Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Meta-philosophy vs. real philosophy

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Meta-philosophy vs. real philosophy

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is engaging in meta-philosophy just an excuse not to do 'real' philosophy?

I mean can meta-philosophy with respect to philosophy be subject to the same critique as philosophy is with respect to action? There is such a thing as philosophizing too much and acting too little. Similarly, is there such a thing as meta-philosophizing too much and philosophizing too little? Does that analogy even work?

What about meta-meta-philosophizing? Is that just an excuse not to meta-philosophize? :sarcastic:

@Deckard,

Deckard;116590 wrote:

Is engaging in meta-philosophy just an excuse not to do 'real' philosophy?

I mean can meta-philosophy with respect to philosophy be subject to the same critique as philosophy is with respect to action? There is such a thing as philosophizing too much and acting too little. Similarly, is there such a thing as meta-philosophizing too much and philosophizing too little? Does that analogy even work?

What about meta-meta-philosophizing? Is that just an excuse not to meta-philosophize? :sarcastic:

I don't know what you mean by "meta-philosophy", but what is meant by the term is the philosophy of philosophy. And, the philosophy of philosophy is a branch of philosophy, because whereas what is geography? is not a geographical question, and, what is physics? is not a physical question, what is philosophy is a philosophical question.

Philosophy itself is a meta-discipline. (Hence your problem about "action") That is, philosophy consists in the trying to analyze and understand fundamental concepts of thought a language. For example, "knowledge", "existence", "mind", and "same". It is, in Gilbert Ryle's pithy description, "talk about talk". So meta-philosophy is a meta-meta-discipline. Some people might think that a meta-meta-discipline does not "meta".

@kennethamy,

Is there any branch of philosophy or any philosophical concept that cannot be gotten beyond and then looked back on from the supposed objective stance of the meta-philosopher?

Is there any branch or concept of philosophy that meta-philosophy cannot claim as one of its objects, that ever evades the notice of the meta-philosopher?

Are there parts of philosophy that can only be seen from within and never from the outside of the meta-philosopher?

@Deckard,

Deckard;116614 wrote:

Is there any branch of philosophy or any philosophical concept that cannot be gotten beyond and then looked back on from the supposed objective stance of the meta-philosopher?

Is there any branch or concept of philosophy that meta-philosophy cannot claim as one of its objects, that ever evades the notice of the meta-philosopher?

Are there parts of philosophy that can only be seen from within and never from the outside of the meta-philosopher?

I don't know what you mean. Philosophy is a reflective discipline, and anything can be philosophized about. People have written about the philosophy of food, of sex, and even about sports. But Wittgenstein wrote that "philosophy is an activity, not a theory". Too many, I think, regard philosophy in terms of formulating theories, and not in terms of actively doing something: namely trying to understand by analysis, our fundamental concepts. Philosophy as conceptual analysis.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;116617 wrote:

Too many, I think, regard philosophy in terms of formulating theories, and not in terms of actively doing something: namely trying to understand by analysis, our fundamental concepts. Philosophy as conceptual analysis.

That is the point I am getting at in my round about way, yet surely formulating theories is part of philosophy as well. Do you consider formulating theories to be, for the most part, meta-philosophy? Or is there Philosophy as theory formulation on the one hand and Philosophy as conceptual analysis on the other.

@Deckard,

Just as philosophy provides the ground for, say, science or politics, so it must also provide the ground for itself (for there is nothing more "philosophical" than philosophy itself from which to provide this ground).

As philosophy is an inquiry and a providing an account of the world, and philosophy is itself a part of the world, so it must also inquire into itself.

Philosophy is also by nature skeptical and "disturbs the peace." Thus it would be proper and natural to turn a skeptical (examining, questioning, and challenging) eye to itself. An unexamined philosophy is not worth having.

@jgweed,

Well, let's say you are going to read a philosophy book and you want to read one that is meaningful and important. Isn't that "philosophy of philosophy"?

If you read a bunch of books about picking the right book it would become silly after a point, but I don't think people do that often and offer the low post count of the forum as evidence.

I also don't think people do regular philosophy endlessly without acting on it, at the very least if you've decided that philosophy is worthwhile and spend a lot of time studying it you are taking action on a philosophical view.

@jgweed,

jgweed;116631 wrote:

An unexamined philosophy is not worth having.

Yet an unused philosophy (or for that matter an unlived life) is not worth examining. (You likely agree but I thought it had to be said.)

@Deckard,

Deckard;116629 wrote:

That is the point I am getting at in my round about way, yet surely formulating theories is part of philosophy as well. Do you consider formulating theories to be, for the most part, meta-philosophy? Or is there Philosophy as theory formulation on the one hand and Philosophy as conceptual analysis on the other.

