I don't think your analogy here is really apt. If I left out conifers in defining "tree" I would be leaving out things which it is very useful to include under the general term, "tree". — PossibleAaran

Reducing philosophy to just academia is pretty useless. IMHO

Like reducing chemistry to just academia would be just as useless.

Thank you :smile:

I'm not "reducing" anything. I gave a definition which describes the actual use of the word "philosophy", taking into account the community of people who say that they study it and the community of people who distance themselves from the label. I don't understand where the controversy is. And, again, what use does including science under the name "philosophy" have, save for annoying people who call themselves scientists?


PA

I don't understand where the controversy is. And, again, what use does including science under the name "philosophy" have, save for annoying people who call themselves scientists? — PossibleAaran

Those would be a group of pretty whiny/thin-skinned scientists. "Whaaaaa, people call me something absolutely benign that I kind of maybe possibly don't necessarily want to be called, whaaaaa. My life is RUINED. RUINED I tell you!!!!"

Yup

PA

I found some discussions among scientists and philosophers here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_science_a_part_of_or_separate_from_philosophy
and here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection
and here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory

Some of whom almost agree with you, some of whom agree with me, some of whom are somewhere in the middle. THESE scientists, at least, are not annoyed but rather intrigued by the (philosophical) question of whether science is a form of philosophy. Most agree that philosophy is part of the job of a good scientist.

Nice research. I agree that a good scientist should do philosophy.

PA

Yes, it's true. Scientists make claims about how the world is, and according to some philosophers, that's what metaphysics studies. But there are many different ways that philosophers have defined metaphysics and so no reason to stick with any particular definition so far as I can see.

But even if philosophers had always in the past defined "metaphysics" as the study of reality and listed it as a branch of philosophy, I don't understand what reason there is for sticking with this definition now. I don't see the point in defining philosophy in such a way that it includes topics which are simply not investigated by anyone who identifies as doing philosophy and explicitly called something other than philosophy by most people. Am I missing something? — PossibleAaran

Yes, you seem to be missing that this actually harms the reputation of a serious academic subject, and those who partake in it, without good reason. It would exclude good philosophy from philosophy. Good philosophy incorporates history and science.

And there are better and worse ways to define things. If I define "philosophy" as "tree" that's a really bad definition. If I leave out from the definition of "tree" all conifers, that's a really bad definition. Your definition simply does not cover all that philosophy is. You're leaving out all the "conifers" because you want to limit it to only what is "deciduous." — NKBJ

Yes, nicely put.

:smile:

I agree that good philosophy can be done by incorporating science and history. But that is no reason to say that "the earth is round" is a philosophical theory.

I don't suppose much hangs on what we call these things anyway. But it is contrary to common practice to call "the earth is round" a piece of philosophy, and I don't see for what purpose you want to do so.

PA

But that is no reason to say that "the earth is round" is a philosophical theory. — PossibleAaran

Except that is a metaphysical claim.

I think the gravity of the sun changes its shape causing tidal forces. I don't know, I'm not that smart.

Except that is a metaphysical claim. — NKBJ

Agreed. That it is also likely scientific doesn't mean that it isn't philosophical, and more specifically, metaphysical, as though the two categories were mutually exclusive. If we didn't include such claims, then there wouldn't be much good philosophy. It would be full of the evil demon stuff which gives philosophy a bad name.

The reason I don't want to call "the earth is round" a philosophical claim is that I have no idea what you mean by saying that. You have both made it clear that you aren't saying that "the earth is round" is a claim that is discussed by academic philosophers, taught and researched by philosophy professors etc. But if that isn't what you mean, I don't know what you mean.

Do you simply mean that you would like to use the word "philosophy" to describe statements like "the earth is round"? If so, I don't have any real objection to your doing so. I just won't be doing so. If you are suggesting, more strongly, that we should use the word "philosophy" to describe statements like "the earth is round", then I don't see any reason why we should do it. Pointing out that "the earth is round" is a "metaphysical claim" just begs the question in this context, since no one who denied that "the earth is round" is a philosophical claim would accept that it was a metaphysical claim.

PA

It resembles both the philosophy of ancient times, when the question of the shape of Earth was pondered by philosophers such as Thales and Anaxagoras, as well as modern philosophy, such as that of G. E. Moore in his arguments against extreme scepticism. It also fits the description of the kind of questions and claims of metaphysics.

So there is reason to call it a metaphysical claim, irrespective of your own views on the matter, and irrespective of your own decision about whether or not to call it a metaphysical claim. And that it's a metaphysical claim implies that it's a philosophical claim.

But I already agreed with NKBJ that there is an ancient use of the word "philosophy" that has it cover "the earth is round". I'll even agree that it might even resemble certain relatively recent uses of the word.

But there is no reason to infer from this that we should only use the word "philosophy" in that way, and that anyone who uses it another way must be wrong - which seems at least to be the attitude you take in disputing my own definition of "philosophy".

PA

But I already agreed with NKBJ that there is an ancient use of the word "philosophy" that has it cover "the earth is round". I'll even agree that it might even resemble certain relatively recent uses of the word.

