How to draft a definition of philosophy.

[cotner]

This is the background for the present thread from yours truly:

 

 

[Thread = Where does philosophy come from -- coberst]

 

 

by jedaisoul

 

[...]

 

My apologies if I'm misrepresenting cotner's views, but it seems to me that he is trying to hijack this thread as a platform to expound his beliefs in intelligent design.

 

 

Well, that is an interesting thought from your part.

 

Suppose, instead of my presently drafted definition of philosophy, namely:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the

programming

that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

I modify it so that you would not accuse me of an agenda "to hijack this thread as a platform to expound his [my] beliefs in intelligent design:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the

non-programming

that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

That should save me from your accusation that I intend "to hijack this thread as a platform to expound his [my] beliefs in intelligent design"?

 

 

Allow me a suggestion: let us avoid seeing agenda, but keep to ideas.

 

 

The title of the thread by coberst is: Where does philosophy come from? What then can be more reasonable for a prospective reactant to bring in at the very start, but his attempt to first give a definition by himself of philosophy?

 

 

Anyway, I am starting a new thread on how to draft a definition of philosophy.

 

 

 

cotner

 

.

The purpose of a word and idea definition is to enable a human to pick out something in the world outside his mind and as well in the world within his mind from among other things, as referred to, i.e., denoted by the word and idea.

 

For example, this is my definiton of the word and idea philosophy:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Does this definition of philosophy enable a human to pick out which discourse is philosophy among several discourses delivered by several speakers, or which writing among several pieces of writings?

 

 

In that thread by coberst on Where does philosophy come from, let us imagine that philosophy is an animal among several different animals coming toward us, unless we first try to figure our what coberst understands to be philosophy, we would not be able to single out the animal that is philosophy in order to then give our idea on where this animal that is philosophy comes from.

 

 

What do you guys here say, isn't that what the definition of a word and idea should enable us to do, namely, pick out which thing among several things in the world outside our mind as also within our mind corresponds to the word and idea subject of the definition?

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

...this is my definiton of the word and idea philosophy:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Does this definition of philosophy enable a human to pick out which discourse is philosophy among several discourses delivered by several speakers, or which writing among several pieces of writings?

Just to add to the context, I have already pointed out that "continuous" and "unending" are not useful descriptors for philosophy. They may be true, but philosophy would be philosophy even if it were not continuous, nor unending. So the words "continuous" and "unending" tell us notihing about philosophy. It is word salad.

 

Similarly there has been a discussion of cotner's use of the word "programming":

d) Programming implies a programmer. Isn't that theology rather than philosophy?

As a matter of my own knowledge which of course is not free of misconceptions, theology is the application of philosophy to determine the order or the programming in man's behavior called religion. Programming implies a programmer, of course, certainly. In philosophy we want to search for the programming in everything from a scripted public event like a wedding to the as I said the phenomenon of day and night following and succeeding each other.

So cotner's definition of philosophy presumes the existence of a "programmer" who programs "the phenomenon of day and night following and succeeding each other". That is not philosophy, that's theology.

 

So does this definition of philosophy "enable a human to pick out which discourse is philosophy among several discourses delivered by several speakers, or which writing among several pieces of writings"? I would suggest not. It is "intelligent design" dressed up as philosophy.

 

But despite these objections cotner has repeated his definition here. I agree with his setting up a separate thread to discuss this topic, but I had hoped that his definition would have evolved somewhat.

 

Also, cotner said:

Allow me a suggestion: let us avoid seeing agenda, but keep to ideas.

I agree with this, and I hope that the discussion will be free of extraneous agenda.

 

For the record, I suggested that we should use the definition of philosophy given by Wikipedia. However, I acknowledge that, in the context of this thread, the discusion of personal definitions is legitimate.

[CraigD]

For the record, I suggested that we should use the definition of philosophy given by Wikipedia.

I agree.

 

In particular, when considering more specialized definitions of the term, I think the following sentence from the wikipedia article “philosophy” is relevant:

Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories.

Definitions such as the one cotner proposes in post #1:

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

are not appropriate under these criteria.

 

The activity cotner describes might, I think, be considered to be philosophy, but not the whole of philosophy. In more formal language, “philosophy” contains “cotner’s activity”, “contner’s activity” does not contain “philosophy”.

