What is Philosophy?

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy is about overcomplicating the simple and simplifying the complicated. In these respects it is revolutionary, with the root of this being "revolution" where one observation revolves into a new observation. Philosophy is the cycling of perceptions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above of what you describe as 'philosophy' is also done by physics, geometry, psychology, science, neurosciences, biology, etc. in respective of dealing with perceptions.

There is a 'substance' to what is philosophy that is unique to any field of knowledge and practices.
If we just stick to 'philosophy' is literally "the love of wisdom", that is sufficiently unique, but I believe there is a more refine substance/essence to what is philosophy.

[Eodnhoj7]

The above of what you describe as 'philosophy' is also done by physics, geometry, psychology, science, neurosciences, biology, etc. in respective of dealing with perceptions.

There is a 'substance' to what is philosophy that is unique to any field of knowledge and practices.
If we just stick to 'philosophy' is literally "the love of wisdom", that is sufficiently unique, but I believe there is a more refine substance/essence to what is philosophy.

True, but to reduce philosophy to a desire for knowledge does not address the nature of knowledge as being inverted from one perspective to another through the mode of investigation. This mode of investigation, where knowledge is received through the subjective angle of awareness, causes an inherent change within the observation in accords to the angle of the observer.


Knowledge is continually inverting from one perspective to another resulting in change. That which is observed mimics the mode of interpretation through which it is recieved thus necessitating a recursion of the principles which are applied. For example in counting a set of oranges the oranges replicate the number through which they counted. In dividing the oranges, into x, comes a replication of the mode of counting, which is x in this case. One phenomenon repeated through another through the nature of observation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above of what you describe as 'philosophy' is also done by physics, geometry, psychology, science, neurosciences, biology, etc. in respective of dealing with perceptions.

There is a 'substance' to what is philosophy that is unique to any field of knowledge and practices.
If we just stick to 'philosophy' is literally "the love of wisdom", that is sufficiently unique, but I believe there is a more refine substance/essence to what is philosophy.

True, but to reduce philosophy to a desire for knowledge does not address the nature of knowledge as being inverted from one perspective to another through the mode of investigation. This mode of investigation, where knowledge is received through the subjective angle of awareness, causes an inherent change within the observation in accords to the angle of the observer.


Knowledge is continually inverting from one perspective to another resulting in change. That which is observed mimics the mode of interpretation through which it is recieved thus necessitating a recursion of the principles which are applied. For example in counting a set of oranges the oranges replicate the number through which they counted. In dividing the oranges, into x, comes a replication of the mode of counting, which is x in this case. One phenomenon repeated through another through the nature of observation.

You missed the point.

Wisdom is not purely knowledge, but the competence application of knowledge in optimizing the well-being [positive, good and the likes] of the individual and the collective.
To ensure effectiveness of the competence, philosophy also provide tools i.e. logic, epistemology, morality and ethics, ontology, critical thinking to facilitate efficiency.

[Eodnhoj7]

The above of what you describe as 'philosophy' is also done by physics, geometry, psychology, science, neurosciences, biology, etc. in respective of dealing with perceptions.

There is a 'substance' to what is philosophy that is unique to any field of knowledge and practices.
If we just stick to 'philosophy' is literally "the love of wisdom", that is sufficiently unique, but I believe there is a more refine substance/essence to what is philosophy.

True, but to reduce philosophy to a desire for knowledge does not address the nature of knowledge as being inverted from one perspective to another through the mode of investigation. This mode of investigation, where knowledge is received through the subjective angle of awareness, causes an inherent change within the observation in accords to the angle of the observer.


Knowledge is continually inverting from one perspective to another resulting in change. That which is observed mimics the mode of interpretation through which it is recieved thus necessitating a recursion of the principles which are applied. For example in counting a set of oranges the oranges replicate the number through which they counted. In dividing the oranges, into x, comes a replication of the mode of counting, which is x in this case. One phenomenon repeated through another through the nature of observation.

You missed the point.

Wisdom is not purely knowledge, but the competence application of knowledge in optimizing the well-being [positive, good and the likes] of the individual and the collective.
To ensure effectiveness of the competence, philosophy also provide tools i.e. logic, epistemology, morality and ethics, ontology, critical thinking to facilitate efficiency.

