of philosophy? That question is, itself, a philosophical question. Philosophy is unique in that it is the only study whose nature is its own subject matter. What is the nature of chemistry is not a chemical question; what is the nature of history is not an historical question; and so on. But what is the nature of philosophy is a philosophical question. Philosophy is the most introspective of the disciplines.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;105757 wrote:

Meta-philosophy is the philosophy of philosophy. The central question of which is, what is the nature of philosophy? That question is, itself, a philosophical question. Philosophy is unique in that it is the only study whose nature is its own subject matter. What is the nature of chemistry is not a chemical question; what is the nature of history is not an historical question; and so on. But what is the nature of philosophy is a philosophical question. Philosophy is the most introspective of the disciplines.

I do not believe there is anything controversial in your precise definition. So I concur.

The only question or objection might arise from the corner of religion, which may take itself to be self-reflective, introspective in the same manner as philosophy, though looking or pointing someplace else for answers. Religion at times feels itself up to tackling the question of meta-religion. It does not want philosophy's help in this regard as might chemistry or history, which also, it should be said, at times feel themselves up to tackling their own meta- questions, even though it is not, properly speaking, their province.

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;105869 wrote:

I do not believe there is anything controversial in your precise definition. So I concur.

The only question or objection might arise from the corner of religion, which may take itself to be self-reflective, introspective in the same manner as philosophy, though looking or pointing someplace else for answers. Religion at times feels itself up to tackling the question of meta-religion. It does not want philosophy's help in this regard as might chemistry or history, which also, it should be said, at times feel themselves up to tackling their own meta- questions, even though it is not, properly speaking, their province.

But what is the nature of religion is not a religious question anymore than what is the nature of chemistry is a chemical question. But what is the nature of philosophy is a philosophical question. So, philosophy seems to me to be introspective in the way religion is not.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;105872 wrote:

But what is the nature of religion is not a religious question anymore than what is the nature of chemistry is a chemical question. But what is the nature of philosophy is a philosophical question. So, philosophy seems to me to be introspective in the way religion is not.

I think I see what you mean. But if some of the religious ask themselves what is religion, and the answer they arrive at becomes for them an article of faith, would you say they philosophized to arrive at their definition?

@BeatsMeWhy,

Philosophy could be described as the most zoomed-out type of thought. This is similar to describing it as the "science of sciences." Philosophy is never finished (re)defining itself, for humanity is never finished redefining itself. Meta-philosophy is the arrogant son of an arrogant father, more like his father than he wants to admit. Meta-philosophy is still quite obviously, I think, just philosophy. "Philosophy buries its gravediggers."

Just a thought.

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;105893 wrote:

I think I see what you mean. But if some of the religious ask themselves what is religion, and the answer they arrive at becomes for them an article of faith, would you say they philosophized to arrive at their definition?

All questions of the form, "What is the nature of X", are philosophical questions.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;105935 wrote:

All questions of the form, "What is the nature of X", are philosophical questions.

What of the question 'what is the nature of God'? Is that not a religious or theological question? Is 'what is the nature of hydrogen' not a question of chemistry? Or 'what is the nature of friction' - is that not a question of physics? Granted, natural science and philosophy are at times considered to be one and the same. But religion or theology? Are they the same as philosophy?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;105951 wrote:

What of the question 'what is the nature of God'? Is that not a religious or theological question? Is 'what is the nature of hydrogen' not a question of chemistry? Or 'what is the nature of friction' - is that not a question of physics? Granted, natural science and philosophy are at times considered to be one and the same, and probably rightly so. But religion or theology? Are they the same as philosophy?

You are, of course, right. Although I don't think a chemical question would be put that way. I don't think that science and philosophy are the same. Philosophy concerns the understanding of key concepts; like truth or knowledge. Science is about the understanding of the world. Like hydrogen, or like hydrogen and oxygen combine to make H20. And neither are religion and philosophy the same. Philosophers ask about the concepts of knowledge and of truth, etc. Religionists concentrate on the things of religion.

@BeatsMeWhy,

I think Philosophy and Religion overlap quite often. Is Hegel's Absolute not the (at the time) Thinking Man's God?

And what about Nietzsche's Zarathrustra, his Superman, his Dionysos?

And the scientific world-view in its broad strokes seems like an offshoot of Deism. A cold God who doesn't care. Something like the personification of the intelligence inherent (or projected?) in Nature. The mere fact that we say Universe, for instance, rather than Multi-verse. We still have our Totality. It's just watered-down and value-neutral.

2 more cents.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;105935 wrote:

All questions of the form, "What is the nature of X", are philosophical questions.

And, of course, what is meant by "nature" is an etymological as well as a metaphilosophical question.

The word "nature" is derived as follows:

From the Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French, French nature:

(1) active force that establishes and maintains the order of the universe, group of properties or characteristics that define objects (early 12th cent.),

(2) sort, species, race (early 12th cent.)l

(3) attributes, innate disposition of a person (late 12th cent.),

(4) constitution, principle of life that animates and sustains the human body (early 13th cent.),

(5) genitals (early 13th cent.);

also in Anglo-Norman in spec. senses:

(6) menstrual discharge, or

(7) semen.