What do you guys here say, isn't that what the definition of a word and idea should enable us to do, namely, pick out which thing among several things in the world outside our mind as also within our mind corresponds to the word and idea subject of the definition?

Yes, I agree. It’s also in keeping with “the central maxim of philosophy”:

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish

Follow this approach, a definition of anything can be obtained by taking an list of things (domain) [math]\{ X_1, X_2, …X_n \}[/math] and a function [math]is_A()[/math] with range {0,1}, to get an integer [math]D_A = \sum_{i=1}^{n} 2^{i-1}is_A(X_i)[/math], [math]0 \le D_A < 2^n[/math]. Not very catchy for conversational use, and the selection of the list of things is cumbersome, but, assuming the [math]is_A[/math] function is infallible, a precise method.

 

Recognizing that such an approach exists doesn’t appear to me very useful in the question “what is, and what is not, philosophy?” The domain of things to be considered is too large, each thing too large, and the [math]is_{\mbox{philosophy}}[/math] function fallible.

However, I acknowledge that, in the context of this thread, the discusion of personal definitions is legitimate.

Again, I agree.

 

Here’s my personal definition:

Philosophy is neither a collection of claims, propositions, or theories, nor a method. Philosophy is an activity in which the participant experiences a state of love for the subject matter.

This is by no means an original definition. Many sources, including my first academic philosophy instructors, emphasized it, noting the peculiar etymology of the word “philosophy” – literally “wisdom loving”, compared to the words for most academic disciplines, such as “biology” – literally “life studying”. Rather than being “wisdom studying” – sophology – philosophy requires love.

 

My definition does little to advance the search for an ultimate, definitive definition of philosophy, because by introducing the term, it requires an answer to the question “what is love?”, an arguably more difficult and controversial question than “what is philosophy?” However, for a loose, intuitive, philosophical application of the [math]is_{\mbox{philosophy}}[/math] function described above, it’s facile.

• When applied to any thing that doesn’t involve a being capable of love, it returns 0. A rock is not philosophy.
  
• When applied to an activity in which people experience a state of love, it returns 1. A religionist contemplating his conception of God, seeking to better understand and promote his concept, is philosophy. A naturalist contemplating a view of the universe utterly devoid of the supernatural, seeking to better understand and promote his view, is philosophy.
  
• When applied to an activity in which people experience something other than love, it returns 0. Either the religionist or the naturalist from the previous example seeking to make the other feel ridiculous and miserable through discrediting their respective views, is not philosophy.
  

[jedaisoul]

Many sources, including my first academic philosophy instructors, emphasized it, noting the peculiar etymology of the word “philosophy” – literally “wisdom loving”, compared to the words for most academic disciplines, such as “biology” – literally “life studying”. Rather than being “wisdom studying” – sophology – philosophy requires love.

Thanks for introducing me to the term "sophology". Having now read a little about it, I realise that sophology is what I always thought philosophy was!

 

Either the religionist or the naturalist from the previous example seeking to make the other feel ridiculous and miserable through discrediting their respective views, is not philosophy.

Thanks for this gentle "rap over the knuckles". I deserved it.

[cotner]

 

[...]

 

Here’s my personal definition:

Philosophy is neither a collection of claims, propositions, or theories, nor a method. Philosophy is an activity in which the participant experiences a state of love for the subject matter.

 

[...]

 

 

Thanks, CraigD, for your personal definition of philosophy.

 

I wished everyone who contributes posts in this thread, "How to draft a definition of philosophy," would also state his own personal definition of philosophy.

 

In this manner we can and readers also from a poster's personal definition of philosophy try to make out how he comes to draft his own statement of a definition of philosophy.

 

Thanks, Jedaisoul, for being calm; above all we all here have only one agenda -- no, not to promote intelligent design or whatever in which people involved in controversies are exerting their utmost nitpicking best to win arguments instead of clarifying things for man in the street -- but to achieve together in the present context, how to draft a definition of philosophy, a definition that will best serve the purpose of a definition for the word and idea philosophy.

 

 

Here is how I have come to my own personal definition of philosophy, and I am amenable to change it as contributions from posters here could motivate me to change it as regards terms used and my focus.

 

First, before anything else, I remind myself what a definition is supposed to be useful for man, and my conclusion is that it is supposed to be useful to man for picking out which thing in the world outside man's mind and also within his mind the word defined refers to, so that he does not pick out something not intended in the word defined.

 

That purpose of definition I would imagine is acceptable to everyone who does concern himself with definitions of words and ideas represented by words.

 

 

 

And modesty aside I believe that my definition of philosophy does enable man to pick out from among discourses in speech or in writing which is philosophy, if in fact a discourse is among several delivered by speakers is philosophy while others are not.

 

 

 

So, to the question, how to draft a definition of philosophy, anyone who cares to produce a definition of philosophy should consider before anything else, whether he wants to enable man from his definition to pick out which among discourses done by fellow men, which one if any is philosophy.

 

I want to add that my concern is with man in the street who I would imagine prefers a definition that is what I like to call a BEC definition, namely: brief in words, using easy words, and comprehensible, i.e., it does enable man, specifically man in the street to pick out which if any among discourses delivered by fellow men is philosophy and not others.

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

Posted by cotner

...this is my definition of the word and idea philosophy:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

Does this definition of philosophy enable a human to pick out which discourse is philosophy among several discourses delivered by several speakers, or which writing among several pieces of writings?

 

Just to add to the context, I have already pointed out that "continuous" and "unending" are not useful descriptors for philosophy. They may be true, but philosophy would be philosophy even if it were not continuous, nor unending. So the words "continuous" and "unending" tell us notihing about philosophy. It is word salad.

 

...but philosophy would be philosophy even if it were not continuous, nor unending. -- Jedaisoul

 

Continuous and unending tells anyone wishing to know about what is philosophy the fact that philosophy has always been and continuously in the mind of man, even though we might not always have the records of philosophical discourse in a particular period of human history in a particular place.

 

It is my opinion that man has always and continuously occupied his mind with the thought or query or "search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning."

 

Similarly there has been a discussion of cotner's use of the word "programming":

 

Posted by jedaisoul

d) Programming implies a programmer. Isn't that theology rather than philosophy?

 

Posted by cotner

As a matter of my own knowledge which of course is not free of misconceptions, theology is the application of philosophy to determine the order or the programming in man's behavior called religion. Programming implies a programmer, of course, certainly. In philosophy we want to search for the programming in everything from a scripted public event like a wedding to the as I said the phenomenon of day and night following and succeeding each other.

 

So cotner's definition of philosophy presumes the existence of a "programmer" who programs "the phenomenon of day and night following and succeeding each other". That is not philosophy, that's theology.

 

 

I have continuously requested a definition from you of philosophy, from your own personal formulation, and you have declined, I would like also as with philosophy now request you to give me your own personal self-worded definition of theology; so that we can see whether philosophy contains within its embrace, theology or something akin to theology.

 

Otherwise, I must confess that I find it difficult to share thoughts with you, because I do not see your personally thought out definition of philosophy, and now if I follow your tendency you would also decline to give a definition from your own drafting of theology.

 

 

 

You owe it to yourself as you make criticism of my definition of philosophy, to produce your own personally drafted definition done in your own chosen words.

 

But you will insist that the definition of Wiki is good enough for your purpose.

 

In which case, I seem to remember in school there was an old maid guidance counselor who had a habit of criticizing parents for their children, even though already the best behaved and studious and making good in school, until one day the principal herself the mother of two good kids in the school told her to hold her tongue, as she (the old maid guidance counselor) never in her whole life gave birth to a child but less brought one up to do well in school.

 

 

[ Just for humor, okay? ]

 

cotner

[cotner]

[ -- continued -- ]

 

Posted by cotner

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

Does this definition of philosophy enable a human to pick out which discourse is philosophy among several discourses delivered by several speakers, or which writing among several pieces of writings?

 

So does this definition of philosophy "enable a human to pick out which discourse is philosophy among several discourses delivered by several speakers, or which writing among several pieces of writings"? I would suggest not. It is "intelligent design" dressed up as philosophy.

 

 

You seem to refuse to see the ending clause of my definition of philosophy: "in the light of speculative reasoning."

 

 

If you use my definition of philosophy and you want to pick out which discourse among several delivered, is philosophy, you just have to attend to the ending clause, "in the light of speculative reasoning," then it should be easy for you to do so, namely, if you notice that a discourse is not based on speculative reasoning but on some other basis that is neither reasoning. and specially not speculative, then it is not philosophy.

 

 

 

But despite these objections cotner has repeated his definition here. I agree with his setting up a separate thread to discuss this topic, but I had hoped that his definition would have evolved somewhat.

 

Also, cotner said:

 

Posted by cotner

Allow me a suggestion: let us avoid seeing agenda, but keep to ideas.

 

I agree with this, and I hope that the discussion will be free of extraneous agenda.

 

 

In the same breath you still keep to your habit of seeing agenda -- "and I hope that the discussion will be free of extraneous agenda" -- instead of keeping to ideas. Suppose some people would also see in your words an agenda against my agenda, where would that get us all in our exercise to get to a definition of philosophy that will enable man in the street to pick out philosophy from science, arts, religion, esoterica, erotica, et cetera.

 

 

For the record, I suggested that we should use the definition of philosophy given by Wikipedia. However, I acknowledge that, in the context of this thread, the discusion of personal definitions is legitimate.

 

 

...in the context of this thread, the discusion of personal definitions is legitimate.

 

That is a productive attitude, thank you. Now I await your own self worded personal definition of philosophy.

 

 

There is something I have to say against the Wikipedia: it is the collaborative work of anyone and everyone who has something to say about anything which he believes should be read or be available to read in the web. In the process it is a kind of survival of the most persistent or stubborn contributors who will elbow anyone out, by his keeping intact his own contributions and using his editing power otherwise available to everyone to delete the contributions of others they don't like.

 

Sadly, what is to the merit of the Wiki is also its weakness.

 

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

Now I await your own self worded personal definition of philosophy.

As I've said, I don't think it helpful for us to have individual definitions of philosophy. However, I acknowledge that I've, perhaps, been premature in my judgement of your motives. So I'd like to give you a personal definition of philosophy, to see where it takes us. The trouble is, CraigD has already "hit the nail on the head" in the definition he gave. So I'm not sure what else there is worth saying?

 

Anyway, as I've also said, the aspect of philosophy that I'm most interested in is the interaction with science in defining what actually exists, as opposed to man-made models of the universe. So perhaps my definition of philosophy, such as it is, is:

"The desire to comprehend existence, and, specifically, to distinguish it from man-made models."

 

...and now if I follow your tendency you would also decline to give a definition from your own drafting of theology.

Hmm, how about:

"The desire to comprehend the the reason (if any) for existence, and whether it can be attributed to a creator".

[CraigD]

I like this thread’s goal of collecting and comparing personal definitions of philosophy :thumbs_up That said, a couple specific criticism of what’s been posted so far:

… our exercise to get to a definition of philosophy that will enable man in the street to pick out philosophy from science, arts, religion, esoterica, erotica, et cetera.

I skeptical that such a definition is, for the man in the street, possible or beneficial. In a “what it really is” sense, I doubt that one can, or should, clearly distinguish philosophy from some of these other magisteria. For example, science, archaically known as “natural philosophy”, is difficult to cleanly separate from traditional philosophy. Religion often (but not always) concerns itself with well-known philosophical ideas, and approaches them in a highly philosophical way.

 

This is not to say that the question “is X philosophy?” can be meaningfully applied to some well-defined terms X, but that it can’t be applied to all. The philosophical maxim “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish” applies well here.

There is something I have to say against the Wikipedia: it is the collaborative work of anyone and everyone who has something to say about anything which he believes should be read or be available to read in the web. In the process it is a kind of survival of the most persistent or stubborn contributors who will elbow anyone out, by his keeping intact his own contributions and using his editing power otherwise available to everyone to delete the contributions of others they don't like.

Though this, and many other criticism of wikipedia, and wikis in general, are IMHO well founded, this one appears to me to border on perpetuate a subtle but critical misperception about what wikipedia, and encyclopedias in general, essentially are. Encyclopedias are not forums for original ideas and research, but compilation of ideas from other sources. Ideally, they are neutral on the correctness of these ideas, rather putting the ideas in various contexts, including supporting ideas, opposing ideas, and the acceptance and rejection of the ideas by various identifiable communities. Although this can often give the appearance of plain thumbs up/down judgment (eg: “X is rejected by nearly everybody, and supported only by this person, who also supports Y and Z, and here’re Y and Z, don’t they look silly to you?”), it’s critical to note the difference between this approach and one that states simply “X is tested as follows, and found to be false”. The former is encyclopedic, the latter scientific.

[cotner]

I like this thread’s goal of collecting and comparing personal definitions of philosophy :thumbs_up That said, a couple specific criticism of what’s been posted so far:I skeptical that such a definition is, for the man in the street, possible or beneficial. In a “what it really is” sense, I doubt that one can, or should, clearly distinguish philosophy from some of these other magisteria. For example, science, archaically known as “natural philosophy”, is difficult to cleanly separate from traditional philosophy. Religion often (but not always) concerns itself with well-known philosophical ideas, and approaches them in a highly philosophical way.

 

.

I doubt that one can, or should, clearly distinguish philosophy from some of these other magisteria. For example, science... Religion... -- CraigD

 

In my definition of philosophy, philosophy can be clearly distinguished from science and religion:

 

Philosophy

is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Suppose you put the word science or the word religion as the word to be defined, in place of philosophy, do you think you will have a definition of science or religion that will enable man in the street to pick out religion or science from among several discourses presented before him?

 

Science

[in place of philosophy] is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Religion

[in place of philosophy] is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Let's do this test: I will put my definition of philosophy but without the word philosophy at the start, and ask people to choose which word is being defined among these three words: science, religion, philosophy.

 

________

is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

 

Philosophy is a more general search than science and religion. We can properly have a philosophy of science and a philosophy of religion; but can we properly have a science of philosophy or a religion of philosophy?

 

Philosophy is in a way the genus, science and religion are the species of the genus philosophy.

 

 

 

[...]

 

This is not to say that the question “is X philosophy?” can be meaningfully applied to some well-defined terms X, but that it can’t be applied to all. The philosophical maxim “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish” applies well here.

 

The philosophical maxim “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish” applies well here.

 

 

That is a recipe for unproductive nitpicking.

 

 

Would you, CraigD, be inclined to formulate another personal definition of philosophy in place of your previous one:

 

Here’s my personal [CraigD's] definition [ in post #3 above ]:

 

Philosophy is neither a collection of claims, propositions, or theories, nor a method. Philosophy is an activity in which the participant experiences a state of love for the subject matter.

 

 

 

 

I have the idea of producing a definition of philosophy that will enable man in the street to pick out philosophy from among several discourses presented to him, if philosophy is one of them.

 

I have already drafted one which I think is all right for the purpose of a definition, but I am working on it to make it more useful for man in the street.

 

 

So, I am inviting everyone to work on their own personally drafted definition of philosophy, keeping in mind that it should enable man in the street to pick out philosophy from among several discourses presented to him, if there be one that is philosophy.

 

Seek to formulate your definition in an affirmative manner, and using what I call the BEC approach: in brief, easy, comprehensible words.

 

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

 

Posted by cotner

Now I await your own self worded personal definition of philosophy.

As I've said, I don't think it helpful for us to have individual definitions of philosophy. However, I acknowledge that I've, perhaps, been premature in my judgement of your motives. So I'd like to give you a personal definition of philosophy, to see where it takes us. The trouble is, CraigD has already "hit the nail on the head" in the definition he gave. So I'm not sure what else there is worth saying?

 

Anyway, as I've also said, the aspect of philosophy that I'm most interested in is the interaction with science in defining what actually exists, as opposed to man-made models of the universe. So perhaps my definition of philosophy, such as it is, is:

"The desire to comprehend existence, and, specifically, to distinguish it from man-made models."

 

[...]

 

 

.

...the aspect of philosophy that I'm most interested in is the interaction with science in defining what actually exists, as opposed to man-made models of the universe. So perhaps my definition of philosophy, such as it is, is:

"The desire to comprehend existence, and, specifically, to distinguish it from man-made models."

 

If I may, you are concerned with a definition of the philosophy of science.

 

Would you be inclined to give your attention to your own idea of a definition of philosophy that is broad enough as to be applicable to any kind of thinking done by man to which the phrase philosophy of can be intelligently prefixed.

 

For examples:

 

Philosophy of communism, philosophy of pornography, philosophy of sex, philosophy of women's rights, philosophy of science, philosophy of Buddhism, philosophy of capitalism, philosophy of science fiction, philosophy of artificial intelligence, philosophy of death, philosophy of public transport...

