Meta-Philosophical Ideas Why and How to do Philosophy

Ulrich de Balbian

ABSTRACT It can be summarized as the Why of Doing philosophy and the How of Doing Philosophy. For this purpose I deal with the notion of Consciousness. Not, to develop or advocate yet another idea about this notion, nor to present another speculation about how everything is conscious or that all thinI deal with a number of meta-philosophical issues and ideas. gs are physical, or any of the possible positions in between these two poles. I merely mention this issue so as to illustrate what and how philosophy will deal with it. I then deal with some of the possible reasons and factors why certain individuals feel the intense need, motivation and obligation to philosophize. I focus on the Western tradition of philosophy and on original- and creative philosophers. In other words, I do not deal with those involved in academic institutions and professionals. The reason for this being that they teach, study, criticize and use the ideas of other thinkers and for academic related reasons, rather than those of original- and creative thinkers. I then deal with ideas about the nature and origins of our universe, as one possible universe, in a possible multiverse. Again, the reason for this is not to support or advocate any of the models, but to try and identify what is philosophically involved and to show how one will deal with them philosophically by questioning, argumentation and reasoning. Many people think when they talk about their every day lives, relationships and other aspects of their minute, little worlds, they are doing philosophy. Some of the fashionable issues that are favoured at the moment are: racism, gender, feminism, men and colonialism. Such people think their attitudes, beliefs and opinions about these flavour of the month topics are philosophy. Let them have their obsessions and concerns, let them turn them into academic subjects and qualifications, let them do post-doctorate research and write endless books about them, but do not involve me. How can I do philosophy as - there are things I do not know, there are things that I do notknow of and there are things that will be know and thought in future that I will never be aware of. Multi-sensory, embodied, consciousness (or mind) and minded or conscioussed, multi-sensory bodies of living organisms can said to be poles of a continuum (2 perspectives). Mind and body are often viewed in isolation, as unintegrated, dualistic phenomena, thus leading to false problems and -isms. I deal with issues concerning the origins of our universe for examplethe mediocrity principle and the anthropic principle, fine-tuning hypothesis. These three ideas, principles or hypotheses are of interest for a number of philosophical reasons, so I will mention what they are about.

1 Meta-Philosophical Ideas Why and How to do Philosophy Ulrich de Balbian 2 PREFACE I deal with a number of meta-philosophical issues and ideas. They can be summarized as the Why of Doing philosophy and the How of Doing Philosophy. For this purpose I deal with the notion of Consciousness. Not, to develop or advocate yet another idea about this notion, nor to present another speculation about how everything is conscious or that all things are physical, or any of the possible positions in between these two poles. I merely mention this issue so as to illustrate what and how philosophy will deal with it. I then deal with some of the possible reasons and factors why certain individuals feel the intense need, motivation and obligation to philosophize. I focus on the Western tradition of philosophy and on original- and creative philosophers. In other words, I do not deal with those involved in academic institutions and professionals. The reason for this being that they teach, study, criticize and use the ideas of other thinkers and for academic related reasons, rather than those of original- and creative thinkers. I then deal with ideas about the nature and origins of our universe, as one possible universe, in a possible multiverse. Again, the reason for this is not to 3 support or advocate any of the models, but to try and identify what is philosophically involved and to show how one will deal with them philosophically by questioning, argumentation and reasoning. Many people think when they talk about their every day lives, relationships and other aspects of their minute, little worlds, they are doing philosophy. Some of the fashionable issues that are favoured at the moment are: racism, gender, feminism, men and colonialism. Such people think their attitudes, beliefs and opinions about these flavour of the month topics are philosophy. Let them have their obsessions and concerns, let them turn them into academic subjects and qualifications, let them do post-doctorate research and write endless books about them, but do not involve me. How can I do philosophy as - there are things I do not know, there are things that I do notknow of and there are things that will be know and thought in future that I will never be aware of. Multi-sensory, embodied, consciousness (or mind) and minded or conscioussed, multi-sensory bodies of living organisms can said to be poles of a continuum (2 perspectives). Mind and body are often viewed in isolation, as unintegrated, dualistic phenomena, thus leading to false problems and -isms. 4 CONTENTS 1 Consciousness 5 2 The need to Philosophize 23 3 Why Philosophize? 48 4 Meanings of Philosophy 73 5 Multiverse, origin & creation 87 Appendix What Philosophers say about Philosophy 94 5 1 Consciousness 1 Ideas on what it seems those who explore consciousness in philosophy is trying to do. 2 Consciousness conceptualized. 3 It seems as if consciousness is assumed to exist for example as biological and other kinds of phenomena and processes. 3.1 Then attempts are made to identify, express and explain (translate) these things while, in the process of them working or operating, conceptually. 4 It seems as if they wish to create something like an explanatory film or video of all aspects, features, levels and dimensions of consciousness, while simultaneously showing or depicting the 6 phenomena and processes being shown. 4.1 In other words all those things are shown alive or while in action, and being translated as if mirrored or being reflected as alive, explanatory, conceptual first order or concrete (depictions or descriptions) a as well as conceptualized, explanatory meta- or second-order models or depictions. 5 As something, almost like and explanatory as well as a descriptive film or video of all features, elements, phenomena, levels and dimensions that are involved. While at the same time showing their functioning as multi-sensory (visual, auditory, tactile, etc... and feelings and emotions about these things as qualia) . But verbally conceptualized, occasionally accompanied by and presented in images, sounds, etc as if mirrored or reflection in a second-order or meta-order accompanied by the first-order phenomena being explained. 6 The above appears to be the aims of studies of, models of and theories about and explanations of consciousness.... 6.1 7 Ist person consciousness while operating as perceived, described, depicted, represented and at the same time explained by or from a 3rd person perspective. 6.2 But as if the 3rd person is self undergoing the 1st person processes, as well as being distanced from the 1st person undergoing the processes, and as an objective 3rd person. 6.3 Notice intersubjectivity or the different types of intersubjectivities being assumed and pre-supposed. 7 Conscious Embodiment, EMBODIED CONSCIOUSNESS Mind, Consciousness and Body We do not know how to think with or about these notions and others such as reality, perception, space, time, etc ABSTRACT In the following I will deal with the umbrella notions of mind, consciousness and body. The con- 8 tents is relevant, but of greater importance is the manner or method in which I deal with these notions. I first present as an illustration of my approach or method, how I have dealt with the notions of intuition and intuiting. One of the points I am trying to make is that: we do not know how to think about many things, for example mind, consciousness, awareness, body, intuition, etc. Therefore, I attempt to explore a number of things that we must investigate and deal with before we use these and other notions, as if they are clearly defined terms, before we try to use them to think and to think about anything, especially many levelled and multi- dimensional issues and problems such as the workings of the mind, the body, intuition, consciousness and the relationship, if there are any, between these and other things. Then I suggest the initial steps for a few very basic requirements before the exploration of a theory of embodied, living, conscious tissues and a model for embodied (self-) consciousness research. CONTENTS 9 Intuition Mind 4 9 Consciousness 19 Embodied Consciousness Human Body Theory 44 52 61 Proposal for a Model of Embodied Consciousness Research 86 Self or Reflective Consciousness 90 8 LIMITS OF HUMAN SENSES, Consciousness and Awareness My art makes the invisible visible, limits of human awareness. Human consciousness and awareness is restricted by stereotypes and notions that cause philosophers and artists to exist in the dark ages as far as their perception and understanding of human inner and outer senses are concerned. Humans per- 10 ceive 7 colours of rainbows with 16 to 37 or more colours, that are perceived by other organisms, for example certain sea creatures. 9 LIMITS OF HUMAN SENSES, Consciousness and Awareness My art makes the invisible visible, limits of human awareness. Human consciousness and awareness is restricted by stereotypes and notions that cause philosophers and artists to exist in the dark ages as far as their perception and understanding of human inner and outer senses are concerned. Humans perceive 7 colours of rainbows with 16 to 37 or more colours, that are perceived by other organisms, for example certain sea creatures. 10 The Philosophy behind the Multi-Sensory Art Gallery What is the Philosophy behind the Multi-Sensory Art Gallery?, 2020 If one were to search research sites like Acade- 11 mia.Edu we will find many and books on explorations of using different senses in traditional art galleries that used to concentrate only on visual art, in other words seeing. Here are a few articles (also published as Ebooks and paperbacks) by curators of a small, new art gallery Moorreesburg, Western Cape, South Africa. https://independent.academia.edu/YoungDelton I provide links to them so that I do not have to go into lengthy details of the contents of and ideas behind their paintings, installations, performance and participatory and educational art projects. The articles contain many photos of their work. https://independent.academia.edu/UlrichdeBalbian OPEN BOOK Gallery for the visually impaired20200718 105383 p74jby OPENED BOOK. ART GALLERY MINDS Art Gallery of All (not only visual) Senses Exercises in and facilitating the direct, active(not merely passive or viewing) participating (as myself , first person) in the sharing of the (undergoing as first person) of sensory experiences (taste, touch, smell, movement, etc) of/by another. 11 To summarize. As stated before, consciousness is a very general notion or umbrella-word with many different meanings. Meanings that refer to and/or express many different meanings,notions, phenomena, processes, etc. 12 If one wish to investigate those notion one need to identify, specify, define and deal with a particular thing, or set of things, processes, etc in a one specified context. 12 Here is another related article by me. It concerns determinism and Free Will. I read that to be able to have or be free will the individual needs to have consciousness. Another reason why I include it here is because it further shows the distinction between the 1st and the 3rd person perspective and the different intersubjectivities involved in or underlying them. Absolute Determinism and Lack of Free Will Determinism from the 1 st and 3 rd person perspective as well as the universal point of reference see dealt with. This is to show the absence of free will in the last perspective and the illusion of it when seen from the first two perspectives. 'Free' choice is dealt with as well as the absence of free will and the consequences of determinism for law and court judgements are explored. So, what if any, is the place and the role of God in all this? 13 Did s/he create determinism and the potential for or any semblance of choice and free will? Or is the existence of God, the fulfilling of prayer intentions and miracles impossible and redundant in a universe of determinism (laws of nature etc) or uni https://www.academia.edu/25883531/Consciousness_Part_1 Many people imagine, mistakenly, that because a word or phrase exists the concept or meaning of it exists and/or that it is true or make a true statement. I do not say such phenomena do not exist, but that one should be aware of this common fallacy in believing and thinking. Examples are God, pink unicorns, aliens, life on other planets, miracles, fairies, religious people are/must be peace loving, sincere, altruistic, compassionate ... There is not a (one) thing, process, cause or effect that we refer to or intend when we use the word consciousness, instead, there are many things, processes, factors, causes, effects, etc when this umbrella word and blanket term is employed. Of course it is possible to explore and analyse what we mean and intend by this word in different contexts. Velmans gives examples of how to define and not define this word - http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/psychology/staff/velmans.php 14 13 The concepts or ideas I mentioned and explored here are of interest and to some thinkers some of them like consciousness (and even determinism and free will) are considered to be the most important ideas in philosophy. Many philosophers consider consciousness the most serious and important idea to be explored and the philosophical problem. 13.1 In the previous explorations these and other notions to me are mere tools, tools to employ and apply certain techniques associated with reasoning, argumentation, questioning, theorizing and the doing of philosophy. 13.2 Perhaps, even more than these tools, their application and the problematization, questioning, theorizing and philosophizing they enable are the functions, aims and objectives they enable to realize. 13.3 I do not refer to the obvious philosophical aims, functions and objectives, but the motivations they 15 enable to be realized. And, the emotions, the feelings and other psychological phenomena they allow to be put in play, to operate, function and fulfil and the inner tensions they release and transform, at least momentarily, to inner peace. 13.31 These things can be seen, are mentioned and explored in the lives and auto/biographies of philosophers. https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/meta/topics.htm Self-Reference and Self-Application Is self-referential inconsistency as objectionable as other kinds of inconsistency? Many philosophies have implications for the nature or use of argument, proof, language, method, and philosophy itself. Must philosophies always comply with their own strictures on these subjects, or can they work at a 'different level' and exempt themselves? Are there interesting or significant philosophical positions that cannot be expounded except with some self-referential problem or paradox? Can you think of examples? 