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, — Manuel

Yes I noticed. I chose it -- philosophy must have it, along with epistemology. Whitehead can be an example, but should not be the only example.

Whitehead was my personal preference, because I happen to think process philosophy is a powerful concept. I hoped that people would feel free to recast using their personal exemplars... :)

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. — Manuel

This is very interesting and prima facie not in my acquaintance. Thanks for sharing!!

Whitehead was my personal preference, because I happen to think process philosophy is a powerful concept. — Pantagruel

:up: I can't argue against that.

:up:

Not that they call it this, Lewis calls it conceptual analysis of the given in experience, whereas Tallis calls his approach "epistogony", literally generation of knowledge, but also "making knowledge visible", which is a kind of analysis of the given.

But both are basically analyzing everyday experience in a manner in which I think "epistemic metaphysics" is accurate.

In any case, the relevant books are C.I. Lewis' Mind and The World Order and Raymond Tallis' The Knowing Animal.

Exactly - his philosophy can be polarizing. It is interesting, but his previous works, before Process and Reality, specifically, The Concept of Nature, is better, or to be more accurate, I preferred.

I mean one can point to Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke and so many others that do excellent work in both these fields, which, incidentally, cannot be done independent of the other, it's basically impossible.

You can emphasize one or the other or try to do both equally. But there is no pure metaphysics nor pure epistemology, so they are wedded in a sense.

The Concept of Nature, is better, or to be more accurate, I preferred. — Manuel

Yes, that is one work I couldn't disagree with.

I'm interested in what people think best exemplifies philosophical thought. — Pantagruel

The fundamental example that philosophy provides is the betterment of the self. Socrates' questions were to learn about, say, the good, but the reason was to become more, grow, change, and expand our understanding of who we are. In the modern era, Nietszche was creating the space for this after Kant erased us from the picture, Hegel showed us a method to loosen our rigidity, and Wittgenstein took up Socrates reflection on our concepts to find that our desires and interests are within them. Stanley Cavll is my favorite current practitioner, most explicitely in the introduction to Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome, which are essays on what he calls moral perfectionism. Most other philosophical areas are just specialized interests on this theme, or attempts to ignore or circumvent the process entirely.

So would it be fair to say you see philosophy itself as kind of enlightened humanism?

So would it be fair to say you see philosophy itself as kind of enlightened humanism? — Pantagruel

I think philosophy is about texts, or discussions, and so not limited to a position or theory or topic, but I think I see what you are wondering about. And I would say that there is a tendency to avoid our failings and vagaries in hope of something certain and determined, etc., and, to the extent philosophy is tempted to remove our responsibility to ourself, is one way we end up no longer doing the work of philosophy.

Kant erased us from the picture — Antony Nickles

how so?

to the extent philosophy is tempted to remove our responsibility to ourself — Antony Nickles

Yes, as I embrace the spirit of Naturalism, I see myself as an agent of the the universe. So my greatest moral duty is maximize my own potentials and my contributions to society.

Knitted my eyebrows right there myself.

I don’t know exactly what @Antony Nickles meant, but I can see a sense in which he’s right. Kant erased real human individuals from the picture in favour of an abstraction, the transcendental subject:

Kant is concerned with demonstrating the general conditions of cognition. He does this in part by drawing attention to the distinction between finite human being and the abstract subject reduced to what is sometimes called an epistemic placeholder. Kant’s theory depends on a non- or even anti-anthropological conception of the subject variously described as the transcendental unity of apperception, the original synthetic unity of apperception, and so on. — Tom Rockmore, Fichte, Kant and the Copernican Turn

:up:

Kant erased real human individuals from the picture in favour of an abstraction, the transcendental subject: — Jamal

The context is what exemplifies philosophical thought. Real human individuals, in the form of “finite human beings” never are alone sufficient for that which exemplifies philosophical thought, even if such beings are necessary for it, hence the erasure of such beings thoroughly eliminates philosophical thought, but doesn’t exemplify what it is. This ultimately reduces to…..we weren’t so much erased, as we were merely presupposed, as finite human beings, in a picture of that by which philosophical thought is first possible, and subsequently exemplified.

The claim that the erasure of us, which in the stated context is merely a plurality of selfs, was something accomplished with respect to that which exemplifies philosophical thought, is the absurdity…or, apparent absurdity…..needing address.

The context is what exemplifies philosophical thought — Mww

Which context? If you mean the transcendental deduction, where the applicability of the categories is proved and the transcendental unity of apperception is established as the absolute requirement of experience, then I think you’re wrong. That’s about cognition in general, not only about philosophical thought. Or have I misunderstood you?

Otherwise, you haven’t been clear so I don’t know what you’re saying.

You’re overthinking it, perhaps.

The context is…..what exemplifies philosophical thought, pursuant to the OP, or elaborations on it. This asks for something in general, not a specific theory or its predicates. I’m just saying the erasure of us from the picture of that which exemplifies philosophical thought, is impossible, in that whatever it is, without us, there isn’t any philosophical thought to exemplify.

Ah, the OP! I forgot about that.