And yet the "tool" is subject to philosophical definition as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

True, but to reduce philosophy to a desire for knowledge does not address the nature of knowledge as being inverted from one perspective to another through the mode of investigation. This mode of investigation, where knowledge is received through the subjective angle of awareness, causes an inherent change within the observation in accords to the angle of the observer.


Knowledge is continually inverting from one perspective to another resulting in change. That which is observed mimics the mode of interpretation through which it is recieved thus necessitating a recursion of the principles which are applied. For example in counting a set of oranges the oranges replicate the number through which they counted. In dividing the oranges, into x, comes a replication of the mode of counting, which is x in this case. One phenomenon repeated through another through the nature of observation.

You missed the point.

Wisdom is not purely knowledge, but the competence application of knowledge in optimizing the well-being [positive, good and the likes] of the individual and the collective.
To ensure effectiveness of the competence, philosophy also provide tools i.e. logic, epistemology, morality and ethics, ontology, critical thinking to facilitate efficiency.

And yet the "tool" is subject to philosophical definition as well.

Presume you understand what is evolution and spiraling?

What is the issue with 'tools'.
Where the tools exist, use them to facilitate and optimize survival.

[Eodnhoj7]

You missed the point.

Wisdom is not purely knowledge, but the competence application of knowledge in optimizing the well-being [positive, good and the likes] of the individual and the collective.
To ensure effectiveness of the competence, philosophy also provide tools i.e. logic, epistemology, morality and ethics, ontology, critical thinking to facilitate efficiency.

And yet the "tool" is subject to philosophical definition as well.

Presume you understand what is evolution and spiraling?

What is the issue with 'tools'.
Where the tools exist, use them to facilitate and optimize survival.

Evolution is an interpretation. It may be argued that with the excessive use of tools we are devolving mentally, physically and spiritually as the tools replace the human condition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And yet the "tool" is subject to philosophical definition as well.

Presume you understand what is evolution and spiraling?

What is the issue with 'tools'.
Where the tools exist, use them to facilitate and optimize survival.

Evolution is an interpretation. It may be argued that with the excessive use of tools we are devolving mentally, physically and spiritually as the tools replace the human condition.

Yes, an interpretation justified with evidence - that is the best we can do. The bad alternative is creationism - you agree with creationism?

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
It may be applicable to you as a lazy person in using tools but note;

The use of tools has always been progressive in terms of precision, effectiveness and greater productivity.
In the earlier days, surgeons cut with crude knives, then scalpels and sharper scalpels, now they use laser and other high precision tools for surgery.
The same progress is applicable in every field of human life, knowledge and other advances.
True there are always the cons in tandem with progress but efforts are taken to ensure the path is foolproof.

Obviously it is also applicable to philosophy where we progress with higher precision tools.

[Eodnhoj7]

Presume you understand what is evolution and spiraling?

What is the issue with 'tools'.
Where the tools exist, use them to facilitate and optimize survival.

Evolution is an interpretation. It may be argued that with the excessive use of tools we are devolving mentally, physically and spiritually as the tools replace the human condition.

Yes, an interpretation justified with evidence - that is the best we can do. The bad alternative is creationism - you agree with creationism?

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
It may be applicable to you as a lazy person in using tools but note;

The use of tools has always been progressive in terms of precision, effectiveness and greater productivity.
In the earlier days, surgeons cut with crude knives, then scalpels and sharper scalpels, now they use laser and other high precision tools for surgery.
The same progress is applicable in every field of human life, knowledge and other advances.
True there are always the cons in tandem with progress but efforts are taken to ensure the path is foolproof.

Obviously it is also applicable to philosophy where we progress with higher precision tools.

With the invention of greater tools comes an absence of the human condition given its being replaced by machines. Work is replaced by an elitism in technological progress. With the advancement of philosophy comes the same problem of technological elitism where the average person is bounded by ideologies which are rarely put to question due to the advancement of a language into what only specific elites can understand.

