Russell on the Value of Philosophy

[Jaded Sage]

Philosophy is the first science. In the sense, first in the process of exploring new areas of knowledge. The problem for philosophy is that people like nice little truths. When you are in the beginning of any kind of project you need to have an open mind. You brainstorm, you explore some routes, of which some leads astray. That´s no problem, in that phase.

Then, when you find the way to go you might find your way to a pretty nice truth. And if the path is successful, you might not need the brainstorming, the philosophy any longer - for that area.

People might roll their eyes when they here about the black and yellow bile that was supposed to be inside a human, but it was the current best thinking. When someone later came up with the grisly idea to dig up human bodies and put your scalpellas into the decaying flesh, that was simply a better path to walk. When you read Plato's dialogues, you are not exactly (not me, at least) thinking abot how stupid they were, the guys were brilliant with the knowledge about the world they had. The guys did the intital brainstorming, that sadly was hampered by religion for a millenia or so, but later refined by Bacon, Gallilei, Boyle, Newton and those good philosophers.

In good order, things that can be best explored by natural science has been delivered to the guys who sat obeyingly in the math classes in school and calculated. All very well, Philosophy has fulfilled it's task there to a large extent (even though, as I see it, a scientist is doing philosophy when he/she comes up with the hyphothesis for which they are later going to do eperiments. And philosophy is still an important path in finding the right directions for science to go forward. )

But there is so much more. Politics, Gender questions, morals, love, all the things in the human life. There is no equations for that, even if brain research is doing good things as the execution phases of those projects. It's an open field for the philosophy.

Hobbes Choice - I think it's enough to read something like On Denoting and the History of western philosophy will give you a good enough picture. And you will find that even that forefather of the movement of trying to cut the penis of the philosophy was as biased as anyone else. The world is a tricky place to figure out.

Dude. That third sentence.

I can't even distinguish between philosophy and self-cultivation anymore. They are one. Nothing is more wise than self-cultivation.

[Jaded Sage]

I'd argue that even he has a somewhat narrow view of philosophy. He doesn't even really mention how philosophy results in the perfection of character. I fully disagree that no one can answer these questions so narrowly described as "philosophical." We've just yet to be creative enough. But I do think this will point those around here in a somewhat more accurate direction regarding the nature of what philosophy actually is.

Do you think that philosophy results in the perfection of character?

Yes, good sir, I do. Ya see, first it begins like a healthy escapism, in fact the healthiest. But it's not quite escapism, is it? It just functions like it. It lends itself to taking a sabbatical from the world. And that's where the beginning is. When you are too busy to fool with the world you are too busy to be worldly, which can be a synomymn for unwholesome. Then somewhere it hits you: it is impossible to love wisdom and not love its dictates, and one of its most important and most glaring dictates to those that see her (Wisdom, that is—or you might know her as Princess Sophie) is wholesomeness. So yeah, it's impossible to be a true philosopher (maybe a scholar or an intellectual instead) and not have an sort of fixation on virtue or a mild obsession with self-cultivation.

[Jaded Sage]

Do you think that philosophy results in the perfection of character

Not in any absolute sense for we are eternally imperfect although one can become less imperfect over time. Now while
philosophy may help with regard to that it is not the only discipline which can do so. And equally so one can strive to be
a better person without recourse to any thing at all. And so it can and indeed should be an entirely free choice one takes

Nah, son. Anything that invovles self-cultivation is properly (although rarely) called philosophy.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The problem of an incorrect definition or perception of philosophers and philosophy.

Ridiculous. There is no "correct definition" there is only a definition about which people agree. You really need to do more than read a bit of Ladybird Book Plato for Dummies.
And there is no perfect perception, there is only human perception and you will find that we do not always agree in that either.

Your problem is that yo have run away with the idea that everything that you define and perceive is the only and correct way - it is not.

[Jaded Sage]

There is indeed a correct definition, and I just covered it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes Choice - I think it's enough to read something like On Denoting and the History of western philosophy will give you a good enough picture. And you will find that even that forefather of the movement of trying to cut the penis of the philosophy was as biased as anyone else. The world is a tricky place to figure out.

I do not think I've ever addressed you directly heretofore, so this comment based on an "it" is puzzling.
What is it that is "enough"?

[Jaded Sage]

Actually, I suppose this whole thing should be the same topic as the super-devotion one.