16 Primacy of the Practical Is 'the practical' (the ethical) primary in philosophy? Do we do non-ethical philosophy ultimately for the sake of ethics, and all philosophy ultimately for the sake of action or living? Is philosophy essentially a kind of inquiry? Is philosophy essentially a kind of action or life? 17 Philosophy and philosophers ð What is gained and what is lost by studying philosophical texts apart from the biographies of their authors? To what extent, and for what purposes, should we bring in biography? ð Compare the autobiographies of a few philosophers on their relation to their philosophies. (Try Croce, Mill, Collingwood, Jung, Quine, Rescher.) ð Why have so few philosophers written autobiographies, compared, say, to novelists or diplomats? ð To what extent is philosophy autobiographical? See Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, §6: ð "...every great philosophy so far has been...the personal confession of its author and a kind of unconscious memoir". See Ernest Campbell Mossner, "Philosophy ð and Biography," in his Hume, Doubleday, 1966. See de Beauvoir's many-volume autobiograð phy where, if anywhere, she expounds her philosophical position. ð ð ð The psychological motives, economic interests, and personal animosities of a philosopher may all be sources of his/her work. How relevant are they to our evaluation of that work? Does the recognition of causes for belief undermine the recognition of reasons for belief? 18 ð ð ð ð ð ð When we say that the life-and-times of a philosopher "illuminate" her work, or that her life situation "influenced" her work, can we make sense of these claims without reducing philosophy a complex effect of blind causation? Is there a slippery slope from influence to reduction? If not, what is the "snag" that keeps reasons from sliding to causes? Do non-immanent reductions of philosophy necessarily entail relativism and determinism? Must they be self-referentially inconsistent? What parts of a philosophy can biography most illuminate? Its truth-value? the proper interpretation of its texts? the philosopher's choice of topics, scope of coverage, emphasis? expositional style and structure? idea of the audience, hence, degree of rigour, use of technical language, political appeals? Steven Bartlett has written that philosophers as a group are typically individualistic and even narcissistic, more concerned to develop their own thought than to share or understand the thought of others. How true is this? Does philosophy appeal only to certain personality types? If so, what non-immanent perspectives on philosophy does this suggest? Could philosophy be a neurosis? Which came first, psychological tendencies or philosophical positions? 19 Might the latter have their own autonomy and simply attract (rather than being explained by) the former? Should we always explain the latter through ð the former instead of sometimes the former through the latter? May we legitimately call someone a philosopher who denied that she was a philosopher? (See case of Simone de Beauvoir; cf. Dostoevsky, Camus, Buber.) May we deny the name of philosopher to one who called himself a philosopher? (Analytic philosophers often deny that their non-analytic colleagues are philosophers.)How would we, and how should we, interpret the works of a philosopher with known moral failings? For example: Nietzsche was a vicious misogynist, Charles Peirce beat his wife, Heidegger was a Nazi. See the case of Paul de Man, an influential deconstructionist lately revealed to have been an early Nazi propagandist. Do these failings contaminate all the writings ð by that philosopher, perhaps on a theory that a philosophical position comes from the whole person? Can we compartmentalize, and hold a philoð sopher benighted on questions of gender or politics, but profound on epistemology, metaphysics, or perhaps even other topics within ethics? ð 20 ð ð Do we deliberately ignore such failings on the ground that to let them diminish our assessment of the writings would commit the genetic fallacy? In answering this question, how do we factor in our belief that everyone has moral failings, including we ourselves? ð ð ð How would we, and how should we, change our evaluation of a philosopher's work if we learned that he killed someone in cold blood? See case of Louis Althusser, who murdered his wife at the height of his respect and influence as a Marx scholar. ð ð ð ð If a philosophy cannot 'be lived', what legitimately follows about its worth as a philosophy? See e.g. Hume. 21 ð ð See: William Earle, "Philosophy as Autobiography," in his Public Sorrows and Private Pleasures, Indiana University Press, 1976, pp. 16175; C.E.M. Joad, "Thought and Temperament," pp. 218-52 of his Essays in Common Sense Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin, 2d ed. 1933; Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Philosophy Through the Looking Glass, Open Court, 1985; Albert W. Levi, "The Mental Crisis of John Stuart Mill," Psychoanalytic Review, V, xxxii (1945) 86-101; Fay Horton Sawyier, "Philosophy as Autobiography: John Stuart Mill's Case," Philosophy Research Archives, 11 (1985) 169-79; Ben-Ami Scharfstein, The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of Their Thought, Basil Blackwell, 1980. This is a selective bibliography; see my longer bibliography in a separate handout. ð https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/meta/topics.htm#self-ref ://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/meta/topics.htm#practical https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/meta/topics.stylehtm# https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/cour- 22 ses/meta/autobio.htm Philosophy as Autobiography Psychologistic, Reductive, & Non-Immanent Readings of Philosophy Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College 23 2 The need to Philosophize 1 It appears as if certain individuals have the need to think philosophically. As if they are driven to philosophize, compelled to think philosophically. Others appear to have the need to compose music, to be involved in creating visual art, to be involved in some form of physics or other socio-cultural practices. 2 The factors involved might differ for the various disciplines, so I restrict my question to the doing of philosophy. What are the factors, genotypes, phenotypes, personality type and perhaps others, that cause the need for certain individuals to be almost obsessively driven to think philosophically? 24 Almost as if it is a pathology. 3 A continuum with two opposing poles original- and creative things in philosophy in contrast to academic, derivative thinkers. The latter, students, scholars, teachers, writers, critics, reviewers etc talk about, study, teach, investigate the ideas of others. This is executed by means of acceptable, institutionalized customs and traditions, employing certain kinds of intersubjective norms, aims, objectives and agreements These individuals mostly execute these roles in a professional capacity. Fulfilling professionalized roles as academic philosophers receiving remuneration. Philosophical Insights Original vs Factual Derivative: (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) Philosophical Insights Original vs Factual Derivative: (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) Philosophical Insights Original vs Factual Deriva- 25 tive: (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) Philosophical Insights Original vs Factual Derivative: (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) It will be noticed that original- and creative-thinkers in the socio-cultural practice of philosophy present us with their own, new and original ideas and patterns, sets or models of such ideas. In the case of original/creative-thinkers these things will be intuitive or devised by the the individual himself while in the case of lesser original- and creative-thinkers these things (ideas, insights, tools, techniques, the ways they are arrived at or being constituted, employed to devise or express sets of new ideas or insights or models) will be obtained from the ideas, insights, statements, hypotheses and theories of other thinkers. The latter employs insights and ideas of others as facts or factual ideas as truths so as to argue for, establish, validate and legitimize their own derivative ideas resembling a kind of empirical research and the presentation of data in lectures and conferences and it is far removed from the approach of original thinkers. https://www.academia.edu/38329321/Philosophical_Insights_Original_vs_Factual_Derivative_original_creative_vs_academic_factual_ideas_ 26 4 Other possible factors identifying why certain individuals feel the need, drive, motivation, compelled to do philosophy. legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/meta/topics.htm ð Cognitivity ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð non-cognitive point to inquiry for truth (Stoicism, pragmatism, many others) cognitive criteria ultimately subordinate to ethical or aesthetic criteria (Nietzsche) self-conscious fictionalism (Nietzsche? Vaihinger) centrality of regulative principles philosophy as "stirring the compost" philosophy as questions, not answers philosophy as search for comfort, solace, utility, beauty, ataraxia, salvation philosophy as literature or art philosophy as expression of personality philosophy as expression of Zeitgeist, substructure, personality, etc. (ideology) philosophy as sheer choice philosophy as cultural action philosophy as liberation philosophy as self-creation 27 ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð philosophy as preparation for death philosophy as meditation philosophy as criticism philosophy as prescription philosophy as play philosophy as worship, celebration philosophy as therapy philosophy as clarification of language philosophy as (a certain kind of) living philosophy as wisdom philosophy as "gadflight" ð ð ð ð ð ð Historicity Is a philosophy determined, or limited, by conditions in the philosopher's time and place? Are some philosophies impossible to understand from certain other historical positions? For a given philosopher who claims eternal truth for her conclusions, how does she claim to have transcended history, and how does she explain her own historicity? For a given philosopher who disclaims eternal truths and asserts that all assertions are historically situated, how does she cope with the apparent self-refutation of her position? ð ð ð Is the history of philosophy the history of error? What is the relation between the substance of a philosophy and its 'place' in the history of philosophy? 28 ð ð ð What is the relation between philosophy itself and the history of philosophy? How does this relation differ from those between mathematics, chemistry, literature, or religion and their histories? If "philosophy is the history of philosophy" (Hegel), then are all philosophical claims historically conditioned and liable to revaluation (including this one)? ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Can bad history make good philosophy? (See e.g. Russell and Heidegger on the pre-Socratics.) How do philosophers typically use their predecessors? How should they? What would you think of a philosopher who had read virtually none of his predecessors? (See. e.g. Herbert Spencer.) Hobbes said that if he wasted his time reading the books of his predecessors, then he'd never know more than they did. Would you expect such philosophers to ask different kinds of questions and come to different kinds of results? If so, try to describe the difference. In what ways have the questions of philosophy changed and stayed the same from the Greeks to the 20th century? Is any view of the history or historicity of philosophy displayed by philosophies that claim to be "philosophies of the future" rather than of the 29 ð present or past? Cf. Feuerbach, Nietzsche. Why, and how, would a philosopher seek to "overcome" the history of philosophy? ð ð ð ð ð Can Kant be right when he says that he understands Plato better than Plato understood himself? (First Critique, B.370; cf B.862.) Can Fichte be right when he makes the same claim about Kant? Can Husserl be right when he says that we understand all previous philosophers better than they understood themselves? (Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy, Northwestern UP, 1970, at 73.) What is historical distance such that this kind of understanding becomes possible? ð ð ð ð ð Self-reference and Self-application Why does a given philosopher practice philosophy and write books? Is her book consistent with this vision of the nature and function of philosophy? Can the doctrinal aspect of a philosophy be consistent with all its other aspects? What is the price of trying? of failing? See: Steven J. Bartlett and Peter Suber, Self-Reference: Reflections on Reflexivity, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987 (contains a large bibliography). 30 ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Immanence and non-immanence Should philosophy be explained as the intellectual response to philosophical questions, arguments, living problems, and prior philosophers? (These would be immanent explanations.) Should philosophy instead be explained as the upshot, by-product, epiphenomenon, or side-effect of something else, such as economic or political forces, class struggle, will to power, individual psychology, cultural determinism, or linguistic confusion? (These would be non-immanent or reductive explanations; they are sometimes called "external critique".) If you prefer an immanent explanation, how do you explain the role of the historical and psychological conditions of the philosopher in the development of her philosophy? Does philosophy reflect the material conditions of its time and place at all? If you prefer a non-immanent explanation, 'ultimately', then is your favoured explanation subject to philosophical criticism? If so, what is the effect of this circle on the strength of your explanation? How far can the two types of explanation of philosophy work together? Is it consistent to interpret the same philosopher or text as having reasons (immanent) and causes (non-immanent), or does the latter undercut the former? Can non-immanent analysis of a philosophy 31 ð avoid "reduction"? What is reduction? If it is objectionable, why is it objectionable? What metaphilosophy is displayed by the view that it is objectionable? ð ð ð For a given philosopher, ask whether she wants to be examined solely on the basis of the arguments and conclusions in her book? Even if so, what might be useful for us, qua philosophers, to learn about the philosopher's (or philosophy's) psychological, political, economic, or historical background and circumstances? ð ð ð For a given philosopher, ask whether her important theses arose, or are presented as if they arose, entirely from thinking about issues and examining arguments? What of philosophical interest might be (in Wittgenstein's terms) displayed but not depicted by a work of philosophy? ð ð If Marx is right, would it follow that teaching philosophy to emphasizing the immanent arguments would presuppose idealism? ð ð ð What are the social and political conditions that define philosophers and philosophy? Does identifying them help solve or dissolve any philosophical problems? Is immanent philosophy bad faith? "Just aca- 32 ð demic"? If philosophy must address one's situation to be authentic, how far can it then address the tradition and continue the immanent dialogue of the tradition? Can philosophy be done non-immanently, or only viewed non-immanently? ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Primacy of the practical Is 'the practical' (the ethical) primary in philosophy? Do we do non-ethical philosophy ultimately for the sake of ethics, and all philosophy ultimately for the sake of action or living? Is philosophy essentially a kind of inquiry? Is philosophy essentially a kind of action or life? Ends of philosophy Do we, or should we, do "philosophy for philosophy's sake"? If so, what becomes of the pursuits of truth, justice, and good life? If not, what is the purpose of philosophy? Is there a single "point" to the practice of philosophy? Or could it be a mixture of (add your own...) moral improvement, inquiry for truth, solace, salvation, diversion, celebration, puzzle-solving, aesthetic enjoyment, worship, zestful living, and wonder? In what sense are the ends of philosophy therapeutic for the philosopher and for the readers? 33 ð ð ð ð ð In its ends or goals, is philosophy closer to art, religion, or the sciences? Are the ends of philosophy yet to be achieved? Or are they constantly achieved and/or by their nature in need of continual pursuit and accomplishment? If philosophy is worth doing, is it worth doing forever? Or is it worth doing only until it is "finished" (whatever that would be)? If the chase is worth more than the capture, would it ever make sense (or ever make good philosophy) to forgo the capture when it was within reach in order to continue the chase? If we translate this out of metaphor, what are we talking about? Lessing: if God had truth in one hand and pursuit of truth in the other, he'd choose the second. Wittgenstein: let the fly out of the fly bottle; get to the point where you can stop doing philosophy. ð ð ð What would lead a philosopher to expound a position and then at the end to abandon it, or in the metaphor of Sextus Empiricus made famous by Wittgenstein, to kick down the ladder after climbing up it? Compare this self-cancellation in Sextus Empiricus, Hume, Emerson, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, and Feyerabend. ð ð Feuerbach and Wittgenstein (among others) 34 ð ð ð want to stop doing philosophy. What would justify stopping? Wittgenstein and some other analytic philosophers believe that (good) philosophy "leaves everything the way it was". Describe a perspective that would make this a virtue, and another that would make it a vice. What is certainty? Does philosophy seek or need certainty? Is the conquest of doubt overrated in importance by the tradition? What important ends require it? ð ð ð ð If a philosophy makes the philosopher miserable, is it thereby failing to achieve the ends of philosophy? See James F. Peterman, Philosophy as Therapy: An Interpretation and Defense of Wittgenstein's Later Philosophical Project, SUNY Press, 1992; Harry Redner, The Ends of Philosophy: An Essay in the Sociology of Philosophy and Rationality, Rowman and Allanheld, 1986; ð ð ð ð Death of philosophy Are there good philosophical reasons for wanting to cease doing philosophy, or to abolish it? See Kenneth Baynes et al (eds.), After Philosophy: End or Transformation? MIT Press, 1987; Daniel Brudney, Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy, Harvard University Press, 1998; Ian 35 Hacking, "Is the End in Sight for Epistemology?" Journal of Philosophy, 77 (1980) 579-88; Jaegwon Kim, "Rorty on the Possibility of Philosophy," Journal of Philosophy, 77 (1980) 58897; Kai Nielsen, After the Demise of the Tradition: Rorty, Critical Theory, and the Fate of Philosophy, Westview Press, 1991; Quentin Skinner, "The End of Philosophy," New York Times Review of Books, 23, 4 (March 19, 1981) 46-48; Peter Suber, "Is Philosophy Dead?" Earlhamite, 112, 2 (Winter 1993) 12-14; Meredith Williams, "Transcendence and Return: The Overcoming of Philosophy in Nietzsche and Wittgenstein," International Philosophical Quarterly, 28, 4 (December 1988). ð ð ð ð ð ð Philosophy and exposition Why do philosophers write books? Compare the motivations of a few philosophers. What implications can a doctrine have for the legitimate motives for promulgating it? Discuss a few cases. Contrast, where you can, the motives for writing books that are found in biographical research with the motives that follow from the doctrine immanently. Can you find a case where these two motives are inconsistent? Can a doctrine imply that its promulgation is unimportant, or even unwise? Can you think of any examples? 36 ð ð ð Philosophy and style Does the style of a philosopher express something about the philosopher? Or is it something objective and essential to his approach and ideas? ð ð Philosophy and wisdom ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð Does doing philosophy make someone wise? Which of the many types of wisdom/ Is that one of the reasons a philosopher is doing it? Philosophy and philosophers What is gained and what is lost by studying philosophical texts apart from the biographies of their authors? To what extent, and for what purposes, should we bring in biography? Compare the autobiographies of a few philosophers on their relation to their philosophies. (Try Croce, Mill, Collingwood, Jung, Quine, Rescher.) Why have so few philosophers written autobiographies, compared, say, to novelists or diplomats? To what extent is philosophy autobiographical? See Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, §6: "...every great philosophy so far has been...the personal confession of its author and a kind of unconscious memoir". See Ernest Campbell Mossner, "Philosophy and Biography," in his Hume, Doubleday, 37 ð 1966. See de Beauvoir's many-volume autobiography where, if anywhere, she expounds her philosophical position. ð ð ð ð ð ð ð The psychological motives, economic interests, and personal animosities of a philosopher may all be sources of his/her work. How relevant are they to our evaluation of that work? Does the recognition of causes for belief undermine the recognition of reasons for belief? When we say that the life-and-times of a philosopher "illuminate" her work, or that her life situation "influenced" her work, can we make sense of these claims without reducing philosophy a complex effect of blind causation? Is there a slippery slope from influence to reduction? If not, what is the "snag" that keeps reasons from sliding to causes? Do non-immanent reductions of philosophy necessarily entail relativism and determinism? Must they be self-referentially inconsistent? What parts of a philosophy can biography most illuminate? Its truth-value? the proper interpretation of its texts? the philosopher's choice of topics, scope of coverage, emphasis? expositional style and structure? idea of the audience, hence, degree of rigour, use of technical language, political appeals? Steven Bartlett has written that philosophers as a group are typically individualistic and even 38 ð ð ð ð narcissistic, more concerned to develop their own thought than to share or understand the thought of others. How true is this? Does philosophy appeal only to certain personality types? If so, what non-immanent perspectives on philosophy does this suggest? Could philosophy be a neurosis? Which came first, psychological tendencies or philosophical positions? Might the latter have their own autonomy and simply attract (rather than being explained by) the former? Should we always explain the latter through the former instead of sometimes the former through the latter? ð ð ð ð ð How would we, and how should we, interpret the works of a philosopher with known moral failings? For example: Nietzsche was a vicious misogynist, Charles Peirce beat his wife, Heidegger was a Nazi. See the case of Paul de Man, an influential deconstructionist lately revealed to have been an early Nazi propagandist. Do these failings contaminate all the writings by that philosopher, perhaps on a theory that a philosophical position comes from the whole person? Can we compartmentalize, and hold a philosopher benighted on questions of gender or politics, but profound on epistemology, meta- 39 ð ð physics, or perhaps even other topics within ethics? Do we deliberately ignore such failings on the ground that to let them diminish our assessment of the writings would commit the genetic fallacy? In answering this question, how do we factor in our belief that everyone has moral failings, including we ourselves? ð ð ð How would we, and how should we, change our evaluation of a philosopher's work if we learned that he killed someone in cold blood? See case of Louis Althusser, who murdered his wife at the height of his respect and influence as a Marx scholar. ð ð ð If a philosophy cannot 'be lived', what legitimately follows about its worth as a philosophy? See e.g. Hume. ð ð See: William Earle, "Philosophy as Autobiography," in his Public Sorrows and Private Pleasures, Indiana University Press, 1976, pp. 16175; C.E.M. Joad, "Thought and Temperament," pp. 218-52 of his Essays in Common Sense Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin, 2d ed. 1933; Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Philosophy Through the Looking Glass, Open Court, 1985; Albert W. Levi, "The Mental Crisis of John Stuart Mill," Psychoanalytic Review, V, xxxii (1945) 40 86-101; Fay Horton Sawyier, "Philosophy as Autobiography: John Stuart Mill's Case," Philosophy Research Archives, 11 (1985) 169-79; Ben-Ami Scharfstein, The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of Their Thought, Basil Blackwell, https://www.academia.edu/43389533/How_do_different_philosophers_define_philosophy_100_plus_books_and_80_videos_Visual_art_on_You_Tube How do different philosophers define philosophy? , 2020 These definitions of philosophy is an appendix to a book uploaded here - Tacitly Loaded Concepts.. DEATH OF PHILOSOPHY 6 (Philo sophos as love of wisdom) Philo-sophos as love of wisdom 1 Philosophy, philo sophos, as love of (explorations, research, investigations and the journey for and attempts to the realization and/or the attaining of ever greater degrees of) wisdom. This must be distinguished from seeking and obtaining more date, more information or mere factual knowledge. The emphasis is on obtaining ever greater insights and the endless 41 search for achieving more subtle understanding of ourselves, our existence, behaviour and lifeworlds or reality(ies)-for-us. Not developing insights and understanding for the sake of appearing, belong or feeling more clever or a mere intellectual grasp of the meaning, nature and sense of phenomena, but insights and understanding that are aimed at and would assist the development and acquisition ever greater degrees of wisdom). 2 In this chapter I will begin to deal with distracting 'philosophical ' notions of philosophy and investigations-e.g. metaphysic, ontology, epistemology etc-ideas , concerns and interests that distract from the real purpose and rationale of philosophos, that lead to secondary , even irrelevant concerns and investigations, and thereby kills the real purpose of philosophos, of philosophizing. 3 As illustrated in previous chapters, the philosophical discourse has developed over the years into many domains and areas, while simultaneously losing many topics that at one time was considered to be philosophical. Three major labels for what is thought to be philosophical subjects are metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. These major areas are the biggest culprits causing philosophers to be come distracted from the real goal, purpose, aim and rational of philosophy, namely the love of wisdom-and therefore the investigation of everything that might lead to the realization of this goal. 4 In previous chapters I mentioned some of the ideas and notions that have at some or other time, in the West, been 42 considered to be understood under the idea of wisdom. It may or may not be possible to investigate and explore wisdom itself-in-itself?-directly and that it should, in the beginning at least, be researched by means of the investigation of other ideas or phenomena. One should however keep in one's mind the real reason for one's philosophical investigations so that one does not become so involved in the exploration of other ideas and topics that one become oblivious to one's real motive for philosophizing. 5 It is to be understood that an individual who is involved in philosophical investigations-with his main goal being to obtain always a greater degree of ever subtle wisdom-will ask questions about himself, his procedure, methods, techniques and methodology, about cognitive process involved in this investigation, about the nature of his inner realities as well as his external realities, life-worlds and reality (ies) for him. 6 It is in this process of investigating the nature of his cognition that he will begin to become interested in the working of his senses, perception, thinking, reasoning, imagination, knowing how and knowing that, memory, and other aspects of human consciousness. These and other aspects have traditionally been dealt with in the domain of epistemology. As research in this domain continued microscopic details concerning the nature and functioning of human knowing and knowledge seemed to be important for some individuals working in this domain. These include things such as what is the 43 nature of knowledge, how do we know, what is understood by knowing, knowledge and related notions such as belief, what is truth, what is meaning, etc. Is this knowledge related to objects outside the human body, how do we conceive of things outside our body, do our ideas of such phenomena come first or are the phenomena themselves primary? Are there different types of knowledge and statements, for example some that are eternal and unchanging, others that are relative and depend on experience. etc. What is the nature of such a priori knowledge and statements? how do they differ as analytic statements from synthetic statements or Kantian mixtures of these two types of statements? 7 How do the individual or all human beings relate to or is situated in the world, nature, social worlds? Did this type of relate gradually develop and changed over centuries of human sapiens sapiens development? did the human being develop during interaction with other humans, other species and 'the world'? In response to these questions philosophers from the pre-Wittgenstein et al presented us with all sorts of all-inclusive systems of human knowing, cognition and other aspects of epistemology. These are the ideas that came to be understood as philosophy-as the discourse of philosophy and the subject to be taught and studied as 'philosophy'. https://Academia.Edu/29186105/Ontology_101_part_2_Intersubjectivity 44 Are the human and other species then intersubjective beings when it comes to awareness, consciousness, so-called perception, behaviour and existence? Are limits and conditions to these socio-cultural practices socio-cultural or intersubjective limits and conditions? Can the individual never escape this transcendental principle and the limits it lays down or the conditions it provides? Is it possible to identify actual (ly existing) conscious phenomena (that a subject have or is and the objects or contents of this consciousness) that do not employ intersubjective means and/or that are not intersubjective but individual? Extensions and developments (of new elements) of existing or available discourses and discourses still to be developed are obviously included in the possible range of discourses. 