A philosopher's concern is with philosophy, but what makes philosophy relevant is that questions it raises are about things that matter to practically everybody. I have nothing critical to say about logic or analysis, but I do want to raise the point that the issues we apply the tools of logic and analysis to, don't arise from logic and analysis, but because they matter to us.
Sure. A scientist is someone who does science, but someone who does science may not wish to call himself a scientist. Someone who does philosophy may not wish to call himself a philosopher.
Now perhaps attaching professional to the word scientist or philosopher limits the word's context to the extent where you'd be right, but then this still becomes a matter of whether one would want to be a professional philosopher or just a philosopher where the pay feels like a bonus.
The pay for a person who says "I am a philosopher" is not just money, or analyzing texts. It's also in the teaching and creating and creative endeavors he does that contributes to his being a philosopher.
Oh I agree there. The point I really wanted to get at is being a philosopher does not imply something which is purely analytical.
A philosopher may philosophize about a lot of things, and I expect that he will philosophize about what he finds interesting. At least, I hope so. Of course, he may find logic interesting, and philosophize about logic. Or he may do meta-philosophy, and philosophize about the nature of analytic philosophy. So his issues do arise from logic and analysis.
It's not about what I think or the pollution. It's simply about having an open mind to the fact that while yes doing philosophy is something similar from person to person, the moment we call into question what it means to be a philosopher, there are more possibilities of what that could entail, and even a historical context could not grasp it all.
I suppose a philosopher could be like a guitarist who has no interest in what he plays so long as he is playing a guitar. He might be technically amazing, but I think something is missing in his relationship, or rather in his lack of a relationship with what he is playing, and that will inevitably tarnish his musicianship.
I would have thought that philosophers, at the very least, had to do the kind of thing that Socrates, or Descartes, or Hume, or Kant did. Don't you? Someone cannot do just anything and call it philosophy. There are limits, wouldn't you say? Of course, it might be like dancing. Some people are willing to call any moving around on the floor, "dancing". But then, of course, there is dancing and dancing. And really terrible dancing is very close to not dancing at all. The same with philosophy.
I have recently embarked upon a degree in philosophy after years of reading philosophy for the sheer pleasure of it. Unfortunately, what once brought me pleasure is now bringing the opposite to me. I feel restricted in my studies. That I have to sacrifice integrity in order to achieve better results. What I originally believed encouraged vibrant, creative, critical thinking has turned into something that fosters reflecting on philosophers claims in order to simply repeat those claims in an acceptable manner. I miss engaging with philosophy.
Will my studies always be like this? Will my entire degree focus almost exclusively on deductive reasoning or will a balance be struck later on? If you're currently studying for or have completed a philosophy degree, please tell me what I can expect.
A conversation already had. What if all conversations are already had? So what?
Can we not repeat them over and over and over? Why must there be a purpose in anything we do?
The purpose of philosophy is not to provide answers to unknowable questions. The purpose is to expand your thinking, to illuminate a wider realm of possibilities or rational speculations than mere personal reflection is capable of: by engaging with other thoughtful people you enlarge your worldview.
But in the area of thinking in a questioning and (hopefully) critical manner about certain horizons of human life and their meaning.
philosophy seems extremely helpful in providing different methods and perspectives that can be brought to bear in the process, and to add to the list of questions themselves
Can you given some examples? It seems to me that much of philosophy is problem-orientated enterprise that is very much similar to mathematics, or even physics. Most philosophical problems i can think of are not at related to one`s life.
I think you are wrong. What you have in mind is literature. The philosophy i read tend to be technical, and requires a very similar process of reason similar to mathematical proves.