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
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
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
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
But that is no reason to say that "the earth is round" is a philosophical theory. — PossibleAaran
Except that is a metaphysical claim. — NKBJ
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 don't disagree over "what counts as philosophy". — PossibleAaran
I don't think there is a fact of the matter about what counts as philosophy. — PossibleAaran
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
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. — PossibleAaran
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.