9 So where or how are the subjects, objects and connecting intermediary means (of awareness, consciousness, perception, etc) of empiricists, rationalists, idealists, phenomenologists, pragmatists, critical theorists, etc etc when we employ this model of intersubjectivity? THE INSTITUTIONAL and PERSONAL NEED for PHILOSOPHY https://www.academia.edu/32726031/THE_INSTI- 45 TUTIONAL_and_PERSONAL_NEED_for_PHILOSOPHY TYPES OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY and Alternative Reality Images Exploration of INTERSUBJECTIVITY is continued. Different kinds of if are differentiated and signs for its presence and effects are shown. The difference between it, subjectivity and objectivity are explored. Intersubjectivity is crucial and universal for general everyday discourse in all cultures, sub-cultures, institutions, communities and socio-cultural practices such as religion, sport, etc or the so-called Manifest Image. It is essential for specialized areas, for example religion, sport and disciplines such as the humanities, arts, sciences, philosophy and all institutions. It is a necessity for both cultural, social, interpersonal as well as intra-personal existence, emotions, attitudes, values and norms. But, it is not limited to human existence, life-worlds, realities and worlds, but also for animals and all organisms. Object Oriented Ontology would emphasize that is it not merely something anthropocentric and restricted to human existence and consciousness (and anthropocentric interpretations of and projections on other objects, non-human creatures and all organisms, as 46 well as all objects.. In the case of the latter one would probably replace the notion of intersubjectivity with terms such as energy and other ways of action and interaction for example intra- and interatoms.) In the Appendix is included work related to the above by others such as Sellars, Brandom (and his two images, Manifest and Scientific), Davidson, Dennett, Habermas, Nagel, etc. https://www.academia.edu/32637764/TYPES_OF_INTERSUBJECTIVITY_and_Alternative_Reality_Images INTERSUBJECTIVITY (continued) https://www.academia.edu/32531947/INTERSUBJECTIVITY_continued_ (Meta-Philosophy) Why read Philosophy? (of original- and creative-thinking rather than derivative, academic professionals) ABSTRACT Meta-Philosophy and Philosophys rationale, aims, subject-matter and methods. https://web.facebook.com/metaphilosophyMPRC/ 47 What is philosophy for the creative-, originalthinking philosopher? Why is he doing philosophy? Where does his philosophical problems and insights come from? Comparing speculative/revisionary metaphysics, descriptive metaphysics and the explorative metaphysics of the Socratic Method and the Philosophical Investigations. Comments on, or thinking through and with philosophical problems that cannot be dis/solved, Suber s Meta-philosophy themes and questions, surveys of philosophers (and their believes) and Plants On the Domain of Meta-philosophy. https://www.academia.edu/31813592/_Meta-Philosophy_Why_read_Philosophy_of_original_and_creative-thinking_rather_than_derivative_academic_professionals_ 48 3 Why Philosophize? 1 Different people do different things during the day. Be it that they wake up, talk to others near them, wash, get dress, make and drink coffee, eat something - or if employed by someone, do these things for them. Some might get ready for work, commute to work, work at home, in their fields. Other days they might spend time on relaxation, hobbies, entertainment and other things. For a minority of individuals the above, mundane activities, might be less important and even pale into insignificance. The individuals I am thinking about are those who feel the need to think and write creatively, paint, compose music, be involved in sciences or mathematics in a creative manner, or execute other creative activities, in original ways. I am especially interested in those individuals who will employ the socio-cultural practice of the doing of philosophy. 49 2 The reasons why their embodied selves will feel the need to employ this practice (I will restrict myself to the Western tradition of it, as other traditions might situate this practice as associated with and executed in the contexts of religion, certain life styles, world views, constitutions of reality etc) I refer to as determined and caused by factors such as genotypes, phenotypes, personality types, etc that are constituting their particular embodied self. 3 Philosophical Insights Original vs Factual Derivative: (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) Philosophical Insights Original vs Factual Derivative: (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) (original, creative vs academic, factual ideas) It will be noticed that original- and creative-thinkers in the socio-cultural practice of philosophy present us with their own, new and original ideas and patterns, sets or models of such ideas. In the case of original/creative-thinkers these things will be intuitive or devised by the the individual himself while in the case of lesser original- and 50 creative-thinkers these things (ideas, insights, tools, techniques, the ways they are arrived at or being constituted, employed to devise or express sets of new ideas or insights or models) will be obtained from the ideas, insights, statements, hypotheses and theories of other thinkers. The latter employs insights and ideas of others as facts or factual ideas as truths so as to argue for, establish, validate and legitimize their own derivative ideas resembling a kind of empirical research and the presentation of data in lectures and conferences and it is far removed from the approach of original thinkers. And Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing Philosophy is the making of theories, badly or occasionally better, with sets of ideas that resembles fiction, poetry and literature and theology in certain ways in so far as the author uses his imagination and intuition to produce a set of ideas that may or may not attempt to refer to and/or represent or reflect and create a certain reality or life-worlds. It differs from fiction and is relatively unique in so 51 far as it employs reasoning, argumentation and other philosophical tools. It seems as if philosophy is self-incestuous (verbal masturbation), conceptual games with and about concepts using propositions, reasoning and argumentation to make assertions about other concepts (as if the lion is trying to speak, attempting to convey to us what he thinks and how he experiences his life-world), and thereby produce insular, enclosed, self-referential, circular systems of ideas. Dealing with issues about the impossibility of creating metaphysics, epistemology and ontology. Manuscripts of most of my 100 books can be downloaded for FREE at Ulrich de Balbian where my work is in the top 0.5% of about 1 million researchers. Academic, derivative philosophy by scholars and teachers studying and teaching the work and ideas of other philosophers and contrived academic issues are irrelevant and equates with death. Original-, creative-thinking and ideas by philosophers are and always will be alive. Why do some people feel the need to think, exist, be and do philosophy or to philosophize? Why do they find it necessary, essential, to concentrate on, identify, investigate, explore and spend time on the 52 doing of philosophy? Why is the doing of philosophy the most important aspects of their existence? Why are these activities the ones that give or seem to give them a reason to live, give meaning to their lives, an aim, objective and purpose to live, to wish to exist and to continue to live? Apart from the factors I already mentioned, there of course are bio-chemical, cognitive, biological and physical factors (for example the nature and functioning of their brains and other organs) that play a part in this. 4 I will not identify and investigate those factors here. I wish to focus on the fact that certain words, concepts, ideas, combinations of them, notions, expressions, statements, etc get at philosophical types and compel them to explore them. 4.1 There are different reasons why this will be the case. Statements might appear to be false, to express contradictions, biases,employ fallacies, words and notions that are employed need to be modified, clarified, replaced, etc. We find examples of these issues, or rather attempts to deal with them in the Philosophical In- 53 vestigations of Wittgenstein. 4.2 The need to modify, correct and replace such things, associated attitudes and beliefs, underlying pre-suppositions and assumptions, is not merely an objective, academic exercise. But, it appears to the philosopher as a matter of life and death - he cannot continue his life, continue living in peace and with inner balance, unless the particular problems have been dealt with. Deal with satisfactorily in his mind. For example by the development of a Kantian system, Marxs ideas, Descartes, Spinoza, et al. 5 I encounter such phenomena that makes me cringe all the time and everywhere. For example ethics or morality*, black and white issues, absolutes, with no grey areas, such as BLM, racism and anti-racism, anti-colonialism, tearing down statues and denial of other aspects of the history, customs and traditions of a community, society, country, culture, discipline and civilization. Such cancel culture agendas and -isms suffer from all sorts of agendas, -isms, pre-suppositions, fallacies and biases. Things that are not identified 54 and investigated. 6 I dealt with some of these assumptions, fallacies, biases and pre-suppositions concerning philosophy in some of my books. Here are two of them. Derivative, academic thinking and thinkers, compared to original- and creative philosophers. And, academic philosophy, where the ideas of others are taught, studied, investigated, published and criticized, in contrast with the original insights and ideas of original and creative-thinking philosophers. * NIHILISM, MINARCHISM, PYRRHONISM META-PHILOSOPHY Living Radical Scepticism A Meta-Philosophy exploration of immanent and non-immanent features of first-order philosophy in terms of the values of non- values or negative values of Radical Scepticism, Nihilism and Minarchy, executed to show how philosophizing is done. It misleadingly seems as if there is no progress in philosophy as, like in 55 visual art, literature and music, each original thinker re-invents the entire discipline, its aims, purposes, values, methods, etc The nature of philosophical tools, methods, techniques and skills will be investigated and applied in terms of radical scepticism. This approach, set of values and attitude restrict the nature and the style of the meta-philosophizing. It will for example prevent the traditional development of a general, all-encompassing and all-inclusive metaphysical system. It also demands the focus on context-specific investigation of questions and the dealing of a particular problem in a certain context. These limits require the re-interpretation of any philosophical tool being employed as well as the underlying assumptions and any presuppositions. As far as possible philosophizing as an aspect of the processes of theorizing will be adhered to and realized. In chapter THREE I illustrate many-leveled and multi-dimensional thinking, that are to me as a visual artist as well, of extreme importance. These are the types of things employed by radical scepticism and that should be the form of philosophizing instead of and replacing traditional one-leveled and one-dimensional thinking, argumentation and reasoning. LET'S FAKE MORALITY AND ETHICS The Pretence of Ethics ... papers.ssrn.com sol3 SSRN_ID2955709_code2660329 LET'S FAKE MORALITY AND ETHICS. The Pretence of Ethics and Morality. In Philosophy and LIFE. ULRICH DE BALBIAN. Meta-Philosophy Research Center .. Keywords: ethics, morality, immorality, intersubjectivity, nihilism, anarchism, minarchism, free will, determinism, knowing how, reason, cognitive science, compatibilism, libertarianism. 56 Keywords: ethics, morality, immorality, intersubjectivity, nihilism, anarchism, minarchism, free will, determinism, knowing how, reason, cognitive science, compatibilism, libertarianism. https://www.academia.edu/32532069/LETS_FAKE_MORALITY_and_ETHICS_the_pretence_of_ethics_and_morality_in_philosophy_and_life_ 6 Other ideas that make me cringe are the following. The idea of philosophy for toddlers, little kids, kids, primary schools, schools, pre-college, for the general public, Philosophy for Everyone, Philosophy of Everyday life and philosophies of everything. It is not the sentiments motivating these ventures, but the nature of the projects, how they are executed and presented and that they are labelled as philosophy. Each of the above need to be dealt with on their own so that you do not misunderstand me. For ex- 57 ample philosophy for kids contain attempts to teach critical thinking, biases, fallacies, that many things can be dealt with or viewed philosophically, how to deal with something philosophically. And, of course, at some stage, with older students, the teaching of logic and the ideas of philosophers in the usual derivative, academic manner of someone talking about the ideas of others, and others studying them or investigating them in scholarly ways. To what extent, if any do these exercise involve and teach the personal doing of philosophy? It is not the ventures themselves or even their associated sentiments and underlying pre-suppositions that put me off, but the fact that they are presented as philosophy. With the result that those participating thinking that they are involved with philosophy; that they are doing philosophy and are philosophers or philosophers in the making. 