What do you exactly call philosophy?

@BeatsMeWhy,

I think that philosophy can never perfectly define itself because it can never perfectly define the Totality. A thought like this is not something I can prove, but I don't consider philosophy capable of proving anything. The game is about persuasion, or so I would like to persuade you.

The philosophical of tradition can be compared to the tradition of "serious" music. Mozart composes with an awareness of Bach. Kant responds to Hume. Hegel to Kant. Marx to Hegel. Composers and philosophers alike quite obviously define themselves in relation to one another. Surely Mozart and Hegel were more than a little aware of the tradition they were part, especially as both were gifted enough to hope for a primary place within this tradition. I think men are generally ambitious and at least ambivalently desire the false immortality of fame. Surely a man like Hegel was aware that if he came up with nothing original he would not die famous.

More to the point: philosophy hovers around the concept of Totality in general. Even the linguistic philosophers, for they make a God of language. Loosely speaking.

(Subject as always to revision...)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;106217 wrote:

I think that philosophy can never perfectly define itself)

The contemporary English philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, said that "philosophy" is, "talk about talk". I think that is pretty close to it.

@kennethamy,

Close, but no cigar. For here we are still at. I also like "the science of science." But the itch remains. And philosophy buries its gravediggers.

Who knows? Maybe someone will come up with a twist as significant as the linguistic turn, and the entire history of philosophy will be interpreted by the light of this new twist.

Still, I like that a lot. Talk about talk.

@BeatsMeWhy,

It is ridiculous to consider philosophy as an enriching thought for the end of all knowledge, espeically what is lablled as exact sciences, is precisely IGNORANCE!!
No! The fault of Socrates was to destroy in order to construct but Really there is nothing to construct ON: consider the Living Universe as everfloating STRINGS!!!

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 12:04 PM ----------

Should there be any proof for God, or even any small hint in that direction, then why should there be billions of atheists!!

@junglelaw,

junglelaw;107076 wrote:

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 12:04 PM ----------

Should there be any proof for God, or even any small hint in that direction, then why should there be billions of atheists!!

1. If the proof is complex, they might not understand it.
2. Lots of people are not reasonable, and if opposed to the conclusion of a proof will not accept the proof however correct it is.

@BeatsMeWhy,

draomas

anabasis, perpetual retreat

aspiration

being autochthonous [look it up]

conceptual technique

confronting problems with concepts

consciousness of problems

contemplating things as beings

deepening and [then] making patent

denuding things

drinking essences

enthusiasm

essential suspicion

inquiring about being

intellectual radicalism

interpretation of life

interpretation of reality

logical thinking preceded by other [thoughts]

man alert

meditation on life

natatory effort

obtaining security by [means of] clarity

over-living

paradoxa

proper thinking

saying being

searching for the integrity of the world

searching for the plain truth

seeing all sides of things

seriousness

solitude/loneliness

something that man does

specializing in the universe

the Great Game

the island of the dead

the question[ing] of the universe

the science of doing

the science of possibilities

the science of the feeling of conscious life

the specialty of ignorance

the technique of conceptual precision

the technique of purification

the theory of problems

the tradition of un-tradition

theoretical knowledge

theory

and my favorite,

youth flourishing in old age.

And, oh yes, he wrote a book about it: What is Philosophy? (Norton, 1961).

@BeatsMeWhy,

I call philosophy the thing that doesn't know what to call itself.

@BeatsMeWhy,

To me it is part of the spiritual path. Not everyone sees it like that, or knows what that is, but that has always been it for me. It is only partially about thought - it is also about the critique of thought, the things that condition thought and make it muddy or heavy or opaque. To me it is something that has to originate from some place deeper than 'what I think' although of course it involves that. I have also come to understand something about Western philosophy in particular, about the way the mind of man meshes with that of the universe. I think there is a proof of a greater life in it, a life greater than the mundane events of living disclose.

And I'm lovin' Ortega, also, thanks LongKnowledge.

@jeeprs,

I agree with your last post, Jeeprs. I take a holistic view of human beings. Man's spiritual quest is tied up with the rest of his life. I don't think man is anything like a logic-machine. He's more metaphorical than numerical. And some of these metaphors serve also as symbols of rare and sublime mental states ("Heaven, Nirvana, Non-dual,etc.)

But I use "mental states." I want to bridge the gap between the spiritual and the critical. I want the half-critical to become critical enough to recognize their unconscious metaphoricity and idolatry. Let the doubters see their faith in doubt. Let the inspired see the refining value of doubt.

I would like to give the world a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;107239 wrote:

I call philosophy the thing that doesn't know what to call itself.

Oh, an amnesiac?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107243 wrote:

To me it is part of the spiritual path. Not everyone sees it like that, or knows what that is, but that has always been it for me. It is only partially about thought - it is also about the critique of thought, the things that condition thought and make it muddy or heavy or opaque. To me it is something that has to originate from some place deeper than 'what I think' although of course it involves that. I have also come to understand something about Western philosophy in particular, about the way the mind of man meshes with that of the universe. I think there is a proof of a greater life in it, a life greater than the mundane events of living disclose.