A prime example of a philosopher formulating an over-arching theory of the world was Spinoza. David Hume was very suspicious of grand theories of the universe, and thought that such theories were the consequence of hasty generalization from what the philosophers knows (or thinks he knows) to what the universe is all about. The root of it, he thought, is the philosopher's belief that the universe is as limited as is the philosopher's intellect. Wittgenstein wrote about philosophers who sought to fit everything into some theory they had concocted as, "being in the grip of a theory". J. L. Austin one said that it was not the word that was simple, it was philosophers. Partly, this is a matter of a clash of intellectual attitudes. The philosopher and intellectual historian, Isaiah Berlin wrote a essay called, The Fox and the Hedgehog where he describes these two different attitudes about understanding the world. It is worth reading.

The Fox and the Hedgehog

@jgweed,

jgweed;116631 wrote:

Just as philosophy provides the ground for, say, science or politics, so it must also provide the ground for itself (for there is nothing more "philosophical" than philosophy itself from which to provide this ground).

As philosophy is an inquiry and a providing an account of the world, and philosophy is itself a part of the world, so it must also inquire into itself.

I agree. Philosophy, if it aspires to be first-science, must provide it's own meta-philosophy. But then meta-philosophy has always just been more philosophy. Still, it's a sexy term, so I doubt it will go away.

@Deckard,

Deckard;116590 wrote:

Is engaging in meta-philosophy just an excuse not to do 'real' philosophy?

I mean can meta-philosophy with respect to philosophy be subject to the same critique as philosophy is with respect to action? There is such a thing as philosophizing too much and acting too little. Similarly, is there such a thing as meta-philosophizing too much and philosophizing too little? Does that analogy even work?

What about meta-meta-philosophizing? Is that just an excuse not to meta-philosophize? :sarcastic:

Real philosophy? What constitutes real philosophy?

I would categorize philosophy into 2 groups:

- productive

- unproductive

~90% of all philosophy I'v seen so far are unproductive, sever cases of navel gazing.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;132729 wrote:

Real philosophy? What constitutes real philosophy?

I would categorize philosophy into 2 groups:

- productive

- unproductive

~90% of all philosophy I'v seen so far are unproductive, sever cases of navel gazing.

You don't mention what you think philosophy is suppose to produce.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132738 wrote:

You don't mention what you think philosophy is suppose to produce.

Things that has value for the real world, society, buisness, sport, invetions ..etc contrary navel gazing philosophy that only serves endulgence, where the naive will belive it serves a greater purpose.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;132741 wrote:

Things that has value for the real world, society, buisness, sport, invetions ..etc contrary navel gazing philosophy that only serves endulgence, where the naive will belive it serves a greater purpose.

Could you be more specific? What is it that philosophy can do for the "real world"?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132755 wrote:

Could you be more specific? What is it that philosophy can do for the "real world"?

Sun Tzu - The Art of War ...Macaveli - The Prince

Those are good books with constructive and useable philosophy, incorporated in many buisnesses, sport, politics, warfare ..etc.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;132759 wrote:

Sun Tzu - The Art of War ...Macaveli - The Prince

Those are good books with constructive and useable philosophy, incorporated in many buisnesses, sport, politics, warfare ..etc.

Yes, I like them both. But there are other great books in philosophy that have a more indirect but equally potent effect on the real world.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132762 wrote:

Yes, I like them both. But there are other great books in philosophy that have a more indirect but equally potent effect on the real world.

Which and how and why?

@Deckard,

Aristotle founded many of our sciences. Quasi-mystics like Pythagoras and Plato help set math on the right track.

Kant is easily applied to quantum physics. Why? Because he saw that concepts were imposed on reality automatically by the human mind. We have a concept of electrons, for instance, that seems to work. But we can't know whether this concept reveals the truth. We can't help but see things in terms of objects.

A supreme "navel gazer" like Hegel was a strong, if unnoticed, influence on pragmatism. His view of the truth as something that evolves over time, inspired the pragmatist idea that truth was not about correspondence to "reality" but rather about the manipulation of reality, and adjustment to reality. The truth is whatever gets the job done. This is an oversimplification, but what else can one manage in a single post?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132951 wrote:

Aristotle founded many of our sciences. Quasi-mystics like Pythagoras and Plato help set math on the right track.

Kant is easily applied to quantum physics. Why? Because he saw that concepts were imposed on reality automatically by the human mind. We have a concept of electrons, for instance, that seems to work. But we can't know whether this concept reveals the truth. We can't help but see things in terms of objects.

A supreme "navel gazer" like Hegel was a strong, if unnoticed, influence on pragmatism. His view of the truth as something that evolves over time, inspired the pragmatist idea that truth was not about correspondence to "reality" but rather about the manipulation of reality, and adjustment to reality. The truth is whatever gets the job done. This is an oversimplification, but what else can one manage in a single post?

BUT!

..isn't what they have found, quite outdated, and doesn't have a perpetual value for our modern society?

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;132967 wrote:

BUT!

..isn't what they have found, quite outdated, and doesn't have a perpetual value for our modern society?

I disagree. Kant and Hegel increased the self-consciousness of the human species. If we know how our minds work, we can use them better. Some philosophers examine and fix the most basic tools for thinking. They do what you might call "pure research," and this pure research is applied by more worldly types.

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Meta-philosophy vs. real philosophy

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Meta-philosophy vs. real philosophy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know