But there is no reason to infer from this that we should only use the word "philosophy" in that way, and that anyone who uses it another way must be wrong - which seems at least to be the attitude you take in disputing my own definition of "philosophy". — PossibleAaran

I'm doing the same thing that you're doing, which is arguing semantics in favour of one stance over the other.

You're just trying to mischaracterise me and make yourself out to be more open-minded, it seems.

The branch of philosophy called metaphysics deals primarily with two questions:
1. What is there?
2. What is it like?

"The earth is round" answers those:
1. There is an earth.
2. It is round.

I've sat in many a philosophy class where the roundness of the earth was discussed at length.

It was never my intention to mischaracterise you. It also wasn't my intention to argue semantics in favour of "one stance", if that means to argue that one way of defining philosophy is "correct".

I don't suppose there is any such thing as "the correct" definition of philosophy. There are more and less useful definitions for different purposes. For the purposes of answering the OP, I offered a definition which seems to accurately describe the current state of academic philosophy. Given that, I concluded that there are certain topics which may be philosophized about and some which may not be. I never meant to suggest that a definition with roots in ancient philosophy is "mistaken". You can, of course, also define philosophy in the way you do and conclude that almost everything may be philosophized about. I don't think there is any disagreement at all between us here unless you assume that there must be a "correct" definition of philosophy about which we are disagreeing.

PA

We're both arguing semantics in favour of one stance over the other. That much is evident, and that means that you do not hold each stance in equal measure. It means what it sounds like: that you favour one stance more than the other. If forced to pick either one or the other, then you'd pick your favoured stance.

I don't think that that's saying anything particularly complicated or unclear. No need to turn a molehill into a mountain.

A stance on what? If you mean something like a stance on "the nature of philosophy" or "what philosophy is", I don't think there is any fact of the matter. If you mean a stance on "the correct definition of philosophy", again, I don't think there is any such thing as "the correct" definition. So if your stance is that the correct definition of philosophy is the ancient one, then I disagree in the sense that I reject your assumption that there is a "correct" definition at all.

I am, consequently, not trying to argue semantics at all. I am trying to point out that there is nothing to argue about.
PA

Wikipedia's definition of metaphysics is inaccurate. Also, you can't determine either of those two things by sitting around thinking about them "in an abstract and fully general manner". I would define metaphysics as "what lazy affluent men mused and mistook as intellect when practical or reasonable modes of thought were beyond their reach".

I haven't even bloody used the word "correct". Can you please stop indulging your own assumptions? However you decide to word it, it is obvious that we disagree over the semantics relating to what counts as philosophy, and that you don't consider the stance I've been arguing in favour of to be equivalent in merit with your own take on it, which differs from mine. For you to suggest anything different would be to imply a performative contradiction.

I don't disagree over "what counts as philosophy". I don't think there is a fact of the matter about what counts as philosophy. We decide what counts, and what we decide should be determined by what it is useful to include and useful to exclude. Do you disagree?

PA

"In short, Metaphysics of Science is that part of metaphysics that enquires into the existence, nature, and interrelations of general kinds of phenomena that figure most prominently in science. Also, Metaphysics of Science grants the sciences authority in their categorization of the world and in their empirical findings."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/met-scie/ (emphasis mine).

That's just the more wordy version of the Wikipedia entry.

I don't disagree over "what counts as philosophy". — PossibleAaran

And there's that performative contradiction.

I don't think there is a fact of the matter about what counts as philosophy. — PossibleAaran

You've been arguing with yourself on that point, not with me.

We decide what counts, and what we decide should be determined by what it is useful to include and useful to exclude. Do you disagree? — PossibleAaran

I think that your focus on this particular wording has been pedantic and largely a waste of both of our time. It hasn't made any real difference. We disagree over what's more useful, as you would put it.

We disagree over what's more useful, as you would put it. — S

Alright, well what is useful about including science and history in a definition of philosophy? Perhaps there is some purpose that I don't see.

For my part, a definition which excludes science and history allows one to give an accurate description of academic philosophy, and that may well be needed to explain to non-philosophers what it is that an academic philosopher spends his time doing.

PA

Alright, well what is useful about including science and history in a definition of philosophy? Perhaps there is some purpose that I don't see.

For my part, a definition which excludes science and history allows one to give an accurate description of academic philosophy, and that may well be needed to explain to non-philosophers what it is that an academic philosopher spends his time doing. — PossibleAaran

I've explained this already. It is useful for salvaging the already damaged reputation of philosophy as excessively focussed on stuff of little substance or bearing on the world, and I dispute your claim about accuracy, because I am categorising these statements accurately in accordance with the appropriate branches of philosophy which they fall under, and doing this doesn't mean that they can't be distinguished from history or science, as they retain their own more specific identities. Philosophy is just a broader category which relates to, and subsumes, other academic subjects, such as those mentioned.

The two definitions are completely different. Metaphysics is lazy musing and science is active seeking. This second definition admittedly abandons all the leg work to real intellectuals, while the first definition relies entirely on imagination.