Indeed, philosophy requires sophistry as a contrast. — Mariner

Yes indeedy. As I said, we can see the difference in arguing for a belief and arguing to a belief. It is not as hard as you make out.

I could give an answer of my own to this problem, but the core of philosophy involves finding one's own answer and, as it were, picking sides between philosophers and sophists. — Mariner

That is the mistake. You say it is all about the personal when it is about the collective. Academia can promote individual intellectual freedom because there is then the collective judgement of the communal mind.

You are promoting a romantic individual journey of discovery, but the core to philosophical method is that arguments get made and people remember those that seem the most worth considering. Just think of the way Plato and Aristotle spent so much time analysing what others had said.

I could give an answer of my own to this problem, but the core of philosophy involves finding one's own answer and, as it were, picking sides between philosophers and sophists. — Mariner

So to avoid sophistry, you don't, I see. I have my own answer to that!

Would Protagoras be a philosopher if he did not charge good fees for his lessons? — Mariner

Sophistry is basically the impartment of knowledge, the sophists are the sellers, the followers, the clients and knowledge, the product so it makes sense to charge for the exchange. But isn't knowledge the product of philosophy as well? I suppose so but what about the followers and the philosophers? Does philosophy even involve profit? Well, isn't that a common question! It seems to me that a philosopher treats others as both the means and the end, using their ideas to make the product, knowledge, then sharing that with others in order for them to do the same in return, advancing understanding through a continuous feedback loop. So I guess ideas are both currency and raw materials in philosophy and the product is a collection of ideas that passed logical scrutiny in the process, followers / others, both clients and contributors and the philosophers, both managers and not sellers but sharers. The profit would be a better understanding of the world.


Edited: As for the methodology of philosophy, first you need to pinpoint an uncertainty while reflecting, then in order to explain it, to derive a thesis from facts and certainties through logic and association, next to search for confirmation based on related definitions, after that to form or reform (through clarification or rectification) a definition of your own based on the conclusion you arrived at and finally to check it and if uncertain, to rinse and repeat.
(analyze, recognize, interpret and accept)

As for the nature of philosophy, I see it this way:
Mystics distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical and search for a way to transcend the physical in order to become one with the metaphysical.
The religious separate the two and search for their in-between link in order to interact with the metaphysical.
Philosophers recognize their interdependency and search for a way to reconcile them in order to define the world.

Philosophy is an explanation. Philosophy provided answers to questions and problems. It also presents problems and questions. It is a systematic (hopefully) inquiry into the nature of things. Philosophy try’s to sort “things” out. Philosophy is the first science. All other sciences and methods of inquiry come from philosophy. When humans first began to talk – they employed philosophy. Philosophy is the vehicle we ride to a destination.

Philosophy is an explanation. — woodart

I always took it for more of an exploration of the possibilities and an exercise in rigor and honesty rather than a search for truth.

I like your twist – perhaps we could say – an exploration of explanations. Or explanation of explorations.

You are promoting a romantic individual journey of discovery, but the core to philosophical method is that arguments get made and people remember those that seem the most worth considering. Just think of the way Plato and Aristotle spent so much time analysing what others had said. — apokrisis

There is no contradiction, or even opposition, between a "romantic journey of discovery" and "people remember those [arguments] that seem the most worth considering". The "people" who do the remembering are those who embark in the romantic journey of discovery. This is why we read more Plato than Protagoras -- because Plato relates much more to who we are and to our own journeys.

Mystics distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical and search for a way to transcend the physical in order to become one with the metaphysical.
The religious separate the two and search for their in-between link in order to interact with the metaphysical.
Philosophers recognize their interdependency and search for a way to reconcile them in order to define the world. — Noblosh

And some of them even find it :D. Surely, after a romantic journey of discovery.

Why are you suggesting I said there was an opposition or a contradiction? My point was that there is a filtering or constraint that is core to the method.

Why are you suggesting I said there was an opposition or a contradiction? My point was that there is a filtering or constraint that is core to the method. — apokrisis

It is "core" for those who embarked on the romantic journey of discovery, not otherwise.

But our disagreement seems to be one of emphasis.

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves. Because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all that because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good." Bertrand Russell

I mostly agree with ole Bertrand. I think we can also use philosophy for entertainment - even in a frivolous absurd way.

I mostly agree with ole Bertrand. I think we can also use philosophy for entertainment - even in a frivolous absurd way.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

Here's my opinion. The rules of philosophy, those that make it useful, are the rules of reason. Are they strict? They are unavoidable. If you don't follow the rules, philosophy doesn't work.

[1] Clarity. There's a quote I read somewhere that I haven't been able to find again. It goes something like "Clarity is so important to the application of reason that it is often mistaken for truth." The primary value of philosophy is it's ability to lay out questions in a way that we can see and agree on what we are talking about even if we can't agree on what it means. Explicitly identify assumptions, definitions. Minimize jargon. The truth can be expressed in language that every reasonably intelligent person can understand.

[2] Honesty. The point isn't to win the argument, it's to find the truth. Actually, it's more complicated than that, but it will do for now.

[3] Civility. There are rules of procedure. Show respect. Don't attack people. Everyone gets their turn. Listen honestly to what the other person is saying and try to understand, even if you don't agree.

[4] Evidence. Support your statements. Provide references, observations, deductions, studies, reasons, sources. All evidence is open for examination and refutation.

[5]Everything is open for examination if relevant. Facts, opinions, values, rhetorical methods, philosophical methods, validity of evidence, deduction, induction, deepest held principles, dearest beliefs. As I said, if relevant.

I'll think of more.

I arrived late at this party but let me share some info important for this set of questions.

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines?
-Philosophy is just the label we put on an intellectual endeavor with a specific goal (come up with wise claims or questions about our world that can help us expand our understanding and knowledge). Sure philosophy does have principles but unfortunately they are ignored by the majorly of those who practice "philosophy". We can expand on that if you are interested.

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy?
-That is not something that I can confirm. Most of people are not aware of the basic Methodology of Philosophy(Aristotle's basic steps) and I have not heard about a position arguing against it.


3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview?
-It depends on the aspect of the word you are referring to.
1. Philosophy as an Academic Establishment? No
2. Philosophy as a general filed of study under the doctrine of "free inquiry"? No
3. Philosophy as a defined Methodology and in relation to its goal(wisdom and knowledge) defined by its etymology ? Yes.

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines?
2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy?
3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

My opinion:
1. Kind of. It pretends to logic but logic can defeat itself unless there is a "gentlemen's agreement" to ignore it.
2. Yes. And they are all right and wrong.
3. The latter.