Philosophy as a tool is language as a tool with the perpetual advancement of language effectively leaving many people to wander through an existential crisis under a blur of words which exist out of the common range of the individual. This reflects equivocably to certain tools being created which negate human labor, thus the human condition all together.

In seeking progress in survival there comes a double edge sword. The same progress meant for survival is that which can reduce it as well. This survivability of course being both literal and existential.

This is assuming philosophy is grounded in survivability at all given the survival rate effectively drops to zero given a long enough timeline. Philosophy may as well teach how to die as well as how to live.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Evolution is an interpretation. It may be argued that with the excessive use of tools we are devolving mentally, physically and spiritually as the tools replace the human condition.

Yes, an interpretation justified with evidence - that is the best we can do. The bad alternative is creationism - you agree with creationism?

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
It may be applicable to you as a lazy person in using tools but note;

The use of tools has always been progressive in terms of precision, effectiveness and greater productivity.
In the earlier days, surgeons cut with crude knives, then scalpels and sharper scalpels, now they use laser and other high precision tools for surgery.
The same progress is applicable in every field of human life, knowledge and other advances.
True there are always the cons in tandem with progress but efforts are taken to ensure the path is foolproof.

Obviously it is also applicable to philosophy where we progress with higher precision tools.

With the invention of greater tools comes an absence of the human condition given its being replaced by machines. Work is replaced by an elitism in technological progress. With the advancement of philosophy comes the same problem of technological elitism where the average person is bounded by ideologies which are rarely put to question due to the advancement of a language into what only specific elites can understand.

That is why we need 'philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to cultivate the wisdom of how to tread the middle-path to avoid whatever the extremes, e.g. arising from the progress of tools and elitism.

Philosophy as a tool is language as a tool with the perpetual advancement of language effectively leaving many people to wander through an existential crisis under a blur of words which exist out of the common range of the individual. This reflects equivocably to certain tools being created which negate human labor, thus the human condition all together.

In seeking progress in survival there comes a double edge sword. The same progress meant for survival is that which can reduce it as well. This survivability of course being both literal and existential.

This is assuming philosophy is grounded in survivability at all given the survival rate effectively drops to zero given a long enough timeline. Philosophy may as well teach how to die as well as how to live.

You missed my point.
I did not say Philosophy is a tool, rather Philosophy utilizes tools to optimize survival.

In one perspective, philosophy is about how to die as well as how to live;

Socrates stated that "[a]ll of philosophy is training for death".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, an interpretation justified with evidence - that is the best we can do. The bad alternative is creationism - you agree with creationism?

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
It may be applicable to you as a lazy person in using tools but note;

The use of tools has always been progressive in terms of precision, effectiveness and greater productivity.
In the earlier days, surgeons cut with crude knives, then scalpels and sharper scalpels, now they use laser and other high precision tools for surgery.
The same progress is applicable in every field of human life, knowledge and other advances.
True there are always the cons in tandem with progress but efforts are taken to ensure the path is foolproof.

Obviously it is also applicable to philosophy where we progress with higher precision tools.

With the invention of greater tools comes an absence of the human condition given its being replaced by machines. Work is replaced by an elitism in technological progress. With the advancement of philosophy comes the same problem of technological elitism where the average person is bounded by ideologies which are rarely put to question due to the advancement of a language into what only specific elites can understand.

That is why we need 'philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to cultivate the wisdom of how to tread the middle-path to avoid whatever the extremes, e.g. arising from the progress of tools and elitism.

Philosophy as a tool is language as a tool with the perpetual advancement of language effectively leaving many people to wander through an existential crisis under a blur of words which exist out of the common range of the individual. This reflects equivocably to certain tools being created which negate human labor, thus the human condition all together.

In seeking progress in survival there comes a double edge sword. The same progress meant for survival is that which can reduce it as well. This survivability of course being both literal and existential.

This is assuming philosophy is grounded in survivability at all given the survival rate effectively drops to zero given a long enough timeline. Philosophy may as well teach how to die as well as how to live.

You missed my point.
I did not say Philosophy is a tool, rather Philosophy utilizes tools to optimize survival.

