1) Philosophy – (Greek, love of knowledge or wisdom) The study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. In philosophy, the concepts with which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry. A philosophy of a discipline such as history, physics, or law seeks not so much to solve historical, physical, or legal questions, as to study the concepts that structure such thinking, and to lay bare their foundations and presuppositions. In this sense philosophy is what happens when a practice becomes self-conscious.
"philosophy" The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Los Angeles Public Library. 13 January 2010
2) Philosophy – the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important questions. The theme is that philosophy is a rational and critical activity. Philosophizing in all forms seeks to think and to think hard about something. But about what? Here we have the variation. There are quite differing ideas about what philosophy should be rational and critical about. Still, even here philosophers have in common that they see themselves as addressing the really important questions, questions that are fundamental to everything.
- What do you think about these definitions?
- Do you prefer one over the other?
- Do the definitions say anything about what we know and how we know it?
- Think about the things we esteem as knowledge; how might these definitions relate to what we currently call knowledge?
- Is it possible to have reliable knowledge of everything (including other beings) around us that is not based on empirical testing?
- Can philosophy teach us reliable knowledge that is not empirical?
- What do you think of philosophy OF a discipline such as history, science, or math? Would such a pursuit be more or less interesting than the discipline itself? Why or why not? Would such a pursuit answer different questions than the discipline itself? Do you think the discipline and the philosophy of the discipline overlap? How?
- Do you think philosophers answer important questions? Do you think they answer the most important questions in life? What questions do you consider the most important questions in life?
(Answering #7)
ReplyDeleteWe need evidence in order for knowledge to be reliable, so I don't think philosophy can teach us anything reliable, although it can teach us important things.
Can philosophy teach us reliable knowledge that is not empirical?
ReplyDeleteNo, for example if you drop something 20 times and every time it falls to the ground people think it proves gravity. But what if on the twenty first time it flew away? there is never a way to prove a law with or without philosophical views.
(Answering #8)
ReplyDeleteThe most important question in life is...Do I exist? I think I do-I can think and feel. But from that, are other people existent? Those are pretty important questions for me. Also...I wonder about if everything we do is set or not.
Nicki,
ReplyDeleteLet's remove all doubt about whether you exist. If you don't exist, who is asking the question?
Companion Cube,
ReplyDeleteIt is unclear how your reasoning supports your answer to the question. Please edit and clarify. Thank you.
I'm not a big fan of those definitions. I tend to believe that the biggest things in life should have very simple definitions. My definition of philosophy is this:
ReplyDeleteThe practice of discovering truth.
The definitions listed above are simply definitions for the layman. In my opinion, philosophy includes science. There are two sections of the spectrum of philosophy: Empiricism and Rationalism. Imagine such a spectrum akin to the political one for the Left and the Right. What we generally define as "science" generally yields to the empirical side, while what we call "philosophy" tends to veer to the rational side. But the two are very similar. E=MC^2, the equation that embodies countless practical applications in our world was derived rationally, as was Newton's Laws of Motion and Kepler's Laws of Celestial Orbit.
I agree with Kyle, Philosophy is, while complicated, set on one simple goal, discovering truth.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are many ways to do this, I think the definition of Philosophy shouldn't be so complex.
K.E.Y.,
ReplyDeleteWhy should it be that "the biggest things in life should have very simple definitions"? Why should I accept that assertion. There are several important and large issues that have very complicated explanations, whether in philosophy or science or another discipline. At any rate, I don't accept your basic belief unless you can justify it with more than just - you believe it.
That said, I pretty much agree with your definition, but it does assume truth of the objective sort (you ol' relativist you).
I guess you are saying that scientific truths can be rationally based and therefore need not be empirical in response to one of the questions. I certainly agree. I was trying to drive more at things like can we answer questions like, will science be able to tell us everything? or are there other kinds of knowledge that we are more sure of than empirical knowledge, such as your own emotional state at any given moment.
BTW, I think Kepler used some basic observations and a ton of data from scientists (one in particular - can't remember his name right now) that preceded him to derive his laws.
I think you're thinking of Tycho Brahe.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why the big topics must have simple definitions is because, well, they're big. They encompass many topics. In order to be an umbrella topic, you need to be more and more general. (I'm avoiding the word 'vague', because it isn't.)