From their etymon classical Latin natura, meaning:

(1) birth,

(2) constitution,

(3) character,

(4) the genitals,

(5) the creative power governing the world,

(6) the physical world,

(7) the natural course of things,

(8) naturalness in art, in post-classical Latin

also

(9) the divine and human nature of Christ (6th cent.), and

(10) the need to defecate and urinate (1300 in a British source)

From the Latin nascor, natus, to be born

[Compare Spanish natura (1207), Italian natura (a1250), Portuguese natura (13th cent.).]

Of course the word natura, had been used by philosophers to translate into Latin the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally [if you'll pardon the pun] meant:

(1) origin,

(2) the natural form or constitution of a person or thing as the result of growth, or

(3) the regular order of nature;

and was adopted by Greek philosophers to mean:

(a) nature as an originating power,

(b) the principle of growth in the universe,

(c) elementary substance, and

(d) concrete, the creation, or 'Nature'.

And, to go back to "origins" again, the Greek word physis (φύσις), is derived from phyein (φύειν), meaning "to grow."

Thus we have traced the meaning of the word "nature" back to its "birth" and its "roots"!

[Sources: The Oxford English Dictionary; A Latin Dictionary, by Lewis and Short; and A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott]

Question to ponder: "What is the nature of nature?"

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;106035 wrote:

And, of course, what is meant by "nature" is an etymological as well as a metaphilosophical question.

Etymology sometimes gives you a clue as to the meaning of a word. But since meaning changes through time, it is generally not true that words means what they originally meant. If they did, then the word, "lunatic" would mean, "influenced by the Moon", and it does not mean that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106063 wrote:

Etymology sometimes gives you a clue as to the meaning of a word. But since meaning changes through time, it is generally not true that words means what they originally meant. If they did, then the word, "lunatic" would mean, "influenced by the Moon", and it does not mean that.

Ask the Intake Attendants, as I have, at the Capital District Psychiatric Center if there is no association between the phases of the moon and the volume of new clients. Also true for Emergency Rooms at hospitals.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;106092 wrote:

Ask the Intake Attendants, as I have, at the Capital District Psychiatric Center if there is no association between the phases of the moon and the volume of new clients. Also true for Emergency Rooms at hospitals.

But, even if that is true, that is irrelevant. People do not call others "lunatics" because they think there is any association with phases of the Moon. We are talking of meaning and etymology, I thought, not psychology. "Lunatic" no longer means anything to do with the Moon, whatever the truth is. And, besides, that is only one example. The current meaning of terms has very little to do with their etymologies, since, as I have already mentioned, the meanings of words change over time. So the etymologies of words are only of historical interest.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;106030 wrote:

I think Philosophy and Religion overlap quite often.

Yes, and the overlap varies from era to era. The question seems to be, then, what is the difference between when a theologian asks 'what is god' and when a philosopher asks that question? Do the starting points of the theologian and the philosopher necessarily differ? Do their methods if inquiry necessarily differ? Do their conclusions necessarily differ? Do the answers to some or all of these questions vary from era to era?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;106101 wrote:

Yes, and the overlap varies from era to era. The question seems to be, then, what is the difference between when a theologian asks 'what is god' and when a philosopher asks that question? Do the starting points of the theologian and the philosopher necessarily differ? Do their methods if inquiry necessarily differ? Do their conclusions necessarily differ? Do the answers to some or all of these questions vary from era to era?

The question, "what is God?" begs the question, since it supposes there is a God. I guess theologians already suppose there is a God, else they would not be theologians. But philosophers need not suppose that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106102 wrote:

The question, "what is God?" begs the question, since it supposes there is a God. I guess theologians already suppose there is a God, else they would not be theologians. But philosophers need not suppose that.

Agreed. Then under what circumstances would a philosopher ask 'what is god'?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;106107 wrote:

Agreed. Then under what circumstances would a philosopher ask 'what is god'?

If he were now supposing there was a God (even for the sake of argument) then he might ask that question. But, you realize that many, if not most, philosophers are uninterested in the philosophy of religion, and would not care to ask that question.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106108 wrote:

If he were now supposing there was a God (even for the sake of argument) then he might ask that question. But, you realize that many, if not most, philosophers are uninterested in the philosophy of religion, and would not care to ask that question.

Yes. Do you think that's because religion is less important now than it once was or because of some other reason, some other development? Religion seems to me to be strong in many places. So I am inclined to think there is some other reason for the lessening of philosophers' interest in God. Is it simply because of the separation of church and state? Is that the reason that religion is less important today than some time ago, and therefore of less interest to philosophers?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;106124 wrote:

Yes. Do you think that's because religion is less important now than it once was or because of some other reason, some other development? Religion seems to me to be strong in many places. So I am inclined to think there is some other reason for the lessening of philosophers' interest in God. Is it simply because of the separation of church and state? Is that the reason that religion is less important today than some time ago, and therefore of less interest to philosophers?

Philosophers are interested in different aspects of philosophy just as other academics are interested in different aspects of their study. Not all historians study the same time or place, so why should all philosophers philosophize about religion?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106146 wrote:

Philosophers are interested in different aspects of philosophy just as other academics are interested in different aspects of their study. Not all historians study the same time or place, so why should all philosophers philosophize about religion?

My sense of it is that for philosophers not to philosophize about God or religion is like chemists not to work with the entire periodic table of the elements. This isn't to say that a philosopher must publish books or papers about God or religion, but it is to say that it is something he simply must address in one fashion or another. One might call it criminal negligence to do otherwise.

Philosophy Forum

What do you exactly call philosophy?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know