4 ms·

> Philosophy, in its purest form, contains the study of what it is to live a good human life. I don't think this a properly general definition of philosophy (a

by nyc111 8y ago

> Philosophy, in its purest form, contains the study of what it is to live a good human life. I don't think this a properly general definition of philosophy (although he says "contains",maybe he is not after generality). I would say philosophy is the science of definitions. This is why it is fundamental.

aiNohY6g 8y ago
I'd say "definitions in the concept space" out of which a specific "linguistic space" can emerge. Philosophy also studies the relationships between these concepts their articulations (topology), their moves (dynamics) and their consequences. At the very least.
charlysl 8y ago
Bertrand Russell: 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
- ILikeConemowk 8y ago
  Thanks for this.
- nyc111 8y ago
  This seems a qoute from the Introduction of his History of western philosophy [1]. But I think the next sentence is important too: Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. [...] To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy. But I’m surprised that he considers that “all definite knowledge ... belongs to science.” Science, at least physics and astronomy, by definition, accept that their type of knowledge is provisional, always, and not definite. [1] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-which-publication-does-bertrand-russell-define-philosophy https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-whic...
  - charlysl 8y ago
    You are right about the quote. It seems that what Russell considers definite knowledge is ... answer can be found in the laboratory. It depends on what is the best available method for proving, to the extent to which this is possible, a given hypothesis. Whenever an experimental method in the scientific sense is possible, then he considers that kind of knowledge definite. I agree that the fact that it is also provisional is confusing, but I think that it's just a matter of language in this case, maybe definite is not the best word. I agree that maybe his definition is not fully satisfactory. But this book's audience is lay people like me, it is not as much an academic work as a book of popular philosophy (like popular science). For this reason, he probably preferred to write engaging prose, rather than being totally precise but dry. I posted this quote because whenever there is an article about philosophy in HN, people invariably enter a debate as to what exactly is philosophy. I find that for the lay man his definition is very clear, simple, memorable and beautifully written. I find it very useful in practice, for people like me it is a powerful definition.
    - nyc111 8y ago
      Yes, I agree. He theologian's knowledge is definite in the sense of absolute. But knowledge gained in the lab is definitely knowledge under given circumstances, but absolute kndwledge. This turned out to be a good example about the importance of clear definitions of words in philosophical discussion.
  - geoka9 8y ago
    > physics .. accept that their type of knowledge is ... not definite I think it's definite as long as the horse is spherical and in a vacuum. I mean a scientific theory that's built on such an assumption is definite knowledge, right?
    - nyc111 8y ago
      I think you are being sarcastic, but I happen to agree with you that there are lots of physics theories based on spherical cow assumption.
edna314 8y ago
That might have been true until the end of the 19th century. Everything afterwards contains a lot of different things. Sociology, psychology, economics, linguistics and what not.
goto11 8y ago
I don't think say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche can be reduced to just making definitions.
- tmalsburg2 8y ago
  Why? Could you please elaborate(
  - edna314 8y ago
    For example take this quote from Nietzsche on the sentence "I think" from Beyond Good and Evil: >"When I analyze the process that is expressed in this sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove—for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I know what thinking is. Good luck convincing a skeptic like that to take your definitions for granted, or believe in any conclusions you draw from your definitions.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      I would guess that quote is Nietzsche attacking one of the most famous first principles in Western philosophy, Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." "I think" is too complex to be accepted a priori for him, he's not discounting definitions completely.
      - edna314 8y ago
        I think, I would disagree in the sense that he was not only completely discounting on metaphysics, but also on ontology. Because one cannot write up a definition without using the word 'is' he must have been somewhat also completely discounting on definitions. His philosophy is in a sense Heraclitean because it is centered around 'becoming' rather than 'being'.
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
Why do you think this? Philosophers don't write dictionaries; they write huge, creative and systematic theoretical treatises. Of course, that requires a certain amount of conceptual innovation - but so did Shakespeare's plays, and that doesn't mean that Macbeth is, in reality, just a very odd dictionary.
- nyc111 8y ago
  You are right of course, generally they don’t but at least one philosoper I know of wrote a dictionary: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volindex.html https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volindex.html But I think definitions are in the foundation of philosophy because if philosophers argue with badly defined or undefined words, the discussion turns into a discussion to assert academic authority. In this case, definitions of words are not explicit but implicit. I think this is what most people think philosophy is, ie sophistry. In computer languages I cannot use an undefined word. I would get an error message. It would be nice to institute a similar mechanism in philosophical discussions too.
paganel 8y ago
> I would say philosophy is the science of definitions It depends, I guess. If it matters I for one stand on Socrates's side when it comes to what philosophy is and I find definitions to be just "syntactic sugar", they don't bring anything new to the table. This is also one of the reasons for why I found Aristotle pretty boring, I think he started this trend with categorizing things and defining terms, without trying to explain why we do the things that we do. I also think that philosophy nowadays should stick to ethics and political philosophy, the physics and maths are too complicated and I honestly think that not even the mathematicians and physicists have a "grand view" of it all anymore. Case in point the pseudo-psychosis around the quantum theory thing and how, if proven "right" (whatever that means) it might obliterate the concept of free will (or vice-versa, I didn't really follow) and we might start killing each other out of the blue just because a physicist has proven a theory in some forsaken lab. That is not the case.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy? There is no grand view in philosophy either, but millions of tiny conflicts coexisting from which no truth can be gleaned as the philosophers will wriggle out with sophistry. (Just like politicians for that matter.) It is a good old Wittgesteinian challenge. Hope so you define concept of free will in axiomatic logic? Should we start with axiom of choice perhaps?
  - paganel 8y ago
    > Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy? I agree that those two can be "simplified" to something that people who haven't a PhD in mathematics can talk and write about, but once we go to more advanced stuff things become really, really hard to describe in layman's terms, and as such they are not interesting from a philosophical point of view. I mean, things like a double integral or an Abelian group are indeed useful from an efficiency point of view, meaning that a technical society like ours needed them in order to build most of the stuff that surrounds us (bridges that don't fall at the first major earthquake, computers, rockets that have taken us to space) but they are completely and utterly useless at answering questions that have bugged us for thousands of years: why is it bad to randomly kill someone? Why is it bad to kill someone even if that potentially means a better economical prospect for me and my family? Why is it bad to kill at all? Why shouldn't we kill ourselves right here and now, thus avoiding future psychic and physical pains like illness or the disappearance of closed ones? These are all fundamental questions related to our very nature to which philosophy has offered some answers which have been satisfactory to some people, in any case, the rate of success has been much higher for philosophy compared to maths or physics when trying to find a satisfactory answer. > Should we start with axiom of choice perhaps? What does that say?

