Actual philosophy? No True Scotsman? A primitive descent into tribalism?

Philosophy is philosophy! Stop trying to purify it!

So, philosophy is "highly individualistic" except in cases when you decide someone is "purify it"? Promoting deep immersion into subjectivity then rejecting forms you disagree with is a contradiction.

These all roads lead to one arguments are very common, and I suppose there are several reasons people like to sell this position, but the truth is all roads do not lead to one. Some paths are better than other while some paths lead nowhere, and worst yet some paths lead people astray.

It is possible for people to be heading in the wrong direction and it also possible for people to be going nowhere. Now if that is their choice and they are not harming anyone I personally don't have a problem with that, but if the goal here is to connect with a unique reality that only intelligent beings, like humans, can experience, then to shy from science can only lessen that experience. For a normal person, perhaps that is fine, but for a philosopher? If someone is not devoted enough that they will become learned in science to deepen this experience, then I have to question their love for truth.

There are lovers of truth and there are lovers of opinion. Most people are lovers of opinion, they indulge in the self; however, philosophers are lovers of truth, they seek the reality beyond the self.

So, philosophy is "highly individualistic" except in cases when you decide someone is "purify it"? Promoting deep immersion into subjectivity then rejecting forms you disagree with is a contradiction. — Jeremiah

You might as well have said that promoting individualism entails precluding rational argumentation. Trying to "purify" philosophy by filtering out anything that does not pass an idiosyncratic criterion is counter-productive to the individualistic ethic I am advocating.

Just because I advocate individualism doesn't mean I can't criticize individual perspectives that threaten this individualism. My view is that philosophy just is individualistic in virtue of its essence, including philosophies that attempt to impose a systematic order upon it. In fact, I am not "advocating" for individualism in philosophy so much as I believe I am pointing out the reality of philosophical discussion. Theory and abstractions aside, philosophy is an individualistic enterprise, whether we like it or not. One cannot isolate a philosophical question by itself; the particular always brings along the universal. Philosophy is so diverse and so complicated that it is virtually impossible to impose any form of order or system that will not provoke or silence others.

I think, then, that it is true to say that philosophy never was, is or will be one single determinant thing. It means different things to different people with different values who live in different places at different times, speaking different languages and having different experiences. I believe this is true, and that this entails a perspectival interpretation of philosophy. It is a mild form of relativism/agnosticism that some may label as (methodologically) pessimistic: disagreement is inherent, opinions will continue to clash and there is no feasible way of overcoming this epistemological nausea. The Dream of Reason is a sham and got a lot of people killed. Of course, we still argue for things with passion and conviction, but it's naive to think there is any significant efficacy to this. That's how philosophy works - it doesn't.

Stop the meta-narratives, stop the totalizing schemata, stop the imperialism of rationalism. All you are doing is silencing voices that are trying to be heard.

Point taken. I am indeed assuming the existence of an objective quantifiable external reality. Yet to assume otherwise renders the initial question (actual philosophy) redundant

you and l do occupy a shared material reality that both you and I can objectively quantify. If we disagree on the content of that reality we can still find shared points of agreement as to the form of existent reality as it presents itself to our senses which are biologically approximated in that we are of the same species and perceive through the same sensory apparatuses. As such together we can approximate a form upon reality that is subjectively experienced and yet quantifiable if indeed the form of reality is agreed between us and hence not entirely subjective.

This is the modus by which history validates ideas, they are continually examined and the datum or content which persists might reasonably be assumed to have the closet approximation to the real.

There are lovers of truth and there are lovers of opinion. Most people are lovers of opinion, they indulge in the self; however, philosophers are lovers of truth, they seek the reality beyond the self. — Jeremiah

I sympathize. (And I'm glad you're back, given your background in mathematics.)

I too have decried what I think of as selecting a philosophical position as you might a breakfast cereal. ("I know this one's supposed to be healthier, but that other one tastes so good!" That sort of thing.) Opinions are boring.

However -- biggish however -- you have to accept the "put up or shut up" challenge. Do the sort of philosophy you aspire to and show it to us. What you're saying in this thread -- what I'm saying in this thread, right now -- is just more opinion.

I think maybe it's necessary to go through a polemical stage to find your allegiances, commit to some methodological principles, etc., but then you have to get on with it.

I don't keep such lists and it is the lovers of opinion that are limiting themselves. The very nature of overindulgence in subjectivity is to limit everything to the self. — Jeremiah

So you admonish and pontificate, but you can't tell us who these "bad philosophers" are? Seems like you really want us to think you are quite the slayer of strawmen, although why I couldn't fathom.

I feel I have been clear about the nature of lovers of truth and lovers of opinion. However, I have no intention of spending time trying to determine which individuals fit where in those categories.

However, I have no intention of spending time trying to determine which individuals fit where in those categories. — Jeremiah

Then what are your intentions, except perhaps presenting yourself as a "lover of truth" ?

I saw a valuable discussion that was not going to happen because the other thread was closed, and I intended to make it happen. It seems I was successful in that goal.

It seems I was successful in that goal. — Jeremiah

If so, your goals are easily satisfied. No offence meant.

Some of my goals are very easy to satisfy while others take a lot of work. Although, I am not sure why you'd think I find that offensive.

Conundrum ; How is this

Too many modern philosophers too much want to cling to their POV, their subjectivity, their opinions; they want to lay around in the shade of the tree and talk instead of pushing ahead. They don't want to find truth, instead they rather hide away in their minds and in talk.

Anyone who thinks the path of truth does not include a heavy dose of science is kidding themselves. It does not necessarily need to be physics, but it should be some formal science which teaches a person to reason and explore the reality around themselves in a scientific fashion. This also consequently means a deeper understanding of mathematics. — Jeremiah

Not an opinion? You sure as hell haven't proven us that philosophy requires a love of science over a love of opinion. In fact, you've only shared with us your opinion that this is the case.

I never said philosophy requires a love of science over a love of opinion. I never said anything at all about a love of science, that was your addition.

I drew a distinction between lovers of opinion and lovers of truth. Science is a tool towards the philosophical endeavor.

I also never said we must be void of all opinions, that would be impossible. What I am talking about is placing the self above truth. An over indulgence in the self.

Also, you seem far more bent on proving yourself, than I am. If you wish to be a lover of opinions, as long as it hurts no one, I don't care, go for it.

I would like to point out that without science these forums would have never existed. Science is an essential tool.

I would like to point out that without science these forums would have never existed. Science is an essential tool. — Jeremiah

That you feel the need to point this out, which every single user of the forum knows very well, only lends support to the idea that you are only interested in pointless pontification.

This very thread is a great example of how useless philosophy can be made to appear.

Like I said, there isn't a single model for this. — darthbarracuda

I think Bernard Lonergan nailed it with his formulation of the transcendental conditions for good enquiry in any field:

"Be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, and be responsible."

I can elaborate this in my own words, for example:
Pay attention to every detail of your chosen filed(s) of enquiry, be well-informed about the investigations of others, be governed by reason not by emotion in your judgements, and when you arrive at what you think is a true judgement then act honestly in accordance with that. Of course it could be elaborated in other ways.

Lonergan's formulation is transcendental in the sense that it is independent of culture and true across all disciplines. It hasn't ever changed, and it won't ever change, as Lonergan points out, the formula for good enquiry could never become:

Be inattentive, be unintelligent, be unreasonable, be irresponsible.

You really seem to be offended by this notion of lovers of opinions and lovers of truth. Worry you don't meet my standards?

Darth is right that its only those who suffer from insecurity or inability concern themselves so much with trying to distinguish between 'actual' and 'non-actual philsophy'. Unable to do philosophy, they go around like little insufferable bureaucrats, preaching about truth and doxa, and contributing nothing to philosophy itself. Impotence masquerading as importance.

contributing nothing to philosophy itself — StreetlightX

Perhaps some just move on to science and make contributions that they feel are most important.

Best to have let them go. They've clearly never had any feel for philosophy to begin with.

Some see the whole thing as the same path.

Some see the whole thing as the same path. — Jeremiah

The very definition of intellectual myopia.

How so?

Why do some of you seem so resistance to the central role science plays in the pursuit of truth? Even the religious crowd sees its immense importance.

Why do some of you seem so resistance to the central role science plays in the pursuit of truth? Even the religious crowd sees its immense importance. — Jeremiah

Is that truth with a capital T or lower case t?

I am sure you believe that distinction is important, however, I don't.

I am sure you believe that distinction is important; however, I don't. — Jeremiah

Well, some truths are contextually bound, like ethical claims, which science cannot answer or does not care to answer.

I never said science was suited for every task.