In one perspective, philosophy is about how to die as well as how to live;

Socrates stated that "[a]ll of philosophy is training for death".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Yet the question of what is a tool necessitates a regressive use of tools to describe tool thus a circularity occurs. In tools describing tools philosophy becomes a tool.

[Veritas Aequitas]

With the invention of greater tools comes an absence of the human condition given its being replaced by machines. Work is replaced by an elitism in technological progress. With the advancement of philosophy comes the same problem of technological elitism where the average person is bounded by ideologies which are rarely put to question due to the advancement of a language into what only specific elites can understand.

That is why we need 'philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to cultivate the wisdom of how to tread the middle-path to avoid whatever the extremes, e.g. arising from the progress of tools and elitism.

Philosophy as a tool is language as a tool with the perpetual advancement of language effectively leaving many people to wander through an existential crisis under a blur of words which exist out of the common range of the individual. This reflects equivocably to certain tools being created which negate human labor, thus the human condition all together.

In seeking progress in survival there comes a double edge sword. The same progress meant for survival is that which can reduce it as well. This survivability of course being both literal and existential.

This is assuming philosophy is grounded in survivability at all given the survival rate effectively drops to zero given a long enough timeline. Philosophy may as well teach how to die as well as how to live.

You missed my point.
I did not say Philosophy is a tool, rather Philosophy utilizes tools to optimize survival.

In one perspective, philosophy is about how to die as well as how to live;

Socrates stated that "[a]ll of philosophy is training for death".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Yet the question of what is a tool necessitates a regressive use of tools to describe tool thus a circularity occurs. In tools describing tools philosophy becomes a tool.

Yes, anything used as 'a mean to an end' in the widest sense can be a tool.
That is why it is stated by some 'a dick is a tool'.

My point,
Philosophy is fundamentally the love of wisdom and uses various 'tools' to optimize the well being of the individuals [& mortality] and humanity.

I think in trying to be too smart and being too linguistic to the extreme in this case, that only make you look stupid.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is why we need 'philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to cultivate the wisdom of how to tread the middle-path to avoid whatever the extremes, e.g. arising from the progress of tools and elitism.


You missed my point.
I did not say Philosophy is a tool, rather Philosophy utilizes tools to optimize survival.

In one perspective, philosophy is about how to die as well as how to live;

Socrates stated that "[a]ll of philosophy is training for death".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Yet the question of what is a tool necessitates a regressive use of tools to describe tool thus a circularity occurs. In tools describing tools philosophy becomes a tool.

Yes, anything used as 'a mean to an end' in the widest sense can be a tool.
That is why it is stated by some 'a dick is a tool'.

My point,
Philosophy is fundamentally the love of wisdom and uses various 'tools' to optimize the well being of the individuals [& mortality] and humanity.

I think in trying to be too smart and being too linguistic to the extreme in this case, that only make you look stupid.

"That only makes you look stupid" not "that only make you look stupid".

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yet the question of what is a tool necessitates a regressive use of tools to describe tool thus a circularity occurs. In tools describing tools philosophy becomes a tool.

Yes, anything used as 'a mean to an end' in the widest sense can be a tool.
That is why it is stated by some 'a dick is a tool'.

My point,
Philosophy is fundamentally the love of wisdom and uses various 'tools' to optimize the well being of the individuals [& mortality] and humanity.

I think in trying to be too smart and being too linguistic to the extreme in this case, that only make you look stupid.

"That only makes you look stupid" not "that only make you look stupid".

Being from the East, my mother tongue is not English, thus not habituated with the rules of grammar.
No need to be so pedantic with grammar as long as you get the main meaning of the sentence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, anything used as 'a mean to an end' in the widest sense can be a tool.
That is why it is stated by some 'a dick is a tool'.

My point,
Philosophy is fundamentally the love of wisdom and uses various 'tools' to optimize the well being of the individuals [& mortality] and humanity.

I think in trying to be too smart and being too linguistic to the extreme in this case, that only make you look stupid.

"That only makes you look stupid" not "that only make you look stupid".

Being from the East, my mother tongue is not English, thus not habituated with the rules of grammar.
No need to be so pedantic with grammar as long as you get the main meaning of the sentence.

Yet you complain of my language.......