What's philosophy and what's so great about it?

[incka]

I think that the title says it all.
Is philosophy a science or an art? How does it works? Why it's so important?

I know that these questions have been asked for ages, with different answers each time, but the reason for me to post this topic is precisely that: there's not a final answer. Some will think that the forum will be a timewaste for that feature, but they have nothing to do in these forums then: to have the last word in any social/humanities disscusion is not possible.

Enjoy


I removed the original as the yes and no answers did not make sense, so I changed the poll options to ones that do. The poll question is unchanged.

[incka]

Personally I don't think that it is either. It's with history & ideologies (poltics, economics, etc) in another category.

[Timothy]

Thanks for changing the poll answers. They were quite stupid indeed.

Back to the question:

If philosophy is in the same level as history, politics, economics, etc, how shall we call this category?

Just to make my point I will say this: In most colleges History and Economics, for example, form part of something called "Social Sciences". Philosophy, on the other hand, fomrs part of the "Humanities" but in some colleges it forms part of the before mentioned "Social Sciences".

That only proves how problematic is the category issue.

[incka]

History is also often put into humanities. Some subjects can be clearly defined, but then there is a middle group of ones and philosophy is definatly dead center.

[Morty]

Philosophy is not merely a science nor an art; whoever coined those terms ought to be kicked off this forum.

You could read all the philosophical books in the world and still not know what philosophy is. You can't learn philosophy; you can only learn to philosophize. And to philosophize is to think for oneself.

Kant said: "Philosophy, the doctrine and exercise of widsom (not simply science)"

In Logic, Kant summarized philosophy with the following four questions:
What can i know? What should I do? What is man? How should I live?

[Timothy]

The good news, Morty, is that those terms were coined not by one but by hundreds of persons in the flow of time. Let's remember Plato's point of view about it: Philosophy was certainly a science, because it is practicing it that one gets to know the final causes of all (Ancient Greek's definition of science was, in a very raw way of saying it, to know the final causes of things. The same idea is somewhat shared by Francis Bacon).
Or you may wanna take a look at most of the philosophers of art: they claim that philosophy is indeed an art, because it creates instead of analazing in a deductive kind of way. But those philosophers are, in most cases, artists themselves, so the argument seems invalid. But both positions have the same strenght and in these late decades hte "middle" position is taken quite some strenght too.

And your definition of philosophy, Morty, is very respectable. But there are other definitions, as you surely know, posted by philosophers as great as Kant with arguments as strong as well.

You obviously prefer Kant's position. But one must be aware that it is only one position of many in existence. And my purpose in this forum is to have people exposing those different positions, but I have to make a request: be open minded and don't think that your position is The One. Give people a chance to expose their point of view and don't encourage any "kick off from the forum" ideas.

[Morty]

The point I was trying to make is that you cannot define philosophy out of two simple options. It's far too broad, far too complex. It's not just an art, not just a science- it's everything we do and everything we are. It is our striving for wisdom, which is never complete (word to Kant). André Comte-Sponville writes: "Philosophy is the work, wisdom the repose", Epicurus writes: "Philosophy is an activity, which, through discourse and reasoning, procures for us a happy life".

All that I am saying is that by stating to simple options there are only two answers for philosophy; either philosophy is only an art or either it is only a science. And that, my fellow members, is ludicrous.

[mazarane]

Morty, you're certainly entitled to argue that viewpoint, but these forums are a place for discussion of different opinions, and we're certainly never going to ban anyone for the way they choose to define philosophy :wink: There's no need for comments such as that which imply a lack of respect for other posters- you make your points very forcefully and eloqently without them :)

Over-simplification? ......any such discussion has to simplify, otherwise we'd never get anywhere. As Terry Pratchett pointed out, it's quite difficult to discuss quantum using a language originally evolved to tell other apes where the ripe fruit is :wink: Despite this, I'm inclined to agree with you- it is too integral to the way we live to treat it just as a a subject to study.

