Make it just a guy instead of yogis and gurus if its easier, that way your not tempted to reference the “spirituality” those folk practice in addition to any philosophizing they might do. — DingoJones

I'd say the same, I think. I've already stated that I have mental reveries on my own. I'd say that's spirituality in a way more than philosophy. Philosophy deals with others.

The “public side”? Whats the other side, the not public one? Isnt that exactly what Im talking about re the guy in a cave contemplating life and the universe? — DingoJones

Yup. But if someone only does that I think I'd be tempted to call that spirituality rather than philosophy. There's something about revealing one's thoughts to others for scrutiny and growth which is part of philosophy, which I didn't include in my initial list.

You do philosophy for the reasons people invented philosophy in the first place. And you like "Annie Hall." — T Clark

That's generous of you. Thanks. (love Annie Hall!) I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. But the good thing is life continues and I am content doing my thing, thinking my thoughts... I'm just aware that every supposition and belief I hold can likely be undermined by robust philosophical reasoning, much of which I don't fully comprehend. It's the conundrum of the layperson.

Ok, I see. You agree with my conclusion but not my example? Is that right?

Not exactly.

I think @Banno is right in that there is something social to philosophy. "Inherent" is good enough for me, but I wouldn't say "necessary at all times". There are times we aren't together, that we think thoughts -- but to make it philosophy I think I'm still on the "gotta present it to others" track. Or, maybe there are some who are just that good, but there is definitely a huge benefit to being a part of a community for growth and knowledge.

Take @Tobias point that eventually you should find a mentor. Isn't that a social relationships there? I don't know if it's necessary, but I can say I've had more than one mentor with respect to philosophy and it's always helped me. That community part of philosophy is a big part of growth, though of course we're supposed to be able to think on our own too.

I love that Kafka quote. It points out that you have to bring something to the philosophy game. You have to have developed a world view, a perspective, before you start. You can't just pick a philosopher at random and start believing what they say. You see that a lot here on the forum - people quoting philosophers without really understanding the implications and consequences of those beliefs. Other philosophers can help you find the way, but it's your path. — T Clark

I agree it's your path. I wouldn't like the existentialists if I didn't think that there's something true to that.

I'm not sure if you do need to bring something, though here I'm thinking about Socrates Cafe style meetings as a possible counter example. It was a social setting where people who were interested enough in philosophy to listen could listen to people discussing questions in a safe public environment.

I'd say that philosophy can help in developing a worldview, and there should be more public access to philosophy for that very purpose.

Still: I quote philosophers all the time and may miss implications. I think it's an important part, but you're right to say it's not everything.

I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. — Tom Storm

Then for you I think both @unenlightened and @Srap Tasmaner have outlined better methods, if you're interested. If not, then that's fine too. But I'll echo @T Clark in saying that you're very open minded and seem to have something of the philosophical desire in you :)

"So little time" is probably the biggest problem with my method. I happened to get bitten by the bug at a relatively early age, mostly due to my upbringing and my weird way of just wanting to know things. But it's not like you need to read all these books to have a solid grasp of philosophy. Look at Wittgenstein! (Or Socrates)

I think Banno is right in that there is something social to philosophy. "Inherent" is good enough for me, but I wouldn't say "necessary at all times". There are times we aren't together, that we think thoughts -- but to make it philosophy I think I'm still on the "gotta present it to others" track. Or, maybe there are some who are just that good, but there is definitely a huge benefit to being a part of a community for growth and knowledge.

Take @Tobias point that eventually you should find a mentor. Isn't that a social relationships there? I don't know if it's necessary, but I can say I've had more than one mentor with respect to philosophy and it's always helped me. That community part of philosophy is a big part of growth, though of course we're supposed to be able to think on our own too. — Moliere

I agree that it is highly useful, perhaps the best way to do philosophy and of course exposure to the ideas of others is invaluable but it seems very strange to say those things are necessary for philosophy. Like, “hey Roger, do you think we have free will” is philosophy, but “hmmm, I wonder if we have free will” isnt? Huh?
I understand that was Bannos claim not yours, but we kind of started there so…ya.

To avoid too many layers of interpretation, I'll let @Banno speak for himself.

I'll take the extra step and say it's more than useful, and actually necessary. Not at all points, but at some point if you want your thoughts to qualify as philosophy then you have to share it with others. Further, even if you do not want it to qualify as philosophy it's that sharing which makes philosophy what it is. Think Socrates here -- by our records he only wrote in public. Surely that's important?

But when I look at SEP, I see too much philosophy that starts on paper, lives on paper, passes into oblivion on paper. — Srap Tasmaner

I find SEP really helpful, but I never go to it until I want the detail it provides. I also use it and Wikipedia when I come across something new I'm not familiar with.

I think good philosophy begins with life, encountering a problem that doesn't yield to the usual approach, finding something that works and wondering why it works, noticing something peculiar, or noticing the peculiarity of something ordinary. It begins, so to speak, with things, not with ideas about things. — Srap Tasmaner

That's pragmatism, or at least it's foundation. I come from science and engineering, so my focus is on knowledge - how to get it and what to do with it once you have it. Very concrete - problem solving.

I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. — Tom Storm

I spend time on the r/Taoism subreddit on reddit. People are always asking how they can solve personal problems using Taoist principles. As I see it, Taoism is a path without a goal. It's a process to follow to make you the kind of person who can solve those problems. I think other kinds of philosophy are similar. Perhaps that seems at odds with what I wrote in my previous post:

That's pragmatism, or at least it's foundation. I come from science and engineering, so my focus is on knowledge - how to get it and what to do with it once you have it. Very concrete - problem solving. — T Clark

I don't think it is. Pragmatism is also about process, not answers. Answers are what science provides.

I'm not sure if you do need to bring something, — Moliere

I don't believe in philosophical blank slates. World views come as standard equipment, along with the accessories required to grow and develop them. Philosophy just helps us sharpen our pencils.

Note - three different metaphors in three sentences.

Ok, so you are saying its necessary now. So if I am sitting in a cave by myself contemplating whether or not I have free will…im not doing philosophy? Sorry, I just don’t buy that. Its the exact same thing but just by yourself.
It seems like a totally unnecessary distinction to make and I don’t understand what purpose is served by restricting philosophy to its social aspects. Thanks for taking the time though.

Nice!
And you used the right word: "motivated". It's the key to all knowlegdge and excellence. This is very evident in school, where the majority of students are bad in some areas, esp. in Math. No motivation. They have no use of Math. During the whole duration of the school. And Math teachers --in most cases-- ignore this vital factor or they are not even interested in creating such a motivation to their students. And then, they expect from them to excel in Math! What an irony, if not a stupidity!

I'd like to point out that "spirituality" is also usually and advisedly a social practice, done in monasteries.
One can explore inner space alone, but one can get very badly and irrevocably lost. Better to have a companion on the outside holding the end of a thread that one unwinds as one goes, thus enabling one to retrace ones path. One needs solitary homework, and one needs tutorials in an education, spiritual or philosophical.

Yesterday the idiot box had a discussion. "Is a degree worth it these days?" There was much talk about how much they cost, and whether or not work experience, was worth more to employers. No one was able to step outside the confines of the economic value-system to even wonder whether education might have intrinsic value. That's the value of philosophy - to see things invisible to the merely clever.

Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then? — DingoJones

Mysticism.

Ya and if someone else comes in and starts dialogue it becomes philosophy instead? Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Not buying it.

Good point that the distinction between spirituality and philosophy isn't found in its publicness, and that spirituality is frequently pursued in a collective fashion as well. There's a difference between the activities, I think, but it's not whether it's a social activity.

Before Socrates what was philosophy? It's difficult to say, but the fragments seem to indicate that there were schools, that people talked with one another about ideas, that they disagreed with one another frequently and posited all kinds of different ideas and explanations to one another. And then Socrates changed the face of philosophy by bringing it into the public square -- it was a social activity prior, but Socrates brought those ideas into the public life of the city and began to use them to corrupt the youth for which he was condemned to die.

So there's even a precedent based upon one of the indisputable examples of a philosopher to claim that philosophy is performed in public. Though there's certainly the dialogue writers, they are written for people to read and contemplate.

Stoics like Marcus Aurelius provide a good example of non-public philosophy, given what we have is basically his journal to himself. But then he was an emporer, so his philosophy was in a way more public than most.

Mysticism. — Tobias

There's a difference between the activities — Moliere

If that's true, then you don't consider Taoism and Buddhism philosophies, is that correct?

Yup.

Though there's funny cases, too -- not just tofrom Eastern religions, either. Consider Augustine and Martin Luther as interesting cases that will test our notions about what these human activities consist of.

But generally I believe spirituality and philosophy to be different, especially because it seems to me that any religion should be able to engage in the practice of philosophy, whereas to be a member of a religion you usually have to leave any other religion behind. They're kind of total ways of life which won't get along too well (unless you're a Universalist Unitarian, dedicated to the notion that they can get along).

not just from Eastern religions, either. — Moliere

Your argument seems to be that eastern philosophies are not philosophies because they are religions, but they're not, or at least they don't have to be. Taoist philosophy is separate from Taoist religion and came first.

Philosophical School of the Dao ("Taoist philosophy") or "Taology" ("study of the Tao"), or the mystical aspect—the philosophical doctrines based on the texts of the I Ching, the Tao Te Ching, and the Zhuangzi. One of the hundred schools of thought during the Warring States period. The earliest recorded uses of the term Tao to refer to a philosophy or a school of thought are found in the works of classical historians during Han Dynasty. These works include The Commentary of Zhuo by Zuo Qiuming and in the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Tan. This usage of the term to narrowly denote a school of thought precedes the emergence of the Celestial Masters and associated later religions. — Wikipedia - Taoism

Light a fire.
Stare intensely into the flames it while thinking really, really hard. Full mind sprint.
Continue until you collapse or achieve the Gnosis. :cool:

If there's a distinction to be made between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion then I think I'm still safe in the distinction between spirituality and philosophy?

I just fall asleep at the fire and wake up cold and sore before going to a proper bed ;)

But that says more about me than your notion of philosophy.

Staring at fire in the dark is a good source of calm and inspirational thoughts.

I suppose in making my distinction between the mystical or the spiritual versus the philosophical I'd say that this method won't quite do. But then you're something of a counter-example, because you think about the thoughts and express them with others and such without actually expressing a Gnostic spirituality -- you stick to the philosophy.

Is that how you began?

If that's true, then you don't consider Taoism and Buddhism philosophies, is that correct? — T Clark

I do not know enough about them. I also do not know if they are in the same boat. I know that thinking in solitude about life the universe and everything does not make you a philosopher yet. There needs to be rigor in that thinking and that is hard to acquire on your own. Nigh impossible I would think.

Ya and if someone else comes in and starts dialogue it becomes philosophy instead? Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Not buying it. — DingoJones

Whether you buy it or not is completely irrelevant. My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue but not that every dialogue is philosophy. Your objection is logically unsound. Your apology is conceited because it is not meant.

Like, “hey Roger, do you think we have free will” is philosophy, but “hmmm, I wonder if we have free will” isnt? Huh? — DingoJones

This is a good example. In this particular example both are not yet philosophy, because just asking a philosophical question does not make you engage in the discipline of philosophy. However the first sentence is at least on the way. Roger will give an answer, something in the vein of "hey I do not know, what do you think?" Then the person asking the question must make her position explicit and articulate the reasons and arguments for taking that position. Since philosophy is an argumentative practice we are at least getting somewhere. Ruminations that just run around in someone's mind are not philosophy, only arguments are because they can be countered by other arguments.

There needs to be rigor in that thinking and that is hard to acquire on your own. Nigh impossible I would think. — Tobias

That is a good point. Although I think an appreciation for critical thinking and reading can get people a long way.

Whether you buy it or not is completely irrelevant. — Tobias

Not if your are trying to convince me. You aren’t making an argument, you are asserting something about philosophy: that its defined by dialogue. So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they aren’t doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense.

My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue but not that every dialogue is philosophy. Your objection is logically unsound. Your apology is conceited because it is not meant. — Tobias

Logically unsound in what way. Not wrong, you arent saying Im wrong you are saying what I said is not logically sound. Point out to me where ive been logically unsound.
Also, get your head out of your ass, youre not a mind reader. Me saying “sorry” was a sincere way of trying to tell you I was not convinced. And what do you think “conceited” means? Please explain this bizarre relation between conceit and insincerity.

This is a good example. In this particular example both are not yet philosophy, because just asking a philosophical question does not make you engage in the discipline of philosophy. However the first sentence is at least on the way. Roger will give an answer, something in the vein of "hey I do not know, what do you think?" Then the person asking the question must make her position explicit and articulate the reasons and arguments for taking that position. Since philosophy is an argumentative practice we are at least getting somewhere. Ruminations that just run around in someone's mind are not philosophy, only arguments are because they can be countered by other arguments. — Tobias

You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.
You can ask yourself questions, and answer them.

Ok, let me try one last time.
Larry contemplates the matter of free will and comes up with some really interesting answers, his answers consider angles no one else on earth thought of.
Not philosophy.
Some clueless moron walks in and makes a bunch of bad arguments and asks Larry questions and dialogues with him. Now it’s philosophy?
Or even just some guy comes in and dialogues with Larry and Larry just keeps saying “I know, I thought of that already, I wrote it down, see?” Over and over and over again thats philosophy but it wasnt when Larry came up with the stuff on his own?
These are the absurdities you commit yourself to when you have the position that philosophy requires dialogue.
And again, all you have done is describe dialogue and call it philosophy as an argument that philosophy requires dialogue. That is a pretty basic breach of logic, you must have come up with it all by your lonesome cuz its surely not philosophy. :wink:
Larry the brilliant thinker comes out of his cave with a treatise on ethics and runs into Bob who has the exact same treatise (it can even be vastly inferior in your mad world) and so Larry gets excited and exclaims
“neat, we both philosophized the same thing! What are the odds?!”
And Bob says
“oh no Larry you knucklehead, what you did isnt philosophy. I did philosophy, not you”
So Larry says
“…but they are the exact same…?”
And Bob says
“Yes they are, but I talked to Ralph about mine.”

That last line of Bobs is a punchline, because the claim dialogue is necessary to do philosophy is a joke.

If you respond to anything in this post, please start with this:

“You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.”

If you can’t address this then I don’t think anything else needs be discussed. Thank you for your time though, and thats a sincere thank you just in vase you're tempted to use your unreliable mind reading powers again.

“You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.” — DingoJones

Obviously it's unpersuasive, given your response.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's logically unsound. Where the form of argument ends and the example or explication begins isn't easy most of the time. I'll go back to the differences between Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to make the case for the publicity of philosophy. Socrates invented philosophy as we know it, Plato invented it as an academic discipline to corrupt the youth in the long term, and Aristotle realized how good a life being an academic is and dived into justifying his position through Reason alone. (a clear fable that ought be perfected, but I hope that it makes sense)

Dialogue is a part of philosophy because there's always been this call and response, or back and forth, between those we consider philosophers.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's logically unsound. — Moliere

Well, it’s circular. Thats a fallacy if logic so i think logically unsound fits unless Im missing something.

Dialogue is a part of philosophy because there's always been this call and response, or back and forth, between those we consider philosophers. — Moliere

I’m desperate to understand what I’m missing here.
Im not saying dialogue isnt a part of philosophy, Im saying that it isnt a necessary part of philosophy. I could even agree that dialogue is necessary for the best philosophy but to me its very clear that some philosophizing can and does happen without dialogue.
Look above for the absurdities that come with the position that philosophy requires dialogue. And what do we gain in return for this concession to absurdity? I don’t see a single thing, and I do not mean we gain nothing from dialogue I mean we gain nothing by making dialogue a prerequisite to philosophy.