There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy. — Jackson

Yeah okay, I didn't use the right words. I meant based on scientific theories that are based on experiments, so the field itself wouldn't do experiments. I don't see how you could hope to prove such abstract concepts with experiments...

And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion. — Skalidris

In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion.

Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"? — Skalidris

Because there will not be one method to rule them all. It depends on the questions asked. Indeed also methods are a result of communal thinking and not one guy on a philosophyforum. That philosophy does not have sharply delineated methods might be problematic or it may not be. There is discussion about it in the community of philosophers.

And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking. — Skalidris

Ohh golly the man thinks we should do experiments. Well I better pack up and go then since I am a discourse analyst. Well Hillary now you see what happens when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy. It leads to unsubstantiated spouting of opinion...

I meant based on scientific theories — Skalidris

Science only explains the motion of physical particles. Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion.

In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion. — Tobias

In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here!

when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy — Tobias

You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia.

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... — Skalidris

There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy.

Science only explains the motion of physical particles. Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion. — Jackson

Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion. — Skalidris

Sorry, I really do not understand this allegation.

I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, — Skalidris

What are these rules?

What are these rules? — Jackson

Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion. — Jackson

That seems like a rule to me. I can't limit it to the physical world, that's what you said.

Sorry, I really do not understand this allegation. — Jackson

Well, you keep telling me my ideas already are part of philosophy, until the point where you say I can't do that (in the previous quote). Like a religious person would tell you everything is in the bible, except for what the bible doesn't allow.

That seems like a rule to me. I can't limit it to the physical world, that's what you said. — Skalidris

Yes, correct.

Well, you keep telling me my ideas already are part of philosophy — Skalidris

I never said that.

I never said that. — Jackson

There :

Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular. — Jackson

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy. — Jackson

You referred to these branches of philosophy when I exposed my ideas (but never succeeded to prove how it matches).

Yes, correct. — Jackson

Okay, but I don't want to follow these rules, that's the point of the topic.

Okay, but I don't want to follow these rules, that's the point of the topic. — Skalidris

No offense, but I do not think you have a point and just want to bash philosophy.

I'm trying my best to explain the method I would use, which would be based on scientific theories, but you do not seem to want to know more about it. Shall I explain it in more details? Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it?

I'm trying my best to explain the method I would use, which would be based on scientific theories, but you do not seem to want to know more about it. Shall I explain it in more details? Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it? — Skalidris

Please do.

Please do. — Jackson

Okay, I will make another thread because I don't think this is really relevant to the main question anymore.

Okay, I will make another thread because I don't think this is really relevant to the main question anymore. — Skalidris

I will read it.

In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here! — Skalidris

I have given you all I could give. Indeed I do not know how to respond to you. You have an opinion, an unwavering one, so what can I do?

You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia. — Skalidris

You indeed do not and will never do. You will be a philosopher of your own definition in the depth of your thoughts, speaking to yourself in your own private language.

There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy. — Skalidris

Which you have made abundantly clear here.

Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion. — Skalidris

And you have given us nothing.... You are talking about rules you do not want to follow, but do not tell us what they are except that silly philo profs follow them. You want to break a lance for independent thought, but you have given us no original argument whatsoever. You want a better way of thinking about abstract topics, but have given us no example of such a better way.

Now you accuse me and Jackson of being obsessed with philosophy and not seeing other possibilities, treating it like a religion, however where did I tell you what to do? I have taken your claims to task and gave you a chance to expand on your thoughts and display your alternative. You have only muttered something about that there should be experiments.

if they're trying to figure out what consciousness means, they're not going to check out what philosophers say about it, or at least not as a basis of their work. — Skalidris

So, what will be this hypothethical independent philosophical thinker's starting point and guide, then if not previous philosophical attempts to understand consciousness? If he or she is relying on other academic disciplines: say neuroscience and empirical psychology (what else is there apart from philosophy and perhaps anthropology and linguistics which are also, like philosophy, neuroscience and psychology, academic disciplines?) and ignoring philosophy, then they will be ignoring a fair philosophical history of reflective inquiries into human experience as it is experienced. Now there are philosophers like that, of course, who say all past philosophy is simply wrong or misguided and we need to just look at the science, but that is necessarily a one-sided approach; a case of not availing yourself of all the resources available. Is that what you are advocating?

First, by wise, I mean the ability to have a vision of the world that’s the least contradictive as possible, based on the current knowledge of the world we have. Someone who could “answer” philosophical questions by fitting the problematics into their theories/concepts and that, all these together would logically make sense. And of course, they would also include uncertainties and questions unanswered because of the lack of knowledge, which could also be part of their theories. So, the wisest person would have the most knowledge with the least contradiction.

An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic).

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom?

Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris

The smartest philosophers are probably in academia because usually very smart people want to get an education. But if you did want to find a very smart philosopher not in academia, it would be difficult because he would probably keep most of his work a secret, not because he didn't want to share it but rather because he knows that no one would understand the information.

Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it? — Skalidris

Interesting tidbit from Harvard: To apply for admittance to the PhD program in philosophy one must submit (roughly) fifteen pages of writing. No particular subject. Draw your own conclusion.

Interesting tidbit from Harvard: To apply for admittance to the PhD program in philosophy one must submit (roughly) fifteen pages of writing. No particular subject. Draw your own conclusion. — jgill

Writing Sample
A writing sample must be submitted with the online application.

Scope: The sample must address a substantial philosophical problem, whether it is an evaluation or presentation of an argument, or a serious attempt to interpret a difficult text.

https://gsas.harvard.edu/programs-of-study/all/philosophy

Whoops, forgot to read the fine print. Makes more sense. :yikes:

Whoops, forgot to read the fine print. Makes more sense — jgill

Still time to send in your revised paper!