[Timothy]

quote: (Epicurus writes: "Philosophy is an activity, which, through discourse and reasoning, procures for us a happy life".)

Well, isn't that the old view about science? Again, I re-take the greeks: The nature of humans is to know. Knowing is the most human thing to do, and gets us closer to the gods, etc etc. And the only way a person can be happy (in this world and in the other; Plato and the pitagoric thinkers believed in life beyound death: you may wanna take a peek on Plato's "Phaedo") was by knowing. And you can only really know the final causes of things (according to Plato's point of view), and you need philosophy to do that. Yes, philosophy is an activity, just like science and art, and the purpose of philosophy was quite the same as the purpose of science in the greeks times.

My point is that nowdays it looks ridiculous to define philosophy as a "simple" science or a "simple" art, but let's begin the discussion from the beginning, in order to end it in the nowdays points of view.

And in the beginning of the debate, I don't know if this is completely true, there were only two options to classify all human actions: science or art. But these two options, as simple as they both seem, were far from simplicity. Science was seen as an action of discovery, and art as an action of creation, of innovation.

And I remember I read a commentary of a philosopher whose name I don't remember right now, about Morty's point of view (a point of view that comes from the ancient greeks as well, and that says: philosophy...it's everything we do and everything we are) that said something like this: "It (philosophy) isn't what we do or what we are. It's more the way one finds the reasons of thy actions, but also finds the questions of thy existence".

[Morty]

If this discussion has warped into a discussion of how "forceful" and "disrespectful" my points of view are presented then you can count me out. You both preach about how everyone is allowed to argue their oppinions, and yet I'm to be knocked for it?

I stand by my word: anyone who thinks Philosophy is either JUST an art, or JUST a science should not engage in this discussion. However if this discussion is on that matter then I'll be glad to make my leave.

Grow up people. I never said a word that was disrespectful- so please refrain from being so touchy. Thank you for ruining what could have been an interesting debate. I wasn't aware this was a 'hold-hands and love all' seminar on philosophy, I apologize for presenting my view point in a manor that was "disrespectful"(my 'rear-end' it was). You have lost a valid input.

Carry on with your categorization of philosophy.

[Timothy]

Hey, the idea was to do something like this:
"A: Well, I think philosophy is this and these are my arguments"
"B: But philosophy can be this instead because bla bla"
"A: Yeah, but your arguments also apply to think philosophy as this and not that. Read it like this and you'll understand"

I think that I emphasized the point enough, but I'll do it again:

[Timothy]

I think that I emphasized the point enough, but I'll do it again:

THERE IS NO FINAL ANSWER TO THIS MATTER. ALL ANSWERS AREN'T SAFE FROM CONTROVERSY.

That is the reason of why this is what you called a 'hold-hands and love all' seminar on philosophy. No one is right here, but no one is wrong neither.

And come on! The idea of a forum is to debate, and anyone who thinks that philosophy is a science, for example, can perfectly change his mind at the end of the debate to any other opinion. Because this is all about opinions, and as such they can be perfectly changeable for other opinions. That attitude, being "hold-hands", is what I like to call being open minded.

But you're free to go anyways. I was just trying to do what I said above: you said your opinion about philosophy with valid arguments, and what I tried to do was to show that your arguments were also valid to support another point of view.

Stick to your word anyways. It's a shame that we lost a valid input. Fortunately, there are more out there.

[eflo]

If our only two options for defining philosophy are as an 'art' or as a 'science', I wouldn't vote for either. I think it all depends on one's approach to the subject. Take 'art' for example. Art could be considered just an art, but it's also a science for some people. If you want to make the proportions correct, and the human figures correct, and make sure all rules of perspective are considered, then it's also a science.

All I'm trying to say is that most disciplines usually overlap. The Principles of Physics overlap with the Principles of Chemistry...both sciences share certain forumulae, etc. Artwork that conforms with the rules of perspective/proportion overlaps with Psychology, etc.

