Philosophy is what the philosophers worry about. Issues that have not been made into a science, or issues in science that have not been so systematized.

And many issues that could well never be a science. So, it's quite a lot.

Simple definitions are hard and maybe impossible (aside from math and stipulations). Not for "philosophy", but virtually every word.

I think that philosophy is a part of the knowledge based on facts while science is a part of the knowledge based on data.

To make your point would require some sort of poll of mathematicians asking "Are the Foundations of Mathematics important to you as you pursue your explorations into your specialties?" I'm betting most of my colleagues — jgill

Mathematics does not have direct practical applications, mostly by design so. That is often a good thing, but it also means that the academic consensus has much more weight than it would have, if there were practical applications.

This reminds me of the notorious debate between Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds:

LINUX is obsolete (Jan 29, 1992)

Torvalds: You use this [being a professor] as an excuse for the limitations of minix? ... your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix.

Tanenbaum: Writing a new OS only for the 386 in 1991 gets you your second 'F' for this term. But if you do real well on the final exam, you can still pass the course.

In this realm, i.e. operating system research, it is the billions of users of the Android mobile phones (built on top of the Linux kernel) who give an 'F' to Andrew Tanenbaum and an 'A' to Linus Torvalds.

Tanenbaum's colleagues obviously thought the same as Tanenbaum, and all of them were completely and dead wrong.

Philosophy and mathematics are certainly interesting hobbies. Unfortunately, unlike in operating system research, there does not exist an objective meritocracy.

There's just the mutually back-patting consensus, or else meaningless grades on a collection of otherwise irrelevant tests and exams, or even the eternally back-patting citation carousel. That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies.

Mathematics does not have direct practical applications, mostly by design so. That is often a good thing, but it also means that the academic consensus has much more weight than it would have, if there were practical applications — Tarskian

There's just the mutually back-patting consensus, or else meaningless grades on a collection of otherwise irrelevant tests and exams, or even the eternally back-patting citation carousel. That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies — Tarskian

Your opinion has been noted. Actually, I agree with the first statement above. The second sounds a little bitter.

The second sounds a little bitter. — jgill

Well, not really. I (semi-)retired in 2017 from software engineering. Until then, I never had much time for my hobbies. Now I finally do.

That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies — Tarskian

Understandable. Many others likewise. For the last 24 years math explorations have been a hobby for me as well.

In fact, it would also be interesting to elaborate why exactly your example sentence is not philosophical. — Tarskian

What if you had written: (In fact, it would also be philosophically interesting to elaborate why exactly your example sentence is not philosophical.)?

Does your definition tell us philosophy is inherently iterative?

...consider the implications of the term 'idiosyncratic'. Idiosyncratic means 'pertaining to a particular individual' — Wayfarer

Do you imply that Tarskian's definition is too narrow in scope to be considered philosophical?

No, I said his definition is idiosyncratic. It doesn't mean that it's incorrect, but it is very much of his own devising, to wit:

philosophy is a mathematical capability of the language at hand. — Tarskian

Compare the orthodox definition from Brittanica for example.

I don't understand many of @Tarskians posts as they rely heavily on mathematics and symbolic logic. The gist seems to be that Godel's incompleteness theorem introduces a 'foundational crisis' in philosophy and mathematics because it indicates reality is not logical all the way down, or something like that. But I've left that to others who are more conversant with the intricacies to thrash out, as much of it is beyond me.

(Which is not to say I don't believe there is a 'crisis in philosophy' - I have on my desk Edmund Husserl's The Crisis of the European Sciences, published after his death, and composed mainly in the 1920's and 30's. It too addresses themes about the limitations of positivism, the implications of what we now call 'scientism', and the the impact of the mathematization of nature in post-galilean science etc, but it's very much broader in scope than simply consideration of the impact of Godel's incompleteness theorem.)

philosophy -- the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

--The Britannica Dictionary

Do you agree that this definition can be paraphrased thus: philosophy -- thinking about thinking

Maybe, but it's meaningless. It conveys nothing significant.

My definition begins with the word itself: philo (love) sophia (wisdom), philo-sophia, 'love~wisdom'. What that means, how to realise it.

(Which is not to say I don't believe there is a 'crisis in philosophy' - I have on my desk Edmund Husserl's The Crisis of the European Sciences, published after his death, and composed mainly in the 1920's and 30's. — Wayfarer

I suspect there has been a crisis in philosophy since day one...

My definition begins with the word itself: philo (love) sophia (wisdom), philo-sophia, 'love~wisdom'. What that means, how to realise it. — Wayfarer

It's hard to avoid this definition, isn't it? One issue, of course, is that the notion of what counts as wisdom is a bit nebulous. I sometimes think philosophy is at war with wisdom, inasmuch as it tends to deconstruct this 'sacred' knowledge we have derived through experience, reflection and judgement.

Another problem is how do we recognise what is wise if we ourselves are not? We tend to gravitate to the philosophical ideas that match our personality and inclinations. I wonder if this mostly takes us in the wrong direction and I wonder too if true wisdom for most of us might involve staying away from philosophy.

For me, the essence of philosophy seems to lie in exploring what can be considered true about the nature of reality; even examining whether the concept of 'reality' is actually a useful term.

The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none.

? We tend to gravitate to the philosophical ideas that match our personality and inclinations. — Tom Storm

So say us moderns whose whole notion of philosophy tends towards an ego-centred outlook.

The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer

Yes, the tradition is important. The hard part is determining which parts to privilege and study. Just getting up to speed would take more than a lifetime and be utterly beyond the capacity of most people. And there's always the nagging feeling that there may well have been one or two thinkers along the way who might have allowed us to dispense with some of what came before them.

I totally get that. I now have far too many books, and always the nagging realisation of how little I know. Still, I do try and relate what I’m thinking or arguing with some touch-points in philosophy generally. Something I will call out, is the inherent tendency of moderns to ‘historical presentism’ - that what we know now, what with science being so powerful, renders much or even all of pre-modern philosophy archaic and superseded. There is an element of truth insofar as factual matters are concerned, but in respect of questions of meaning and the nature of lived existence, the border isn’t at all clear-cut.

The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer

There are entire areas in philosophy that are dominant elsewhere but will never get mentioned in a philosophy department.

For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

Unix philosophy

The Unix philosophy, originated by Ken Thompson, is a set of cultural norms and philosophical approaches to minimalist, modular software development. It is based on the experience of leading developers of the Unix operating system.

There is nothing wrong with 2500-year-old texts.

However, there is a lot more philosophy than that. Philosophy did not stop with Aristotle.

Depending on your background, you will be more influenced by different texts, simply because in your own environment, they are mentioned more often.

Furthermore, philosophy often emerges out of the confrontation with existing practice. New questions will lead to new philosophical considerations.

We simply do not live in antiquity anymore. Some of the ancient findings are still relevant. A lot of it, is not.

It is naive to believe that by merely studying the old masters, you will be able to make a relevant contribution to the world of philosophy as it exists today. Instead, you will find yourself mostly divorced from the contemporary discourse.

It is naive to believe that by merely studying the old masters, you will be able to make a relevant contribution to the world of philosophy as it exists today. Instead, you will find yourself mostly divorced from the contemporary discourse. — Tarskian

Something I will call out, is the inherent tendency of moderns to ‘historical presentism’ - that what we know now, what with science being so powerful, renders much or even all of pre-modern philosophy archaic and superseded. There is an element of truth insofar as factual matters are concerned, but in respect of questions of meaning and the nature of lived existence, the border isn’t at all clear-cut. — Wayfarer

.

And by the philosophical canon I don’t just mean ancient philosophy, there are many interesting current philosophers.

Accountancy companies and engineering firms might have philosophies concerning how they do business but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have wider application outside their spheres.

Accountancy companies and engineering firms might have philosophies concerning how they do business but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have wider application outside their spheres. — Wayfarer

Aristotle wrote interesting things which were essentially about recursive algorithms. If an algorithm f(n) has two parts:


If part2(n) is recursive, i.e. it contains a reference to f(n-1), and if the algorithm eventually halts, then part1(n) necessarily contains a termination clause:


Aristotle used this argument two times in his publications. One time in "Posterior Analytics" to argue why foundationalism is inevitable and another time in "Metaphysics" when arguing why he believes there must be an unmoved mover, i.e. a universal initial cause.

The next time after Aristotle that someone successfully used a partial function to prove anything, was when Alan Turing used it in 1936 for the formalization of his halting problem. (Turing didn't call the problem as such but it is under that name that it started circulating).

Anybody in between? Not so much, I guess.

I don't know if Aristotle has written anything about accounting or engineering, but he certainly has about recursive algorithms.

And by the philosophical canon I don’t just mean ancient philosophy, there are many interesting current philosophers. — Wayfarer

Possibly.

However, it is unfortunately not clear to me which one of them would be remarkable.

For example, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a long-winding text that rarely commits to anything actionable, but when it very occasionally does, it turns out to be wrong.

For example, according to Kant, the natural numbers and arithmetic would not be an axiomatic theory. Kant argued that numbers would originate in intuition and not be analytic a priori. Later on, Peano and Dedekind published a perfectly viable axiomatic take on arithmetic and the natural numbers. Frege also pointed out that Kant was fundamentally misguided about the natural numbers and arithmetic.

Writing a word salad is easy. Successfully arguing a point by using partial functions, is hard. Unlike what many philosophers think, I consider Aristotle and Kant to be in different leagues. Aristotle did something difficult to do. Kant did not.

The definition that I propose, is actually not particularly new. It is quite close to thinking about thinking:

Overgaard, Gilbert & Burwood 2013, pp. 36–37, 43, What Is Philosophy?
Nuttall 2013, p. 12, 1. The Nature of Philosophy — Tarskian

Me if I abused philosophical literature, searched for the first thing that somewhat agreed with my sophomoric redefinition, didn't read the rest, and decided to quote it even though the person being quoted would disagree with me.

"Thinking about thinking" and "statements about other statements" are notions that are very close to each other. — Tarskian

Yet they are not the same thing at all.

That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies. — Tarskian

Of course, you can't do either of them at all.

Kant did not. — Tarskian

Now you pretend to know Kant, rich :lol:

The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer

Yes, the tradition is important. The hard part is determining which parts to privilege and study. — Tom Storm

That is indeed a big problem. In practice, you will find yourself looking at the philosophical canon. Those books will at least make it much easier to talk to other philosophers.

The concept may be unfamiliar, so here is a reasonably authoritative explanation:-

The literary canon, theorists contend, is a selection of reputable works that abstracts their value for specific purposes: to safeguard them from neglect or censure, reproduce social and institutional values, maintain them as exemplary in the formation of personal or communal identities, or objectify and enshrine standards of judgment. .... The discourse of canonicity thus relies on an economy of belief about the possibility and validity of agreement about literary value. Within this economy, the canon, in whichever composition, is both the evidence and the outcome of agreement, without which value would seemingly become entirely speculative. ..... A work may be treated as a reference point, a familiar and influential text whose contribution to culture is measured relative to one context. — Canon and Classic | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature

The link is here

And there's always the nagging feeling that there may well have been one or two thinkers along the way who might have allowed us to dispense with some of what came before them. — Tom Storm

Oh, that is a big problem, which is exacerbated by the academic idea that you have to read everything in order to understand anything. In practice, people read the stuff that the people they are talking to read. Going beyond that is pretty much a question of happenstance (or, these days, what comes up in the first page or two of a web search). But that's all right. Sometimes, you find something new and interesting.

It is naïve to believe that by merely studying the old masters, you will be able to make a relevant contribution to the world of philosophy as it exists today. Instead, you will find yourself mostly divorced from the contemporary discourse. — Tarskian

That opinion depends on which parts of contemporary discourse you happen to be reading. There is a good deal of contemporary discourse about a good many of the old masters. Collectively, they set the context of contemporary discussion. Every few years, someone comes along who thinks they have overturned everything that went before. Its part of the tradition. It never works. At best, the revolutionaries add a new strand to the complex web that we know and, sometimes, love.

For example, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a long-winding text that rarely commits to anything actionable, but when it very occasionally does, it turns out to be wrong. — Tarskian

Of course he gets things wrong. Everyone gets things wrong. But Kant gets thing wrong in interesting ways. That's what keeps philosophy going.

That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies. — Tarskian

Simple definitions. Work is what you have to do. Hobbies are what make life worth living.

Me if I abused philosophical literature, searched for the first thing that somewhat agreed with my sophomoric redefinition, didn't read the rest, and decided to quote it even though the person being quoted would disagree with me. — Lionino

Here we go again.

Have you found a job already? Or are you going to keep living off your mother's welfare benefits?

Of course, you can't do either of them at all. — Lionino

Is there anything that you can do, that someone else is willing to pay for?

Philosophy and the philosophy of mathematics are not objective meritocracies. That is a massive drawback. It fails to expose people -- whose only contribution is to shit talk other people -- for what they truly are.

By the way, I have heard that Starbucks is hiring in your area.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a long-winding text that rarely commits to anything actionable, but when it very occasionally does, it turns out to be wrong. — Tarskian

That text figures in many a list of great philosophical books and is also particularly relevant in our day. While I perfectly agree that Kant’s writing is voluminous and extremely difficult, I don’t believe he can be dismissed so easily. Furthermore I’m sure many who dismiss him fail to grasp the significance of that work.

Successfully arguing a point by using partial functions, is hard — Tarskian

:chin: You seem to me to be highly trained in a specific subject area but much of what you say is impenetrable to others not so trained.

:ok:

In 10 days this thread has produced 4 pages of back-and-forth discussion. So, there is action, reaction, interaction. If some read the thread and do not choose to participate and then those that do not read it at all provide another thing, inaction.

There are always only three ways to examine something/express something. But these three ways when combined in percentages allow an infinity of ways to examine something/express something.

The penchant here on these forums and elsewhere these days relies upon one of the three ways overmuch. That is the way of fear. The way of fear is responsible for all order in reality. All structure, all limits, all connection (speaks again to structure really), all observation and awareness, all thought, is all just and only fear. The world of the Noosphere (Vladimir Vernadsky / Ken Wilber) is all only fear.

When you use symbolism, symbolic logic, logic, any thought really, you are enacting and manifesting fear.

Of course no manifestation within reality is truly isolated in emotive content. That means besides fear and its rather pure manifestations like structure and thought, we have ... two ... other emotions.

These are desire and anger.

The core tension of all reality is only and always the interaction between these three emotions, which I refer to as primal emotions. There is nothing else in existence. But the three primal emotions, again, fear, anger, and desire, together are the system, reality, ... and the term most often and appropriately used for this union, ... love. You can call it God if you like, or fate, or nature. Blah blah blah. It's all the same thing, everything, and all only and always fear, anger, and desire and their interactions.

Fear, as mentioned is order and logic and academics and certainly especially philosophers tend to gravitate towards fear and thought as their holy tool. But this is a rank failure in philosophy. It SHOULD be obvious why this is clearly true, but alas, logic is a prison, and that includes logic itself as the thing imprisoned. Rules, rules, rules ... order .. hierarchy ... structure. Yawn.

What of desire and anger then?

YOUR types in general, apologies to those that do bridge the gaps, seem bound (intentional word) and determined (Intentional word) {both words are fear words clearly associated with hierarchy and limits} to fail in regular and predictable ways. Again, this is NOT philosophy, but a caricature of that fine effort only. The greats of the field, even if prone to such failures, will mention and partake in healthy doubt (proper fear) of this foolish order-centric Pragmatism.

All Pragmatism is the base philosophy of fear and thus, on its own an obvious failure as well.

So, again, and repeatedly, what of desire and anger?

Well the short answer is they are the EQUAL, precisely equal (order) emotions to fear. Any wise philosophy must perforce include them and indeed, my contention, as EQUALS.

Desire is the classical enemy and balancing force to fear. You will notice that although I speak in plain English using relatively easy to digest words instead of arcane academic formulas, there is still an equation, and a balance mentioned and upheld as meaningful and true. If you choose to be offended by this approach and ignore its actually rather obvious veracity, well, it can be true that the gilded cage of Pragmatism is pretty and a 'safe' bet. But, 'safe' is in quotes and appropriately so. It is and always will be a cop-out, the Pragmatic 'short-cut' to truth and being. This is just the way of fear, the way of cowards.

Cowardice is indeed the core sin or failing of fear and order. The betting man's game says cop-out things like 'We are only human! You can't expect perfection'. In underscoring the 'impossibility' of perfection, pragmatism will point to any number of logical short-cuts and in facts will often sacrifice wisdom and all that is GOOD, in the name of mere cowardly efficiency. Continue this over-anxious path at your peril and certainly amid failure to understand wisdom.

So, desire.

Desire is chaos, the opposite of order. Another synonym is freedom. If you believe freedom is only GOOD, what a trivially false belief that would be. No, desire alone is as foolish as Pragmatism and ONLY equally so. The Pragmatist would scoff at this and prefer order to chaos, a la so many such ... men (usually). One example whom I dearly love yet fails this way often enough, Jordan Peterson. Most classical philosophy by far falls into the trap of order (and is also male by the way). Cowards, at least in leaning is my accusation.

Desire is the source of idealism. Alone, like to Pragmatism, it is silly, ridiculous immoral failure. Self-indulgence is the core sin of desire.

The concept of separation from all is a fear thing, the structure of a thing apart as identity. This permeates all reality from the smallest quanta to ourselves, humanity, who, as far as we know, are the highest quality moral agents in the universe. Notice how the one immoral failure begats another. The foolishness of separation, a coward's fear of being unequal to ALL, also then causes the will to freedom, self-indulgent specific desire (immoral).

So, let's BEGIN to segue this long post towards the OP. A 'simple' definition for philosophy. And I completely realize that I have not yet discussed anger. That is intentional as is all of this post.

What is wrong with, 'A love of wisdom' ? Is that too simple somehow? Or really too complex? Clearly, it is both. We simply do not understand how complexity is defined by simplicity and vice versa. And when some ... philosopher ... comes along and starts saying things like 'there are only three emotions' or 'love is only fear, anger, and desire; combined' everyone gets mad at the simplicity stated and the complexity implied.

I rather like 'A love of wisdom'. But, then of course we are left defining what wisdom is. Oh bother. You will find this simple complexity is unavoidable in all things and no fear-only formula can withstand it. All three emotions MUST be present and in equal measure. But equality alone is not enough. There is another factor and that is amplitude. Something happens when we increase fear, anger, and desire.

That something is actually ... the GOOD. Or let's be clearer and say the potential for the GOOD. So, the GOOD to me (and I all cap it to show its difference from the colloquial nonsense term 'good' which is usually corrupted by immorality to mean 'what i want' or 'what we think is right right now'. The GOOD is actual perfection, objective moral truth. Although it is impossible to arrive at it, it is the only proper aim in all cases.

Why is wisdom so elusive?

People are easily far more fearful or angry as individuals than they are wise. They are mostly NOT in balance, NOT wise. Some of the most concerned with so-called philosophy, which SHOULD be the love of wisdom, is deeply skewed to academic Pragmatism and thus precisely unwise. Likewise, must of common culture is a pig sty wallow of self-serving blather, feckless self-indulgence at its worst and again, especially these days, hidden behind a wall of pretty propped up virtue signaling, as opposed to actual virtue.

The common polarities in life are almost all just fear vs desire. The right and left wing are the nominal example. Pragmatism/Idealism is another.

But wisdom shows us the failure of even that balance. And the reason is the much misunderstood truth of anger, of balance.

Anger is the emotion of balance. It denies fear and desire and in equal measure. This tension of anger, caused by anger, literally CAUSES everything we call reality to exist. The empty prisons of order are meaningless though without instantiation. Imagination and desire has no object, no existence and floats in all directions (chaos) without the instantiation of BEING. Mass itself is caused by anger, the action of the emotion of anger on both fear and desire.

You WILL NOT be engaged in philosophy well and properly until you grasp some aspect of these truths. I DO NOT claim to know anything, only to believe some things more than others. But that is my belief. Most academic prison builders (order bound) would do well to engage more desire and add and accept chaos in their systems of thought. This acceptance of the enemy of fear, the enemy of order, desire, chaos, is REQUIRED for the final truth of order to emerge. That is that the order DOES include that chaos and it MUST be accounted for as an equal.

Finally, there is the question, why the dichotomy? Why not a trichotomy? It is a trichotomy is the answer. But the Pragmatists and the Idealists alike team up to denigrate anger (being). They deny truth wholesale to shrink in fear and imprison themselves. They deny truth wholesale to remain open immorally to self-indulgence. And the amplitude of their anger is weak. This is the sin of moderation. Perfection IS NOT at peace with vapid empty moderation at all.

Moderation exposes at last the core failure of anger. That is: 'don't get angry! don't get violent! Be calm! Seek peace! Cum for us and take your place and its spoils in the order of things!' Men of Athens! I beseech you, peace is delusional and not a wise or valid goal. The moral truth of anger is effort, the suffering of being. As such the amplitude of anger is the amplitude of effort. The moral man DOES NOT seek ease but instead increasing suffering to earn more wisdom. Conflict is the core means of approaching effort.

The truth and perfection are ALWAYS harder and harder to increase. If you find an easy way, by definition you are failing. If it seems easily at first to be a preferred or practical path, then BY DEFINITION you are failing. The truth of anger shows us that eternal conflict and increasing effort is wise. Deal with it!

Every few years, someone comes along who thinks they have overturned everything that went before. Its part of the tradition. It never works. — Ludwig V

Quite a bit of philosophy from antiquity is still perfectly valid. I don't believe that it will ever be overturned.

But then again, the environment has changed since antiquity. People's cognitive reactions will reflect that. Philosophy will therefore reflect that. The effects of changes in the environment will inevitably make their way into philosophy. Of course, it still won't overturn everything that went before.

The better starting point is not necessarily the classics.

For example, Karl Popper's seminal text "Science as falsification", is largely a reflection on the conversations with his friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, and what was wrong with these theories. The result is nothing less than the dominant modern take on the epistemology of science.

I don't know if Popper overturned everything that went before. Was there even anything that went before, so to speak of?

The better starting point is not necessarily the classics. — Tarskian

Well, you seem to be accepting that the classics (or at least some of them) are a starting-point.

For me, the best starting-point is whatever turns you on, or annoys but haunts you - classic or not. It doesn't matter. Once you start philosophizing you will need to engage with other philosophers. It won't be long before talking to them will drive you to something that is canonical, because those are the reference points of the discussion - even if they are wrong - no, that's wrong - especially when they are wrong.

I don't know if Popper overturned everything that went before. Was there even anything that went before, so to speak of? — Tarskian

So when you cite Popper, you do not think that his text is a classic. But what you say about it tells me that you think it is a classic, or at least ought to be a classic.
But that argument doesn't show that history is unimportant, even if it is bunk. He was writing in the immediate context of his contemporaries - Marx, Adler and Freud. But they were writing in their historical context (though how far it was philosophical I do not know) and in his own wider context of what passed for the philosophy of science in his day, especially Hume's account of induction and ideas about logic and proof - again, I don't know exactly what his reference points were, but I'm quite sure he had some.
He undoubtedly was the originator of new ideas about science. Many people have criticized or amended them since he wrote - and I'm sure that there will be a continuing thread of writing about him - though you can never tell. Certainly, for many people he is canonical, including, I think, you.