6 In the previous sections I pointed at a few issues or phenomena that might motivate someone to begin to think philosophically. I wish to point to two of the many aspects that could be explored when a potential philosophical problem is encountered. A kind of undefined, vague, all-encompassing, 58 nebulous state overpowers the mind of the thinker. An intense need to overcome this state that might causes depression, stress, anxiety, etc might follow. How can such a state be differentiated into aspects or issues be identified. Issues that could be dealt with one at a time. It is as if one is overtaken, overwhelmed and one need to differentiate the problem so that one can identify the most relevant problems, issues, ideas and concepts individually and one at a time. Because, unfortunately that is how our cognition functions ate the present time. We are unable to perceive, think, even multi-sensory simultaneously on may levels and in many multiple dimensions. We appear to be doomed to think in a linear manner, one aspect, one level, one dimension of one problem or idea at a time. A single perspective, point of view and frame of reference is required. This is utterly frustrating and causes severe stress, when one is compelled to attempt to identify the most important issues one at a time,by means of one perspective, on one level of generalization in one or a few, selected, dimensions. While in fact one wishes to think on many levels, in multi-dimensions, by means of many different points of view, alternative frames of reference and 59 many paradigms, simultaneously - a kind of multiverse, gods eye view. What I mean by employing a multiverse, instead of a one-dimensional, single perspective is -that all possible perspectives, forms and ideas of space and time,and other dimensions are employed for perception, cognition, multi-sensing, feeling,etc. Multiverse Oriented Philosophy (Transcending Earth-and Anthropocentrism Multiverse Oriented Philosophy (Transcending Earth-and Anthropocentrism, 2020 The intended title was Universe Oriented Ontology or Multiverse Oriented Ontology, or Universe or Multiverse Metaphysics. I mention this as it gives an idea about the meaning and intention of the title and the work as well as the titles I considered and why I moved away from them to the present one. The sub-title provides a further hint towards the intentions of the work, namely: Beyond Earth- and Human-centricity. I opted for transcending rather than beyond, as I am still in the process of describing the process of transcending and many of the ideas I am obliged to use from our conceptual system and practices are still earth- and anthropocentered, And, they have not yet gone to a state be- 60 yond those two -isms. I say something about universe-centeredness, then about planet earth as point and frame of reference and anthropo-centricity. The socio-cultural practice of philosophy and the doing of philosophy is merely one of many human, social and cultural practices. I post different notions of philosophy by a number of writers, some of them philosophers. These notions are about their perceptions of what philosophy is. Few of them go into detail about the subject-matter of philosophy. No one really deal with the aims, purposes and objectives of the discipline and none deal with the nature of the doing of philosophy or philosophizing. Activities that I suggest resemble certain features of the processes of theorizing. I end with explorations of possible characteristics of original- and creative thinkers. I do this by mentioning a number of themes of meta-philosophy listed and described by Peter Suber. I make a number of comments in them and highlight aspects relevant to these type of thinkers. One find them of course in all disciplines and socio-cultural practices and disciplines be they the arts,humanities, sciences, etc. I am of course specifically concerned with original and creative thinkers in the Western tradition of philosophy. As I am a radical and absolute sceptic, I end with an article on this theme. It is said by everyone, for example Hume, Russell and Pascal, that such a radical position is psycho- 61 logically impossible and that it cannot be lived 24/7. Pascal for example opted for believe or faith and he and a number of writers suggest that that is the only way out and the final position of radical sceptics. I disagree with him. 7 Identify ideas or concepts that need to be explored. What are techniques for identification? Then employ tools to clarify, modify or replace these ideas. And use these ideas and techniques of reasoning and argumentation to for that clarification so as to arrive at, hopefully, more appropriate, meaningful and relevant ideas, expressions and propositions, and more acceptable, valid, meaningful and appropriate ways of using them and dealing with them. This whole process of reasoning and argumentation, guided by certain ideals, aims, objectives and purposes, underlying attitudes and other assumptions and pre-suppositions forms the processes of philosophizing. Processes that resembles many features and aspects of the processes, objectives, aims and purposes of theorizing. I explored and described that here Philosophizing is part of the Process/es of Theoriz- 62 ing Philosophizing is part of the Process/es of Theorizing An illustration (by means of a number of articles, books, opinions, statements, hypotheses, theories, arguments, reasoning and comments) of doing philosophy or philosophizing and its methods, as aspects of the contexts, stages, steps and features of the process/es of theorizing. A number of implicit assumptions and tacit presuppositions of this socio-cultural practice and discourse, for example as they resemble that of everyday and religious perception (MNC) are identified revealed. 8 Here are a few of the approaches, techniques, tools and methods employed for philosophizing. But, I wish to emphasize here the fact that one crucial level, dimension or aspect of the doing of philosophy is - the employment of argumentation and reasoning to deal with concepts and ideas so as to arrive at the theory or model (and the hypotheses and ideas that express or constitute them) that the thinker wish to express. These theories, models or sets of ideas are the fi- 63 nal, real objectives or results the philosophizing are aimed at. They could be concerned with any of the domains of philosophy, be it metaphysics, ontology, ethics, epistemology, etc. PHILOSOPHY Aims, Methods, Rationale In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of Wisdom. I then continue with an exploration of the institutionalization of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. This I contrast with original and creative philosophizing. In then sows that philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9 questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the Philosophical Toolkit occur throughout different stages of theorizing as one level and one dimension of it. Linked books are FREE for download. 1 Seeking, development and realization of wisdom 4 2 Institutionalization, Professionalization of philo5 sophy 3 Original and Creative Thinking Philosophizing 37 4 Philosophizing resembles Theorizing 38 (i) Socratic Method 41 (ii) Philosophical Toolkit 145 64 9 Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing ...www.academia.edu Academic_Philosophy_Death_Long...1 Academic Philosophy = Death Long live Philosophizing Ulrich de Balbian ... It resembles fiction, poetry and literature and theology in certain ways in so far as the ... 2 Philosophy is the making of theories, badly or occasionally better, with sets of ... In Symbolic Exchange and Death(1976), Jean Baudrillard uses Lacan's ... 65 Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing by ...Philosophy is the making of theories, badly or occasionally better, with sets of concepts. It resembles fiction, poetry and literature and theology in certain wa. ... fiction, poetry and literature and theology in certain ways in so far as the author uses his imagination and intuition to produce a set of ideas that may www.ssrn.com . Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing - Amazon www.amazon.fr Academic-Philoso... Retrouvez Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing et des ... Philosophy is the making of theories, badly or occasionally better, with sets of concepts. It resembles fiction, poetry and literature and theology in certain ways in so far as the author uses his imagination and intuition to produce a set of ideas that ... 66 Gruppo pubblico Ordinary Language Phi philosophy & Literary Studies ... it-it.facebook.com groups Ordinary Language Philosophy & Literary Studies ha 283 membri. ... Academic Philosophy = Death: Long Live Philosophizing ... Philosophy is the making of theories, badly or occasionally better, with sets of ideas that resembles fiction, poetry and literature and theology in certain ways in so far as the author uses his ... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3429583 Philosophizing Is Part of the Processes of Theorizing Ulrich de Balbia Meta-Philosophy Research Centerhilosophizing is part of the Process/es of Theorizing. An illustration (by means of a number of articles, 67 books, opinions, statements, hypotheses, theories, arguments, reasoning and comments) of doing philosophy or philosophizing and its methods, as aspects of the contexts, stages, steps and features of the process/es of theorizing. Keywords: philosophizing, methods, tools, nature, epistemology, meta-philosophy, theorizing https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3429557 68 Abstract It will be noticed that original- and creative-thinkers in the socio-cultural practice of philosophy present us with their own, new and original ideas and patterns, sets or models of such ideas.In the case of original/creative-thinkers these things will be intuitive or devised by the the individual himself while in the case of lesser original- and creative-thinkers these things (ideas, insights, tools, techniques, the ways they are arrived at or being constituted, employed to devise or express sets of new ideas or insights or models) will be obtained from the ideas, insights, statements, hypotheses and theories of other thinkers. The latter employs insights and ideas of others as facts or factual ideas as truths so as to argue for, establish, validate and legitimize their own derivative ideas resembling a kind of empirical research and the presentation of data in lectures and conferences and it is far removed from the approach of original thinkers. 69 Keywords: original thinking, academic and derivative work Philosophers' Thinking (Experimental Philosophy and Qualitative Tools Volume 4) Philosophers' Thinking (Experimental Philosophy and Qualitative Tools Volume 4), 2017 280 Pages Posted: 14 Apr 2017 Ulrich de Balbian Meta-Philosophy Research Center 10 The nature and process of identifying an original, new philosophical problem, of perceiving it, of conceptualizing it, of dissolving it and of depicting and describing it or reporting and communicating it in words and writing. 70 It is an indescribable agony when encountering the first flashes or intuitions of the beginnings of a new philosophical problem. It does not appear as a complete or perceptible thing, like when one looks through the window and one sees a tree, or when walks through the door to the garden and sees a plant, a cat or a dog. No, one has the feeling as if something is not quite right, but one does not know what is wrong. One cannot merely look for it as a problem with some or other part of ones vehicle as one does not know where to look or what to look for. The words, the concepts, the notions by means the problem need to be identified do not yet exist. One needs to devise, discover, develop and create them at the same time as the problem is made visible, as it is being discovered. 71 Unfortunately this is a linear, gradual, one levelled, one perspectival and one dimensional process. Sadly we do not think, perceive, feel, exist in a multiverse, a multiverse manner. As if we could think, perceive and exist simultaneously on many levels, dimensions, forms of space and time and multi-sensory and the many levels and aspects of our bodies and brains, multiple perspectives, frames of reference etc. The processes of identifying new philosophical problems are complex and gradual and so as to be meaningful and satisfactory, sound and acceptable, they need to be reasoned and employ argumentation. We need to devise notions to perceive the problem at the same time as notions to identify it through reasoning and argumentations - so that we are able to make sense of it, and explore, investigate and dissolve it. In this process we most likely would have to devise a point of view, perspective, frame of reference, etc. 72 Then we need to devise ways to deal with it and dissolve it and finally new, suitable ways to depict and describe, present, report and communicate it. The process of describing, reporting and communicating it contains its own agonies and problems. Only at the end of this process can the problem be laid to rest and might all stress, agony and internal upheavals finally be overcome. The result might consist of hypotheses, often expressed as generalizations, theses or other names for the conclusions that are made or drawn. 11 Philosophy, or its techniques (for example those of questioning, argumentation and reasoning) might assist in the clarification of ideas. Ideas that are employed to form attitudes, opinions, beliefs and pre-suppositions (about issues and problems). Then it still remains to identify the implications and consequences of those ideas and being for or against them. Philosophizing about them might assist in the making of decisions to support or reject them and to hold attitudes for or against them. 73 4 Meanings of Philosophy 1 Human beings employ concepts not merely to reconstitute their worlds, realities, including their selves, minds, consciousness, lives and loves but to fabricate and constitute these things. As well as their perceptions, thinking, feelings, emotions and reactions to, interpretations of, developing, maintaining and transforming these things. In this way ideas and concepts enable the creation of realities, inner and external worlds and lives. But this constitution is not absolutely unlimited or free, but restricted, determined, following norms, rules, -isms, patterns, customs, traditions, social, cultural, historical, intersubjective and many other rules, limits, aims, objectives, purposes, goals, etc. Concepts, conceptual practices, usage and meanings are loaded and associated with pre-determined -isms, pre-suppositions, assumptions, attitudes, beliefs, restrictions, perspectives, frames of refer- 74 ence, and other phenomena that will determine how they are used, their effects, results, consequences, etc. The above is earth- and anthropo-centered and restricted. The origins, nature, past, present and future is explored. This is suggested as point of reference and not the minute and irrelevant planet earth. Changes, modifications even the destruction of this planet will have little effect on and consequences for our galaxy and the universe. Against or in this universal context the nature, the functions, aims, objectives, methods, techniques, relevance, meaning and possibility of philosophy and philosophizing is explored. Reductionistic humans are obsessed with and drawn to minimalist and generalized patterns or sets and systems of ideas as explanations and underlying foundations of complex realities and phenomena. But the notion of philosophy like those of consciousness and mind can have have different and therefore misleading meanings. They are like umbrella-words that can have many meanings, all of them rather vague, although those who employ them mistakenly assume they know precisely what is meant when they use these notions in a certain context and way. 75 2 One reason why the words philosophy and to do philosophy or philosophizing are misleading is because they can and do form part of most contexts, areas and dimensions of human existence, perception, thinking and thinking about thinking and these things. 2.1 When I sense or perceive anything it feels as if an aspect of what I do, undergo or am is doing philosophy. The short of critical aspect, the aware aspect of what I do, the conscious and self-conscious aspect of being critical, employing, undergoing or being biased, having, employing, applying and expressing attitudes, opinions and value. We are usually unaware that we do, undergo, am or employ these things in every context and situation. But, they form part of what we might mean by the notion of having, expressing, applying and employing philosophy or my personal philosophy. 