 

 

 

 

Posted by cotner

...and now if I follow your tendency you would also decline to give a definition from your own drafting of theology.

 

Hmm, how about:

"The desire to comprehend the the reason (if any) for existence, and whether it can be attributed to a creator".

 

 

If I may, that would be perhaps applicable to the theistic religions; but I was myself surprised to have come across the mention of theology in Buddhist writings among Western converts to Buddhism; but Western converts to Buddhism are most insistent in their understanding of Buddhism as altogether atheistic, not concerned with any creator.

 

Theology must now be defined much more broadly than as understood by people talking in regard to a creator, i.e., among theistic thinkers.

 

 

What I am most concerned with in definitions of words and ideas is the broadest reach a word and idea can be extended to as to embrace anything within its boundaries, and the resulting concept is still intelligible.

 

 

Take the word being: if you define being as not any man-made-model of existence, then you have already restricted its embrace, but in actual use of the word being, its reach is much much broader than things which are not man-made-models.

 

How then would I define being as to give it the most extensive reach? What about this one:

 

Being is anything humans can communicate about.

 

 

But this is just to bring out my concern with definitions of words and ideas so that they include anything and everything that humans can talk about using them and still be communicating.

 

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

If I may, you are concerned with a definition of the philosophy of science.

I would suggest that you are mistaken. In a nut shell, the "philosophy of science" is the study of "what is science", as opposed to "what aspects of reality is science concerned with". But if you want a proper definition, I'd suggest that you look it up in Wikipedia.

 

I was going to make similar comments on your other points, but it seems to me that I'm just contributing to the continuance of this thread. CragD has given the definition of philosophy, and you do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge that. What else is there to say?

[cotner]

[ If I may in a more personal vein... ]

 

 

 

 

Posted by cotner

If I may, you are concerned with a definition of the philosophy of science.

 

I would suggest that you are mistaken. In a nut shell, the "philosophy of science" is the study of "what is science", as opposed to "what aspects of reality is science concerned with". But if you want a proper definition, I'd suggest that you look it up in Wikipedia.

 

I was going to make similar comments on your other points, but it seems to me that I'm just contributing to the continuance of this thread. CragD has given the definition of philosophy, and you do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge that. What else is there to say?

 

 

 

But if you want a proper definition, I'd suggest that you look it up in Wikipedia. -- jedaisoul

 

 

 

You know, jef, if we are going to refer to published works, I fear that is a tremendous waste of our time and labor in a forum -- unless our purpose is to determine how to understand what others are saying and to ascertain that we get their thoughts correctly.

 

That is why I am always asking, looking for people in a forum who will speak from their personal thinking, and not be reluctant to come out with their thoughts; so that we can learn from each other personally, instead of determining what others have said and trying to ascertain that we get their thoughts correctly.

 

For that we do not need to join a forum, perhaps a reading club, or unless the thread in a forum is to decrypt correctly the thoughts of a long dead writer of some renown and influence.

 

 

Published works are done by people like you and me, if they would join us so much the better; then we would have them in person to tell us exactly what they are thinking about and what they have arrived at and how and why.

 

You know, time and again in other forums but not yet in this one I have contacted people who have published their thoughts in the web and even in print and they have responded to me by emails; but when they were invited to join in a discussion in a web forum, they either did not care to join, or once having joined they disappeared very soon unceremoniously after one or two posts in the thread to which I had invited them.

 

My conclusion is that they like to talk and be heard even listened to, but when it comes to exchange of ideas with people like themselves, intelligent and articulate, they -- and I will use this phrase -- back off, or they think that it is below their caliber to exchange thoughts with people like you and me -- in which case I would see in them not pomposity but anxiety.

 

You say:

I was going to make similar comments on your other points, but it seems to me that I'm just contributing to the continuance of this thread. CragD has given

the

definition of philosophy, and you do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge that. What else is there to say? -- jedaisoul

 

I am apprehensive that you are backing off.

 

 

My only purpose in a web forum, which is the best thing available from since men started to exchange ideas publicly in order to share their thoughts to the advancement of knowledge open to anyone interested to learn about it, my only purpose is to read what fellow humans like myself think of any issue and how and why they think that way and thereby come to their conclusions or opinions on the issue, and learn from them, or determine that they have opinions different from mine and founded on reasons better or not as good in my estimation, than the reasons I have for my opinions.

 

 

You state:

CragD has given

the

definition of philosophy, and you do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge that. What else is there to say? -- jedaisoul

 

 

CraigD is a moderator in this forum, and I have learned to be most deferential in regard to moderators and administrators who join a thread and take a confrontational stance in regard to the author of the thread; because being human they are not above when they get annoyed with ordinary members of a forum who have not yet established themselves as to awe moderators and administrators with their volume of posts, or their hints about their impressive backgrounds, they moderators and administrators are not above reacting with vindictiveness.

 

 

In fact I did acknowledge and react to CraigD's definition of philosophy:

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/13669-how-draft-definition-philosophy-post200445.html#post200445

 

 

How to draft a definition of philosophy. - Yesterday, 07:39 AM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigD

I like this thread’s goal of collecting and comparing personal definitions of philosophy That said, a couple specific criticism of what’s been posted so far:I skeptical that such a definition is, for the man in the street, possible or beneficial. In a “what it really is” sense, I doubt that one can, or should, clearly distinguish philosophy from some of these other magisteria. For example, science, archaically known as “natural philosophy”, is difficult to cleanly separate from traditional philosophy. Religion often (but not always) concerns itself with well-known philosophical ideas, and approaches them in a highly philosophical way.

 

.

I doubt that one can, or should, clearly distinguish philosophy from some of these other magisteria. For example, science... Religion... – CraigD

 

In my definition of philosophy, philosophy can be clearly distinguished from science and religion:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Suppose you put the word science or the word religion as the word to be defined, in place of philosophy, do you think you will have a definition of science or religion that will enable man in the street to pick out religion or science from among several discourses presented before him?

 

Science [in place of philosophy] is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Religion [in place of philosophy] is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Let's do this test: I will put my definition of philosophy but without the word philosophy at the start, and ask people to choose which word is being defined among these three words: science, religion, philosophy.

 

________

is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

Philosophy is a more general search than science and religion. We can properly have a philosophy of science and a philosophy of religion; but can we properly have a science of philosophy or a religion of philosophy?

 

Philosophy is in a way the genus, science and religion are the species of the genus philosophy.

 

 

Quote:

[...]

This is not to say that the question “is X philosophy?” can be meaningfully applied to some well-defined terms X, but that it can’t be applied to all. The philosophical maxim “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish” applies well here. -- CraigD

 

 

The philosophical maxim “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish” applies well here.

 

That is a recipe for unproductive nitpicking.

 

 

Would you, CraigD, be inclined to formulate another personal definition of philosophy in place of your previous one:

 

 

Quote:

Here’s my personal [CraigD's] definition [ in post #3 above ]:

 

Philosophy is neither a collection of claims, propositions, or theories, nor a method. Philosophy is an activity in which the participant experiences a state of love for the subject matter.

 

 

I have the idea of producing a definition of philosophy that will enable man in the street to pick out philosophy from among several discourses presented to him, if philosophy is one of them.

 

I have already drafted one which I think is all right for the purpose of a definition, but I am working on it to make it more useful for man in the street.

 

 

So, I am inviting everyone to work on their own personally drafted definition of philosophy, keeping in mind that it should enable man in the street to pick out philosophy from among several discourses presented to him, if there be one that is philosophy.

 

 

Seek to formulate your definition in an affirmative manner, and using what I call the BEC approach: in brief, easy, comprehensible words.

 

 

 

cotner

 

 

 

Again and allow me, in regard to what you say about a definition from your part of philosophy of science:

 

I would suggest that you are mistaken. In a nut shell, the "philosophy of science" is the study of "what is science", as opposed to "what aspects of reality is science concerned with". But if you want a proper definition, I'd suggest that you look it up in Wikipedia.

 

That is what I have noticed time and again about your mind and heart, if I may be personal and indiscreet: you are too modest to stand on your own thinking and wording, that is why you feel you have to refer to some published work, like the Wiki, which is exactly produced by people like you and me but often more stubborn with their own views as to elbow out by deleting the views of others which they don't like.

 

 

Laugh here: you will say that I am also stubborn with my own personally drafted definition of philosophy; not really, more correctly I am persistent in making it public for everyone to criticize, and I will modify it when I have come across enough useful personal feedbacks from posters here -- but please, no references to published sources, I can do that myself.

 

 

cotner