You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field.What two basic steps?
Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom. — Fooloso4
How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge? — Nickolasgaspar
-And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry.I don't see how they could. — Fooloso4
Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude.This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements". — Fooloso4
Yes they do but their content doesn't change the Philosophical method.I don't know what this means. Statements have content. — Fooloso4
-No they don't. Like in any Philosophical work, there is good philosophy and bad philosophy in Plato's work. We don't throw the baby with the bath waterPlato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim. — Fooloso4
Sure, apories (asking right questions) are also the strong point of Philosophy. Right questions need to be wise too...and how do you know when a question is wise? We check their empirical routes."Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia. — Fooloso4
Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science. Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics.They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue — Fooloso4
You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer .We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise. — Fooloso4
Of course they are...they posses this value. I already explained it.(above)This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical. — Fooloso4
that isn't an example. that is a vague claim. what Self knowledge means to you and how do you achieve it. Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge) ...how do you arrive to this type of knowledge. You just pick ideas without any type of criteria or judgment???Self-knowledge is the example. — Fooloso4
-You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact. This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions.Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption. — Fooloso4
That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate?Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding. — Fooloso4
- Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment.According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science. — Fooloso4
You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field. — Nickolasgaspar
And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry. — Nickolasgaspar
Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes Socrates's method guided a discussion through challenging questions(απορίες), but those questions were design to expose inconsistencies between opinions, facts of the world and logic. — Nickolasgaspar
No they don't. — Nickolasgaspar
My question is really simple. How one can philosophize without using objective knowledge as the foundation for his auxiliary assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar
Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science. — Nickolasgaspar
Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics. — Nickolasgaspar
You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer . — Nickolasgaspar
that isn't an example. that is a vague claim. — Nickolasgaspar
objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar
Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge) — Nickolasgaspar
You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact. — Nickolasgaspar
This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions. — Nickolasgaspar
That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar
Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment. — Nickolasgaspar
When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there. — Wittgenstein, Culture and Value
Yeap treat systematic knowledge as ordinary opinions is your thing, you made it clear.Thanks for your advice, but I prefer to think rather than follow the misguided idea that there are steps that are not even steps. — Fooloso4
That's not the criterion for pseudo philosophy....Dismissing what you have not read or have not understood as "Pseudo Philosophy" does harm to your credibility. — Fooloso4
Seriously.....you felt the need to add that? lol oh boy...sad.By the way, it is Paul Hoyningen-Huene not Paul Hoyningen. — Fooloso4
So you don't know the difference between Physics and Aristotle's Physika ...proud to be ignorant I guess.His use of the term science is not limited to physics as you have it in your chart, bur rather it applies to each topic in the chart and much more. — Fooloso4
↪Nickolasgaspar
These are not steps in a philosophical method, they are branches of philosophy, areas of philosophical study. What you might find in a college philosophy course catalog. — Fooloso4
Yeap treat systematic knowledge as ordinary opinions is your thing, you made it clear. — Nickolasgaspar
Thus, the unity of science consists in family resemblances that hold between different branches of science, resulting in a very loose network represented by the abstract concept of systematicity. — The Heart of Science: Systematicity
That's not the criterion for pseudo philosophy....
I quote form the same source:
"What is pseudo-philosophy?
Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn't corrected when discovered." — Nickolasgaspar
Dismissing what you have not read or have not understood as "Pseudo Philosophy" does harm to your credibility. — Fooloso4
maybe you can also tell Paul to change the name of his youtube channel ...because it only goes by Paul Hoyningen) — Nickolasgaspar
So you don't know the difference between Physics and Aristotle's Physika ...proud to be ignorant I guess. — Nickolasgaspar
I am not interested in tap dances....have a great evening sir. — Nickolasgaspar
Criticism:But you should be interested in what those who you rely on actually say. Or not. That's up to you. The problem is your repeated criticisms of others based on your misunderstanding of the sources you rely on. — Fooloso4
Which is just to say: More philosophers should be like me. The oldest philosophical prejudice of all :D — Moliere
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.