• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What Is Philosophy?

Is it self evident that all is philosophy or is there any kind observational based argument to be made?

It bi sounding like a theist argument. All is god, it is self evident.
 
Is it self evident that all is philosophy or is there any kind observational based argument to be made?

It bi sounding like a theist argument. All is god, it is self evident.
:rolleyes:

No one said that, Steve. It is just the opposite.

Practically nothing except math tautologies are self evident. Hence philosophy.

As I just said.
 
'Practically nothing except math tautologies are self evident. Hence philosophy.'

That is not a proof of any kind. How is the first sentence true? Is the truth of it self evident? To you it m makes sense, to me by experience it does not.

Hence philosophy indeed. Debating that which is unprovable and subjective. Speculative.

If not simply a broad category with sub grottoes of different areas what then is philosophy as you use the term? Is the meaning self evident?
 
If not simply a broad category with sub grottoes of different areas what then is philosophy as you use the term?

It's just the stuff put forward by Big Philosophy to attract more students into the lucrative field of being a philosopher, thereby selling more philosophy.
 
Philosophy (from Ancient Greek philosophía lit. 'love of wisdom') is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, knowledge, mind, reason, language, and value. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its methods and assumptions.

The four main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. These "pillars" represent the core areas of philosophical inquiry: metaphysics deals with the nature of reality, epistemology studies knowledge, ethics explores moral principles, and logic examines the principles of correct reasoning.


The Field of Philosophy
Introduction

Philosophy is quite unlike any other field. It is unique both in its methods and in the nature and breadth of its subject matter. Philosophy pursues questions in every dimension of human life, and its techniques apply to problems in any field of study or endeavor. No brief definition expresses the richness and variety of philosophy. It may be described in many ways. It is a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths, a quest for understanding, a study of principles of conduct. It seeks to establish standards of evidence, to provide rational methods of resolving conflicts, and to create techniques for evaluating ideas and arguments. Philosophy develops the capacity to see the world from the perspective of other individuals and other cultures; it enhances one's ability to perceive the relationships among the various fields of study; and it deepens one's sense of the meaning and variety of human experience.


Subfields of Philosophy

The broadest subfields of philosophy are most commonly taken to be logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and the history of philosophy. Here is a brief sketch of each.

When you say philosophy I think you have to specify what part of philosophy yo0u are referring to.

Same with science. There is academic theoretical science like cosmology and there is industrial science kike plastics and organic chemistry. Industrial science engages in research and develops theories.

Solid state electronics did not develop out of academia. It was a mix of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers a lot of it beginning in Bell Labs.Commercialization and profit.

Bell BLabss was a powerhouse for patents. Same with Westinghouse and Edison.
 
Is it self evident that all is philosophy or is there any kind observational based argument to be made?

It bi sounding like a theist argument. All is god, it is self evident.
All is not philosophy. Philosophy is organized, systematic reasoning. I do not agree with those in this thread who are seemingly using it as a synonym for any sort of intelligence, that is rather missing the point of defining a philosophy. Intelligent people (or dolphins) may be clever but spend no time at all thinking about philosophy. A stupid person may very well adopt a philosophy. I'm not sure how the two got conflated.
 
261147a9866d924e1ed6bf22e4c88551.jpg
 
Might it be helpful to suggest what has already been said by various and sundry sources, but has not been said here (unless I missed it) :

Science deals in concretes; philosophy deals in abstractions. ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
To me concrete is hard evidence, derived from the physical concrete that hardens into a strong shape.

Concrete is metaphor.

To say an argument or an organization has a concrete foundation refers to a building made of concerte. Strong and stable.

Someone makes a claim. Aother might say 'I need to hear something more concrete'
 
I had not thought about it before

metaphor has a significant place in philosophy, though some philosophers debate its function and validity within their disciplines. While traditionally associated with rhetoric and poetics, metaphor is also a central topic in fields like the philosophy of language, philosophy of science, and epistemology, where it raises questions about meaning, truth, and conceptual thought.


