I voted Social-Ethical, but my real answer is “all of the above”, that Social-Ethical philosophy depends on or feeds off all the others.

I wanted to pick Metaphysical because I have a sinister preoccupation with the ultimate nature of reality. But I also went the social route. As you say, elements of the various traditions comingle....

I think I misunderstood the question. Instead of "... (e.g. Frege)" I should have selected "Other" ...

... Ontological-Ethical (e.g. Epicurus, Spinoza).

Who would you cite as a modern exponent of the Metaphysical-Ethical tradition?

I picked phenomenological as the subject to which philosophy has the most relevance, but logic and conceptual cleanliness is perhaps the next. And then all of them.

The reason I didn't pick metaphysical is that I think the phenomenological subject exemplifies the most metaphysically interesting aspects of reality. But then I think that subject is relevant through the mechanism of the social-weltanschauung.

Because “exemplifies” and even “best exemplifies” are a bit vague, won’t this just devolve to picking favourites, or answering as to which is most important?

Spinoza.

Hmmm. Maybe I should have said contemporary. Do you think there are any contemporary heirs to the tradition of Spinoza?

What type of philosophy most exemplifies what philosophy is or should be to you? — Pantagruel

I picked empiricist. I am aware that is an "old-fashioned" (I guess...) philosophical category. Yet, I think some works, such as "an essay of human understanding" are among the most important philosophical treatises.
John Locke is one the of the main philophers of modernity, even if he is not now the most popular.

Because “exemplifies” and even “best exemplifies” are a bit vague, won’t this just devolve to picking favourites, or answering as to which is most important? — Jamal

I don't consider exemplification to be a vague concept. Wouldn't you agree that the premise of exemplification is to illustrate and clarify?

I agree, and I considered creating a very broad category of "Philosophical Systems" for such radically different thinkers as Hegel, Locke, Schopenhauer. Philosophies of great scope, depth and, well, systematicity. I am a big fan of a system. Even if it has flaws, a system represents a great investment of effort.

Do you think there are any contemporary heirs to the tradition of Spinoza? — Pantagruel

Gilles Deleuze et al ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spinozist_philosophers

It may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all. — G.W.F. Hegel

:fire:

I don't consider exemplification to be a vague concept. Wouldn't you agree that the premise of exemplification is to illustrate and clarify? — Pantagruel

I don’t think so. To exemplify is to be an example of, and to best exemplify is to be the best example of. So, applied to these branches of philosophy, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. All of them are examples of philosophy, and which is best raises the question “in what way?”

More charitably, I suppose it can be interpreted to mean “which of these is the most philosophical?” Or “the most typical of philosophy”.

Phenomenological-existential.

Buuut... I think that for my own case, at least, is correct about why I chose it: I like these philosophers.

I wonder, though, if there is a philosophical reason I like them, rather than just a personal reason -- which I'd be more apt to believe the personal reason, it'd be interesting if there was some underlying philosophical aesthetic that makes these choices the choices we're thinking about, too.

Gilles Deleuze et al ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spinozist_philosophers
It may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.
— G.W.F. Hegel
:fire: — 180 Proof

:up:

More charitably, I suppose it can be interpreted to mean “which of these is the most philosophical?” Or “the most typical of philosophy”. — Jamal

Yes. Although, not to quibble, but isn't the entire point of providing an example to clarify? For example, I could provide the truth tables for inclusive versus exclusive disjunctions, which may not be very informative to some people. Or I can offer you can't have your cake and eat it too as an example of an exclusive disjunction, which is much clearer.

I wonder, though, if there is a philosophical reason I like them, rather than just a personal reason -- which I'd be more apt to believe the personal reason, it'd be interesting if there was some underlying philosophical aesthetic that makes these choices the choices we're thinking about, too. — Moliere

If your personal aesthetic is philosophical, then your personal reasons might also be?

Although, not to quibble … — Pantagruel

That’s ok, I started it.

So, which branch of philosophy serves as an example of philosophy that clarifies … what exactly? What philosophy is, maybe?

Anyway don’t worry, I have no intention of pursuing this further, unless your next reply is so provocative that I can’t resist.

True!

But as soon as I put words to it I can think of a rebuttal in terms of thinking of which is best :D

Even directly -- I was thinking how phenomenological-existential philosophy is "accessible" because we're all subjects, as opposed to scientific or political leaders (which traditional, even Modern, philosophy addresses itself to). But then the terminology is far from accessible without work put in, and then you get some of the same themes from what at first blush may appear "at odds" with the phenomenological-existential approach with, say, linguistic or empiricist philosophy.

I suppose that while I can pick one in the bunch, as soon as I justify it I can think of a reason to pick another one.

What type of philosophy most exemplifies what philosophy is or should be to you?

Logical, analytical, linguistic - e.g. Frege
Phenomenological-existential - e.g. Sartre
Social-Ethical - e.g. Dewey
Metaphysical - e.g. Whitehead
Empiricist - e.g. Russell — Pantagruel

I think these categories are too broad to do justice to the authors you associate with them. How about putting forth a grouping of philosophers based on family resemblance?
For instance:

Hume
Locke
Spinoza
Leibniz
Descartes

Russell
Frege

Hegel
Schopenhauer
Marx
Kierkegaard

Zizek
Lacan
Freud
Badieu
Butler
Adorno

Davidson
Quine
Sellars
Rorty
Putnam

Dewey
Peirce
Meade
James

Heidegger
Merleau-ponty
Sartre
Husserl

Deleuze
Foucault
Derrida
Lyotard
Baudrillard

Now that I’ve complied these, I see that they fit rather
easily into categories:

Enlightenment
Analytic
Hegelian-Post Hegelian
Structuralist-Critical Theory
Post-Analytic
Pragmatist
Phenomenology
Poststructuralism

No doubt, there is a rabbit-hole there. If you don't feel that it is possible to create a category along the lines I did - primary tradition and recent exponent - I get it.

So, which branch of philosophy serves as an example of philosophy that clarifies … what exactly? What philosophy is, maybe? — Jamal

Well hermeneutics perhaps. But then, is that a philosophy, or a tool? Depends who you read. Ricouer covers a lot of ground, and he uses hermeneutics liberally.

Gilles Deleuze et al ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spinozist_philosophers
It may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.
— G.W.F. Hegel
:fire: — 180 Proof

Would you say that Spinozaism constitutes a "philosophical system", such that "philosophical systematicity" could be considered a category? Is the exemplariness of Spinoza's work a function of its systematicity?

Yes.

I'm interested in what people think best exemplifies philosophical thought. Perhaps it cannot even be exemplified? — Pantagruel

I agree with this last part. I think of philosophy as a diversity of approaches for not taking anything for granted.

I agree with this last part. I think of philosophy as a diversity of approaches for not taking anything for granted. — Tom Storm

So as a kind of mental training or discipline? I would one-hundred percent endorse that.

I think of philosophy as a diversity of approaches for not taking anything for granted. — Tom Storm

:up:

Depends on one's interest. Interesting to note nobody chose "metaphysics", which can't be right on a forum of this size. I think the example of Whitehead might be too polarizing, often it's hard to figure out what the heck he's saying, though there are some who interpret him in an interesting manner.

For my own interests, mostly the "manifest image" of everyday life, I think there's a lot of interesting ground that could be covered by an epistemological oriented metaphysics, as exemplified by C.I. Lewis and more recently by Raymond Tallis.

But there's just so much value to most of these approaches and subjects.