What do people want from philosophy?

[Terrapin Station]

Gabriel, I'm just not interested in playing the game any longer where I pretend that folks like you are not either trolling or arrogant morons.

[Gabriel]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQJPm9yxII

Is this the game you speak of? I agree there is no point in continuing an arguing that dissolves into bickering. One can be forced by the situation to do so sometimes but this is not one of those times.

[A_Seagull]

Philosophy is not science. Try again.

Well then what IS philosophy? And by what criteria do you determine that it is not science?

Science is based on evidence, philosophy isn't.

OK, So then what is philosophy based upon? And what is its methodology?

[thedoc]

Well then what IS philosophy? And by what criteria do you determine that it is not science?

Science is based on evidence, philosophy isn't.

OK, So then what is philosophy based upon? And what is its methodology?

Logic and reason, you accept a premise as true without evidence and go from there. The logic and reasoning can be accurate whether the premise is true or not.

[A_Seagull]

Science is based on evidence, philosophy isn't.

OK, So then what is philosophy based upon? And what is its methodology?

Logic and reason, you accept a premise as true without evidence and go from there. The logic and reasoning can be accurate whether the premise is true or not.

But without evidence from sense data somewhere along the line, the conclusion must be entirely abstract.

[A_Seagull]

I've got what I wanted from philosophy. And if I'm wrong, well, fuck it. Them's the breaks.

So did you reach the end of the road or the end of your tether?

[Greta]

What do you want from philosophy? What do you think other people want from philosophy?

For if people want different things from philosophy they will disagree on what constitutes good philosophy and what is bad philosophy.

Also how can good philosophy be discerned from bad?

For myself, I like simplicity. But I suspect that others seek certainty.

What do you want from philosophy? You may like your philosophy simple but that suggests you have much complexity that you wish to boil down to manageable levels.

Surely most basically want to better understand this life and reality that we find ourselves in?

[Throng]

What do you want from philosophy? What do you think other people want from philosophy?

For if people want different things from philosophy they will disagree on what constitutes good philosophy and what is bad philosophy.

Also how can good philosophy be discerned from bad?

For myself, I like simplicity. But I suspect that others seek certainty.

In a word, conversation - but there are direct links between what I do and philosophical understanding, which pertains mostly to social theory, the influence of discourse, power and social subjects, ethical considerations, and the like, but there are broader implications in that philosophy is fundamentally the framework through which experience can be made sense of and understood (or misunderstood). In my personal life I'm happy with the essentially meaningless universe which doesn't imply anything, but in social life, as a member of a society, I understand through signs and symbols a psycho-social world.

I can't possibly know what other people want from it.

Good philosophy ... that's actually a hard question, because the philosophical trope deals in the unknown - in the inquiry, rather - so where there is no truth in the ultimate sense, the truthfulness of the inquiry to me marks the philosophical merit. I think the element of truthfulness brings philosophy home to the self, as truthfulness requires ones self-awareness. As Feynman put it: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool" (Wikiquote).

Certainty isn't my thing. The answer is the end of observation and imagination, and as history shows us, the answer more often than not turns out to be wrong. I have the Wikiquote page open, so here's another from Feynman; "If you ask naive but relevant questions, then almost immediately the person doesn't know the answer, if he is an honest man."

[Throng]

Philosophy is not science. Try again.

Well then what IS philosophy? And by what criteria do you determine that it is not science?

The simplest way to understand the methodological difference is that science is focused on experimentation. Even purely theoretical stuff in the sciences is still oriented towards the means that would--at least hypothetically--experimentally provisionally verify versus falsify the ideas presented.

Philosophy isn't focused on experimentation. It's focused on analysis and logic.

That's not all there is to the differences. But it's enough to begin to grasp how philosophy and science are distinct.

Even so, physics has a fundamental philosophical basis, that we explain our experience of the universe. This primarily entails 3 components: the observer; the universe; and the question. The physical inquiry could be framed as, the knowledge we produce depends on the manner in which the observer questions the experience of the universe. Hence, all research firstly involves clearly defining the question. After this query, the theory is imagined philosophically, and once tested, need be interpreted within a philosophical framework in order to produce it as knowledge, which rather than being true, is continually debated as it is not complete and leaves the the door to the unknown ajar. As wikiquote is still open here, I quote Feynman (who was not at all keen on philosophy): "Well, we’re getting a little philosophical and serious, ok? Let’s go back to what we’re doing.... I don’t go for this philosophical interpretation of "our deeper understanding of what we’re doing." We haven’t any deep understanding of what we’re doing. If we tried to understand what we’re doing, we’d go nutty. "

[Terrapin Station]

Even so, physics has a fundamental philosophical basis, that we explain our experience of the universe. This primarily entails 3 components: the observer; the universe; and the question. The physical inquiry could be framed as, the knowledge we produce depends on the manner in which the observer questions the experience of the universe. Hence, all research firstly involves clearly defining the question. After this query, the theory is imagined philosophically, and once tested, need be interpreted within a philosophical framework in order to produce it as knowledge, which rather than being true, is continually debated as it is not complete and leaves the the door to the unknown ajar. As wikiquote is still open here, I quote Feynman (who was not at all keen on philosophy): "Well, we’re getting a little philosophical and serious, ok? Let’s go back to what we’re doing.... I don’t go for this philosophical interpretation of "our deeper understanding of what we’re doing." We haven’t any deep understanding of what we’re doing. If we tried to understand what we’re doing, we’d go nutty. "

It's not that there are no commonalities. I was talking about the difference between the two.

If we want to know the difference between dolphins and elephants, we'd note, for example, that one lives in water and the other lives on land, one has legs and the other has flippers, one has a trunk and the other a snout. We wouldn't focus on being animals, mammals, having hearts, etc., as those are not differences. That there are distinguishing characteristics to types doesn't imply that there are no commonalities.

[thedoc]

OK, So then what is philosophy based upon? And what is its methodology?

Logic and reason, you accept a premise as true without evidence and go from there. The logic and reasoning can be accurate whether the premise is true or not.

But without evidence from sense data somewhere along the line, the conclusion must be entirely abstract.

Yes, science deals with the physical and philosophy deals with the abstract.

[Throng]

Even so, physics has a fundamental philosophical basis, that we explain our experience of the universe. This primarily entails 3 components: the observer; the universe; and the question. The physical inquiry could be framed as, the knowledge we produce depends on the manner in which the observer questions the experience of the universe. Hence, all research firstly involves clearly defining the question. After this query, the theory is imagined philosophically, and once tested, need be interpreted within a philosophical framework in order to produce it as knowledge, which rather than being true, is continually debated as it is not complete and leaves the the door to the unknown ajar. As wikiquote is still open here, I quote Feynman (who was not at all keen on philosophy): "Well, we’re getting a little philosophical and serious, ok? Let’s go back to what we’re doing.... I don’t go for this philosophical interpretation of "our deeper understanding of what we’re doing." We haven’t any deep understanding of what we’re doing. If we tried to understand what we’re doing, we’d go nutty. "

It's not that there are no commonalities. I was talking about the difference between the two.

If we want to know the difference between dolphins and elephants, we'd note, for example, that one lives in water and the other lives on land, one has legs and the other has flippers, one has a trunk and the other a snout. We wouldn't focus on being animals, mammals, having hearts, etc., as those are not differences. That there are distinguishing characteristics to types doesn't imply that there are no commonalities.

Yes there are distinct differences, and how that arose historically; how spiritual, philosophical and scientific thought became segregated into distinct schools of thought is a interesting story. Once we 'shut up and calculate' the difference becomes very stark. Still, science can't function without a philosophical basis, but I think philosophy could go on without a scientific one - in that science's is philosophical...

[Throng]

Logic and reason, you accept a premise as true without evidence and go from there. The logic and reasoning can be accurate whether the premise is true or not.

But without evidence from sense data somewhere along the line, the conclusion must be entirely abstract.

Yes, science deals with the physical and philosophy deals with the abstract.

That's not necessarily accurate. Quantum physics descriptions are completely abstract.

As Bohr put it: "Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will."

I believe this choice is decided based on which elements of experience can be articulated mathematically (measured numerically), and those that can not. Basically, if a scientist can't describe it with maths, it's a philosophical problem.

[Throng]

Philosophy is not science. Try again.

Well then what IS philosophy? And by what criteria do you determine that it is not science?

Science is based on evidence, philosophy isn't.

Not a entirely accurate statement. Science is empirical, based on observation and experiment rather purely on logic or preferred belief. Philosophy is also based mostly on observation, experience, but is difficult or impossible to test experimentally. For example, scientific approaches aren't practical for ethics, but the reality of benefit and harm are clearly observable - just a little bit complicated because they involve cultural and personal values and so forth - and the circumstances in which issues and dilemmas arise are intricately entwined with the human subjectivity. Still, ethical guidelines are not merely arbitrary, but based on clearly identifiable actions or inaction and their beneficial or harmful consequences. The structure of making predictions based on the evidence is the same.

[A_Seagull]

Logic and reason, you accept a premise as true without evidence and go from there. The logic and reasoning can be accurate whether the premise is true or not.

But without evidence from sense data somewhere along the line, the conclusion must be entirely abstract.

Yes, science deals with the physical and philosophy deals with the abstract.

Then your philosophy is irrelevant.

Whereas my philosophy is based on evidence and hence is not irrelevant.