|
|
|
|
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/5/2008 4:48:09 AM | The following is part of a reply I had posted on another forum, perhaps it will clear up some of the confusion on the board.
All of the major branches of human intellectual endeavour are philosophical in nature and indeed were at one time considered to be branches of philosophy. Granted a mathematician or a psychologist in the 21st century is no longer referred to as a philosopher. But it might interest you to know that Newton, for example, was in his own mind a philosopher. Many people working in philosophy departments are, for example, out and out mathematicians or logicians. Hume, one of the most famous British philosophers, wrote a multi volumed history of England. As far as he was concerned, he did not take off his philosopher's hat as soon as he started writing history. The history of science is usually taught by a philosophy department since it is a history of philosophy, even if sometimes we call it the history of the philosophy of science. Political science and sociology are specialist derivations from within philosophical inquiry. The heuristic method, the nature of inference, deduction, logical proof, syllogism, or whatever way one conceives of the ability to move from premises to conclusions are all philosophical in nature. All of the social sciences, economics, psychology...even people in IT and business information systems research appropriate the philosophical breakthroughs of the 20th century.
So, we don't exactly have to go back to the Greeks, Aristotle for example and point out that he set the perameters for biology, poetics, drama, ethics, logic, metaphysics, politics, physics etc etc. Philosophy is still the at the beginning of everything today. And note, I have not even had to use the usual trump card: Ethics. Obviously, every branch of human existence is concerned with ethical questions and dilemmas whether they be in the work place, medical issues, abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, the death penalty... | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/6/2008 8:47:24 PM |
Wow, so you want me to tell you a bit about philosophy? That will be quite the task. Although, it's difficult to define what philosophy actually "is", I like to think of it as the study of logic, argumentation, and ideas in general. What philosophers do is look at all the 'big' ideas in the world, analyze them, and then decide whether or not they are cogent or not.
The logic and argumentation part of philosophy is know as Analytical philosophy. Western philosophy is mostly analytical in nature. It's origins can be traced back to the Age of Reason, or the Age of Enlightenment. Some of the philosopher's that were part of this movement were Kant, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Galileo & Newton. Yes, Newton was a philosopher, so was Leibniz and so was Galileo - few actually know that.
I think many people make the mistake of calling Analytical philosophy, Philosophy. It's not! Contrast Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy and you will see profound differences. What does Easter philosophy deal with? It deals with meditation, yoga, enlightenment, ... the things important to understand the nature of man, and ultimate reality.
If one must designate a particular philosophy to be representative of what real philosophy is, I think Eastern philosophy wins. Why? The goal of Eastern philosophy is to study that which studies the universe - which is you.
If you realize that you are as much as the universe as the universe is you, then it makes sense to start with a study of yourself, right? You are the closest thing to you, no? Also, you are the thing common to all ideas, logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry, psychology, etc. You are the thing common to all of your experiences. Therefore it makes sense to study that which is studying - which is you. Eastern philosophy focuses on man, and because of that, and that alone, it is the superior philosophy, and therefore deserves the title of True Philosophy. | |
|
| |
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/7/2008 7:39:26 AM | | Your demarcation is a little inaccurate. Analytic philosophy pretty much began to idenitfy itself in contradistinction to what is referred to as Continental Philosophy early in the 20th century. It does not represent the inner logic or development of the Occidental tradition. German idealism, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Derrida...these are not analysts. Neither are many of those who work on the history of philosophy, ancient or medieval philosophy comfortable with the more radical strains of positivism that have characterized analytic philosophy in the 20th century. As such your juxtapositioning of Western and Eastern philosophy doesn't really make sense as it stands. Much work has been done and continues to be done for example on the influence of figures like Heidegger for Eastern philosophy. If you mean to distinguish between analytic philosophy and certain impulses within Eastern thought, then you can easily see that tension as it emerged in the controversies and stand offs between the analysts and continental thinkers that exist to this day in Western thinking. | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/7/2008 1:35:19 PM | I would definitely associate myself with the Continental School of philosophy; and, having studied and practiced various Chinese Taoist martial arts and meditation techniques for over half of my life, I am quite familiar with Eastern philosophy.
I would not associate the two even tentatively. Although certain parallels can be documented, at least two factors can and do come into play here: 1) people thinking about the world are doing the same thing regardless of where they are, so there are necessarily going to be similarities between what they are doing; and, 2) any translation which occurs between European and Asiatic languages will necessarily express ideas using terms for the language being translated to... which may have associational linkages not found in the language being translated from. The ability of the translator, and the depth of their cultural experience, are also factors.
For instance: there is a fairly famous Chinese text on meditation called "The Secret of the Golden Flower". A translation by a man named Wilhelm was used and referenced by Carl Jung; but, the Wilhelm translation was seriously flawed. One example of this: a section which described simply being aware of how the senses - sight, in particular - function seemingly of their own accord... was translated as an instruction to sit with the eyes crossed and straining up toward the forehead. So, the entire point of the meditation - that the mind will function of its own accord, and can only be stilled through focusing its attention upon something internally constant, such as the breath - was completely lost in the Wilhelm translation; and any conclusions by readers such as Jung would have had to be projections of what they wanted to find, of what they were assuming they were reading about.
I'm not aware of any distinctly Asiatic influences in Heidegger, who was deeply influenced by ancient Greek texts.
The case of Analytic philosophy is a little more straight forward. Simply put, philosophic concepts are not reducible to propositional statements; and so, analytic philosophy is necessarily a subset of philosophy proper.
Once again, philosophy is properly speaking concerned primarily with the production of concepts: their origins, their composition, their uses, their histories... and concepts are completely arbitrary constructs, determined by the realities which condition their formation and not by the rules of propositional logic.
And you know, it is a fairly basic distinction: at no point does science say, "We are primarily concerned withthe production of concepts"; and art does not say that, either. | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/7/2008 2:09:23 PM | Then I'd start with the first piece in Heidegger's later work "On the Way to Language" and take it from there, it recounts a dialouge with a Japanese disciple of Suzuki among others. Japanese thinkers began to make Heidegger's acquaintance more and more as his work was translated. At Boston University while working on Heidegger there, every year we had Japanese students attending our seminars and discussions, even those with a fairly limited background in philosophy. His impact has been MASSIVE.
The whole point of Heidegger's return to the Greeks was his attempt to step out from the shadow of what he called the metaphysics of presence which he saw as beginning in the "idealism" of Plato and steadily growing from there. He returned to the Greeks and eventually wanted to get back to the Presocratics but the criticisms of Western Metaphysics, logocetrism and the worship of a particular, metaphysical version of reason, the undermining of the Cartesian model of subjectivity and anthropomorphism in general are seen to have massive possibilities for a comparison with Eastern philosophy.
The remarks on translation hold fast beyond what you mention. Many students of Heidegger would still insist that he cannot be read faithfully in English or French, only in German. He was inclined to suggest that himself... | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:46:08 PM | Lady, I shall give my best at this question.
Art or Science?
Are the two opposed - female and male? One is born of love of life and feeling for the world, the other is born of enquiry and love of the world. The former never enquires, the latter does.
Perhaps though Art we can see the joy of the material, and through Science we can see the material but not the joy.
Spilt and shearching both will bring us some understanding of the Universe.
Like a man waiting for his wife. Do I look good in this darling? Yes you do. I've told you a dozen times. Look the Taxis waiting, you look devine.
He, being practical, she being Art. Both are right. But when they get to the ball. Let's face it fella's. Art always wins.
I hope in some way I have, for the time being, answered your question, Madam. | |
|
| |
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/10/2008 12:39:06 PM | "I think philosophy is neither an art or science. I think it is a considered expression of one's perception of the world around them through a rational (I use that term loosely) thought process."
I'm afraid that that is far too general!
Isn't the artist expressing their perception of the world? And if we take reason in a "loose" sense as you advise, aren't they sometimes offering "rational" perspectives on that same world?
If we take it in the stricter sense, scientists use a specific language or set of languages to offer an account of the world around them as they perceive it. And given that reason goes back to the Greek logos which can be understood as to "give an account" (scientific for example) then your description fits the scientific undertaking as well. | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/10/2008 3:16:11 PM | It was intended to be general. Philosophy has quite a broad definition. I used the term loose because philosophy has a basis in one's perception of the world around them. Philosophical viewpoints are devisive to say the least. I am not saying that one is right and the other is wrong, they are just different.
I would agree that scientific method is employed in the process of philosophy but in my opinion, it doesn't make it scientific. | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/10/2008 4:46:20 PM | "It was intended to be general. Philosophy has quite a broad definition. I used the term loose because philosophy has a basis in one's perception of the world around them. Philosophical viewpoints are devisive to say the least. I am not saying that one is right and the other is wrong, they are just different.
I would agree that scientific method is employed in the process of philosophy but in my opinion, it doesn't make it scientific."
I'm afraid that your "definition" didn't actually define all that well. In other words, the activity that you describe as being exclusively or definitively philosophical, actually desribes almost anything that involves rational activity and applies as easily to science as to art as to reading the newspaper.
You suggested that you wanted to use the term "rational" loosely by the way. Hence the way I tailored my initial response to you... | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/11/2008 7:02:38 AM | Like I said, "It was intended to be general."
The OP asked two questions.
"Is philosophy an art or a science?"
"What is its importance?"
The answer to the first question requires an opinion. I formulated my opinion based on my perception of the question. I chose a general response with an eye to Occam's Razor. I believe my definition suited the question quite well. There are many facets to philosophy and taking me to task for my opinion is superfluous.
There is an old Buddhist saying that goes, "If you should meet your Guru, kill him."
With respect to philosophy, there are no absolute truths. Additionally, the core of philosophy is ethics and wisdom. Underpinning those words is respect.
Perhaps it would be more productive to answer the second question... | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/11/2008 11:16:11 AM | Ockham's razor is hardly necessary to choose between your explanation and another. It's entierly irrelevant since there is nothing really to 'verify' about what you say. It's platitudinous enough as to basically be true about almost anything.
To say that there are no absolute truths ironically enough is a philosophical statement that is committed to an absolute principle. Are you not invoking a principle which you hold to be absolutely true when you say that there are NO absolute truths. It's also straightforwardly inconsistent.
Finally, since when have "ethics" and "wisdom" been the core of philosophy? "Ethikos" as referring to the virtues of character for the Greeks refer to one type of philosophical inquiry where wisdom was required as much as it was in ALL of the other philosophical disciplines. The philosopher is the "lover of wisdom" not just ethics.
Oh, and "underpinning those words is respect"...that is just nonsensical. I don't see how that statement is germane to the discussion at all...You never posed a second question either so how could we answer it? | |
|
| |
| |
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/11/2008 11:54:04 AM |
Oh, and "underpinning those words is respect"...that is just nonsensical.
Hmmmm. Respect is needed for imparting any kind of wisdom.
I give up! The stupidity is overwhelming...
Your opening post on this thread.
Ditch the pathos and your ethos will be more appealing. You are using Alpha Male antics in your responses.
When I say that there are no absolute truths, I mean that no one holds all the answers. Humility needs to balance arrogance. As a lecturer, do your students respect you or fear you? Do you talk with them or at them?
I have found the other posters on this thread able to impart their wisdom in respectful manner. It is an inclusive approach to dialog. | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/11/2008 4:36:01 PM | Some people are here to try and learn something new. Some people are here to try and share something that they have already learned. Some people are here to foreground themselves, either by contributing to the general discourse or by detracting from it.
Nothing unusual there.
I think I know the answer to the questions under discussion, and have put my answers forward. Other people have put their answers forward. I could say to myself, "No, I am right" and start to argue; or I can say to myself "My answer works for me, and for what I do in and with philosophy; but other people have insights I am not yet party to, and it is a very intersting opportunity to see what they have to share on this topic."
Since I like to know things, I choose the second option. If I picked the first option, then I would really just like other people to think that I know things... regardless of whether I actually do or not.
I am pretty sure that the definition of a philosopher isn't suppose to be: "Someone who wants other people to think that they know things, regardless of whether they do or not." But of course, not everyone here is going to be a philosopher.
How can you tell a true philosopher? Well, one thing that I have always noticed is: they always ask questions. Mostly, they ask questions of themselves; but often, they share those questions with other people, and try to answer these questions while other people follow along.
Perhaps, then, the truest philosopher to appear here so far is the person who started this thread in the first place. Might they still be around; could they offer some input at this point, perhaps? | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/11/2008 6:56:37 PM | My inner monologue is full of question marks. That said, I don't purport to be a philosopher. You were the poster I was referring to with respect to the kind of dialogue I prefer. You seem to be the kind of person who loves philosophy and wants to share it. That is the kind of wisdom that attracts a person like myself. I will readily admit that I have alpha male tendencies that at times, tends to cloud my true intentions.
I noticed that the OP has not chimed in on the discussion and like yourself, I would like to hear her take on her questions.
Thanks for weighing in. | |
|
| hahaha
Posted: 4/12/2008 1:45:30 AM | | philosophy in 21 century is art of talking nonsense. | |
|
| hahaha
Posted: 4/12/2008 4:13:39 AM | My goodness, such hostility. Since when is showing someone enough repsect to respond and challenge their views an "alpha male" tendency. If I thought that the point was to insult or demean people, I wouldn't be on here trying to debate and exchange views with people. I have been frank about everything I agree with and disagree with and will continue to be. Neither will I make any apology for "knowing" things, since when is it a crime to wear one's influences on their sleeves? Surely we're supposed to constantly try and learn and be influenced by the great philosophers.
I think you'll find that my posts that relate directly to questions like this are comprehensive yet open ended. In other words, they point to the fact that it is next to impossible to definitively outline what the enterprise of philosophy entails. It is a cluster concept, that is to say, it is impossible to provide all of the necessary and sufficient conditions it would require to give a "definitive" answer. I am also interested enough to respond to "definitions" that people offer, not because I want to prove that I know the "right" answer but because I genuinely have no idea how to provide the kinds of definition that is being sought. And I wished to spread some of that perplexity and share it with others.
As for the ad hominem remarks about what I do for a living: well I would think that those kinds of slights against a person you've never met tend more toward the alpha male type of behaviour than anything I have said. I happen to get on quite well with my students but then again, I am no ones teacher here and whether I was or was not good at my job is hardly any of your business or concern, I certainly have no interest in whether you are good at yours. We are all here as equals, it's not my job here to treat your views as though you were a fledgling student trying to find your way. I'm on here trying to figure things out as well as everybody else. I have people question my positions and arguments every single day both at work and at home. It's useful to be challenged, instructive. If I were to take it all personally or be defensive then I'd never bother getting out of bed. | |
|
| hahaha
Posted: 4/12/2008 4:19:11 AM | "philosophy in 21 century is art of talking nonsense."
I would think one would be a little more concerned about this kind of effort than whether or not someone disagrees with something one has written. | |
|
| hahaha
Posted: 4/12/2008 8:12:50 AM | Like yourself, I love debating and love to be challenged. I am fussy as to how I am challenged. As for the ad hominem remarks, ouch. I don't want to be equated with Ann Coulter's style of dialog. Let's back up and start over.
You are the teacher and I am, admittedly, the student. Like yourself, I had a stint as a teacher with a combination of adult learners and fresh out of high school learners. I found the fresh students easier to teach because they were accustomed to continued learning and possibly due to the fact that their frontal lobes haven't been fully wired. The adult learners were significantly more challenging because they required more attention. I suppose that I am not much different in the respect.
My intention was not to be hostile but to illustrate my perception of you. Those lines can be easily blurred.
My initial post on this thread was general because I wanted to build on it. We got off on the wrong foot because of my initial perception of you. Apologies offered.
Philosophy has often been a victim of language. I have often said that lawyers profit because of poor interpretation of language. That said, I have particular distaste for invective. | |
|
| hahaha
Posted: 4/13/2008 9:10:46 PM | | so many things seem to be up for attack while we support philosophy. adult learners, psychology, art, science, the tree of life, humanism uhmm others intellect??? is it human nature to attack others ideas and person in order to support our own ideas? I realize that my question may represent the exact human quality of which I speak. I first noted the discourse when Psychology was maligned as reductionism. But in this discourse Psychology has its place. As philosophy is derived from the human psyche. Would we not do well to intertwine fields and disciplines for full understanding of the human condition and its perspective created society? doesn't seperating and segregating the fields prevent us from formulating fully operable theories? | |
|
| hahaha
Posted: 4/14/2008 6:29:22 AM |
Would we not do well to intertwine fields and disciplines for full understanding of the human condition and its perspective created society? doesn't seperating and segregating the fields prevent us from formulating fully operable theories?
We would do very well to intertwine fields and disciplines for a better understanding of the human condition. Much easier said than done unfortunately. My formula for attempting to gain a better understanding is to boil things down to the common denominator. I believe the four basic elements for building a healthy society are food, shelter, education and health care.
I think differing philosophical points of view as branches of a tree, each competing for its share of the light. It is the leaves at the top of the tree whose ego says, "it is us that provide for the life of this tree." They have forgotten the roots and the branches who now sit in the shade.
Reductionism is necessary because our egos need humility to bring us back to earth. Human society has reached the point where it is capable of providing for everyone yet it is failing to do so. Getting all of our eyes looking in the same direction would require something really big to look at. | |
|
| Is philosophy an art or a science, and what is its importance?
Posted: 4/14/2008 11:22:37 AM | We already intertwine fields and disciplines. Humanity couldn't exist without the focussed skills and responsibilities so many people contribute to the incredible spectrum of human endeavor. All of us looking in different directions help humanity to see more than any individul can see alone. How much disagreement arises from not seeing the value of other and the value of their different experiences?
Go a little further and we couldn't even exist without a myriad of other critters that humbly and quietly go about their business every day.
Humans just don't seem to have figured out that they are team-players in an organism which is much more vast than most can even imagine. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