In the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy (in particular, in the philosophy of language), metaphor has attracted interest because it does not conform to accepted truth-conditional semantics, the conditions which determine whether or not a statement is true. Taken literally, the statement "Juliet is the sun" (from Romeo and Juliet) is false, if not nonsensical, yet, taken metaphorically, it is meaningful and may be true, but in a sense which is far from clear. The comparison theory of metaphor asserts that one can express the truth value of a metaphor by listing all the respects in which the two terms are alike or similar; for example: Juliet is like the sun because she shares with it qualities such as radiance, brilliance, the fact that she makes the day and that she gets up every morning. However, this results in re-casting metaphor as simile. Because it can only explain the truth of metaphor by in effect losing metaphor, the comparison theory is rarely defended.
 
I had not thought about it before
You had not thought about metaphor before??

What are you, six years old?

Have you been living under a rock*?

The problem you have with philosophy (and this is not intended as an insult, but an observation), is that you literally don't know what you are talking about.

In order to have anything at all useful to contribute to any academic field, including engineering, science, and philosophy, you first need to find out what contributions have already been made.

You understand this in your chosen field; You spent a lifetime studying engineering, and much of that was finding out what ideas have already been considered - these are often named for the first guy to formulate these ideas.

If I were to announce that I have a hunch that we could measure the strength of materials by looking at the ratio between stress and strain, you wouldn't be amazed at my brilliant insight; You would just wonder why I didn't bother to read Thomas Young's or Leonard Euler's existing work on that subject, and why I was giving lessons to my granny in egg-sucking.

In philosophy, you have a similar lack of grounding. You think it is trivial, and therefore easy, because you haven't thought much about it (thiugh in fact it is neither); And far worse, you think that your ideas are new and interesting, and that they have either yet to be debunked, or yet to be shown to be useful.

But you are reinventing the wheel, and the folks who have a grounding in philosophy are cringing at your obliviousness of the prior art that you keep "inventing".

IMG_2835.png

https://xkcd.com/3154





* A metaphorical rock. Obviously I don't imagine you live literally under an actual rock.
 
Dogs are true philosophers.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-philosophy-101-what-dogs-teach-us-about-life

I decided to present this material it as if it were a summary of a university course which I named “Dog Philosophy 101.” The talk appeared to be well received, and when I returned home I found a flock of e-mail messages asking me to publish my brief little address. In response to those requests I give you an outline of Dog Philosophy 101.


*****
It seems to me that you never stop learning. I, for instance, seem to learn a lot from just watching my dogs. In fact it is from my observations of the behavior of my dogs that I recently came to the conclusion that the modern university curriculum seems to suffer from a major deficiency in preparing you for your future life and career. Fortunately some knowledge of the philosophy of life that dogs follow can remedy the situation. Therefore, in order to fill what I see as a major gap in your education I'm going to take a few minutes of the time allotted to me here to give you your last course before you graduatethis course is Dog Philosophy 101. It is a multidisciplinary course which has implications for a variety of other fields of study.


To begin with, for all disciplines that require research the dog philosophers have established a basic principle. The principle is that if you can't find what you're looking for use your nose. Simply sniff around. If this doesn't find what you are looking for, start digging. If you still haven’t found it then dig deeper. If you find yourself in too deep, stop digging. Climb out of the hole, lie down on the grass and just rest a bit. Sometimes we find what we're looking for when we stop looking.


On issues of law, morality, and ethics, the dog philosophers teach that sometimes you are allowed to break a few rules—so if the occasion arises, go for it. However, it is also the case that when it is in your best interest you should practice obedience.

In the area of business management and leadership, the dog philosophers offer a basic experimental procedure. If you think you are a person with some influence, try ordering someone else's dog around. It doesn't work. This experiment demonstrates that a dog will work for you if he likes you, and it also shows that he will work even harder if he also respects you. Remember that this principle works not only in dog pack hierarchies, but also in herds of people.

That's just a part of the speech about dog philosophers. Humans are too stupid to understand that dogs and some other animals are philosophers.
 
https://whatisstoicism.com/stoicism-resources/heres-why-a-dog-is-a-true-philosopher/

n Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, Socrates is in dialogue with Glaucon (Plato’s older brother) when he declares that Glaucon’s dog is a true philosopher. From there the conversation proceeds as follows:

Glaucon: Why?

Socrates: Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance?

Glaucon: Most assuredly.

Socrates: And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy?

Glaucon: They are the same.
So, not only can we learn from our dog’s love of their limited life, but we can also learn from their love of wisdom. Wisdom that they freely share in abundance while they can.

After all, if Socrates — the oft-called “godfather of Western philosophy”— says a dog is a true philosopher, who are we to argue?
 
Back
Top Bottom