You say the sciences are not sub-disciplines of philosophy. (Something about a narrow versus broad sense?) I say they are. — NKBJ

Science is a tool - a remarkable and very powerful tool (within its area of applicability) - that grew out of several related schools of philosophy. It grew up and left home a long time ago, and has since established its own identity. Not that this actually matters. :wink: Considered thinking uses (should use) all applicable/useful tools to achieve its aims. Science is one such tool; its parent (philosophy) is another.

It's all fun! :up:

Matter exists, but the mathematics underneath seem more fundamental. — noAxioms

Nit-pick: you think that maths, a human invention, is more fundamental than the stuff of which the universe is built? I don't think so.

Thanks. :up: I started a topic in General Philosophy to discuss this, and it seems to have concluded that there is no accepted or agreed way of doing philosophy. There are plenty of opinions, of course, but that's because there are plenty of philosophers. :wink: But there is no list of guidelines (or similar) that describe how philosophy is, or should be, practised.

I think I find that surprising. :chin:

:up: Thanks for that! :smile: Interesting... :chin:

[I'm a Gaian Daoist, so the TTC is close to my heart.]

humans are logical — Devans99

I beg to differ. We are capable, on occasion, of logical and rational behaviour, but you don't need me to provide a host of examples of humans not behaving so. I think we've taken this exchange as far as it can usefully go. Do you agree?

These religions claim life after death. So life after death experiences do offer a way to assess the claims of conventional religion. — Devans99

Christianity does. I think Islam and Judaism do too. But what about Taoism, Buddhism, or any of the other Eastern religions? "Religion" includes all religions, while you seem to be assuming, as many do, that religion = (American fundamentalist?) Christianity. Religions offer much more than life after death. And science cannot see any of it, never mind comment upon it usefully. Horses for courses. Science is a remarkable and useful tool, that has given us much. But it has its area of applicability, as any such tool does, and human culture, in all its madness, is not part of that area.

But emotions are due to glands and chemicals in our brain/bodies. These things are investigable with science. We could correlate the patterns of music to the biological changes that take place. — Devans99

Yes, but the problem stays the same as for your other suggestions. If you were a Vulcan or a Romulan, an alien seeking to learn more about humanity, your suggestions are about as well as they could do. An external understanding of human behaviour, with no hint as to why humans behave in these ways. You are a human. I am a human. A scientific investigation into things such as I have listed would tell a human much less than they already knew about these things before they saw your conclusions.

And if you have any idea how knowledge of our glands and biochemicals could inform our knowledge of emotions, there are many people who would be very interested to speak with you, maybe even offer you money for your insights. It's as easy ( :wink: ) as understanding how Microsoft Word can help and support authors who use it, from an analysis of the raw bytes of WinWord.exe.

Religion and spirituality? — Pattern-chaser


Is basically a quest to answer the question 'what happens when we die?'. Possibly investigable empirically via 'Near Death Experiences'. — Devans99

For me, religion/spirituality tells me much more about how I might conduct my life, than what will happen later. I don't think science can investigate that. And if you think an investigation of near-death experience (which isn't actually death, as we all know) offers any useful understanding of religion, ... I don't know how to respond, except maybe "Really??? :chin:".

"Music and art?" — Pattern-chaser

Music and art are mathematical. See for example the Golden Ratio. — Devans99

You see, this is part of the problem. A scientific view of art and music fails to see the things that make them relevant and desirable to humans. The emotional appreciation (if I might call it that) of art/music is wholly invisible to science. It's as if you have proposed to investigate Monet's oil paintings by analysing the composition of his paints. Such an investigation would miss so much (of what is relevant to humans) about Monet's art that it's useless and pointless. The same applies if we think mathematics can describe or explain music in any meaningful or useful way.

Thanks. :up: So how do you see the Tao te ching being used to help us do - or show us how we (should?) do - philosophy?

Questions like 'is there a God?', 'is space infinite?' we can collect empirical evidence for. — Devans99

You know of empirical evidence for (or against) the existence of God? I thought the main problem with that particular question is that there's no (empirical or other) evidence at all. :chin:

I believe morality can be accounted for logically but that another discussion. IMO everything is susceptible to logical and thus scientific/philosophical investigation. — Devans99

Politics?
Music and art?
Religion and spirituality?
Katie Price (as a media phenomenon, not a person)?

We can have an abstract philosophical argument, say space is discrete, but that argument will not find general acceptance unless there is empirical evidence to back it up. This is the heart of the scientific method and philosophy must abide by it where possible in order to still be relevant. — Devans99

[My highlighting.]

But, as I think you have already pointed out, when the subject matter is thought and thinking, empirical evidence is thin on the ground. So your "where possible" seems to mean "never", or something close to it. :chin:

I think the problem is the general public have belief in the scientific method; if any philosophy does not follow the scientific method then it is regarded (by the general public) as unsound. — Devans99

So you recommend that philosophy should (must?) adopt the scientific method because public confidence in philosophy might otherwise wane? More generally, I might observe that the general public know little of the scientific method, and care even less. Science is held up as a universal yardstick of reliability and trustworthiness, but only for as long as such claims are not carefully scrutinised, as any conscientious scientist or philosopher might do. :wink:

I don't see a credible argument for adopting scientific practices within philosophy. Science may have begun as a tool sprouting from certain schools of philosophy, but it left home long ago, and has been making its own way ever since. Science and philosophy are no longer the same (if they ever where), and standards which apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other.

If philosophy was tied to the scientific method, it would not be able to investigate any aspect of human culture, for a start. Although our everyday lives are lived literally in the space-time universe, they appear to us to be lived completely immersed in human culture(s). Philosophy could not, for example, consider the morality of Islamophobia or anti-semitism if it operated by the scientific method.

↪Pattern-chaser
OK, how about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology — Devans99


That seems better! :smile: I'll read it shortly. Thanks. :up: — Pattern-chaser

Having read it, I found it to be a vague and very general examination of how philosophers do philosophy, with none of the details you might expect or hope for. Nowhere is there a list of guidelines, or anything like that. Only a general discussion of the sort of things that philosophical method might employ. Better than nothing (IMO), but not much.

Scientific method? Would we look in a cookery book to find out how to service a car engine? Would philosophical method not be more appropriate? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

From the source above:

'Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories'

In philosophy, we are light on observation and experimentation, but the rest of it sounds like the ticket... — Devans99

We're surely "light on observation and experimentation", as science explores the matter-energy universe, while we explore the world of thought and thinking. We have nothing to observe, or to experiment on (if we ignore thought experiments :smile: ).

So that leaves us with reasoning (inductive and deductive) and testing (of hypotheses and theories).

Testing is almost as difficult for us as experimentation. We have nothing to do it on! Admittedly, there are circumstances where a particular piece of philosophy could be tested, but there are many more where testing isn't possible. So testing is of limited application to philosophy.

Inductive reasoning is not clearly accepted within science, never mind outside of it. Generalising from the particular is dodgy, if not downright wrong.

From all the items in the list you offer, it seems that only deductive reasoning might apply. And even that supposition is based only on there being no obvious reasons why we shouldn't apply deductive reasoning to philosophy. :chin:

In philosophy, we are light on observation and experimentation, but the rest of it sounds like the ticket... — Devans99

On the contrary, the fit seems poor, at best. :confused:

The tried and true method of the ancients is dialogue. And that's what we have here! — NKBJ

:up: :wink:

A common view among philosophers is that philosophy is distinguished by the ways that philosophers follow in addressing philosophical questions. There is not just one method that philosophers use to answer philosophical questions. — Wikipedia on Philosophical methodology

[My underlining.]

↪Pattern-chaser
OK, how about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology — Devans99

That seems better! :smile: I'll read it shortly. Thanks. :up:

There is not on Wikipedia for it. I guess our method is based on:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/ — Devans99

Scientific method? Would we look in a cookery book to find out how to service a car engine? Would philosophical method not be more appropriate? :chin:

Yes, I found the site, and many others like it. Thanks for the link. But I look there (and elsewhere), and I can find nothing written down that describes how we should 'do' philosophy. :chin:

Here's a quote I found on Quora:

As a philosopher, I don’t believe there something unique called “philosophical inquiry.” There are only different questions that dictate different methods of investigation and they are either good methods or bad methods as defined by science, math, or logic. These standards are applicable to all investigations, not just philosophical ones. — Heidi Savage, PhD Philosophy, University of Maryland