So “us” may have referred to philosophers. Right. Well, as that isn’t remotely as interesting to me as what I was talking about, I’ll quietly leave…

When I say (perhaps too flippantly) that Kant "erased us", I was referring to his pre-requirement for logical necessity and predetermination which forced him to remove, in a sense, the individual--say, as in science, where it does not matter who is doing the experiment correctly, the answer will be the same. Nietzsche is reacting to that move in reintroducing "the human", along with history, cultural context, and our continuing responsibility.

Real human individuals, in the form of “finite human beings” never are alone sufficient for that which exemplifies philosophical thought — Mww

Wittgenstein would point out that the requirement to be considered "sufficient" to be philosophy is imposed by our desire for certainty, or, as Kant would say:

[ the ] transcendental unity of apperception is established as the absolute requirement of experience — Jamal

So “us” may have referred to philosophers — Jamal

I was referring to "us" as the condition of human uncertainty faced (or ignored) by each person, making philosophy our ticket to seeing our part (and with others), thus bettering our response, ourselves.

I was referring to "us" as the condition of human uncertainty faced (or ignored) by each person, making philosophy our ticket to seeing our part (and with others), thus bettering our response, ourselves. — Antony Nickles

I think this is the basis for a kind of meliorism, versus pessimism. I would typify myself as a melioristic naturalist.

Ok. Thanks.

I would typify myself as a melioristic naturalist. — Pantagruel

:up:

I think this is the basis for a kind of meliorism.... — Pantagruel

I take philosophy as a process, more akin to psychotherapy than science or pragmatism or teleology--examining hidden implications, uncovering frameworks created by our desires or judgments, making our ordinary overlooked lives explicit--basically, reflecting on ourselves (even through investigating the world, e.g., Socrates, Hegel, Wittgenstein, etc.) Emerson and Nietzsche and Cavell call this perfectionism, but it is a journey of personal growth, not the establishment of a theoretical attitude.

For me philosophy is useless unless it guides or informs someone’s principles in their everyday life, although not all branches of philosophy have practical everyday use.

So from the above useful rationale socio-ethic would exemplify philosophy, well at least mine anyway.

Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other.

Metaphysics although arguably of no practical use in everyday life can still affect someone’s ethics, in fact most other branches of philosophy impact ethics in some way shape or form albeit subtly…

Apart from Aesthetics…but maybe I’m missing something here. Most likely, as the appreciation of beauty is universal in the aspect that everyone should be have the right to but subjective from the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

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

Basically all of your list below.Included "Other" too.
The right amount-or better combination of them-is the most difficult and crucial part thought.A real philosophy oughts,imo,to include Everything that makes human race wonder about.And all of these categories are united together somehow,as everything in general in the universe is united too.

So for me ,the type of philosophy that shows how philosophy should be indeed, is the combination of all types of philosophy.A United philosophy.I vote for "All".

But i say again, it is the way of how philosophy should achieve this combination that makes all the difference.That's the "juice" and the real question I think.

But i say again, it is the way of how philosophy should achieve this combination that makes all the difference.That's the "juice" and the real question I think. — dimosthenis9

I was thinking about that this morning. I guess this is asking, to what extent is philosophy modular? And it is as modular as you need or want it to be. Cognitive science and philosophy of mind play well together. So do neurology and neurocomputation and linguistics. But you can make a lot of progress just focusing on epistemology, which itself covers a lot of ground.

So maybe, is there some core thing to which all of these various areas of interest contribute mutually, whether individually or in concert? Time and again the answer seems to be the self or (as I see them inextricable) the self-in-society. In which case, those philosophies which examine this theme explicitly, social-ethical which I picked, or maybe cognitive-phenomenological seem to best exemplify what philosophy is about, qua ultimate practical application.

So maybe, is there some core thing to which all of these various areas of interest contribute mutually, whether individually or in concert? Time and again the answer seems to be the self or... the sefl-in-sociey — Pantagruel

I agree. Though philosophy obviously has made contributions in: say, starting science, creating the model for psychotherapy, etc., I would argue that searching for certainty (scientific knowledge) is not really doing the core of what philosophy is anymore (con-tra-visy!!), which is the betterment of me, and my relationship with the other.

A lot of philosophy is simply analogous to the human condition. The Republic is not just about society and politics. We are the Republic; we are rulers over the domain that is our self--it is about how the human self works, as is The Prince, The Bhagavad Vita, Zarathustra, etc. Wittgenstein's Investigations is not about language, as most take it. He is looking at the things we say about the world as evidence of our desires and what matters to us about it--seeing the ordinary things we say as a reflection and/or projection of our self (analogously, in a sense).

Logic, modern "ethics" courses, and how the brain works don't make you a better person the same way as struggling to really understand philosophy through the process of reading it (allowing yourself to be read by/through it), rather than just getting the gist of it off wikipedia or imagining you understand it (or other's posts) at first glance, say, thinking we can summarize it, label it, dismiss it.

And not everything is philosophy. Its peripheral tasks have been peeled off into science, sociology, anthropology, behavioral psychology, etc. So to say it is a matter of interest just means you have other interests than the central domain of philosophy, or just have an end game for "philososphy"--say, fixing skepticism with science or logical theories.

The free imagination, wonder in flight is metaphysics; it is what carries us aloft and enlightens the path to our continued journey. It is the quest, without which we dry up and blow away.

"What exemplifies philosophy?" :chin:

For me: A praxis of ambulatory health, metacognitive hygiene and moral fitness.