I meant to say philosophy is about more than just reason. — Judaka

I agree, but reason is indispensable to it. The problem is that today, 'reason' is simply assumed to be 'scientific reason', and scientific reason, in turn, relies on a method which is chiefly concerned with facts that can be validated by empirical (i.e. sensory) observation. IN other words, only what can be quantized is taken seriously. Whereas classical philosophy asked why the world was rational, what is the nature of the order, which assumed a teleological view, that the world existed for a reason. But

"Why we exist" - you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question. — Richard Dawkins

What happened in the transition to modernity, was precisely the bracketing out of 'why' in any sense other than the instrumental. in other words, of Aristotle's 'four causes', only two were retained, namely the material and efficient cause. The very idea of being a 'final cause' - which is 'the reason for' - is part of what was lost in the transition from medieval cosmology. (Although it is interesting that in biology at least there is something of a revival of Aristotelianism.)

I am not really sure, I think reason is reason even if it's not called reason. So, of course people still use reason outside of circumstances where empirical observation is applicable. Morality, politics and so on. No? Philosophy also, is philosophy, regardless of whether people call it by another name.

I'm saying modernity still relies on reason, but it often narrows its scope to what is measurable, what can be represented in scientific terms. Whereas in pre-modern times, the concept of 'reason' was much broader, and, we would now say, more mystical.

For many classical philosophers, nature was understood teleologically, meaning that every type of thing had a definitive purpose which fit within a natural order that was itself understood to have aims. Perhaps starting with Pythagoras or Heraclitus, the cosmos is even said to have reason. Reason, by this account, is not just one characteristic that humans happen to have, and that influences happiness amongst other characteristics. Reason was considered of higher stature than other characteristics of human nature, such as sociability, because it is something humans share with nature itself, linking an apparently immortal part of the human mind with the divine order of the cosmos itself. Within the human mind or soul (psyche), reason was described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over the other parts, such as spiritedness (thumos) and the passions. Aristotle, Plato's student, defined human beings as rational animals, emphasizing reason as a characteristic of human nature. He defined the highest human happiness or well being (eudaimonia) as a life which is lived consistently, excellently and completely in accordance with reason. — Wikipedia, entry on Reason

I think it's safe to say that this conception of reason is considered outmoded (although it is defended by Catholic neo-thomist philosophers). But nowadays 'reason' is usually understood in terms an evolved adaptation or as somehome subjective in nature. Certainly the notion that the Universe is 'animated' by reason, or that reason is real in any objective sense, is disputed by many modern and post-modern philosophers.

One good contemporary book on this is Thomas Nagel's The Last Word.

Most of that wiki is idealism, narratives which emphasise the preferences of those philosophers. Perhaps it is indispensable to a form of philosophy but not philosophy in general, such a view only excludes certain types of philosophies a status. Seems like you are just stating your preferences.

Seems like you are just stating your preferences. — Judaka

No, I think I'm saying something about the subject. A lot of people here just make stuff up, you're free to do that of course.

I disagree, philosophy is not about reason and this fixation on reason causes people to misunderstand themselves. — Judaka

Philosophy is not only about reason, but it uses reason. What other tool can you use to investigate philosophical problems? Faith, desire, experiment, irrationality...?


The concept of philosophy is very vague but philosophy is not what you want. A rough method to understand what philosophy can be:

-Differentiate philosophy from other branches of thought. -Why is philosophy not science? Why is philosophy not religion? Why is philosophy not myth?
Some conclusions: Philosophy does not do experiments. Philosophy does not cling to dogmas or faith. Philosophy is not narrative.
- Come and see what philosophers do at the university. They debate on the basis of rational arguments. Whether you think they're good or bad, that's another issue.

First conclusion: Philosophy is based on reason and its main tool is the contrast of arguments. What kind of reason?


This is an important question, although it is not easy. It is important to get rid of a plethora of mystics and gurus who try to legitimize their irrationality by claiming to be philosophers. No, they are not.

Differentiate philosophy from other branches of thought. -Why is philosophy not science? Why is philosophy not religion? Why is philosophy not myth? — David Mo

...no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else.

Philosophy is not Religion
The first line of demarcation is between philosophy and religion, which also claims to hold answers to all of those big questions. I would draw the demarcation between them along the line dividing faith and reason, with religions appealing to faith for their answers to these questions, and philosophies attempting to argue for them with reasons. While it is a contentious position within the field of philosophy to conclude that it is never warranted to appeal to faith, it is nevertheless generally accepted that philosophy as an activity characteristically differs from religion as an activity by not appealing to faith to support philosophical positions themselves, even if one of those positions should turn out to be that appeals to faith are sometimes acceptable. The very first philosopher recognized in western history, Thales, is noted for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world, instead practicing a primitive precursor to what would eventually become science, appealing to observable phenomena as evidence for his attempted explanations.