2.2 These inklings of critical and reflective awareness, thinking and thinking about what we do and are all refers to some of the meanings of philosophy, hav- 76 ing a philosophy, being philosophical and the doing of philosophy - and that in every situation, context and moment of our existence. These are not merely examples of the everyday, man or woman on street notions of philosophy, but they form part of and express aspects and meanings of the more technical, specialized meanings of the notions philosophy and philosophizing. And, in this way and because of this the meanings of these notions become nebulous, confusing and misleading. 3 Imagine there is a process of perception, becoming aware of something through the senses, emotions, feelings, memory, etc. On aspect or feature of these things appear to be philosophical or related to what we might conceive of or understand by and as philosophical. For example the operation or presence of biases, fallacies, pre-suppositions and the making of assumptions, world views, the presence of intentions and intentionality, etc. 4 We are already doing active things at that stage or those stages and not merely passively undergoing perception, cognition, emotions, feelings, memories, etc. This active dimension of perceiving 77 etc involves philosophically related and relevant aspects. Because of the misleading, vague, nebulous and umbrella-implications and applications of the words philosophy and doing philosophy. 5 Now what happens or can happen next with, to or by means of the contents of that what is involved in this initial stage? For example we describe, we recount, we talk or think about them, explore them for example by asking questions about them or certain aspects of them. When doing these things certain aspects of that what we do, that what we attempt to do, that what our aims, objectives and reasons are for doing it might appear philosophically, psychologically, sociologically (bio-chemically, neurologically, etc) related, relevant and meaningful. Just think of the many explorations, descriptions, explanations, analyses, speculations about features of this stage by Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Husserl, Derrida, Habermas, contemporary Anglo-Saxons, in Buddhism, Hinduism and other metaphysical systems and ideas. 6 78 I am not concerned with the details of the processes of perception, cognition, consciousness etc or to identify them, their nature, aims, objectives and purposes. I wish to point out that there are many different contexts and situations that contain features or elements that are or might appear to be philosophical, philosophical relevant and philosophically related - correctly or not. My reason for mentioning this is that this is one of the ways and reasons for the creation of some of the misleading meanings, uses, aims, functions and purposes of philosophy and philosophizing. 7 We can continue to those stages where the above are scientifically explored, findings classified, models and theories about them created, papers, dissertations and papers created and shared, etc. These activities in turn will tacitly or explicitly employ and involve things such as questions, questioning, reasoning, argumentation, etc. Things that are or could be philosophically relevant and related. With the possibility that here, again, we might find other features or aspects of what might be referred 79 to as philosophy, philosophical, the doing of philosophy and other uses of the notion of philosophy. 8 In short, almost any human beings action or mere presence, how it is perceived or whatever is done with or to or by means of it could be said to be philosophical, contain, exhibit or imply something philosophical or philosophically relevant or related. 9 The problem with defining what philosophy and the doing of philosophy is, is that there exist no limits to these socio-cultural practices and that there is no way to describe, define, identify and draw these limits, that there can never be and that there will never be. Everything and anything can be considered and dealt with philosophically, anything that is alive or dead, that exists or that do not exist. Anything in or not in the universe, anything that ever was, that is and that will be or that never was and never will be can de dealt with, lead to, cause or create philosophizing. 80 And, that cold be done from many perspectives, for many reasons, aims and purposes and by means of many different tools, employing many different pre-suppositions. 10 Then that what is transformed into philosophy or philosophically related phenomena in turn can lead to further philosophical subject-matter. As well as, of course meta-philosophically, dealing with the ways they were dealt with and the reasons why. Any and all features of individual organisms, groups of them, their communal existence, social, political, economical, ethical and other dimensions, verbal and other forms of interaction, their limitations, personal, social and cultural first and third person perceptions, the communication tools and media being employed, technologies, the nature of these things in a particular historical period or time and its changes over time, etc - Habermas, Foucault, Derrida and other Europeans explored some of these things - as if they are philosophy. And, they did this from their own restricted perspectives, frames of reference, biases, pre-suppositions, etc. Endless other frames of reference and perspectives are of course possible. Those are alternatives that can yield even more additions to the pot pourri or melting pot of possible philosophical 81 questions, problems, ideas, models, theories, systems, speculations, etc. All of them restricted by and relative to factors such as the time, social, historical, cultural, society, personal, personality-type, interests, phenotypes and other factors. 11 Perhaps the question what philosophy is, what it may be and can be could be answered by stating that: any existing or still to be created concept or being used, with all the assumptions, pre-suppositions involved as well as all possible features of those employing them, their species, biological, bio-chemical, social, cultural, psychological, etc make-up, historical, planetary context and factors could be the subject-matter of philosophy. As well as all the tools, perspectives, frames of reference, assumptions, pre-suppositions that could be used (as seen from a meta-philosophical level) - are possible objects of philosophy? 12 So what does philosophy and the doing of philosophy consist of in its most general manner? 82 What will be and must be present in the doing of philosophy? To feel the need to ask questions about something, some phenomena, to explore the phenomenon because you have questions about it, to ask these questions in a systematic manner, to identify and explore many explicit and implicit features of the phenomenon, you consider to be relevant, to develop insights about it, related to your questions, to classify, generalize and develop your insights usually in some form of hypotheses, models and even a theory. 13 But, everyone has and ask questions all the time about many things, so what are philosophically relevant questions? What is their nature or what make them philosophically relevant? 83 Perhaps the attitude and intentions of the person asking the question? The way in which a question is used? It might not be something inherent to the individual who create the question but the intention with which or the reason why a question is asked? I could for example read, ask and employ questions that were framed by others such as Socrates or Kant. Perhaps a certain understanding is required so as to employ a question for philosophical reasons, aims or purposes? 14 Do philosophical questions and/or their accompanying intentions contain, reveal, exhibit or have certain characteristics, traits, phenomena? Are they of a certain types, category or class? What, if anything makes them philosophically relevant, meaningful, useful, functional and appropriate? 15 I would suggest no they do not form a certain class or category of questions. They probably fit in at one or other stage and contexts of the processes 84 of theorizing. That type of theorizing that are relevant to philosophizing and the philosophical discourse. 16 It might assist us to identify philosophically relevant issues, problems, entities and questions about them is we involve the major domains of traditional Western philosophy? These are of course metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics,methodology, philosophical logic and other techniques and tools. The list of such domains and their sub-domains will go on and on and on, for example philosophy of science, of particular sciences, questions concerning detailed aspects of those scientific disciplines, the different arts such as music, visual art, performance arts, films, sport, religion, politics, etc. With this seemingly endless list of philosophy of.....some or other discipline, domain or subject ad their sub-domains, we end up where we started from, namely endless possible subjects and features of philosophically relevant topics, problems, issues and questions about them. 17 85 In other words to try and identify every possible phenomenon that might be philosophically relevant in every philosophical domain, sub-domain or anything about which a philosophically relevant question might be asked, is impossible. Not only is the list too long and endless, but we do not know beforehand what would be included in such a list. So having an exhaustive list of universally applicable philosophical issues about which questions can be asked is obviously not how the minds of philosophers operate. 18 Perhaps it is a question of intuition? That philosophers have a sense of what is or might be philosophically relevant in any context they encounter? But, will those things that are noticed by or stimulates the need for exploration by a Marxist, some variation of a Critical Theorist of the first or the 5 the generation, a Hegelian, or Young Leftist or Rightist Hegelian, a Kantian, Sophist, Platonist, etc be the same? I doubt it as that what is noticed by, perceived by, critically perceived by, objected to, etc by one of the above -isms most likely will be ignored by some or many followers of the other -isms. 86 19 The above were mostly about questions that identify a philosophically relevant issue or problem, but there are many other types of questions for example those that concern comparisons and evaluations. What will be the questions and tools that are employed to execute comparisons of detailed issues in specific contexts? And what will be the standards that are employed to make evaluations in contexts concerning detailed issues for example in visual art, in one painting or installation, or between different paintings? Or to assess situations concerning ethics or an ethical issue in a particular situation? Or to assist the making of a decision between say a panpsychist or physicalist preference in a particular context and concerning a specific issue? 87 4 Multiverse, Origin and Creation 1 In this section I will say a few words about our Universes origins and nature. I am not a specialist about it and am not qualified to speculate about it. I do this for two reasons. The same reasons why I selected to and dealt with the issue and notion of consciousness in the first chapter. To show that what is said about this idea or issue consists of theories or models and speculations. Although informed ideas, they are still speculations, employing many if s and buts. The second reason is to show and emphasize that the statements or propositions the theories consist of proceed by argumentation and reasoning and make or are based on many pre-suppositions. According to Wikipedia the Big Bang is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model deals with how the universe expanded 88 (but does not expand in the usual sense of the word), from an initial state of singularity (where or when space and time had no meaning), or high density or a single speck. It further tries to give explanations of a whole range of other phenomena. The theory makes at leat two assumptions, namely the universality of physical laws (one of the underlying principles of the theory of relativity) and the so-called cosmological principle (concerning the universe being homogeneous and isotropic). These assumptions or ideas, initially taken as postulates were eventually tested, we are told. Other ideas concerning this model I find of interest are the following - the Copernican principle (that there is no preferred point or special observer or vantage point; space-time described by metric, the expansion of the universe, the scale of space itself changes, an intrinsic expansion, the universe does not expand into anything and does not require space to exist outside it - the Big Bang is not an explosion of space but and expansion in space, horizons, the horizon problem, the flatness problem of the universe, the magnetic monopole problem, Baryon symmetry, dark energy, dark matter, the mediocrity principle and the anthropic principle, fine-tuning hypothesis. These three ideas, principles or hypotheses are of interest for a number of philosophical reasons, so I will mention what they are about. 89 The Anthropic Principle.Anthropic principle - Wikipedia Data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable at all, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of conscious and sapient life that observes it.en.wikipedia.org wiki Anthropic_principle The anthropic principle is the philosophical premise that any . Among other things, this principle implies a number of metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, existential and anthropological assumptions, implications and consequences. The arguments for this principle, or the two versions of it, need to be investigated. The Anthropic Principle - SFSU Physics & Astronomy www.physics.sfsu.edu ~lwilliam sota anth anthr... In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe ... The Anthropic Principle was proposed in Poland in 1973, 90 during a special two-week series of synopsia commemorating Copernicuss 500th birthday. It was proposed by Brandon Carter, who, on Copernicuss birthday, had the audacity to proclaim that humanity did indeed hold a special place in the Universe, an assertion that is the exact opposite of Copernicuss now universally accepted theory. Carter was not, however, claiming that the Universe was our own personal playground, made specifically with humanity in mind. The version of the Anthropic Principle that he proposed that day, which is now referred to as the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) stated only that by our very existence as carbon-based intelligent creatures, we impose a sort of selection effect on the Universe. For example, in a Universe where just one of the fundamental constants that govern nature was changed - say, the strength of gravity - we wouldnt be here to wonder why gravity is the strength it is. The following is the official definition of the WAP: Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16) Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows: Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it s history. (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21) In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop 91 humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality. The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out. These two are also very speculative. The principle of Mediocrity. The principle of mediocrity | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford ... academic.oup.com astrogeo article Oct 1, 2011 - The principle of mediocrity. As in a criminal trial, in the absence of direct evidence for the multiverse, one can look for indirect, or circumstantial ...by A Vilenkin - 2011 - Cited by 17 - Related articles 92 Mediocrity principle - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org wiki Mediocrity_principle The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories". Measurement of distance .. of mediocrity | astrobiology | Britannica www.britannica.com science principle-of-mediocrity In extraterrestrial intelligence: Argument for extraterrestrial intelligence. is based on the so-called principle of mediocrity. Widely believed by astronomers since the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, this principle states that the properties and evolution of the solar system are not unusual in any important way.. The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the physical constants would make the universe radically different. 