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
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
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
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
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
Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge, critical thinking is the evaluation/validation of that knowledge. — Tiberiusmoon
Philosophy is not just theory, theory is an area of study that is outside its practical application — Tiberiusmoon
But in all honesty I think to many people assume philosophy is just an expression of thought — Tiberiusmoon
Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life. — Book273
Existence seems a more primordial concept, then, and something out of which all other human activities emerge — Xtrix
I would also think that people can do incisive critical thinking without any knowledge of philosophy. — Tom Storm
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
Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge — Tiberiusmoon
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
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. — Xtrix
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
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
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
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
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
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
Congratz you've resorted to a Ad hominem fallacy. — Tiberiusmoon
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
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.