Philosophy is not Sophistry
Despite turning to argumentation to establish its answers, philosophy is not some relativistic endeavor wherein there are held to be no actually correct answers, only winning and losing arguments. While there are those within philosophy who contentiously advocate for relativism about various topics, philosophy as an activity is characteristically conducted in a manner seeking out answers that are genuinely correct, not merely seeking to win an argument. Though the historical accuracy is disputed, a founding story of the classical era of philosophy ushered in by Socrates, at least as recounted by his student Plato, is that philosophers like them were to be distinguished from the prevailing practitioners of reasoned argumentation of their time, the Sophists, who on Plato's account were precisely such relativists uninterested in genuine truth, only in winning. It is from that account that the contemporary use of the word "sophistry" derives, meaning wise-sounding but secretly manipulative or deceptive argumentation, aimed more at winning than at finding the truth. And whether or not the historical Sophists actually practiced such argumentation, philosophy since the time of Socrates has defined itself in opposition to that.

Philosophy is not Science
What we today call "science" was once considered a sub-field of philosophy, "natural philosophy". This had been the case for thousands of years since at least the time of Aristotle, such that even Issac Newton's seminal work on physics, often considered the capstone of the Scientific Revolution, was titled "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". But increasingly since then, what was once considered a sub-field of philosophy is now considered separate from it. What remains still as philosophy is demarcated from science in that while philosophy relies only upon reason or evidence to reach its conclusions, rather than appeals to faith, as an activity it does not appeal to empirical observation either, even though within philosophy one may conclude that empirical observation is the correct way to reach conclusions about reality. It is precisely when one transitions from using empirical observation to support some conclusion, to reasoning about why or whether something like empirical observation (or faith, or so on) is the correct thing to appeal to at all, that one transitions from doing science to doing philosophy.

Philosophy is not Ethics
One may be tempted to conclude that this means philosophy is entirely about prescriptive matters, rather than descriptive ones; that philosophy is all about using reason alone, without appeals to faith, to reach conclusions not about what is or isn't real, but about what one ought or ought not do, or broadly speaking, about morality. In other words, that philosophy is equivalent to the field of ethics. But as described just previously, philosophy does treat other topics concerning not just morality but also reality, at least the topics of how to go about an investigation of what is real. And while ethics is currently considered soundly within the field of philosophy, I contend that it properly should not be, for I hold that there are analogues to the physical sciences, what we might call the ethical sciences, that I consider to be outside the domain of philosophy, in that they appeal to specific, contingent hedonic experiences in the same way the physical sciences appeal to specific, contingent empirical experiences. I hold that philosophy bears the same kind of relation to both the physical and the ethical sciences, providing the justification for each to appeal to their respective kinds of a posteriori experiences, while never itself appealing to either of them, instead dealing entirely with a priori reasoning.

Philosophy is not Math
That in turn may raise the question of how philosophy is to be demarcated from mathematics, which also deals entirely with a priori logical reasoning without any appeal to a posteriori experience. Indeed in some ancient philosophy, such as that of Pythagoras, mathematics and philosophy bleed together in much the same way that what we now consider the separate field of science once did with philosophy as well. But today there is a clear distinction between them, in that while philosophy and mathematics share much in common in their application of logic, they differ in that mathematical proofs merely show that if certain axioms or definitions are taken as true, then certain conclusions follow, while philosophy both does that and asserts the truth of some axioms or definitions. So while mathematics says things of the form "if [premise] then [conclusion]", philosophy says things of the form "[premise], therefore [conclusion]". Mathematics explores the abstract relations of ideas to each other without concern for the applicability of any of those ideas to any more practical matters (although applications for them are nevertheless frequently found), but philosophy is directly concerned with the practical application of the abstractions it deals with. It is not enough to merely define axiomatically some concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, and validly expound upon the implications of that concept; it also matters if that is the correct, practically applicable concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, that is useful for the purposes to which we want to employ that concept.

Philosophy is not Art
Similarly, philosophy has many similarities to the arts, broadly construed as communicative works presented so as to evoke some reaction in some audience. Philosophy is likewise an evocative, more specifically persuasive, discipline, employing not just logic, as with mathematics above, but also rhetoric, to convince its audience to accept some ideas. But philosophy is not simply a genre of literature. Whereas works of literature, like all works of art, are not the kinds of things that are capable of being correct or incorrect, in the way that scientific theories are, but rather they are only effective or ineffective at evoking their intended reactions, with works of philosophy correctness matters. It is not enough that a philosophical theory be beautiful or intriguing; a philosopher aims for their theories to be right.

@A Seagull :up: Far too many think philosophy Is deferring to famous writers.
And on TPF deferring to "science".
Standards of proof and certain concepts have become so dogmatic as to render many discussions as basically appeals to authority.
This style relies on axioms which are not self evident!
I see the same dogmatism and pedantry as that of conservative religious discourse.
To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both.
Poets and novelists are much closer to philosophy than this linguistic sophistry.
Phenomenology plus linguistic Inferences is philosophy.
The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective.
Finally,we must recognise the prevalence of lying and political agendas in the majority of "classical" philosophers. It's like the idols are still dancing with their clay feet to their emotionally insecure devotees.
Most of TPF philosophy is emotional therapy for insecurity.

To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both.
Poets and novelists are much closer to philosophy than this linguistic sophistry.
Phenomenology plus linguistic Inferences is philosophy.
The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective.
Finally,we must recognise the prevalence of lying and political agendas in the majority of "classical" philosophers. It's like the idols are still dancing with their clay feet to their emotionally insecure devotees.
Most of TPF philosophy is emotional therapy for insecurity. — Asif

I disagree, philosophy is not about reason and this fixation on reason causes people to misunderstand themselves. Your opinions, preferences, moral views, values, perspectives, your psychology, biology, emotions, desires and all that constitutes the lifeblood of your philosophical views are not ruled by reason. Reason is just a component of some of these things but people do not create philosophy with reason alone. And reason itself can be a characterisation defined by your individual preferences, for truth is a vector for logic to go in many different directions. Depending on how the truth is managed, perceived, what our goals are, what our identity is and the list goes on.

Philosophy is about developing an understanding of really any topic and then using that understanding for really any purpose. Any attempt to dictate how a topic should be understood or what that purpose should be is just more philosophy. — Judaka

I cannot tell the difference between these two. Two words seem to cover, pathological solipsism. Anyone? Now, warning, irony zone ahead.

@tim wood You mean strawman zone. Your favorite!
Solipsism! So your suggesting we both agree Independently? Then what happened to solipsism!
I know I'm replying to timmy wood a seperate Identity.
Solipsism refuted.
Pathological!? Wheres that diagnosis from wiki?
Anything that doesnt fit your opinion you get all emotional and irrational.
The irony is it's obvious to many you cannot discuss with
nuance or outside of your own prejudices.

I agree that comparing philosophy to science helps us get a better perspective on what philosophy is. Both are navigations of logic, where the goal strives towards sound and coherent logic. Here's something that differentiates the two:

• Philosophy seems to place more value on introspection; understanding the knowledge that we already possess.
• Science seems to place more value on discovery; the hope that newly-acquired knowledge will be more useful than the sum of our previous knowledge.

And yes, it is unfortunate when people think that this is a debate club. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can practice to become a lawyer. Some don't even go that far; they are content just to post their opinion and then walk away.

The irony is it's obvious to many you cannot discuss with
nuance or outside of your own prejudices. — Asif

The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective. — Asif

Joke's never funny when it has to be explained.

@tim wood A man who doesnt know the difference between a prejudice and a subjective truth. :cool:

Please explain - and per your own rules, no appeal to authority.

@tim wood A Prejudice is an opinion based on deferral to Authority,
fear or incomplete knowledge.
The second term is obvious. All truth is subjective and inter subjective.
Now I'm sure you will run to a dictionary or some such deferral. And that proves my point!

Philosophy seems to place more value on introspection; understanding the knowledge that we already possess.
Science seems to place more value on discovery; the hope that newly-acquired knowledge will be more useful than the sum of our previous knowledge. — Bird-Up

I like this demarcation. At the core of philosophy is an exploration of the human condition from within it, as seen from the very human perspective of a subject, a person, a self, a mind or whatever you want to call who we are. Whereas sciences look from the same perspective but explore the outside of us, objects in the world around us.

Of course sciences can also explore the mind, or human beings. This often creates overlaps and tends to blur the distinction (eg think of the similarities between political philosophy and political science).

But even in social sciences, scientists envisage human beings as objects of their attention, that can and must be observed through eg MRI, statistics, voting patterns, etc. to come at a correct or fitting interpretation of such objective patterns. While philosophers envisage human beings as subjective beings, and can thus deal with the stuff of human experience that is still inaccessible to scientific observation (doubts, remorse, intuition, etc) but accessible to all of us through introspection.

All that is clear to me is that you don't understand what you're arguing against, there is no possibility of you accurately paraphrasing my opinion, which makes your opposition to it unreasonable.

It's a philosophy site, educate. But there are your words, and I'm fair to middling with words. But it seems at least

Philosophy is about developing an understanding of really any topic and then using that understanding for really any purpose. Any attempt to dictate how a topic should be understood or what that purpose should be is just more philosophy. — Judaka

that you confuse sophistry with philosophy.

Do you have those confused?

What do you think I am trying to say there? Do not ask for clarification, that question comes before judgement not after.

Refusal of meaningful engagement the droppings of the troll. Nor will protest avail, the historical record here is streaked with and proved by just such. You get to not be a troll by engaging. Your choice.

@Judaka A perfect illustration of what philosophy shouldnt be is mr @tim wood totally misunderstanding
what posters write or just ignoring anything that doesnt fall within a very narrow band of acceptable prejudices so he can try to lecture.
It seems folks cannot distinguish Innate philosophy from dry as dust academic platitudes.

Tim wood, I have posted honestly and you have insulted, mocked and judged me unfavourably. You cannot reasonably disagree with my position if you do not understand it. It is simply proving my point that despite your behaviour here, you can see yourself in a positive light and me as a villain. What is trolling is defined by you, it includes your biases and your perspective, your experiences and your biology all play a role. To deny this and pretend like you are a being ruled by rational thought is simply delusional. You decide what is philosophy and what is not, you give status to your own views while degrading the views you disagree with and this is further showing how your philosophy (about philosophy in this case) is really far more complicated than you simply trying your best to be logical, fair and well-intentioned.

I think all of the problems I pointed out with your OP, you are showing are valid. Because you have framed philosophy as all of these great things, logical, rational, sensible, reasonable - you have created a perfect structure to demonise the views you dislike. It has become a personal weapon for you - which ignores your subjectivity and gives you a god-like status to give your judgement from a higher place.

To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both. — Asif

Totally agree. The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. Only when that is achieved can one seek to improve the world. Too often people go straight to morality and say 'you should do this, you shouldn't do that' without any clear understanding of what they are talking about.

The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective. — Asif

I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others.

@A Seagull Yep. This subjectivity is inter subjective in many cases as well. I do think ethics is Innate to some.
Morality seems more like authoritarian rules,something that tries to be imposed.
I like the practicalities aligning with ones Description! :up:

All I've got is your words. If you claim a failed understanding on my part and refuse to clarify, then all I've got is your same words. Above in part you describe rather well and closely sophistry - as philosophy. I ask and you turn your back - which is what the trolls here do and have done. I suspect that what you call philosophy, what you think philosophy is, is something else that I do not have at hand a name for, but not philosophy.

The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognize as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective. — Asif

This standard would appear to make whatever "spontaneous me" comes up with a worthy proposition in philosophy, or, for that matter it doesn't even have to be spontaneous, just what seems right to you, and of course as subjective, it must be right. This seems the very model of a woman to her sister, quoted by Ben Franklin, "I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself, that’s always in the right."

Must be nice. But come back to earth of your own volition while you can; being brought back otherwise can be very unpleasant.

The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. — A Seagull

And how might you do that? You take for granted your concepts, not realizing that at different times and places people have held different concepts on how the world works and what it is.

I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others. — A Seagull

To this, Nazi Germany.

@tim wood Here's a man that doesnt understand clear english or subjectivity! Tbh,you are coming across as pretty dim now. Just strawmanning every post and being a pedant. Your lack of personal self awareness and knee jerk philosophical clicheism is telling.

You disagree with me and then validate me, it is rather bizarre. You are simply mediocre, all you can do is angrily raise your fists at me and nothing else. To expect civility from me while you are throwing mud, it is a bit much. I can see based on how you are responding to others in this thread that this is what you like to do. Look at how you respond to people @A Seagull posted a fair opinion and you bring up Nazi Germany, it's disgraceful.

Nazi germany! I rest my case! Pure kneejerk clicheism with no nuance patience or attempt to understand the posters intent or analysis.
Let's be real. All truth/description is subjective/intersubjective. Doesnt mean all subjectivity is equal or agreed upon even accurate. Like a complete novice @tim wood

I see many of the sins of "philosophy" in this thread.
We just need some scientism and some political or religious propoganda and we can pin this thread for posterity. Maybe timmy will repent and see the error of his fallacies. :cool: