I created my own way of thinking just by using its dictionary term:

-The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

To start off I studied the fundamentals of how I learn.
Soon after; the fundamentals of my learning to learn require knowing how or why an answer is wrong,
then re-evaluated my own fundamental knowledge. (the useful stuff)

This knowledge of understanding why something is incorrect can lead to answering many questions to the point its just a simple puzzle, only the understanding of why something is wrong helps remove puzzle pieces that are not part of it.

When I see other peoples view on philosophy its usually to external or front facing in my view, if they can't fundamentally evaluate their own experiences/knowledge then they either cant confirm the validity of what they think philosophy is or they are prone to fault and potentially lack the awareness of bias in themselves.

Because fundamentally; philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge and if you have no philosophical approach to your own knowledge then it can lead to a philosophy based on a false premise.

philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge and if you have no philosophical approach to your own knowledge then it can lead to a philosophy based on a false premise. — Tiberiusmoon

It's equally possible to hold a rigorous philosophy based on a false premise. The conceptual space is highly speculative and contested and academic philosophers can be wrong about all kinds of things.

People use the term philosophy with cavalier imprecision. I frequently wonder what is the fault line between having a worldview and having a philosophy? What is the difference between critical thinking and philosophy?

Just holding a series of beliefs that are philosophically derived is not necessarily doing philosophy. That's more like a person who collects shiny things, like a magpie, with no real system or coherence. I hold positions on issues which sometimes conform to philosophical positions but I don't think of it as doing philosophy and I am not a theorist. At best I could say that I sometimes do philosophy by accident.

People use the term philosophy with cavalier imprecision. I frequently wonder what is the fault line between having a worldview and having a philosophy? What is the difference between critical thinking and philosophy? — Tom Storm

Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge, critical thinking is the evaluation/validation of that knowledge.
A worldview can be biased by cultural influence, a philosophical view can have an awareness of such bias if the observer has studied/learned from what causes mistakes. (A philosophical study in their own learning if you will)
See: "Allegory of the cave"

Just holding a series of beliefs that are philosophically derived is not necessarily doing philosophy. That's more like a person who collects shiny things, like a magpie, with no real system or coherence. — Tom Storm

This is an assumption without fact, you cant assume there is no system or coherence without insight to how that individuals philosophy is made/percieved. (False cause fallacy)

I hold positions on issues which sometimes conform to philosophical positions but I don't think of it as doing philosophy and I am not a theorist. At best I could say that I sometimes do philosophy by accident. — Tom Storm

Philosophy is not just theory, theory is an area of study that is outside its practical application or "Thinking outside the box".
Philosophy expands on this by re-evaluating/challenging the fundamental knowledge of that area of study to remove assumptions, biases and other things that can lead to false information. (kinda like thinking outside and inside the box; deconstructing the box and recycling it into something new.)

But in all honesty I think to many people assume philosophy is just an expression of thought rather than freedom of thought.

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life...to someone that likely disagrees, or at best, doesn't understand. An attempt to bring meaning and purpose if you will.

This is an assumption without fact, you cant assume there is no system or coherence without insight to how that individuals philosophy is made/percieved. (False cause fallacy) — Tiberiusmoon

That's true - it is not necessarily the case, but I believe it to be mostly true. It's certainly true for me.

Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge, critical thinking is the evaluation/validation of that knowledge. — Tiberiusmoon

That's pretty loose. When people are doing philosophy on this site is is generally reading and understanding other's discoveries and applying, or misapplying them - but not making any discoveries of their own. I would also think that people can do incisive critical thinking without any knowledge of philosophy.

Philosophy is not just theory, theory is an area of study that is outside its practical application — Tiberiusmoon

Yep. That's why I listed them as separate things.

But in all honesty I think to many people assume philosophy is just an expression of thought — Tiberiusmoon

Yes, this is my main point. In fact, see below:

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life. — Book273

I call that opinions or views, not philosophy. People use the world philosophy in a non-specialised sense all the time, but having a worldview is not necessarily having a philosophy, even if there are tiny speckles of philosophy in there, like fools gold glittering in a broken rock.

Existence seems a more primordial concept, then, and something out of which all other human activities emerge — Xtrix

Agreed, and is an extension of Kant's argument by which Descartes’ thesis is deemed “problematic idealism”, in which “existence” as a predicate is at least redundant, hence gives no support to the subject. From this, and if “I think” is given, then “I am” is also given immediately from it. The only reason “I” am is because “I” think, so there is no need for “I am” iff “I think”.

