4 ms·

I'd say philosophy is the search for ideas and models of thought, not whether they're true (knowledge) but only whether they're plausible and consistent. Philo

I'd say philosophy is the search for ideas and models of thought, not whether they're true (knowledge) but only whether they're plausible and consistent. Philosophers also search for "toolkits" -- methods and relations (logic) that enable manipulation of "thought atoms" in ways that minimize loss of signal or introduce contradiction. Knowledge is the purview of science, since scientists have to judge each of their models against only one possible universe. Philosophers are not so constrained, thus their notion of truth is relative. Like Derrida's, for example.

tyre 10y ago
Oh no, this is a very dangerous mis-interpretation of philosophy. The word itself can be literally translated to "love of knowledge": "philos" (love, from the same root as "phile", as in "francophile" or "anglophile") + "sophos" (wisdom or knowledge.) Science is one subsection of philosophy, but certainly does not have a monopoly on knowledge. We "know" quantum mechanics (because it works for small things) and we "know" general relativity (because it works for big things) and yet they cannot coexist as we understand them today. On the other hand, how do we know that human life has value? Certainly not through science. There is no axiom or mathematical proof that says, "a human life has value." And yet it is pretty absurd to think of progress or knowledge independent of human value. What's the value of science if not its positive effect on humanity? Truth, in the philosophical sense, makes no sense unless it relates back to reality in this universe. Relativist truth is, in my opinion, a necessary thought experiment but breaks down in the real world; therefore it is not true in the true sense of the word. "Cogito ergo sum" is not relativist in any sense—there is no other side to thought requiring existence.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  Although since the toolkit is about fallacies, it is worth noting that assuming the origin of a term has anything to do with its present meaning is an example of the "genetic fallacy". The literal meaning of philosophy isn't really what is meant today. It's similar to the situation of the mathematician G.H. Hardy who complained that the word "intellectual" no longer meant all people involved in intellectual pursuits (including mathematicians and scientists), but a particular type of thinker -- namely one interested in politics or the arts.
- randcraw 10y ago
  Back in the days of yore, when philosophy = science (ca 1000 BCE to 1500 CE), scholastically the discipline of theology was their equal (actually their master), and constrained to function within a single possible world -- that of the orthodox religious belief system of the day (as reinforced by the king's church and horsemen). Before the Enlightenment, philosophers were allowed a tiny amount of latitude to look outside the accepted world of the theologists, so long as they firmly denied such worlds to be 'possible'. But after the Enlightenment, those bolder philosophers evolved into scientists as their imaginations broke the theologists' shackles, insisting that truth was not a matter of belief, but of objective demonstrated consistency with rigorous logic AND theory AND guided by experiment. Now possible worlds were invaluable to scholarship, both philosophically and scientifically, as models were imagined to fit the available evidence and converted into testable form within this physical world. But alternative worlds were not off limits, as Einstein's general relativity demonstrated so vividly. Yet even after the Enlightenment, many philosophers and most (all?) theologists did not follow the scientist philosophers into their brave new worlds, preferring to remain within the comfortable confines of the world chosen by their intellectual and spiritual forefathers. My point? Truth became relative for these three groups, dependent on which possible world(s) they chose to inhabit. And my second point: the worlds inhabited by philosophers and scientists today are most certainly different, substantiating the validity of different truths.

tyre 10y ago

Oh no, this is a very dangerous mis-interpretation of philosophy. The word itself can be literally translated to "love of knowledge": "philos" (love, from the same root as "phile", as in "francophile" or "anglophile") + "sophos" (wisdom or knowledge.) Science is one subsection of philosophy, but certainly does not have a monopoly on knowledge. We "know" quantum mechanics (because it works for small things) and we "know" general relativity (because it works for big things) and yet they cannot coexist as we understand them today. On the other hand, how do we know that human life has value? Certainly not through science. There is no axiom or mathematical proof that says, "a human life has value." And yet it is pretty absurd to think of progress or knowledge independent of human value. What's the value of science if not its positive effect on humanity? Truth, in the philosophical sense, makes no sense unless it relates back to reality in this universe. Relativist truth is, in my opinion, a necessary thought experiment but breaks down in the real world; therefore it is not true in the true sense of the word. "Cogito ergo sum" is not relativist in any sense—there is no other side to thought requiring existence.

jhbadger 10y ago
Although since the toolkit is about fallacies, it is worth noting that assuming the origin of a term has anything to do with its present meaning is an example of the "genetic fallacy". The literal meaning of philosophy isn't really what is meant today. It's similar to the situation of the mathematician G.H. Hardy who complained that the word "intellectual" no longer meant all people involved in intellectual pursuits (including mathematicians and scientists), but a particular type of thinker -- namely one interested in politics or the arts.
randcraw 10y ago
Back in the days of yore, when philosophy = science (ca 1000 BCE to 1500 CE), scholastically the discipline of theology was their equal (actually their master), and constrained to function within a single possible world -- that of the orthodox religious belief system of the day (as reinforced by the king's church and horsemen). Before the Enlightenment, philosophers were allowed a tiny amount of latitude to look outside the accepted world of the theologists, so long as they firmly denied such worlds to be 'possible'. But after the Enlightenment, those bolder philosophers evolved into scientists as their imaginations broke the theologists' shackles, insisting that truth was not a matter of belief, but of objective demonstrated consistency with rigorous logic AND theory AND guided by experiment. Now possible worlds were invaluable to scholarship, both philosophically and scientifically, as models were imagined to fit the available evidence and converted into testable form within this physical world. But alternative worlds were not off limits, as Einstein's general relativity demonstrated so vividly. Yet even after the Enlightenment, many philosophers and most (all?) theologists did not follow the scientist philosophers into their brave new worlds, preferring to remain within the comfortable confines of the world chosen by their intellectual and spiritual forefathers. My point? Truth became relative for these three groups, dependent on which possible world(s) they chose to inhabit. And my second point: the worlds inhabited by philosophers and scientists today are most certainly different, substantiating the validity of different truths.