Ones way of thinking or consciousness is indeed "ones philosophy". You get where I was coming from though. :D — Outlander

Actually, I did. And I was content to stay there. I think you were right, philosophy is not "ones philosophy." I think (I'll carry on as though I'm sure, but I'm just projecting thoughts) the latter's use is casual, it could mean one's disposition, rules one lives by, worldview, morality, etc.

But as for what is philosophy? I hope we stay at "saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed" At least that expresses an aspect of philosophy proper. For me, at least, an impactful and "foundational" part.

Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest

I agree with that. Would you entertain this read of that? Maybe it is implied in that, I don't want to presume either way. Feel free to shift your read of what follows into metaphor if it is easier to work with.

And now my offer:
Would you agree that both so called wisdom, and its pursuit move about in the "world" projected by/within uniquely human mind(s). Any "appearance" of pursuit even, let alone uncovering/possession of Reality or Truth, is just that, a re-presentation of something (no longer) accessible (or only accessible in the being (of) it, in the present; only knowable (objects of pursuit) as representation in the moving about of time).

And how that relates to what is philosophy, is that--and now it is a metaphor--philosophy is an almost infinitely complex/layered literary analysis of what human Consciousness has and continues to project in time or History. "discern[ing] the true from the false, the good from the bad... the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given
question"

If it used to be the love of wisdom, I guess it's now the love of the analytic brain. — Noble Dust

Yah. I think you're right. But dont tell anybody, or it's over (the way I'm reading it--for what is the brain, but us?).

Knowing what philosophers do in the academic field is a first criterion to separate cheap mysticism, pseudoscience and youtubers from serious philosophy. — David Mo

I agree with you that that is what it is, and I fully agree with and cannot argue against the functionality of it.

But tragically, a thing all of humanity can turn to for clarity in a complex universe of constructed and competing Narratives, is just another closed institution. It must. I know. But is there no refuge from prejudice? No "place" where we can judge the institutions?

And if you say, that's why you have freedom of choice. You judge which philosophy is reasonable to you. Well, still I must confine myself...and If you say, you judge all philosophies, judge philosophy etc. Yes, but it is already implied, built in, I, a pseudophilisopher* am necessarily wrong.

*I am not "sulking" I'm being honest.

Philosophy is not based on authority but on the exercise of personal reason. — David Mo

Ok. But I still agree that philosophy proper must adhere to the methods and conform with at least a reasonable finding accepted by academic philosophy.

We think we're ok with personal reason, but, without judgement, I've seen personal reason attacked often for not adhering to accepted methods of academic philosophy. Is that qualifier just implied?

Philosophy is academic philosophy. The rest of us are adults playing cops and robbers. (honestly).


I honestly liked the rest of your observations. I didn't want to reiterate for each, the obvious qualifier, "within the institutional confines."

The happy note, which I can already tell you have similarly implied, is the unqualified can benefit both by reading and discussing within the confines, provided they are careful not to pass themselves off as philosophers; and, by crossing the bounds (a thing which an ordained member of the institution cannot do for risk of excommunication) and exploring things so called pseudo.

IMO, philosophy is 'reasoning to the most probative questions which we do not (yet) know how to answer' by fooloholics committed to daily recovery from foolery (and, in its manifestly harmful form, stupidity) more often than not by study of the history of philosophy, internal critique of concepts and/or dialectics.

(2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/600633

(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853311

Thoughts based on feelings about knowledge, to expand on what we already know, and to improve our self control from the wisdom of understanding how to interpret facts, fiction and their use.

Many of the definitions of philosophy in this thread are just incorrect or too narrow. Moreover, many think (mostly the general public) that philosophy is strictly something that academics do in a university setting, but philosophy is something all thinking humans do on some level.

Think about what philosophy does, i.e., the branches of philosophy (epistemology, ethics, mind, religion, logic, metaphysics, etc.), it's about analyzing beliefs and belief systems. The analysis of belief systems is about creating better systems of belief. So, in a very general way, it's about what we believe. The only question is whether we do it well.

So, in a very general way, it's about what we believe. — Sam26

Can be. Sounds too epistemological to me though.

committed to daily recovery from foolery — 180 Proof

A kind of meta-psychotherapy?

A sharpening not of the narrative(s) of the mind for improved functionality of the individual narrative in history (which might be what psychoanalysis/psychotherapy is); but, rather, a sharpening of the what of, and the way mind writes/understands its narratives, and further, the "world" thereby constructed (for improved functionality of each of the individual narrative, the narrative in history, and, ultimately, for the improved functionality of history (and all of them, also, ultimately, holistically and "globally")?

Can you give an e.g. where philosophy doesn't deal with beliefs or belief systems in some way?

That's why epistemology is so important. We like to think as philosophers that our beliefs are more than opinions, we like to think they are justified and true.

A kind of meta-psychotherapy? — ENOAH

If you say so ... sorry I can't follow the rest of your post.

So, in a very general way, it's [philosophy is] about what we believe. — Sam26

Superficially maybe. I'd rather put it this way: philosophy consists in reflective questioning of the assumptions and implications of "what we believe" (i.e. logic-grammar-dialectics preceeds epistēmē).

Superficially maybe. I'd rather put it this way: philosophy consists in reflective questioning of the assumptions and implications of "what we believe" (i.e. logic-grammar-dialectics preceeds epistēmē). — 180 Proof

It's not superficial at all. We use deductive and inductive reasoning to analyze what we believe and what others believe. What do you think logic is about? It's about reasoning to a correct conclusion. I'm checking what I believe or what others believe using logic. Making sure my assumptions (my beliefs) are properly reasoned through. If we analyze what others believe using philosophical tools, we are checking systems of belief. The dialectic is a way of analyzing beliefs.

Can you give an e.g. where philosophy doesn't deal with beliefs or belief systems in some way? — Sam26

Depends on what we mean by belief. But similar claims can be made about beings, as well. Or experience. Or thinking. Or awareness. Or meaning. I probably couldn’t give examples of where philosophy doesn’t in some way deal with any of those things either. No reason to prioritize epistemology — that seems more a choice based on tradition.

We use deductive and inductive reasoning to analyze what we believe and what others believe. — Sam26

We really don’t. Not most of the time.

The emphasis of thinking (in terms of logic), epistemology, etc — again, seems to me just a residue of tradition. Why start there? Why not start with phusis? Or what is not thought? Instinct? Habit? The unconscious.

The very idea that we walk around reasoning in a structured way, taking things in and “analyzing” beliefs— that whole story is unconvincing.

:ok: If you say so ...

I'm just espousing my beliefs. :grin:

Depends on what we mean by belief. — Mikie

Take any proposition/statement that you think is true, even if it is just an opinion lacking a strong justification or no justification. Examples are plentiful, "God exists," "God doesn't exist," "AI will destroy us," "Lying is morally wrong," "Consciousness is an illusion," etc, etc. Again, it's any proposition you think is true. Philosophy is constantly analyzing such beliefs. There may be exceptions, but this I think is generally true.

I recently purchased Chat GPT Plus (4.0) and asked it about my definition of philosophy, here is the response.

My question:

Would it be a good definition of philosophy to say that the main thrust of philosophy is the examination of beliefs, systems of belief, and potential beliefs?

ChatGPT 4.0

"Yes, that is a solid definition. The main thrust of philosophy can indeed be described as the examination of beliefs, systems of belief, and potential beliefs. This definition captures the essence of philosophical inquiry, which involves:

"Critical Examination: Analyzing and questioning the nature, validity, and implications of beliefs.

"Systematic Exploration: Investigating how individual beliefs form coherent systems and frameworks.

"Hypothetical Consideration: Exploring potential beliefs and their consequences through thought experiments and logical analysis.

"By focusing on these aspects, philosophy aims to deepen our understanding of fundamental concepts and issues, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

We're buddies now that it agreed with me. :grin:

But similar claims can be made about beings, as well. Or experience. Or thinking. Or awareness. Or meaning. I probably couldn’t give examples of where philosophy doesn’t in some way deal with any of those things either. No reason to prioritize epistemology — that seems more a choice based on tradition. — Mikie

I think the definition I gave is probably a good one.

ChatGPT 4.0

"Yes, that is a solid definition — Sam26

I guess it's inevitable. One day, perhaps in distant future generations, we'll add to our current amnesia about the nature and structure of our experiences, amnesia about the nature and structure of AI.

As for your definition of philosophy. I like it. Whats not to like? It seems uncontroversially "accurate." But it doesn't rule out variations or alternatives. And yes, most likely, no definition can.

Hence, philosophy.

I agree.

I think the definition I gave is probably a good one. — Sam26

Silly and random, but good I guess.