93 The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our ... link.springer.com chapter May 14, 2016 - Our laws of nature and our cosmos appear to be delicately fine-tuned for ... by an additional metaphysical hypothesis we consider unwarranted. by K Landsman - 2 016 - Cited by 10 - Related articles Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments: What (If Anything ... ndpr.nd.edu news cosmological-fine-tuning-argume... Feb 4, 2020 - The argument from fine-tuning is the theistic argument most likely to ... on the multiverse hypothesis to explain (or explain away) the fine-tuning ... 94 APPENDIX https://www.quora.com/How-do-different-philosophers-define-philosophy/answer/Ulrich-Balbian?__filter__=all&__nsrc__=1&__sncid__=5672379586&__s nid3__=8929240148 https://www.quora.com/How-do-different-philosophers-define-philosophy/answer/Ulrich-Balbian?__filter__=all&__nsrc__=1&__sncid__=5672379586&__s nid3__=8929240148 How do different philosophers define philosophy? Ulrich de Balbian · March 15, 2019 In this we cover a brief definition of the field of philosophy, the word roots and its history. According to Aristotle - "Philosophy is a science which discovers the real nature of supernatural elements". According to Levison - "Philosophy is mental activity". According to Karl Marx - "Philosophy is the interpretation of the world in order to change it". According to Hegel - "Philosophy is that which grasps its own era in thought." Kant Immanuel Regards philosophy as "the science and criticism of cognition." According to Russel - "Philosophy proper deals with matters of interest to the general educated public, and loses much of its value if only a few professionals can understand it." 95 According to Henderson - "Philosophy is a rigorous, disciplined, guarded analysis of some of the most difficult problems which men have ever faced." According to John Dewey - "Philosophy is not a panacea (remedy for all kinds of diseases/troubles) for the problems of men, but is that which emerges out of the methods employed by them to solve their problems." Aristippus thinks that philosophy is "the ability to feel at ease in any society." According to Socrates - "Philosophy is a daily activity". According to Phenix - "Science attempts only at the discovery of facts. Philosophy is not interested in the discovery of facts. Rather, it is interested in facts insofar as to provide an attitude towards them. It tries to organize, interpret, clarify and criticize the already discovered facts of science." D.J. Connar defines philosophy "as an activity of criticism or clarification." According to Plato "He who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and who is curious to learn and is never satisfied may be justly termed as a philosopher." According to G.T.W Patreck - "Between science and philosophy the very closest relationship exists. They spring from the same root, the love of knowledge and they aspire to the same end, the knowledge of reality. While science describes the facts, philosophy interprets them." According to Brubacher - "Science is interested in the proximate or efficient causes of the facts, while philosophy is concerned with its ultimate or final causes." Henderson thinks that philosophy is a research for "a comprehensive view of nature, an attempt at a universal explanation of the nature of things." Millard and Bectrocci defined philosophy as the presistent, critical and systematic attempt to discover and consistently formulate in relation to each other the basic characteristics, meanings and values of our experience in its widest perspectives." According to Ludwig Wittgenstein - "The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is 96 not a theory, but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. The result of philosophy is not a number of philosophical propositions, but to make propositions clear. Philosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred." According to Raymont - "Philosophy is an unceasing effort to discover the general truth that lies behind the particular fact, to discover also the realities that lies behind appearance." According to Carlies Lamont - "philosophy is the tenacious attempts of reasoning men to think through the most fundamental issues of life, to reach reasonable conclusions on first and last things to suggest worthwhile goals that can command the loyalty of individuals and groups." According to Kilpatric - "Philosophy is a point of view, outlook on life." According to Dr.Radhakrishnan - "Philosophy is a view of life. It gives a direction to life, offers a design for living." According to Existentialists - "Philosophy is not a search for truth, but a trail of truth". According to Hiryana - "Philosophy is a emerged as a result of reflection over the experiences and problems of everyday living." According to Cicero, Marcus Tullius - "Philosophy is the mother of all arts and "the true medicine of the mind." According to George Berkeley - "Philosophy, being nothing but the study of wisdom and truth..." According to Brightman - "Philosophy may be defined as an attempt to think truly about human experience or a whole or to make out whole experience intelligible." Kant regards philosophy as - "the science and criticism of cognition." According to Fichte - "Philosophy is the science of knowledge." Coleridge, Samuel Taylor defined it as the "Science of science." According to John Armstrong - "Philosophy is the successful love of thinking." 97 According to Marilyn Adams - "Philosophy is thinking really hard about the most important questions and trying to bring analytic clarity both to the questions and the answers." According to Edger S. Brightman - "Philosophy is essentially a spirit or method of approaching experiential rather than a body of conclusions about the experience." According to Richard Bradley - "Philosophy is 99 per cent about critical reflection on anything you care to be interested in. According to Bramold - "Philosophy is a persistent effort of both ordinary and persistent people to make life as intelligible and meaningful as possible." According to Herbert Spencer - "Philosophy is concerned with everything as a universal science." According to Don Cupitt - "Philosophy is critical thinking: trying to become aware of how ones own thinking works, of all the things one takes for granted, of the way in which ones own thinking shapes the things ones thinking about." According to Joseph A. Leighton - "Philosophy like science, consist of theories of insights arrived at as a result of systematic reflection." According to Simon Blackburn - "[Philosophy is] a process of reflection on the deepest concepts, that isstructures of thought, that make up the way in which we think about the world. So its concepts like reason, causation, matter, space, time, mind, consciousness, free will, all those big abstract words and they make up topics, and people have been thinking about them for two and a half thousand years and I expect theyll think about them for another two and a half thousand years if there are any of us left." According to R.W. Sellers - "Philosophy is a persistent attempt to gain insight into the nature of the world and ourselves by systematic reflection." According to C. J. Ducasse - "Were I limited to one line for my answer to it, I should say that philosophy is a general theory of criticism." According to Humayun Kabir - philosophy "seeks to give 98 knowledge of the whole." According to Anthony Kenny - "Philosophy is thinking as clearly as possible about the most fundamental concepts that reach through all the disciplines." Huxley, Aldous observes "Men live in accordance with their Philosophy of life." H. Dumery defines philosophy as a "critical reflection on concrete action." According to Plato - "Philosophy is the acquisition of knowledge." According to Clifford Barrat - "It is not the specific content of these conclusions, but the spirit and the method by which they are reached, which entitles them to be described as philosophical..." Curtis, George William states "During the course of centuries, the meaning attached to philosophy has undergone many changes, and even in the present day, thinkers, are not in complete agreement about the aims and subjectmatter of this branch of knowledge." According to Michael S. Russo - PHILOSOPHY = "A critical examination of reality characterized by rational inquiry that aims at the Truth for the sake of attaining wisdom." Milton K. Munitz suggests that "philosophy is a quest for a view of the world and of man's place in it, which is arrived at and supported in a critical and logical way." Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines philosophy as "Love of exercising ones curiosity and intelligence" rather than the love of wisdom. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy defines it as the study of "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality." Philosophy | Definition of Philosophy by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy 1 : the study of the basic ideas about knowledge, right and wrong, reasoning, and the value of things. 2 : a specific set of ideas of a person or a group Greek philosophy. 99 What is Philosophy? An Omnibus of Definitions from Prominent ... https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/04/09/what-is-philosophy/ Apr 9, 2012 - 'Philosophy is 99 per cent about critical reflection on anything you care to be interested in.' 50+ Definitions of Philosophy : ~ Eduhutch eduhutch.blogspot.com/2014/04/50-definitions-of-philosophy.html Apr 6, 2014 - According to Aristotle - "Philosophy is a science which discovers the real nature of supernatural elements". According to Levison - "Philosophy ... Definition | language and philosophy | Britannica.com https://www.britannica.com/topic/definition Definition, In philosophy, the specification of the meaning of an expression relative to a language. Definitions may be classified as lexical, ostensive, and ... Definition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term Definitions can be classified into two large .... This preoccupation with essence dissipated in much of modern philosophy. Analytic philosophy in particular is critical of attempts to elucidate the ... "Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings", by Norman Swartz, Dept. of ... https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm Students often approach philosophy with beliefs about definition which border on the magical. Students mistakenly believe that defining one's terms will usually ... philosophy - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com 100 https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/philosophy The noun philosophy means the study of proper behavior, and the search for wisdom. Philosophy Ideas Database Welcome | Philosophy Ideas Database Database | Current Total Ideas: 19,602 | home | back structure for 'Philosophy' | expand these ideas 1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 3. Philosophy Defined [attempts to define the whole subject of philosophy] 26 ideas 7421 A philosopher is one who cares about what other people care about [Socrates, by Foucault] 572 Philosophy has different powers from dialectic, and a different life from sophistry [Aristotle] 609 Philosophy is a kind of science that deals with principles [Aristotle] 624 Absolute thinking is the thinking of thinking [Aristotle] 2666 Carneades' pinnacles of philosophy are the basis of knowledge (the criterion of truth) and the end of appetite (good) [Carneades, by Cicero] 21394 101 Philosophy is knowing each logos, how they fit together, and what follows from them [Epictetus] 6207 What fills me with awe are the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me [Kant] 4171 Philosophy considers only the universal, in nature as everywhere else [Schopenhauer] 4186 Everyone is conscious of all philosophical truths, but philosophers bring them to conceptual awareness [Schopenhauer] 19456 Philosophy is distinguished from other sciences by its complete lack of presuppositions [Feuerbach] 5278 Philosophy is no more than abstractions concerning observations of human historical development [Marx/Engels] 6118 Philosophy is logical analysis, followed by synthesis [Russell] 5368 Philosophy verifies that our hierarchy of instinctive beliefs is harmonious and consistent [Russell] 2512 Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language [Wittgenstein] 7085 The main problem of philosophy is what can and cannot be thought and expressed [Wittgenstein, by Grayling] 102 6870 I say (contrary to Wittgenstein) that philosophy expresses what we thought we must be silent about [Ansell Pearson on Wittgenstein] 5196 Philosophy is a department of logic [Ayer] 6707 Suicide - whether life is worth living - is the one serious philosophical problem [Camus] 7426 Critical philosophy is what questions domination at every level [Foucault] 2510 Traditionally philosophy is an a priori enquiry into general truths about reality [Katz] 2516 Most of philosophy begins where science leaves off [Katz] 12644 Who cares what 'philosophy' is? Most pre-1950 thought doesn't now count as philosophy [Fodor] 8217 Philosophy is a concept-creating discipline [Deleuze/Guattari] 9778 There is no dialogue in philosophy [Zizek] 9218 Maybe what distinguishes philosophy from science is its pursuit of necessary truths [Sider] 15357 103 Philosophy is the most general intellectual discipline [Horsten] Philosophy Ideas Database 1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 3. Philosophy Defined [attempts to define the whole subject of philosophy] 26 ideas 7421 A philosopher is one who cares about what other people care about [Socrates, by Foucault] Full Idea: Socrates asks people 'Are you caring for yourself?' He is the man who cares about the care of others; this is the particular position of the philosopher. From: report of Socrates (reports of career [c.420 BCE]) by Michel Foucault - Ethics of the Concern for Self as Freedom p.287 A reaction: Priests, politicians and psychiatrists also care quite intensely about the concerns of other people. Someone who was intensely self-absorbed with the critical task of getting their own beliefs right would count for me as a philosopher. 