But in Descartes’ time, the “I” that thinks was not given, and had to be proved as a valid conceptual presence, yet separate and distinct from the material realm of things of sense. So, yes, existence is a much more primordial concept.....in fact, it is its own category, given necessarily a priori in human cognition....but Descartes, even if he knew of Aristotelian categories, still needed to prove the existence of a certain thing. In hindsight, we tend to attribute to Descartes a mistake, but in his time, he didn’t commit one.

Whatever possessed you to revive this, a year after its demise? Always an interesting topic, but still....

Addendum:
Scrolling back to gather groundwork, I see it is your thread. Which serves as the best reason there is for reviving it. My bad....sorry.

I would also think that people can do incisive critical thinking without any knowledge of philosophy. — Tom Storm

True, its one of those things where philosophical methodology and methodology of learning meet because its in the same field, the various points or similarities of other/known methods help solidify a philosophical or academic validity.

That's perfectly fine too. We just happen to get stuck on certain questions.

In an if-then relationship, the antecedent is sufficient for the consequent, and the consequent is necessary for the antecedent. So when one says "if I am conscious then I exist" (implied by saying "I am conscious therefore I exist"), one is saying that existence is necessary for consciousness. If you were to reverse it, and say "I exist therefore I am conscious", you would be saying that consciousness is necessary for existence, and that existence is sufficient for consciousness, i.e. that everything that exists necessarily must ("first") be conscious. Which seems the opposite of what you're aiming for, and what Descartes was saying, i.e. that everything that is conscious necessarily must ("first") exist. — Pfhorrest

That's certainly what I'm trying to avoid, yes. If we take Descartes to mean by "If I am consciously aware, then I exist" that we likewise exist even when we're not conscious, then that's fine. But the emphasis was placed on consciousness, not on unconsciousness, and it's precisely in unconsciousness where we live the majority of our lives. So I still view this as unfortunate. By saying "If I exist, then I have the possibility to think," we're shifting emphasis. Now we want to ask "What is it like to exist as a human being?" rather than "What is thought/consciousness?"

Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge — Tiberiusmoon

Well many great minds agree with you. It just rings hollow for me. The influence of epistemology/science and the problems therein (how do we know we know, etc) seems obvious.

When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not?

Whatever possessed you to revive this, a year after its demise? Always an interesting topic, but still....

Addendum:
Scrolling back to gather groundwork, I see it is your thread. Which serves as the best reason there is for reviving it. My bad....sorry. — Mww

:grin: Excellent question, though. I clicked on "discussions" I had created and noticed I failed to respond to you last year, and given it was an interesting reply I felt compelled to do it. Better late than never.

:up:

Philosophy is the development of self-aware thought and it's communication; with the presupposition that logical continuity validates an idea. Or an El Dorado like search for truth with an emotional purpose.

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life. — Book273

Philosophy is the development of self-aware thought and it's communication — Cheshire

What about: philosophy is a word we give to a kind of thinking distinguished by the questions being asked. Those questions are perennial ones, showing up in all ancient writings -- what is life, death, a human being, existence, love, justice, meaning, happiness, "goodness," etc.

I feel like this is broad enough a definition to include a lot of what's being said here.

What about: philosophy is a word we give to a kind of thinking distinguished by the questions being asked. Those questions are perennial ones, showing up in all ancient writings -- what is life, death, a human being, existence, love, justice, meaning, happiness, "goodness," etc. — Xtrix

This would better fit the second half of my definition.

Or an El Dorado like search for truth with an emotional purpose. — Cheshire

When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not? — Xtrix

Logically speaking; questions are the fundamental knowledge of answers pieced together with logic and context, because a question will tell you more about the subject than the answer.

When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not?
— Xtrix

Logically speaking; questions are the fundamental knowledge of answers pieced together with logic and context, because a question will tell you more about the subject than the answer. — Tiberiusmoon

Questions are fundamental answers? Maybe examples would help here, because this simply looks incoherent to me.

When we ask "What is justice?" -- this indeed presupposes that we have some idea about what we're referring to. Or "What is a tree?" But to say questions and answers are the same thing "pieced together" somehow by "logic and context" is basically meaningless. We have questions, and we don't always have answers to those questions. Sometimes that's because the questions are incoherent, sometimes because we don't have enough information or experience, etc.

When we ask very basic questions of life, we're "doing" philosophy. When we contemplate the answers to questions, we're doing philosophy. When we're thinking about lunch, we're not doing philosophy. Philosophy is essentially ontology -- we think about being and the being of various beings.

This is arguable, but as close to a definition as I can see. The rest seems "privative."

Okay so what answer tells you more about multiplication?
=12 =12

We have questions, and we don't always have answers to those questions. Sometimes that's because the questions are incoherent, sometimes because we don't have enough information or experience, etc. — Xtrix

As you just said, that information is required of the question itself, the answer is the outcome of logic piecing it together like a puzzle.

The fundamental knowledge of a answer is the question because that is what makes the question.

And when it came to letters, Theuth said, “this invention, oh king, will make the Egyptians wiser and improve their memory. For I have discovered a stimulant (pharmakon) of both memory and wisdom.” But Thamus replied, “oh most crafty Theuth, one man has the lot of being able to give birth to technologies (ta tekhnēs), but another to assess both the harm and benefit to those who would make use of them. Even you, at present, being the father of letters, through good intentions spoke the opposite of its potential. For this, by the neglect of memory, will produce forgetfulness (lēthēn) in the souls of those who learn it, since through their faith in writing they recollect things externally by means of another’s etchings, and not internally from within themselves. You invented a stimulant not of memory, but of reminder, and you are procuring for its students the reputation (doxan) of wisdom (sophias), not the truth (alētheian) of it. For having heard much, but without learning anything, they will seem to you to be knowledgeable of many things, but for the most part really ignorant, and difficult to associate with, having become wise-seeming (doxosophoi) instead of wise (sophōn).”

Okay so what answer tells you more about multiplication?
=12 =12 — Tiberiusmoon

Neither tells you anything about multiplication.

As you just said, that information is required of the question itself, the answer is the outcome of logic piecing it together like a puzzle.

The fundamental knowledge of a answer is the question because that is what makes the question. — Tiberiusmoon

I have no idea what "fundamental knowledge of a[n] answer" means. I really can't make heads or tails of what you're talking about here. I think it's yet another example of Forum word salad.

"The answer is the question because that is what makes the question."

What makes the question? The question. Which is the answer.

If anyone else understands this, I salute you.

So wouldn't you need fundamental information/context in order to answer it?

But a question has no answer at the beginning, the answer is the sum of the question not the other way round, don't you see?

So wouldn't you need fundamental information/context in order to answer it?

But a question has no answer at the beginning, the answer is the sum of the question not the other way round, don't you see? — Tiberiusmoon

Yes, I see that you're a complete buffoon -- and you're boring me. Bye.

Congratz you've resorted to a Ad hominem fallacy.
Bye.

Congratz you've resorted to a Ad hominem fallacy. — Tiberiusmoon

It's "congrats," not "congratz." Also, it's "an ad hominem," not "a ad hominem."

Add "learning how to write" on your to-do list before spewing incoherent bullshit..

All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.
— An old gringo...
Philosophy is the struggle against stupidity (i.e. the problematique of maladaptive 1:1 identity - confusion - of the ideal (maps, words/metrics) with the real (territory, facts-of-the-matter) :point: 'essence = existence'). Insofar as it can be discerned (or conceived of as a 'criterion of judgment'), the real is defined by a process of eliminating - negating - 'ideals' (necessary fictions, impossible worlds/objects, "realer" reals ... :point: members of the empty set).

What is your aim in philosophy? – To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.
— Witty, PI §309
Against stupidity philosophers (i.e. sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' and/or 'dialectical rodeo-clowns') struggle in vain. Even "the gods" are too bored for that! — 180 Proof

:fire: :fire: :fire:

An oldie but goodie.

From Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Lt. Commander Leonard McCoy: Spock, wake up, damn it!

Spock: I am entirely conscious, Doctor. I'm simply contemplating the nature of mortality.

Lt. Commander Leonard McCoy: Feeling philosophical, huh? Massive blood loss will do that to you.

An oldie but goodie. — 180 Proof

:up:

"Philosophy is thinking about thinking." - A. Quinton ??

Dammit, Spock! I'm a doctor, not a metaphysician! :nerd: