3 ms·

Good point. I see it this way. Logic is a method. It is one of the ways _how_ philosophy does what it does. (You could argue it is the only way, and many would

Good point. I see it this way. Logic is a method. It is one of the ways _how_ philosophy does what it does. (You could argue it is the only way, and many would not disagree with you.) However, consider what other disciplines do not require logically coherent inferences. Most, no? Art is one of the few which does not. Therefore logic is not central to philosophy because it is central to practically all disciplines! What is central to philosophy is, as I said, _abstraction_. The willingness to go meta-, to stand back from what you're looking at and questions the conditions of its possibilities. Do you see where I'm coming from? To make a stronger point, and to not at the same time denigrate your position, philosophers go astray when they focus on logic. :)

woodman 11y ago
I see, I think we are pretty close to the point of debating how true a truth is. I think the real difference between the disciplines, in the application of logic, is highlighted by your use of "coherent". While an engineer will work mostly to build upon a set of precepts, philosophy is charged with the responsibility of deconstruction. Of the two, who is spending time wondering about the abstract concept of the number one? I think that focus on local coherence is what led philosophers in the dark ages to debate whether Adam had a navel, as the premise was left unchecked. So I'd say that philosophers go astray when they do not focus on logic.