So I guess all I'm really trying to say is that I think it all depends on the approach one takes to the subject. If a philosopher approahes philosophy and stays within the limits of the discipline, that philosopher probably thinks of philosophy as a 'science', whereas if he seeks to make and break rules, he might also see philsophy as a science, but also as an 'art' form that he's trying to master.

[Timothy]

That's quite a good point. It would seem, as you expose it, that "science" and "art" aren't very explicit concepts, and their limits seem to pierce each other.

I would like you to answer now the second part of the question, eflo (or whoever is reading this and feel like it) : What's so great about philosophy? Maybe, while answering this question, we can clarify if philosophy is (this is an hypotetical case) more science than art or viceversa; just as we wait for more people to join the discussion.

[eflo]

That's quite a good point. It would seem, as you expose it, that "science" and "art" aren't very explicit concepts, and their limits seem to pierce each other.

I would like you to answer now the second part of the question, eflo (or whoever is reading this and feel like it) : What's so great about philosophy? Maybe, while answering this question, we can clarify if philosophy is (this is an hypotetical case) more science than art or viceversa; just as we wait for more people to join the discussion.

I'll give this a little thought before posting an answer.

[eflo]

Completely forgot about this thread! When I visit the forums, when I see myself as the last poster, I usually don't view that thread. Anyway...

Why is Philosophy so great? Good question. I don't think I really have an answer for that. I mean, why is Math so great? In one sense, it allows us to understand our surroundings. It allows us to theorize about what the world would be like in 4-dimensions, or n-dimensions. It gives kids something to do when they're young...lol. But, really...there are so many applications that math has, and that would seem to be the answer to why math is so great.

But Philosophy? Well, it gives us ways to logically deduce & induce an argument. Philosophy...the discipline dealing with ethics, logic...think what the world would be without it. In a way, all the ethical issues kind of suck and you wish that the world would get over them all and somehow find a way to agree on them and agree with one another, but all we can do is agree to disagree. And I suppose that's one better than everyone getting along, because then we'd all be a bunch of clones thinking the same thing. There would only be one answer to everything...etc.

Philosophy...think about just your personal philosophy or outlook on the world. Where would you be without it? It's crazy how much I take for granted the fact that "I think, therefore I am". Does you opinion ever waver? I know mine does...and I frequently tell myself that one thing I love and hate about myself is the way I think.

There really is no answer to why philosophy is so great...and that's my answer to your question. Because depending on the issue, moral or ethical, there really is no right answer. And that's why philosophy, in my opinion of course, is so great. :confused: :confused: :confused: Am I the only one confused...does anyone follow?

[Sisyphis]

Science is an art from which philosophy is trying to awake.

[Mads]

There's nothing great about philosophy in and of itself. It's when you can incorporate it into
your life it becomes something alive, and then it's not philosophy anymore, it's life.
The only thing that's worse than a dead dreamer is a dead thinker.

[Io.]

Philosophy is:

Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Aesthetics

Philosophy cannot be confined, nor should we only recognize it as a collection of different ways of thinking. It is almost a living presence within society and history. Our whole culture is shaped by the seemingly simple question, what is beauty? Science is dictated by what we believe in, if not for the work of atheistic scholars during the reformation and subsequently (Nietzsche famously said, 'God is dead') would we be confined to anti-vivisection laws that would inhibit the learning we now take for granted of human anatomy and physiology?

Io.

[creme_ala_creme78]

i believe that philosophy is an art, im too tired and lazy to elaborate, but i stand by what i say (unless someone convinces me otherwise)

[Timothy]

"I believe that philosophy is an art, im too tired and lazy to elaborate, but i stand by what i say "

The idea is to elaborate. Not just to say your opinion without any basis at all.

[Sitaram]

Early in Plato’s Republic, Socrates states that “Philosophy is a preparation for death.”

Before we can say whether Philosophy is a science or an art, we must spend some time defining what we mean by the words “science” and “art”.

The question presumes that Philosophy must be one or the other. It is possible that Philosophy is neither.

How does science differ from art?

One hallmark of science is that results are objective and repeatable.

One hallmark of art is that it is subjective and unique.

http://www.icoste.org/news0404.htm



So what is the difference between science and art? Science is governed by unchangeable rules. This is why we can give the same mathematical equation to ten people educated in the science of mathematics and arrive at the same answer each and every time. Art, on the other hand, is a learned skill derived from experience and, as such, is full of human judgement. Give the same artistic problem to ten people and it is entirely possible you’ll get back ten different answers, all of which are more or less appropriate under the circumstances.


Historically, philosophers and philosophy appear earlier than scientists and science.


Art in the sense of painting and song or verse appears earlier than philosophy or science.


http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/moore2.html



The first truths sought or philosophical questions raised by people had to do with the meaning and purpose of existence. The Egyptians wondered if there was life in the hereafter. Thales, the first Greek philosopher, pondered about what the substance of life was (he concluded it was water). As we began to search for answers to questions about existence, the questions became more concrete. What causes toothaches? Why does it frost? Questions dealing with naturally occurring phenomena were classified as "natural philosophy." Natural philosophy has evolved into what we call science.


http://denisdutton.com/moscow_address.htm



The first line is most famously represented by Plato, whose respect for the power of art was so great that he thought it would have to be rigorously censored and controlled in his ideal republic. For Plato, as for the Greeks generally, art was mimesis, an imitation or representation of reality. As artists were apt to get their representations of reality wrong, art was not only in danger of spreading ignorance and misinformation, but of weakening the very fabric of society. Plato did not ban all art from the republic — painting and sculpture, if we read carefully, are not generally excluded. His main targets were the narrative arts of poetry and drama, which were to be admitted to the republic only in censored form, as “hymns to the gods and praises of noble people”(607a).



science, with progress as one of its primary goals, seeks understanding through objective methods (even though it rarely attains it). The arts seek provocation of emotion and reflection through subjective means. The more subjective the endeavor, the more personal it becomes, and therefore difficult if not impossible for anyone else to replicate. The more objective the pursuit, the more likely someone else would have made the achievement. Darwin’s theory of natural selection would have been (and, in fact, was by Wallace) replicated because the scientific process is empirically verifiable. In a crude dichotomy, the difference between science and art is discovery versus creation. Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis probably would not have been presented by another, because it was a creation of one individual’s mind more than it was a discovery.

We cannot, in any absolute sense, equate happiness with progress, or progress with happiness. But if an individual finds happiness in the progress produced by science and technology, there is a rational way to quantify and define how this progress can be accomplished. As scientific progress was defined above, the definition for technological systems can similarly be made:



http://www.mindport.org/kevin/mhistory.html



The major difference I can discern between a scientist and an artist is one of belief. The scientist proceeds from one set of assumptions about the universe and his relationship to it, and the artist proceeds from another.

The scientist presumes that we live in a rationally comprehensible universe which is outside of ourselves, and that it is knowable by the exercise of so-called "objective" observation and the use of formal logic. The scientist is moved by the beauty of what he sees, and his reaction is to want to understand it, to encompass it some way. But his way of encompassing is different than that of the artist.

Scientific observation is of physical relationships between things. The scientist encompasses the object of his attraction by noticing what it does in relation to other objects and their actions. Necessarily, the scientist must break his observed world up into discrete objects so that he has something to observe. (This process of "lumping" things is probably a fundamental property of the Western way of thinking.) We say, "This thing here is a cup, this one is a teapot, this is a paper towel." All of them are separate and discrete objects which exist apart from each other in form and function. Certain of their qualities are fair game for scientific study. . . in fact ANY quality is fair game as long as nothing "subjective" is brought to the observation.

Science and art both are driven by an esthetic sense and a desire to know the world. Science is limited by certain rules: it pretends to ignore values. You might even say that science is really art with something left out. Both scientist and artist have a subject sense of beauty in connection with what they observe. The scientist does his observations according to a certain set of beliefs about what he's doing, and the artist conducts his observations according to a different set of beliefs which encompass more.


Science and art, as I've said, are both ways of grokking* the world, to use Heinlein's term. You can collect starfish skeletons on the beach and study them mathematically or esthetically. (Mathematics IS esthetics to some.) Each way of studying them is an attempt understand the ISness of the starfish. But each way is also an attempt to understand a relation of the man to the starfish, and the man to himself. The understanding of the scientist requires a different mode of being than the understanding of the artist, and each mode of being has its own importance in the scheme of things. Each mode requires the manifestation of a different aspect of our selves, and both these manifestations of self are important aspects of our all.

In grokking the starfish, we grok ourselves. We might say that the exhibit we're building is our grokking of a corner of the universe which we name "starfish" and of our simultaneous grokking of ourselves grokking starfish. Someone who sees our exhibit might say, "Look at all this stuff about starfish." But he isn't seeing stuff about starfish, he's seeing starfish as understood by us. We hope that his seeing it will teach him something about his ability to widen his own understanding.

*This term appeared in Robert Heinlein's book, Stranger in a Strange Land, which was popular with the counter-culture during the 1960's. To "grok" something means approximately to understand it completely in all its complexity.



http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=clarence550M&nextdate=4%2f2%2f2005+2%3a0%3a32.480



"The difference between science and art is not that they deal with different objects, but that they deal with the same objects in different ways. Science gives us conceptual knowledge of a situation; art gives us the experience of that situation." (T. Eagleton)


http://www.cthisspace.com/intro.html



"In a crude dichotomy, the difference between science and art is discovery versus creation."


http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/archives/1bowdoincampus/002200.shtml



“Scientists break problems into smaller and smaller ones, until we get to one small enough to answer,” he said. “Artists often don’t care what the answer is, because definite answers don’t exist. The exquisite contradictions of the human heart, to me, are what make life interesting.”

http://www.kennethsnelson.net/articles/contemporanea_heartney_90.htm



Science has to be reproducible, and art is absolutely not supposed to be."


For further reading:

http://www.zubiri.org/works/englishworks/nhg/ideaofphilosophy.htm


http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/tolstoy.html

http://www.piclab.com/lee/index.php/Philosophy

http://www.stanford.edu/~rrorty/analytictrans.htm

http://sow.colloquium.co.uk/~barrett/jacques.htm

[Sitaram]

My friend, Erik, at myspace.com has just now replied:



Answering this question historically is a good approach I think.

But have you ever read Tarnas' "Passion of the Western Mind?" It's an intellectual history of the west and answers this question very well in the way I've suggested.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345368096/002-4039237-3056050?v=glance&n=283155


http://www.gaiamind.org/Tarnas.html

[blp]

Philosopy is the investigation of meaning - the meaning of life, the meaning of thought, the meaning of language, the meaning of words, the meaning of philosophy and how all these things interact and overlap.

[majestic62]

I would say Philosophy is art. It is a creative way of trying to find answers to some ancient questions. It uses science but I wouldnt say that Philosophy itself is science.

[Bandini]

I don't think it is either, but having studied Philosophy, I would say it was certainly more art than science. Obviously therer are many different branches, but to me it is about the 'pursuit' of knowledge rather than 'finding something and sticking to it'. Catma not dogma!

Belief is the death of intelligence - Robert Anton Wilson

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Philosophy literally means 'the love of wisdom'.

It is the prime basis of all science and all art. It predates and is the root of both of these (supposedly oppposed) factions.

Philosophy is asking awkward questions and not accepting easy answers; it is digging into 'accepted' wisdom until your spade breaks and still not accepting that there isn't something just a little bit deeper, as you break your nails on the hard, unyielding earth; it is nothing short of the meaning of life itself, or at least, the endless, fruitless, yet relentless quest to expose it.

Philosophy is forever being the child that asks, "why?"