Go to any Philosophy department and see if you find any Biology or Chemistry classes. — PossibleAaran

The philosophy department through which I got my degree frequently did dual courses, sometimes even taught by two professors.

And my philosophy professors were the ones to point out that science is just a form of natural or applied philosophy.

You say the sciences are not sub-disciplines of philosophy. (Something about a narrow versus broad sense?) I say they are.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

There isn't any deep reason why. — PossibleAaran

Yeah, I can see that.

It's just what's left over when you start with the whole range of enquiry and take away anything which has branched into a new discipline with its own identity. — PossibleAaran

That's just like saying biology is not science because it has it's own identity...

His knowledge and appreciation of Islam is profound, and the idea that "Islamophobia" is an invented propaganda word is a legitimate one. — jamalrob

All words are invented. And just cause it may be applied inappropriately too frequently doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Remember when people were joking about sending soldiers into Iraq and elsewhere with bullets doused in pig fat? It very definitely and absolutely exists.

And yes, the etymology is odd considering Freud's original intent behind "homophobia," but as a culture we've adopted and altered the meaning of the "phobia" suffix, and it's a bit of a red herring to debate that at this point in time.

Definitionistas... as passionate and unrelenting as fashionistas, only perhaps not as well dressed. :wink: — 0 thru 9

Speak for yourself! :rofl: :flower:

Fun fact, the "division" between philosophers and scientists is a historically relatively new development. Back in ye olden days, they were considered one and the same thing. That's literally why it's called a PhD!

But Philosophy in the narrow sense is directly about the assumptions of ordinary life and enquiry. It isn't using them as a basis for empirical work, but examining them directly. — PossibleAaran

Ah, and how do you distinguish those two things?

I also don’t put a lot of stock into “traditional” philosophy, if we are using that term the same way — DingoJones

Well, you're doing it right here! :razz:

Usefulness? I was thinking that's just the way it is. Like, what's the use of calling all green, red, and yellow apples fruit? It's just the way it is.

But I guess you could glean some use of the classification:
1) It serves as a reminder to those who pooh-pooh philosophy that it's not all "how many angels fit on the head of a pin."
2) It serves to encourage scientists and the like to study more "traditional" philosophy, which would definitely improve their work.
3) It encourages them to collaborate with more "traditional" philosophers, which just benefits everyone.

What do you think?

Philosophy entertains me all the time. But that's not it's purpose.

Non-theoretical science is applied philosophy. Philosophy in action.

I'd say that makes you a more introspective and honest person than the majority of humans. It's a good thing. Go with it and cultivate that. In the long run, you'll have more refined and interesting ideas to show for it. Just make sure it doesn't become debilitating.

Yes, I think science is a sub-discipline of philosophy. I think it's (almost?) entirely philosophical though in way that baseball is not. Science seeks to understand the world, gain knowledge, explain things, create new things... that's all philosophical. Baseball seeks to entertain. You can philosophize about entertainment, but entertaining is not a kind of philosophizing.

So: isnt all things involving thinking philosophy then? If that is so, why are you specifying science? — DingoJones

I think philosophy is any kind of serious inquiry and analysis. Not all thoughts are philosophy. "I'm hungry" or "I forgot to schedule my annual dental appointment" are not philosophical thoughts.

I'm specifying science because PossibleAaran said that it wasn't philosophy.

No. A bowl of porridge is not philosophy. But you can philosophize about it.

As the title of this OP says: What can't you philosophize about? Is there something so mundane that there simply no application for philosophy? Perhaps you can't philosophize about eating porridge. — Purple Pond

You can philosophize about anything and everything. There are things which may be too trivial to want to philosophize about.

The scientific method is a philosophical approach to getting knowledge about the physical world that presupposes the laws of logic, naturalism, and uniformity of nature.

Every scientist is using philosophy for establishing empirical data. The scientific method IS philosophy.

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

No, they don't, but they still accept the truth (and the consequences) of what that (admittedly narrow) definition refers to. All is unknown, in absolute terms; it's just a matter of degree. Everything we discuss here is, to some extent, vague and ill-defined: unknown. So it seems pointless to target one topic and say 'we can't discuss that; there are too many unknowns'. Let's just embrace the topic, and see where it leads? — Pattern-chaser

To say that things are by degrees unknown is to say that some of it is known. Like I said, you have to have to start from somewhere.

But, yeah, seeing where it leads:

I often consider spirit to be the counterpart to body. [Or maybe to body and mind?] The mental, immaterial, part of us. The really confusing and difficult-to-know-about part of us. There is mind, which we divide (why? :chin:) into conscious and unconscious, and the latter is, by definition, observation and actuality, inaccessible to our introspection. There are feelings and emotions. And there are beliefs, often arrived at by means we know not of. All of these things are difficult, all of them exist (confirmed by the observations of billions of humans), and it is this context/arena that spirit exists. So of course it's difficult to discuss. — Pattern-chaser

So, I don't buy into any kind of mind/body dualism. The mind is a part of the body. If you want to call the sum total of emotions, thoughts, and consciousness a "spirit," I'm okay with that, but I wouldn't ascribe to it any religious/magical mumbo jumbo.

It's time philosophers caught up with the rest of humanity on this one. :up: — Pattern-chaser

All of humanity who ask questions and probe the depths and limits of human knowledge are philosophers.

If you consider Objective Reality (that which is), you will probably discover that we can (knowingly) have no Objective knowledge of it at all, apart from its existence. — Pattern-chaser

If by "objective" you actually mean "absolute" or "100% certain" knowledge, then yes. But philosophers (academic and otherwise) don't always or all insist on that narrow definition.

We didn't when we spied the rock. According to you, we immediately (and perhaps unconsciously) generated a working definition of the rock. Why could we not do that with (say) an oboe (assuming we'd never encountered one before)? — Pattern-chaser

No we don't have to have a definition of a rock to espy a rock. But we have to have one in order to talk with each other about it.

Even if we want to talk theoretically about unknown things, we've already given them the definition of things and being unknown to us. But that conversation isn't going to go anywhere special. It stops right there:

"Are there unknown things in the universe?"
"Very likely."
"What can we say about them?"
"They are things and they are unknown to us."
"Anything else?"
"They're.....not any of the things we do know about, and they're not not things."
"Huh."
"Yup, huh."

To have a conversation about spirits and whether they exist, you have to start off with a baseline idea of what a spirit even is. That definition can be subject to change, if you find that it doesn't or can't apply, but you have to start somewhere rather than nowhere.

OK, that seems to be a reasonable way of looking at things. :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Thank you :smile:

And yet, when we spied the rock, you suggested that we automatically generate some sort of internal definition. It seems to me we could do that with almost anything, couldn't we? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, but we have to have that definition first.

There's no problem here, unless you think we're incapable of discovering genuinely new things (even if they're only new to you, or to me)? — Pattern-chaser

Genuinely new? Probably not. But that's beside the point.

Discovery of a thing that exists in the world isn't gonna happen in a theoretical discussion.... but let's pretend we're walking through the woods and neither of us has ever seen a rock before in our entire lives ever. We come upon a rock. We immediately register it's existence and simultaneously we register it's properties (like size, color, smell, etc.) thereby creating, immediately, a rudimentary definition of this thing.

It's impossible, however, to say anything about things for which we have no definition whatsoever.

That really doesn't make a lick of sense. How would you be able to determine whether something exists if you're not quite sure what it is?

Quick, tell me if ******* exists! You can't, because you don't know what that is? Well, duh.

This thread is going to blow up... — Wallows

Crickets....

Lol, JK. I'm getting my popcorn ready on the off-chance that forum members aren't tired of this conversation yet.

How does that make you feel if I am so bold in asking? — Wallows

Misanthropic.
But I do trust that the mods will back me up if someone becomes actually belligerent.

I honestly don't take nastiness from internet strangers personally. I think it's a reflection on them, not me. That being said, I don't feel the need to serve as their personal punching bag because they have psychological issues.

Thank you! :heart:

Now, from a female perspective, given that males are around and about on the internet professing their inadequacies in the form of bullying or projection or ****** or trolling, how does a female find any desire to engage in online discourse? — Wallows

Personally, I engage with individuals up until the point that they can no longer be respectful. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm often proven wrong.

I'm just stubborn I guess? Plus, I really, really like philosophy.

The problem is intolerably pushing that pet theory. Pushing it and pushing it and pushing it, shoving it down people's throats uninvited, littering the forum with it. The problem is that it is too repetitive, too stubborn, too oblivious. It is excessive. — S

I agree that's a recurring issue on philosophy fora (is that the correct plural?). I'm not sure what the solution is though. Outright banning it seems like an improper impediment to free speech.

The only thing I can see as a viable tactic is to gently point out the repetitive behavior, and when that fails, move on and ignore the offenders.

I will admit that it's beyond frustrating, and hard to keep cool when you've been lured into a conversation with someone who turns out to be just repeating themselves over and over... which in turn leads you to being forced to repeat yourself....OR end the conversation.

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists.

My personal take:
Supernatural spirits: by definition cannot exist.

Spirit as in character of person, idea, nation, etc.: yes, though it's not physical.

Alcoholic spirits: yes and yum!

Nothing wrong with that, but your claim that noone knows whether God exists is not very interesting given that definition. — PossibleAaran

Yes! This one gets it :grin:

Nah, it doesn't work: it's just a bad analogy. — Janus

I think it is, but whatever. The point is that e may not be a necessary condition of Fism. And if you attribute it to an Fist anyway, you need to make a better case for it than "well, you called yourself an Fist."

It's not a good analogy because even if you were born without legs, the general bilaterally symmetry that allows for two legs will be there; it would just be that for whatever reason your body did not develop properly — Janus

So maybe I had the general bilateral symmetry required for e and decided I'd rather have f or g or h. Anything but e! E is the worst.

Yes, a fine example of tact and diplomacy.

Really, he should be thanking me for pointing out this problem, so that he has an opportunity to do something about it. But I understand that it's very hard to be thankful under the circumstances. — S

:rofl:

Yes, humans are known for taking criticism well and admitting to fault. Especially on the internet.

If "F-ism' is generally associated with a range of characteristics, all of which your standpoint does not exemplify, then you should not present yourself as an "F-ist"; you can't justifiably blame others if you misrepresent yourself. — Janus

A human is can accurately be characterized as a terrestial, bipedal mammal. If I was born without legs, does that make me no longer a human?

E may not be a necessary component of F, even if it commonly associated with it.

Feel better now?

So...where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa

That leaves us agreeing to disagree I suppose? At least, it seems to me the conversation is not moving forward much at this point.

Truce? Or do you have something heretofore unmentioned to add?