572 Philosophy has different powers from dialectic, and a different life from sophistry [Aristotle] Full Idea: Philosophy differs from dialectic in the manner of its powers, and from sophistry in the choice of life that it involves. From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1004b) A reaction: Note the separation of dialectic from the heart of philosophy, and the claim that philosophy is a way of life. 609 104 Philosophy is a kind of science that deals with principles [Aristotle] Full Idea: Philosophy is a kind of science that deals with principles. From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1059a) A reaction: So is philosophy just part of science - the bit that tries to explain the abstract instead of the physical? 624 Absolute thinking is the thinking of thinking [Aristotle] Full Idea: Absolute thinking is the thinking of thinking. From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1074b) A reaction: Connects to the apparently unique human ability to reflect about our own thoughts. 2666 Carneades' pinnacles of philosophy are the basis of knowledge (the criterion of truth) and the end of appetite (good) [Carneades, by Cicero] Full Idea: Carneades said the two greatest things in philosophy were the criterion of truth and the end of goods, and no man could be a sage who was ignorant of the existence of either a beginning of the process of knowledge or an end of appetition. From: report of Carneades (fragments/reports [c.174 BCE]) by M. Tullius Cicero - Academica II.09.29 A reaction: Nice, but I would want to emphasize the distinction between truth and its criterion. Admittedly we would have no truth without a good criterion, but the truth itself should be held in higher esteem than our miserable human means of grasping it. 21394 Philosophy is knowing each logos, how they fit together, and what follows from them [Epictetus] 105 Full Idea: [Philosophical speculation] consists in knowing the elements of 'logos', what each of them is like, how they fit together, and what follows from them. From: Epictetus (The Discourses [c.56], 4.08.14), quoted by A.A. Long - Hellenistic Philosophy 4.1 A reaction: [Said to echo Zeno] If you substitute understanding for 'logos' (plausibly), I think this is exactly the view of philosophy I would subscribe to. We want to understand each aspect of life, and we want those understandings to cohere with one another. 6207 What fills me with awe are the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me [Kant] Full Idea: Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. From: Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason [1788], Concl) A reaction: I am beginning to think that the two major issues of all philosophy are ontology and metaethics, and Kant is close to agreeing with me. He certainly wasn't implying that astronomy was a key aspect of philosophy. 4171 Philosophy considers only the universal, in nature as everywhere else [Schopenhauer] Full Idea: Philosophy considers only the universal, in nature as everywhere else. From: Arthur Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Idea [1819], II.27) A reaction: I think what draws people to philosophy is an interest in whatever is timeless. Contingent reality is so frustrating and exhausting. 106 4186 Everyone is conscious of all philosophical truths, but philosophers bring them to conceptual awareness [Schopenhauer] Full Idea: Every person is conscious of all philosophical truths, but to bring them to conceptual awareness, to reflection, is the business of the philosopher. From: Arthur Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Idea [1819], IV.68) A reaction: I like this. All human beings are philosophical. It seems unlikely, though, that we are all pre-conceptually conscious of the higher levels of philosophical logic. 19456 Philosophy is distinguished from other sciences by its complete lack of presuppositions [Feuerbach] Full Idea: Philosophy does not presuppose anything. It is precisely in this fact of non-presupposition that its beginning lies - a beginning by virtue of which it is set apart from all the other sciences. From: Ludwig Feuerbach (On 'The Beginning of Philosophy' [1841], p.135) A reaction: Most modern philosophers seem to laugh at such an idea, because everything is theory-laden, cultureladen, language-laden etc. 5278 Philosophy is no more than abstractions concerning observations of human historical development [Marx/Engels] Full Idea: When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At best it is a summing up of general results, abstractions which arise from observation of the historical development of man. 107 From: K Marx / F Engels (The German Ideology [1846], §1.A) A reaction: This strikes me as nonsense, based on a bogus Hegelian notion that history is following some sort of pattern, and that mental reality is fixed by physical conditions. The philosophy of mathematics, for one, won't fit into this definition. 6118 Philosophy is logical analysis, followed by synthesis [Russell] Full Idea: The business of philosophy, as I conceive it, is essentially that of logical analysis, followed by logical synthesis. From: Bertrand Russell (Logical Atomism [1924], p.162) A reaction: I am uneasy about Russell's hopes for the contribution that logic could make, but I totally agree that analysis is the route to wisdom, and I take Aristotle as my role model of an analytical philosopher, rather than the modern philosophers of logic. 5368 Philosophy verifies that our hierarchy of instinctive beliefs is harmonious and consistent [Russell] Full Idea: Philosophy should show us the hierarchy of our instinctive beliefs, ..and show that they do not clash, but form a harmonious system. There is no reason to reject an instinctive belief, except that it clashes with others. From: Bertrand Russell (Problems of Philosophy [1912], Ch. 2) A reaction: This is open to the standard objections to the coherence theory of truth (as explained by Russell!), but I like this view of philosophy. Somewhere behind it is the rationalist dream that the final set of totally consistent beliefs will have to be true. 108 2512 Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language [Wittgenstein] Full Idea: Philosophical problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have already known. Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §109), quoted by Jerrold J. Katz - Realistic Rationalism Int.xi A reaction: A philosophical dispute can be settled by a piece of information, which may be already known to you, but new to me. Philosophical discussion can also point to a scientific research programme - i.e. a need for new information. I like the first sentence. 7085 The main problem of philosophy is what can and cannot be thought and expressed [Wittgenstein, by Grayling] Full Idea: The 'Tractatus' concerns the theory of what can be expressed by propositions (and, which comes to the same thing, can be thought), and what cannot be expressed by propositions, but can only be shown; which, I believe, is the main problem of philosophy. From: report of Ludwig Wittgenstein (Letter to Russell [1920]) by A.C. Grayling - Wittgenstein Ch.2 A reaction: This contains what a I consider the heresy of making thought depend on language, but his main question remains, of the limits of thought. It is dramatised nicely in the 'mysterian' view of the mind-body problem (e.g. Idea 2540). 6870 109 I say (contrary to Wittgenstein) that philosophy expresses what we thought we must be silent about [Ansell Pearson on Wittgenstein] Full Idea: I recognise the incredible force of Wittgenstein's closing statement in the 'Tractatus', but I hold the opposite view: philosophy exists to give expression to that which we think we can only remain silent about. A reaction: A wonderful remark, with which I totally agree. Compare Idea 1596. I think it is just a fact that philosophers are able to articulate a huge number of ideas which other intelligent people find very interesting but on which they are unable to speak. 5196 Philosophy is a department of logic [Ayer] Full Idea: Philosophy is a departme A reaction: Personally I would invert that. Philosophy is concerned with human rationality, of which precise logic appears to be a rather limited subdivision. I see philosophy as the 'master' subject, not the 'servant' subject (as Locke had implied). 6707 Suicide - whether life is worth living - is the one serious philosophical problem [Camus] Full Idea: There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judgine whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. From: Albert Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus [1942], p.11) A reaction: What a wonderful thesis for a book. In Idea 2682 there is the possibility of life being worth living, but not worth a huge amount of effort. It is better to call Camus' question the first question, rather than the only question. 110 7426 Critical philosophy is what questions domination at every level [Foucault] Full Idea: In its critical aspect, philosophy is that which calls into question domination at every level From: Michel Foucault (Ethics of the Concern for Self as Freedom [1984], p.300) A reaction: A very French view of the subject. It is tempting to say that they had their adolescent outburst in 1789, and it is time to grow up. With rights come responsibilities... 2510 Traditionally philosophy is an a priori enquiry into general truths about reality [Katz] Full Idea: The traditional conception of philosophy is that it is an a priori enquiry into the most general facts about reality. From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xi) A reaction: I think this still defines philosophy, though it also highlights the weakness of the subject, which is overconfidence about asserting necessary truths. How could the most god-like areas of human thought be about anything else? 2516 Most of philosophy begins where science leaves off [Katz] ilosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. From: Bertrand Russell (Problems of Philosophy [1912], Ch. 2) A reaction: He says this jokingly, but it is obviously true. Philosophy requires extreme imagination, and it also requires taking seriously possibilities that are dismissed by 111 others. It would be a catastrophe if we all dismissed the truth as self-evidently false. 2937 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence [Wittgenstein] Full Idea: What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silen A reaction: This is either a boring truism, or points towards some sort of verificationism (where we can speak meaninglessly). Compare Ideas 7973 and 6870. 2626 A philosopher is outside any community of ideas [Wittgenstein] Full Idea: The philosopher is not a citizen of any community of ideas; that is what makes him a philosopher. From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Zettel [1950], 455) A reaction: A bit surprising from the man who gave us 'language games' and 'private language argument'. 20435 If philosophy could be summarized it would be pointless [Adorno] Full Idea: Philosophy is in essence not summarisable. Otherwise it would be superfluous; that most of it allows its to be summarised speaks against it. A reaction: This seems contradict the Cicero quotation which I take to be the epigraph of my collection of ideas. Adorno has a very 'continental' view, placing philosophy much closer to poetry (Heidegger's later view) than to science. Not like advocacy either. 3269 If your life is to be meaningful as part of some large thing, the large thing must be meaningful [Nagel] 112 Full Idea: Those seeking to give their lives meaning usually envision a role in something larger than themselves, but such a role can't confer significance unless that enterprise is itself significant. From: Thomas Nagel (The Absurd [1971], §3) A reaction: Which correctly implies that this way of finding meaning for one's life is doomed. 3242 Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture can't skip it [Nagel] Full Idea: Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up. From: Thomas Nagel (The View from Nowhere [1986], Intro) A reaction: Can he really mean that a mature culture doesn't need philosophy? 7973 There is no longer anything on which there is nothing to say [Baudrillard] Full Idea: There is no longer anything on which there is nothing to say. From: Jean Baudrillard (The Intelligence of Evil [2004], p. 17) A reaction: Compare Ideas 2937 and 6870. I'm not sure whether Baudrillard is referring to the limits of philosophy, or merely to social taboos. I like Ansell Pearson's view: we should attempt to discuss what appears to be undiscussable. 9786 Philosophers working like teams of scientists is absurd, yet isolation is hard [Cartwright,R] 113 Full Idea: The notion that philosophy can be done cooperatively, in the manner of scientists or engineers engaged in a research project, seems to me absurd. And yet few philosophers can survive in isolation. From: Richard Cartwright (Intro to 'Philosophical Essays' [1987], xxi) A reaction: This why Nietzsche said that philosophers were 'rare plants'. 3695 Philosophy is a priori if it is anything [Bonjour] Full Idea: My conviction is that philosophy is a priori if it is anything. From: Laurence Bonjour (In Defence of Pure Reason [1998], Pref) A reaction: How about knowledge of a posteriori necessities, such as the length of a metre, known by observation of the standard metre in Paris? 8220 Philosophy is in a perpetual state of digression [Deleuze/Guattari] Full Idea: Philosophy can be seen as being in a perpetual state of digression. Full Idea: What is your aim in philosophy? - To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle. From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations [1952], §309) A reaction: Ridiculous. Trying to think about thought is not a pointless buzzing - it is an attempt by humans to become like gods. 9810 The 'Tractatus' is a masterpiece of anti-philosophy [Badiou on Wittgenstein] 114 Full Idea: The 'Tractatus' is without doubt one of the masterpieces of anti-philosophy. From: comment on Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1921], p.16) by Alain Badiou - Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little A reaction: French philosophers do love making wicked remarks like that. It seems that analysis is anti-philosophy, or 'little' philosophy in Badiou's parlance The 'Tractatus' is a masterpiece of anti-philosophy [Badiou on Wittgenstein] Full Idea: The 'Tractatus' is without doubt one of the masterpieces of anti-philosophy. From: comment on Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1921], p.16) by Alain Badiou - Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little A reaction: French philosophers do love making wicked remarks like that. It seems that analysis is anti-philosophy, or 'little' philosophy in Badiou's parlance. 19621 Originality in philosophy is just the invention of terms [Cioran] Full Idea: The philosopher's originality comes down to inventing terms. From: E.M. Cioran (A Short History of Decay [1949], 1 'Farewell') A reaction: Analytic philosophers are just as obsessed with inventing terms as their continental rivals. Kit Fine, for example. It can't be wrong to invent terms. Scientists do it too. 19618 I abandoned philosophy because it didn't acknowledge melancholy and human weakness [Cioran] 115 Full Idea: I turned away from philosophy when it became impossible to discover in Kant any human weakness, any authentic accent of melancholy; in Kant and in all the philosophers.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Meta-Philosophical Ideas Why and How to do Philosophy

Meta-Philosophical Ideas Why and How to do Philosophy

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS