Philosophy Now Forum

I wasn't able to find this topic through search, so sorry if this is a duplicate (it probably is). If you know a particular thread, can you direct me there?

Some people think that philosophy is the same as fiction, so a fiction writer does philosophy or philosophizes just like a professional philosopher. That'd mean that philosophy is fantasizing pretty much without limits. A lot of philosophers, however, criticize individual other philosophers. And books on philosophy tools bring up criticism and dialogue as one of many tools for doing philosophy. So there must be a difference between complete fiction and good vs bad philosophy. What do you think is the difference?

Keeping romanticism out of philosophy is important. What one wants and what is are vital distinctions.

Anything else others would like to share?

---

For starters, I've gathered these potential categories that bad and good philosophy could be distinguished in:

* Based on empirical evidence (bad one is not based on available evidence)
* Based on reason (bad one is not based on reason or reason is used seldom)
* Comprehensiveness (bad one is uncomprehensive, only touches the surface)

Agree/disagree/want to add?

Risto wrote:I wasn't able to find this topic through search, so sorry if this is a duplicate (it probably is). If you know a particular thread, can you direct me there?

Some people think that philosophy is the same as fiction, so a fiction writer does philosophy or philosophizes just like a professional philosopher. That'd mean that philosophy is fantasizing pretty much without limits. A lot of philosophers, however, criticize individual other philosophers. And books on philosophy tools bring up criticism and dialogue as one of many tools for doing philosophy. So there must be a difference between complete fiction and good vs bad philosophy. What do you think is the difference?

Most so called "philosophers" are not very bright, and speaks constantly straight out of their asses, if they were hired in any serious big business, the would get fired ..or actually NEVER get in, because they just lack the intellect.

Philosophy = love of wisdom, wisdom = sound judgement in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom.

Neither of these guys understand the concept of wisdom!

Good philosophers run towards the point, not away from it.

Jaded Sage wrote:Good philosophers run towards the point, not away from it.

Wauw ..not very deep statement, useless at best.

Good philosophy is based on honesty; bad philosophy is based on lies, wishful thinking and propaganda. Bad philosophy is not philosophy.

A_Seagull wrote:Bad philosophy is not philosophy.

Isn't that a contradiction? How can something be philosophy (bad philosophy) and not be philosophy? Bad philosophy must be different from non-philosophy. What's the difference? Bad philosophy is a bad attempt at reasoning, non-philosophy is no attempt at reasoning at all.

HexHammer wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Good philosophers run towards the point, not away from it.

Wauw ..not very deep statement, useless at best.

Dude. I've yet to see you contribute one thing to this community except being an excellent example of how not to conduct yourself in a philosophy forum. All you do is tell others they are ignorant. You are a pest.

HexHammer wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Good philosophers run towards the point, not away from it.

Wauw ..not very deep statement, useless at best.

Jaded Sage wrote:Dude. I've yet to see you contribute one thing to this community except being an excellent example of how not to conduct yourself in a philosophy forum. All you do is tell others they are ignorant. You are a pest.

you should ask phil what he thinks of him lol.

Risto wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:Bad philosophy is not philosophy.

Isn't that a contradiction? How can something be philosophy (bad philosophy) and not be philosophy? Bad philosophy must be different from non-philosophy. What's the difference? Bad philosophy is a bad attempt at reasoning, non-philosophy is no attempt at reasoning at all.

How about the music analogy. Many people say bad music isn't music at all. If I just start wailing away on a drum set, it isn't soothing, inspiring or entertaining. It effects us just like a cat falling into a garbage can and knocking out all of the garbage. If it is true that if it behaves like a duck then it is a duck, then if it effects us like non-music it is non-music. Likewise, it is philosophy if it makes us wiser, and not philosophy if it doesn't. Thus, bad philosophy is not philosophy.

HexHammer wrote:

Risto wrote:I wasn't able to find this topic through search, so sorry if this is a duplicate (it probably is). If you know a particular thread, can you direct me there?

Some people think that philosophy is the same as fiction, so a fiction writer does philosophy or philosophizes just like a professional philosopher. That'd mean that philosophy is fantasizing pretty much without limits. A lot of philosophers, however, criticize individual other philosophers. And books on philosophy tools bring up criticism and dialogue as one of many tools for doing philosophy. So there must be a difference between complete fiction and good vs bad philosophy. What do you think is the difference?

Most so called "philosophers" are not very bright, and speaks constantly straight out of their asses, if they were hired in any serious big business, the would get fired ..or actually NEVER get in, because they just lack the intellect.

Philosophy = love of wisdom, wisdom = sound judgement in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom.

Neither of these guys understand the concept of wisdom!

Hex, I retract the statement I made a few minutes ago. You do contribute. It just seems you always rush to judge as well.

Risto wrote:Anything else others would like to share?

---

For starters, I've gathered these potential categories that bad and good philosophy could be distinguished in:

* Based on empirical evidence (bad one is not based on available evidence)
* Based on reason (bad one is not based on reason or reason is used seldom)
* Comprehensiveness (bad one is uncomprehensive, only touches the surface)

Agree/disagree/want to add?

Just wanted to add that I'm pretty sure all credible philosophy is based on empiricism nowadays, thanks to Hume.
Also, can we define reason?
Comprehensiveness is new to me. I mean, I personally always aim at it, but I was unaware that anyone else did so much. I think it is an indispensable criteria for science, but an unnecessary criteria for philosophy (I tend to use the word "philosophy" loosely, and include people like China's Old Master and Nepal's Prince Shakyamuni).

Dalek Prime wrote:Keeping romanticism out of philosophy is important. What one wants and what is are vital distinctions.

I disagree (though I could never either confirm or deny that I ever said such a thing in any official capacity). In science, romanticism is counter-productive, but in philosophy, it can be a tool at the master's disposal. For instance, I have once or twice suspected that the entire character of Socrates was a literary invention, or, I guess, a philosophical invention, of Plato's—a romantic fiction designed to inspire students to become more noble. Myth is an ancient tool of philosophers to convey ideas to people resistant to argument—ya know, 'the moral of the story' and all that. Aren't all myths and parables like that romantic? Or am I misunderstanding romanticism?

Risto wrote:I wasn't able to find this topic through search, so sorry if this is a duplicate (it probably is). If you know a particular thread, can you direct me there?

Some people think that philosophy is the same as fiction, so a fiction writer does philosophy or philosophizes just like a professional philosopher. That'd mean that philosophy is fantasizing pretty much without limits. A lot of philosophers, however, criticize individual other philosophers. And books on philosophy tools bring up criticism and dialogue as one of many tools for doing philosophy. So there must be a difference between complete fiction and good vs bad philosophy. What do you think is the difference?

When you read a fiction writer like Hermann Hesse it is easy to say he philosophizes. But, never having read them, I wouldn't call the twilight books works of philosophy at all. Philosophy and fiction are closer than people, even philosophers, think, but they are not the same one thing. It would be a disservice to describe philosophy as "fanstasy without limits" though it does require some imagination to pull it off well, as does any writing.