I've studied dozens of thinkers and philosophies, but primarily from an intellectual perspective, not so much a wisdom perspective. — Bret Bernhoft

What do you think is the difference?

It sure would be interesting to involve biofeedback with philosophical training. — Bret Bernhoft

Please say more. I have no knowledge of biofeedback.

Perhaps philosophy (for me) is primarily an exercise in different thinking patterns. — Bret Bernhoft

I thought philosophy was about ideas. What are thinking patterns? Are you talking about habitual patterns of approaching life/problems that might require... adjustment?

I doubt this distinction is precisely accurate but is may be vaguely useful?
Philosophy: Abstract speculation, with an emphasis on not contradicting axiomatic intuitions.
Science: Concrete speculation, with an emphasis on not contradicting sense experience.

That I like. I might have used axiomatic principles, but I didn’t come up with it, so.....

thanks.
I think it sounds better: an emphasis on not contradicting axiomatic principles.

Another experiment:
Science: Examining reality
Philosophy: Examining thought.
Spirituality: Examining the examiner

Another experiment:
Science: Examining reality
Philosophy: Examining thought.
Spirituality: Examining the examiner — Yohan

Science: Examining intersubjectivity
Philosophy: Examining beliefs
Spirituality: Examining the unexaminable

Maybe intersubjective reality? Pretty nifty

Indeed - I think I could provide different answers ever few days. Lots of things fit.

I've been touched by phenomenology recently and am curious about it.

:up:

Absolutely.

In a trivial sense, philosophy is the mother of the sciences. Which is true, out of philosophy came physics, biology, chemistry and everything else. Needless to say Leibniz knew physics quite well for his day, Schopenhauer wasn't horrible in biology and Priestley, who discovered oxygen, contributed a lot to metaphysics, though his work is criminally neglected.

Those are just the names that I came up with now, I'm sure you can think of many other examples. So in a traceable sense, philosophy is the most successful of all fields of enquiry.

But as "science" got its name from Whewell and was developed by others, philosophy at around the mid-18th century pretty much got left with the very hard questions.

It's a bit of a contingency that the name "philosophy" is now associated with "unanswerable questions", as these questions were very much what interested many of the classical scientists.

But to be fair, philosophers still contribute to linguistics, neuroscience and psychology. So there's still overlap.

Maybe ...

Philosophy: examining (conceptual) assumptions and proposing (speculative) interpretations of reality-in-the-most-general-sense.

Science: researching, observing and explaining (experimental theories of) transformations of aspects of nature.

Art: exploring abstract / narrative forms (images) and proficiently executing representative examples of heightened experiences (symbols).

Religion: communally reenacting defenses of the indefensible (rituals) customarily rationalized by believing the unbelievable (myths).

NB: "Spirituality", I think, falls liminally between religion and art (defined above) as a subjective, or wholly solitary, encounter with – (oceanic?) presence of – an ineffable mystery (Buber, Laozi) or feeling of safety (Witty). "The spirit" – Numinous? Dao? Thou? Brahman? Sunyata / Void (of "swirling atoms")? Natura naturans? Music ("expression of the will")? I don't know; only the last actually moves me to ecstasy (ek-stasis), though usually when I least expect it. Anyway, I exclude "spirituality" from my others sketches, however, because it is, IMO, a passive "experience" (most often, in most cases, one is struck by "the spirit") whereas philosophy, science, art & religion are only ever active endeavors, or practices.

Nice work. There's something august and poetic about your definitions of philosophy and science and, perhaps, if you don't mind me saying, a retributive tone when you get to religion.

Do you have a way of accounting for the numinous?

Anyway, I exclude "spirituality" from my others sketches, however, because it is, IMO, a passive "experience" (most of often, in most cases, one is struck by "spirit") whereas philosophy, science, art & religion are only ever active endeavors, or practices. — 180 Proof

I've not thought of it this way before but I find this useful. I've often viewed spirituality as being a more needful experience. I can't think of a better word.

How does one intentionally participate in philosophical dialogue? — Bret Bernhoft

When you are not satisfied by previous statements and ask that the conversation happen on your terms.
That presumes some familiarity with the matter as commonly discussed but a dissatisfaction at the same time.

It is a very old thing.

... ask that the conversation happen on your terms. — Valentinus

Is it always 'your terms'?

Is it always 'your terms'? — Tom Storm

Maybe not. But how will you tell the difference? We only have our experience of ourselves to go on.

So the idea of personal verification is spoken more from a position of poverty than some kind of vision of triumph.

I was thinking more about renegotiating a shared conversation that may not just be 'your terms' but a greater focus on 'our terms'. If that makes sense. But yes, of course it is you asking for an 'enhanced' approach.

What is philosophy?

At its worst philosophy is the overestimation of the power of language, manifesting in form of rhetoric concerned with creating certainty in symbols and doubt in the world. At its best it tries to settle matters of justice and conduct.

I did not mean to say that living with "ones own terms" excluded what is shared amongst us.
As the only one you know who can observe what you know, the privacy is not an argument for or against any way to explain the world.

What is philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

This is a really good question. As philosophy has so many shades, this list surely is to be continued:

- The preoccupation with the world without knowing what one is talking about
- The expression of such abysmal boredom that she has to invent her own subject
- The only sience not good for /anything/
- The exploration of possibilities that get never relevant
- The honest search for the nature of absolutely nothing

Recently came across this definition by Merleau-Ponty

‘Philosophy is not a particular body of knowledge; it is the vigilance which does not let us forget the source of all knowledge’.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, in terms of defining what philosophy is; it's perennial. As that's at least one quintessential word to use if investigating the "source of all knowledge". This might then be similar to the pursuits of both Ancient and Modern Mystery Traditions.

Yes. The other interpretation for 'source of all knowledge' is the recognition that human knowledge is fallible, tentative and piecemeal - it's sources a mix of subjective, experiential and observational inputs. Remembering or ascertaining just how you think you know something is the work, it seems to me.

:up:

That's a pretty good sketch.

Thanks.

Scientific speculation is when two physicists discuss entanglement. This becomes philosophy when
one of them mentions Kant.

Well, that's true. On the other hand, it is a legitimate question to ask, does physics touch the noumena? In other words, does physics tell us about the world "in itself"? Perhaps. Our knowledge of physics has advanced drastically since Kant.

But Russell, who knew physics and mathematics very well, stated that physics tells us about the structural properties of the world, leaving the intrinsic nature of atoms (and quarks, fields, etc.) unknown.

But, point taken.

Slainte! :yum:

A philosopher is someone who talks against talking nonsense and often to such an extreme – sometimes saying can only shown, not said – that s/he talks even more nonsense.

Who said that?

In my view, and I am the first to admit that this is not the only way to look at what philosophy is, is that philosophy is pre-science.

Philosophy is theory; drawing up theories based on evidence, but with less proof than what science needs to verify an event as science-discovered.

The theory of relativity is a perfect example. Einstein started with an assumption that the speed of light is the maximum attainable speed in the world. He then manipulated theoretical knowledge to describe the nature of matter as it approaches the speed of light. He was purely theorizing, and his theory involved math. He pointed at what could show that his theory is true, but he did not find this evidence. Other people found physical evidence that could neatly be explained by the Relativity theory. That's when his theory became science, scientific knowledge.

Another example would be the allegory of images on cave walls by Plato/Socrates in the Republic. The images and the conclusions drawn from the phenomena lead Socrates create the ideas of Forms and Ideals, things that are perfect, never change, last forever, and EXIST. This has not been shown to be a scientific fact, but Socrates pointed at the proof: we simply must discover the existing Forms.

The Relativity theory is science, but it started as philosophy. The theory of Ideals and Forms are philosophy, waiting to become science.

-------------------------

Philosophy deals mainly or only in subjects that can not be scientifically decided. One branch is tautologies: math, logic. The other branch applies to phenomena in our physical world, and it is what pre-science is. Theories that may be true, but no additional evidence exists to make them true aside from the original assumptions or premises the theory is based on. For instance, the existence of a creator, omniscient god. The theory is infallible; God created the world, and he knows all that happens there. That's the entire theory of a creator god. It is true, inasmuch it can't be proven wrong. But no additional evidence exists that was discovered after the theory had been created, such as "you will see Jesus return and judge all souls, living and dead." God belief is a very neat and compact theory, it is believable, but it is faith-based because it can't be shown yet that it is scientific.

-------------------------

Other unsolvable questions exist in philosophy: the classic ones deal with beauty, morals, and other elusive things, that can't be decided by logic or by evidence one way or another. What is beautiful to one person may be not to another; and neither is wrong or right, yet both will agree that beauty exist. So then what is beauty? The debate rages on.

-------------------------

One unsolvable question was "what is ethics, what makes an action moral or immoral or amoral." This question has been solved, in a philosophical manner, which unifies the ethics field and creates a useful tool to explain it; however, it is still not science, hard evidence has not been found to show it is true, outside the realm of thoughts, observations and experiments that have helped create the ethics-solving theory.

This theory may or may not be true, but I haven't read yet a refuting theory against which it can't be defended using arguments. In other words, no valid criticism exists in response to it.

The text of the theory can be found in two links on this website. One link is a long-hand explanation, with some repetition and some explanations that are too detailed to the trained philosophers' eyes; the other link points at a skeletonized description of ethics, in a very short but idea-dense text.

The long text can be found here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

The short, idea-rich text which is void of detailed explanation and of examples, can be found here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

I've often viewed spirituality as being a more needful experience. — Tom Storm

I agree; being so "needful", in fact, I think "the spirit" motivates – the muses move – people to philosophize, empirically research and conjecture, create and perform works of art, or worship mysteries (with/without magic aka "sacrifice (i.e. make sacred) in the name of ...") This "needful experience" corresponds to Kierkegaard's angst (dread) in my mind; or maybe Jaspers' transcendence (encompassing), or Zapffe's absurd (tragically overdeveloped brain).

In short I would define philosophy as the investigation of human thought, reason, interaction, understanding and experience.

'Investigation' here could mean a variety of things including inner thought, logical analysis and/or scholarly/historical work on philosophers/philosophies.

What makes something 'philosophical' depends upon the context the term is used in. Colloquially we use this to mean something like an ethic or moral code, or a practical way of dealing with day-to-day problems (as in 'My philosophy of life is ...').

In other respects I think it is better to view something philosophical as being more about the 'what' question whereas something scientific would look more at the 'how' question. This is not to say these don't sometimes overlap and feed off of each other.

But Russell, who knew physics and mathematics very well, stated that physics tells us about the structural properties of the world, leaving the intrinsic nature of atoms (and quarks, fields, etc.) unknown. — Manuel

Philosophy is the battle against "intrinsic natures", that are the hypostatized progeny of the scientific and commonsense inquiry into extrinsic natures. Philosophy, is, in other words both descriptive and corrective.

Apart from that it's thinking how best to live, and examining one's life to see just where the failures lie.

Apart from that it's just finkin; for finkin's sake, otherwise known as conceptual art, or mental masturbation.

Everything to some people, nothing to others and somewhere in between to the wise.

I could go on: but should I ?