3 ms·

For me, Russel put it best: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of s

For me, Russel put it best: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy

Koshkin 8y ago
All that being true, "philosophy" is also the name often given to an emerging science that has no name of its own; for example, physics used to be known as "natural philosophy" (despite Aristotle having used the word long before that).
- Retra 8y ago
  "Natural philosophy" was not called that because it was an emerging science. It was called that because it was different from theology in the way Russel described.
cerradokids 8y ago
I prefer Ayn Rand's take on it: Without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed. You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice, is whether your principles are true or false, rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory. The only way to know which they are is to integrate your principles. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by- your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: selfdoubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.
- charlysl 8y ago
  Russel's approach is more epistemological and academic, whereas Rand's is more psychological and individual. Both seem valid to me at their level.

Koshkin 8y ago

All that being true, "philosophy" is also the name often given to an emerging science that has no name of its own; for example, physics used to be known as "natural philosophy" (despite Aristotle having used the word long before that).

Retra 8y ago
"Natural philosophy" was not called that because it was an emerging science. It was called that because it was different from theology in the way Russel described.

cerradokids 8y ago

I prefer Ayn Rand's take on it: Without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed. You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice, is whether your principles are true or false, rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory. The only way to know which they are is to integrate your principles. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by- your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: selfdoubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.

charlysl 8y ago
Russel's approach is more epistemological and academic, whereas Rand's is more psychological and individual. Both seem valid to me at their level.