Also, some moral intuitions are more nature than nurture. — praxis

Really? Which one(s)? :chin:

philosophy has demanding standards about the method of persuasion it prefers to use. It requires that something be persuasive for rational, logical, or otherwise evidence based reasons — VagabondSpectre

This started me thinking. What exactly is philosophy, in the sense of your words? What is it that philosophy demands of us? Is there a body of knowledge on philosophical inquiry, or on how philosophy is, or should be, practised? Is it written down anywhere? I've looked on the interweb, and surprised myself: I can't find anything along these lines. So can you, or anyone else, offer a better link than I have been able to find? Thanks. :up:

But darn... the obnoxious things always grab the attention. — 0 thru 9

Yes, and not feeding the trolls can be really difficult! :wink:

Do unicorns exist? Cuz I know what those are. Please spare me any “unicorns exist in our minds” silliness, unless you are a fool you know very well thats not what we mean. — DingoJones

Does mathematics exist? It seems to have the same existential justification: it's a human invention, which exists only in our minds.... :chin:

The "spirit" of any word isn't it's definition. — sime

:up: :rofl:

noun
▸ your attitude to life or to other people
▸ the attitude of people in a group
▸ your mood, or your attitude
▸ an enthusiastic or determined attitude
▸ the general or real meaning of something
▸ the part of a person that many people believe continues to exist after death
▸ a dead person who comes back into the world
▸ an imaginary creature with special powers
▸ a strong alcoholic drink such as whiskey or brandy
▸ alcohol used as a fuel or used by doctors for making things very clean
▸ a fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character
▸ any incorporeal supernatural being that can become visible (or audible) to human beings
▸ the vital principle or animating force within living things
▸ the general atmosphere of a place or situation and the effect that it has on people
▸ an inclination or tendency of a certain kind
▸ the state of a person's emotions (especially with regard to pleasure or dejection) ("He was in good spirits")
▸ animation and energy in action or expression
▸ the intended meaning of a communication

verb
▸to take someone or something away suddenly but without being noticed
▸infuse with spirit ("The company spirited him up") — Various online dictionaries

Dictionaries (as we have agreed, they're only a starting point) seem to support the varied meanings that spirit carries. There is clearly some overlap with "soul", but that's not the only thing we use spirit to represent, apparently. If we allow that all of the above meanings are carried by a single word, is there any benefit in considering the commonalities between them? Or the differences? Or are they just the ways in which a particular word has been/is used?

Like what can you do? — Maureen

Accept life as it is? By this I mean that much of the problems that assail you are outside your control. Those, at least, you can safely and rationally ignore, and avoid the negative emotions they bring with them. The rest of life is yours to 'deal with', as you put it. I might say instead it's yours to enjoy. It's the same thing. And if you feel lonely, there are lots of places like this on the interweb, where you can chat, and there are people in RL that you can interact with. Explore what's there, until you find what best meets your needs? Oh, and Good Luck! :up:

Hey good luck, and welcome to the club of the overwhelmed. — Bitter Crank

From me too! :smile:

What is the meaning of them and what should they do to fulfill that? This question is important since it guides everyone's everyday behavior. — Chris Liu

But what if the answer to your question is that there is no meaning or purpose in life, other than that which you bring with you, or otherwise acquire. It's all up to you? There is no guide to everyday behaviour that you can lean on.... :chin:

To me, philosophy is structured, considered, thought on anything you can think about. So the answer to your question is: anything you can't think about.

It's interesting to note that science (as described on mainstream news) has just discovered that air pollution is killing more people than smoking. It's the same thing of course: breathing polluted air. One is intentional, the other unavoidable (?), but it's all the same. Unless you can somehow avoid the air pollution associated with modern civilisation, I don't think you need to worry about one cigarette per day.

Smoke, and enjoy the beneficial effects it has on you, and on your condition. [You've got to die of something, after all.] :up: :smile:

I don't buy into any kind of mind/body dualism. The mind is a part of the body. — NKBJ

:up: And I think spirit forms part of the mind, in the context of mind/body. There is a connection, that some people find valuable, to "religious/magical mumbo jumbo" too. But I don't think it's compulsory. :smile: Not that I'm disagreeing with you: mind and body are not distinct. [The universe is not distinct, we only divide it up so that the pieces are of a size we can swallow without choking. So why would mind and body be distinct? :wink: ]

If by "objective" you actually mean "absolute" or "100% certain" knowledge, then yes. But philosophers (academic and otherwise) don't always or all insist on that narrow definition. — NKBJ

No, they don't, but they still accept the truth (and the consequences) of what that (admittedly narrow) definition refers to. All is unknown, in absolute terms; it's just a matter of degree. Everything we discuss here is, to some extent, vague and ill-defined: unknown. So it seems pointless to target one topic and say 'we can't discuss that; there are too many unknowns'. Let's just embrace the topic, and see where it leads? :chin:

I often consider spirit to be the counterpart to body. [Or maybe to body and mind?] The mental, immaterial, part of us. The really confusing and difficult-to-know-about part of us. There is mind, which we divide (why? :chin:) into conscious and unconscious, and the latter is, by definition, observation and actuality, inaccessible to our introspection. There are feelings and emotions. And there are beliefs, often arrived at by means we know not of. All of these things are difficult, all of them exist (confirmed by the observations of billions of humans), and it is this context/arena that spirit exists. So of course it's difficult to discuss.

Simple discussions, whose terms can be clearly, completely, and accurately defined, are easy. Discussions like this one are a bit more challenging. Farther away from the lifelines of definition, logic, binary thinking, certainty, and so forth, discussion requires more of us. It's easy to dismiss such things as meaningless frippery, and if you do, I can't prove you wrong. But so what?

For myself, I think I split my mental self into spirit and mind, where spirit has to do with such things as souls, spirits (to use another shade of meaning :wink:), and things that go bump in the night. So spirit follows into spiritual, which I see as a more general version of religion, but without some of the entrapping requirements and conventions. These days, few describe themselves as religious, but many describe themselves as spiritual. So spirit definitely has an aspect that resembles religion.

Indeed so. :up: But it's still an interesting topic (to me).

:smile: :up: :cheer:

The question is what anyone is "spying" that they're calling "spirit"? — Terrapin Station

:smile: Yes, it's easier with rocks. :up: In this case, our spying is not literal. Spirit - at least in some of the many meanings that the word carries (look here: OneLook) - is something we feel. It's not a physical thing we can hit with a (scientific) hammer. But it is a concept that resonates with many people. As such, it is capable of discussion, surely?

But to come back to your specific question, you're asking for a definition of "spirit", even though you've used different words. It's not that there isn't one; it's that there are many. Each of them interesting in its way, and all of them referenced by the general term "spirit" (where a poster does not see fit to narrow or clarify the dictionary definitions we start from). So, what is spirit? It's all the things here, and probably more besides. I think the intention of the OP is to examine and explore these concepts, to see where it takes us. Coming? :smile:

"Are there unknown things in the universe?"
"Very likely."
"What can we say about them?"
"They are things and they are unknown to us."
"Anything else?"
"They're.....not any of the things we do know about, and they're not not things."
"Huh."
"Yup, huh." — NKBJ

Hmm. If you consider Objective Reality (that which is), you will probably discover that we can (knowingly) have no Objective knowledge of it at all, apart from its existence. In that sense, all things are unknown and unknowable to us. The dialogue you post applies to everything we could know and therefore to everything we could discuss. And yet we've found a way to proceed. It's time philosophers caught up with the rest of humanity on this one. :up:

I, unlike you, have no problem with simply ignoring people with different sensibilities. — DingoJones

I haven't attacked you, only your approach to this topic. If you want to stop posting here, go ahead. No-one will be offended (except maybe you). :up:

This is a topic that I find interesting, and enjoyable to discuss. There are others too, who agree, and who have posted some interesting thoughts. And then there are the nit-pickers. The Objectivists and the Sciencists, disabled by binary thinking, and unable to address any topic that cannot be formally introduced into the world of science.

Instead of first contributing, I find myself addressing the spoilers, those who would prevent this discussion by attacking the topic itself. If you don't find this topic worthwhile, don't post to it. Surely, if others agree with your focussed and logical stance, the thread will fade away due to a lack of interest? If you don't want to play, just take your ball(s) and go. :up: