philosophy

[raazxt]

The study of general and fundamental problems which is connected with reality,knowledge,values, mind and reason and language.The word pholosophy comes from the Ancient Greek (philosophia),which means "love of wisdom"

 

[Willamena]

A fine definition, though I think referring to topics are "problems" before you've even studied them creates a bias.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't know about that, its extremely common to refer to the topics one engages with in philosophy as "problems"...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But yeah, what's the point of this thread? The OP has given a pretty vanilla and uncontroversial description of philosophy as a discipline- what are we supposed to do with that?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

But yeah, what's the point of this thread? The OP has given a pretty vanilla and uncontroversial description of philosophy as a discipline- what are we supposed to do with that?

Logic is logic, but it is not necessarily logical.

Discuss:

MTF

 

[Slapstick]

The study of general and fundamental problems which is connected with reality,knowledge,values, mind and reason and language.The word pholosophy comes from the Ancient Greek (philosophia),which means "love of wisdom"

I have recently decided that philosophy deals with The Big Questions and not the small ones.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have recently decided that philosophy deals with The Big Questions and not the small ones.

And how does one distinguish a "Big Question" from a small one?

 

[Orias]

It depends on who you are, and if asking questions can create problems.

 

[Slapstick]

And how does one distinguish a "Big Question" from a small one?

[FONT=&quot]The below are big questions that are often overlooked or not even thought about. I could make the argument that atheist have not provided anything valuable to mankind when it comes to human knowledge or reason when it comes to these questions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What is the meaning of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why are we here?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the origin of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the nature of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the purpose of life?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]These questions based on the "meaning of life".
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A big question is one that no one has an answer to and a small question is one that isn't worth asking.
[/FONT]

 

[ManTimeForgot]

[FONT=&quot]The below are big questions that are often overlooked or not even thought about. I could make the argument that atheist have not provided anything valuable to mankind when it comes to human knowledge or reason when it comes to these questions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What is the meaning of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why are we here?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the origin of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the nature of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the purpose of life?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]These questions based on the "meaning of life".
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A big question is one that no one has an answer to and a small question is one that isn't worth asking.
[/FONT]

Actually, modern philosophy is almost entirely unconcerned with those "big questions" as you list them. The philosophers of Aristotle's ilk no longer exist as a part of academia. They are almost one and all concerned with the minutia of existence: for it is better to prove (or highly evidence) some obscure tenet of a sub-section of a larger branch of philosophy than it is to ponder the difficult questions or to prescribe certain ways of acting to those who would use philosophy as a guide to living.

MTF

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The below are big questions...
What is the meaning of life?
Why are we here?
What is the origin of life?
What is the nature of life?
What is the purpose of life?

These questions based on the "meaning of life".

As another poster pointed out, most of these are not the sorts of questions academic philosophy really concerns itself with (although existentialism deals with some of them, in a sense)... Nor is it obvious that all of them are questions which admit of any coherent answer at all- which is likely part of the reason philosophy doesn't concern itself with them. Here's some examples of the sorts of questions philosophy takes up-

What is truth?
What is knowledge?
What is the relation between belief and knowledge?
How is knowledge obtained or arrived at? (via the senses, or through reason, or both?)
Are there moral truths or moral facts?/What are they and how are they known?
Is reality fundamentally ideal/mental, or physical?
Do abstract objects exist?

In other words, actual philosophy doesn't really consist in what most people seem to think it does; it is NOT, in general, concerned with "the meaning of life", or these so-called "big questions".

I could make the argument that atheist have not provided anything valuable to mankind when it comes to human knowledge or reason when it comes to these questions.

I suppose you could make the argument, although I wouldn't expect it to be a very compelling one...

 

[Slapstick]

I suppose you could make the argument, although I wouldn't expect it to be a very compelling one...

That’s fine; I wouldn’t expect you too, although it does involve topics such as “Why are we here?” and atheism not being a default position. I further agree with Dawkins formulation of theistic probability, that a truly default position is one of neutrality or being impartial. If you are indifferent regarding the big questions then you might as well not even be concerned with philosophy at all or as it being a academic study.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you are indifferent regarding the big questions then you might as well not even be concerned with philosophy at all...

Why? They are not the questions philosophy typically takes up, so there isn't really any connection. And as I said, there don't appear to be any sensible answers at all to at least several of those questions; asking about the purpose of life is meaningless unless one presupposes creationism- purpose is teleological, and is a property of artifice, so supposing that life has any purpose at all is to assume that life has been created for some specific goal or function. Without theistic presuppositions, the question is nonsensical. Similarly with the meaning of life- what sort of answer are we even looking for? What would it be for life to have a "meaning" in the first place, seeing as we're obviously talking about something far different from semantic meaning?

 

[Slapstick]

Why? They are not the questions philosophy typically takes up, so there isn't really any connection.

This is an outrageous claim. You would not survive your freshmen year at any college or university if you thought they were questions that philosophy doesn’t take up. Big questions are usually there to open the mind and philosophize not close it.

And as I said, there don't appear to be any sensible answers at all to at least several of those questions; asking about the purpose of life is meaningless unless one presupposes creationism- purpose is teleological, and is a property of artifice, so supposing that life has any purpose at all is to assume that life has been created for some specific goal or function. Without theistic presuppositions, the question is nonsensical. Similarly with the meaning of life- what sort of answer are we even looking for? What would it be for life to have a "meaning" in the first place, seeing as we're obviously talking about something far different from semantic meaning?

Sensible answers to any of them? It seems to be more of the way you are asking. But if you think life has no purpose or meaning then I'm not going to argue with you about it. That is purely your subjective opinion and take on a question being rhetorical when it really isn't. All I'm saying is you are shutting out all of the other questions that follow. Science itself is based on philosophizing. Such as "Should people do anything to prevent global warming and pollution for the betterment of mankind and earth or let it run its course until there is nothing that can be done about it." Also you are making the argument that the questions are "nonsensical" that is requires theistic presuppositions when it really doesn't. These questioned can be answered from an entirely humanist, secular or deist perspective.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is an outrageous claim. You would not survive your freshmen year at any college or university if you thought they were questions that philosophy doesn’t take up.

And yet, somehow I managed to survive not only my freshman year, but all four years of my major in philosophy. Before you tell people what topics academic philosophy takes up you should probably, you know, read some actual philosophy first. The "meaning of life", "why we are here", "the purpose of life" and so on just are not really topics in academic philosophy- and if you still feel otherwise, rattle off the names of actual philosophers who write on these topics, please.

Sensible answers to any of them? It seems to be more of the way you are asking. But if you think life has no purpose or meaning then I'm not going to argue with you about it. That is purely your subjective opinion

No, not really. Purpose is a function of artifice, it is teleological, thus the question is only intelligible if we assume life was created- in other words, that we accept some form of creationism or intelligent design.

Also you are making the argument that the questions are "nonsensical" that is requires theistic presuppositions when it really doesn't. These questioned can be answered from an entirely humanist, secular or deist perspective.

Ok; tell me how life as such could have a purpose, if it was not created for some goal or end in the first place? How does something with no inherent end, not created to achieve any particular goal, have a purpose?

 

[Slapstick]

And yet, somehow I managed to survive not only my freshman year, but all four years of my major in philosophy. Before you tell people what topics academic philosophy takes up you should probably, you know, read some actual philosophy first. The "meaning of life", "why we are here", "the purpose of life" and so on just are not really topics in academic philosophy- and if you still feel otherwise, rattle off the names of actual philosophers who write on these topics, please.

I find it hard to believe you went to college for philosophy. Any college that offers philosophy is concern with the big questions. Care to provide me with the name of your college or university? I would like to look at their academics for philosophy.

topuniversities.com/courses/philosophy/guide

Also any random google search will tell you philosophy deals with the big questions.

No, not really. Purpose is a function of artifice, it is teleological, thus the question is only intelligible if we assume life was created- in other words, that we accept some form of creationism or intelligent design.

Purpose is clearly what you make it and how you view the rest of the world, universe, existence, etc. If something is created with no goal or end that doesn’t dismiss life as being purposeful or having a purpose (meaning). Something can be produced with unintended results (there are plenty of examples with scientific experimentation), that doesn't mean those results are invaluable. Nor does it mean those results are not satisfactory or lead to further reason, inquiry, etc. Knowledge itself comes from information gathered. Information by itself is worthless; it depends on how you use it which leads to knowledge and understanding.

Ok; tell me how life as such could have a purpose, if it was not created for some goal or end in the first place? How does something with no inherent end, not created to achieve any particular goal, have a purpose?

How do you keep tract of time if there is no inherent beginning or end?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I find it hard to believe you went to college for philosophy. Any college that offers philosophy is concern with the big questions. Care to provide me with the name of your college or university? I would like to look at their academics for philosophy.

McGill, in Montreal- #17 on your list. (thanks for the link BTW, although I'm disappointed to see that somehow Harvard, America's Mcgill, managed to beat us by a few spots- I'm guessing someone has been bribed!)

Also any random google search will tell you philosophy deals with the big questions.

One could certainly describe the topics philosophy does deal with (such as the ones mentioned in my previous post) as "big questions"- just not the same big questions you've mentioned. But once again, if you know of philosophers who've wrote on "the purpose of life", "the meaning of life", etc., by all means let me know (although as I first pointed out to you, existentialism does deal with similar questions)...

Purpose is clearly what you make it and how you view the rest of the world, universe, existence, etc. If something is created with no goal or end that doesn’t dismiss life as being purposeful or having a purpose (meaning).

I'm saying that something that is not created does not have "purpose" in anything resembling the usual sense of the word- purpose is a property of artifice, it is the goal or function for which something is created or done.

How do you keep tract of time if there is no inherent beginning or end?

Um... What?

 

[Slapstick]

McGill, in Montreal- #17 on your list. (thanks for the link BTW, although I'm disappointed to see that somehow Harvard, America's Mcgill, managed to beat us by a few spots- I'm guessing someone has been bribed!)

One could certainly describe the topics philosophy does deal with (such as the ones mentioned in my previous post) as "big questions"- just not the same big questions you've mentioned. But once again, if you know of philosophers who've wrote on "the purpose of life", "the meaning of life", etc., by all means let me know (although as I first pointed out to you, existentialism does deal with similar questions)...

I'm saying that something that is not created does not have "purpose" in anything resembling the usual sense of the word- purpose is a property of artifice, it is the goal or function for which something is created or done.

Um... What?

So our disagreement is with what can be considered or classified as big questions. Hopefully you know that big questions are not limited to the few I listed and only put emphasis on “Why are we here?” and not any of the others. I did look at the academics offered McGill and the undergraduate overall goal or idea of what philosophy teaches. It does make reference to questions such as: “to better understand ourselves, our world and our place in the world.” This obviously comes down to a disagreement with how the questions are made or what questions can be considered big questions. I don’t have a problem with that disagreement, but I think we can both agree that philosophy does deal with the big questions – depending on what those questions are.

I also said I could make the argument, but I do not plan too, because it is usually a long vigorous debate that I don’t care to get deep into at the moment. Nor do I have time to create one. So with all of that out of the way and since we are talking about purpose or meaning of life...

What do you not consider an artifice if you think purpose has no meaning or there is no genuine purpose in life? You can provide some further clarity to this if you want. I am just having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Mainly, because this seems to discredit a lot of things that people actually enjoy and like doing, like being doctors, working out, going to the park, having fun, going to the movies, reading and writing books, debating people on the internet, etc. If you really think life has no purpose or is an artifice, would you not feel the need to respond to any of my posts?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So our disagreement is with what can be considered or classified as big questions. Hopefully you know that big questions are not limited to the few I listed and only put emphasis on “Why are we here?” and not any of the others. I did look at the academics offered McGill and the undergraduate overall goal or idea of what philosophy teaches. It does make reference to questions such as: “to better understand ourselves, our world and our place in the world.” This obviously comes down to a disagreement with how the questions are made or what questions can be considered big questions. I don’t have a problem with that disagreement, but I think we can both agree that philosophy does deal with the big questions – depending on what those questions are.

Sure; but, and I intend no offense by this, the sorts of "big questions" you've claimed philosophy deals with are the sorts of things laymen generally suppose philosophy consists in- erroneously- and this misrepresentation leads to the impression, held by some, that philosophy is "wishy-washy", or is less of a rigorous academic domain than, say, chemistry or even anthropology. This is the sense of "philosophy" that is used when someone asks what your "philosophy on life" is- which is NOT the same thing as academic philosophy. The picture of philosophy as a bunch of guys with beards sitting around pondering vague notions like the meaning of life is a caricature. Philosophy, like any other academic domain, has a more or less specific subject matter, and some specific methodologies (as opposed to the scientific method, there are several different philosophic "methods"), and is every bit as rigorous and technical as most any other field.

What do you not consider an artifice if you think purpose has no meaning or there is no genuine purpose in life? You can provide some further clarity to this if you want. I am just having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Mainly, because this seems to discredit a lot of things that people actually enjoy and like doing, like being doctors, working out, going to the park, having fun, going to the movies, reading and writing books, debating people on the internet, etc. If you really think life has no purpose or is an artifice, would you not feel the need to respond to any of my posts?

First, let's take a step back and consider some examples of things that obviously and uncontroversially do have purposes- then we can see what they have in common, and see whether life shares this common element as well.

So we can agree that all tools have a purpose, right? That a wrench has a purpose, and a tackhammer, and pliers, and so on. We could even broaden this to include appliances and machines, like toaster ovens and automobiles. These all have a purpose.

Now consider actions or processes that have purposes- lifting weights, brushing one's teeth, going to the post office. Pretty obviously, these things have purposes as well.

But what is common to all these sorts of things? Telos- a goal or end for which something is done, or exists (or is created for); tools exist or are created to attain a certain goal or end, and similarly for actions that have a purpose, they are performed to attain a certain goal or end. And the end for which a thing exists, or an action is performed, just is the purpose of that thing or action. Pounding nails is the purpose of a hammer, increasing one's strength or stamina is the purpose of lifting weights. But now, what is the purpose of life- what is the end or goal for which life exists or is performed? Doesn't merely having an end for which life exists require that life has been created by the sort of thing that can have intentions, that can have goals for which it creates something? It sure seems like it. Thus, asking after the purpose of life in general is meaningless, unless one supposes life has been created to fulfill a goal or end.

On the other hand, the question of what is the purpose of life, not in general, but the purpose of one particular life- my life- is an entirely different sort of question. It could have been that my life exists because my parents desired to have a larger family- and so my parents procreated, in effect creating me to fulfill a specific purpose. But here's the curious thing about human life- we can choose to direct our own lives towards whatever goals or ends we desire, regardless of why we were originally brought into this world. So one may coherently ask what is the meaning of a particular life- what sorts of goals or ends can one attain for oneself, and which are the most desireable goals or ends? This is a question existentialism takes up- as I've alluded to a couple times here.

 

[Slapstick]

Sure; but, and I intend no offense by this, the sorts of "big questions" you've claimed philosophy deals with are the sorts of things laymen generally suppose philosophy consists in- erroneously- and this misrepresentation leads to the impression, held by some, that philosophy is "wishy-washy", or is less of a rigorous academic domain than, say, chemistry or even anthropology. This is the sense of "philosophy" that is used when someone asks what your "philosophy on life" is- which is NOT the same thing as academic philosophy. The picture of philosophy as a bunch of guys with beards sitting around pondering vague notions like the meaning of life is a caricature. Philosophy, like any other academic domain, has a more or less specific subject matter, and some specific methodologies (as opposed to the scientific method, there are several different philosophic "methods"), and is every bit as rigorous and technical as most any other field.

I’m not offended. I have no reason to be because I never made any claims that philosophy deals with any of these specific big questions. I said they are often overlooked or not even thought about. Those were broad questions I found on the wiki “meaning of life” section and the only one I had any serious concern about was the one I mentioned a few times already and listed several reasons for doing so. Mainly because I think it is a fascinating question to begin with. Philosophy overlaps with so many different topics or subjects it would be ridiculous to think it only “focuses” on those big questions. I haven’t disagreed with you about philosophy being content related either. That is just the area you have chosen to put more emphasis on. Mainly, because you need a subject or area of concern before you can start asking any real questions about it and these questions by themselves are meaningless, yet can be very fascinating questions to ask if you sincerely ask them. Otherwise, like I said, they are meaningless.

First, let's take a step back and consider some examples of things that obviously and uncontroversially do have purposes- then we can see what they have in common, and see whether life shares this common element as well.

So we can agree that all tools have a purpose, right? That a wrench has a purpose, and a tackhammer, and pliers, and so on. We could even broaden this to include appliances and machines, like toaster ovens and automobiles. These all have a purpose.

Now consider actions or processes that have purposes- lifting weights, brushing one's teeth, going to the post office. Pretty obviously, these things have purposes as well.

But what is common to all these sorts of things? Telos- a goal or end for which something is done, or exists (or is created for); tools exist or are created to attain a certain goal or end, and similarly for actions that have a purpose, they are performed to attain a certain goal or end. And the end for which a thing exists, or an action is performed, just is the purpose of that thing or action. Pounding nails is the purpose of a hammer, increasing one's strength or stamina is the purpose of lifting weights. But now, what is the purpose of life- what is the end or goal for which life exists or is performed? Doesn't merely having an end for which life exists require that life has been created by the sort of thing that can have intentions, that can have goals for which it creates something? It sure seems like it. Thus, asking after the purpose of life in general is meaningless, unless one supposes life has been created to fulfill a goal or end.

On the other hand, the question of what is the purpose of life, not in general, but the purpose of one particular life- my life- is an entirely different sort of question. It could have been that my life exists because my parents desired to have a larger family- and so my parents procreated, in effect creating me to fulfill a specific purpose. But here's the curious thing about human life- we can choose to direct our own lives towards whatever goals or ends we desire, regardless of why we were originally brought into this world. So one may coherently ask what is the meaning of a particular life- what sorts of goals or ends can one attain for oneself, and which are the most desireable goals or ends? This is a question existentialism takes up- as I've alluded to a couple times here.

I’m actually kind of glad I’m not a tool. I would rather not think of myself as one either, and think it is better not knowing I serve a purpose, other than for myself. People would be like machines that are all programmed to act and behave a certain way. That would be a boring life. A life I wouldn't want to live. Then life would really have no purpose at all.