And I'm lovin' Ortega, also, thanks LongKnowledge.

Thanks for the comments and for reminding me of one more of Ortega's definitions:

Philosophy is . . . the science of love!

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;107681 wrote:

Thanks for the comments and for reminding me of one more of Ortega's definitions:

Philosophy is . . . the science of love!

That ain't what I would call "the science of love"! But, what would I know?

@BeatsMeWhy,

actually you would be more inclined to call it 'the love of science' wouldn't you?:bigsmile:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107699 wrote:

That ain't what I would call "the science of love"! But, what would I know?

You mean there's something you don't know? Then see my posting: "Philosophy as the Science of Love, as Comprehension, and as Salvation"

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;107752 wrote:

You mean there's something you don't know? Then see my posting: "Philosophy as the Science of Love, as Comprehension, and as Salvation"

Lots I don't know. I really don't see philosophy the way you do; as a kind of religion.

@BeatsMeWhy,

Wisdom requires sacrifice, and it changes the way you see things. This was always the understanding of philosophy in the olden days. Now it has become just the judging of propositions from the comfort of the lounge or the study. That is the way in which I understand it as 'religious' (although that is another term that modernity understands poorly also).

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107774 wrote:

Wisdom requires sacrifice, and it changes the way you see things. This was always the understanding of philosophy in the olden days. Now it has become just the judging of propositions from the comfort of the lounge or the study. That is the way in which I understand it as 'religious' (although that is another term that modernity understands poorly also).

Sometimes, when people are confused, and believe all kinds of weird things, what you call the "judging of propositions" (although I don't know why you call it that) changes the way those people see things, and makes them sane, so they can see things as they really are. (Anyway, from where should the "judging of propositions" or any judging, take place? The battlefield?).

@BeatsMeWhy,

No that's not it. Traditional philosophy - that is, philosophy up until around the end of the renaissance - did have an overtly religious dimension. We forget that now. The past is another country, remember? Back then, religion wasn't 'a topic', it was the fabric of society and the background to all your thinking. "Secularism' hadn't been invented yet. Philosophers may not have been conventionally religious - in fact many were accused or suspected of heresy or at least un-orthodoxy - but they were a deeply spiritual lot, even the most urbane of them, such as Descartes and Liebniz. If you rip philosophy away from its moorings in spirituality then of course the whole meaning of it changes. This is by and large what has happened with 20th Century philosophy.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 07:46 AM ----------

Quote:

Cartesian anxiety

Richard J. Bernstein is recognized as having coined the term in his 1983 book Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis.

Source: Wikipedia

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 07:48 AM ----------

I quote this because, insofar as man feels a separate individual in a world of objects and forces, and seeks security and comfort in manipulating these forces and objects by material science, he will remain a stranger in a strange land. And this is the source of the underlying anxiety of modern civilization and the feeling of being strangers in an uncaring universe. This is the illusion that a proper grasp of metaphysic disperses.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107889 wrote:

No that's not it. Traditional philosophy - that is, philosophy up until around the end of the renaissance - did have an overtly religious dimension. We forget that now. The past is another country, remember? Back then, religion wasn't 'a topic', it was the fabric of society and the background to all your thinking. "Secularism' hadn't been invented yet. Philosophers may not have been conventionally religious - in fact many were accused or suspected of heresy or at least un-orthodoxy - but they were a deeply spiritual lot, even the most urbane of them, such as Descartes and Liebniz. If you rip philosophy away from its moorings in spirituality then of course the whole meaning of it changes. This is by and large what has happened with 20th Century philosophy.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 07:46 AM ----------
Y

Richard J. Bernstein is recognized as having coined the term in his 1983 book Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis.

Source: Wikipedia

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 07:48 AM ----------

I quote this because, insofar as man feels a separate individual in a world of objects and forces, and seeks security and comfort in manipulating these forces and objects by material science, he will remain a stranger in a strange land. And this is the source of the underlying anxiety of modern civilization and the feeling of being strangers in an uncaring universe. This is the illusion that a proper grasp of metaphysic disperses.

I thought we were talking about philosophy now. Philosophy has evolved like anything else. Philosophy now is continuous with earlier philosophy, and has similarities with it, but it is also different, and, of course, since the Renaissance, very much influenced by the rise of science which undercut a lot of the former purpose of philosophy, and forced philosophy into new pastures. So, I agree. There is a lot of difference between philosophy in yesteryear, and philosophy now. But what else would you expect? A lot has happened, and there is no reason to think philosophy would be unaffected by it. "We are alone and afraid in a world we never made". But isn't it better to face up to the truth?

@BeatsMeWhy,

I agree with that too. I don't expect everyone to seek the same things in philosophy and indeed the analytical and logical aspects of the subject are of more interest to many than the metaphysical side. But my motivation has been different, I am interested in, and will try and represent to the best of my ability, the spiritual or 'pan-religious' side of the subject. And I am pleased to find that there is plenty in Western philosophy that supports this aspect of philosophy still.

And no, we are not 'alone', and we will never be if we are recognise we are 'all-one' - and the world we have made is very much one of our own creation. 'As you think, so you become'.

Philosophy Forum

What do you exactly call philosophy?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know