by nyc111 8y ago

aiNohY6g 8y ago

I'd say "definitions in the concept space" out of which a specific "linguistic space" can emerge. Philosophy also studies the relationships between these concepts their articulations (topology), their moves (dynamics) and their consequences. At the very least.

charlysl 8y ago

Bertrand Russell: 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

ILikeConemowk 8y ago
Thanks for this.
nyc111 8y ago
This seems a qoute from the Introduction of his History of western philosophy [1]. But I think the next sentence is important too: Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. [...] To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy. But I’m surprised that he considers that “all definite knowledge ... belongs to science.” Science, at least physics and astronomy, by definition, accept that their type of knowledge is provisional, always, and not definite. [1] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-which-publication-does-bertrand-russell-define-philosophy https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-whic...
- charlysl 8y ago
  You are right about the quote. It seems that what Russell considers definite knowledge is ... answer can be found in the laboratory. It depends on what is the best available method for proving, to the extent to which this is possible, a given hypothesis. Whenever an experimental method in the scientific sense is possible, then he considers that kind of knowledge definite. I agree that the fact that it is also provisional is confusing, but I think that it's just a matter of language in this case, maybe definite is not the best word. I agree that maybe his definition is not fully satisfactory. But this book's audience is lay people like me, it is not as much an academic work as a book of popular philosophy (like popular science). For this reason, he probably preferred to write engaging prose, rather than being totally precise but dry. I posted this quote because whenever there is an article about philosophy in HN, people invariably enter a debate as to what exactly is philosophy. I find that for the lay man his definition is very clear, simple, memorable and beautifully written. I find it very useful in practice, for people like me it is a powerful definition.
  - nyc111 8y ago
    Yes, I agree. He theologian's knowledge is definite in the sense of absolute. But knowledge gained in the lab is definitely knowledge under given circumstances, but absolute kndwledge. This turned out to be a good example about the importance of clear definitions of words in philosophical discussion.
- geoka9 8y ago
  > physics .. accept that their type of knowledge is ... not definite I think it's definite as long as the horse is spherical and in a vacuum. I mean a scientific theory that's built on such an assumption is definite knowledge, right?
  - nyc111 8y ago
    I think you are being sarcastic, but I happen to agree with you that there are lots of physics theories based on spherical cow assumption.

edna314 8y ago

That might have been true until the end of the 19th century. Everything afterwards contains a lot of different things. Sociology, psychology, economics, linguistics and what not.

goto11 8y ago

I don't think say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche can be reduced to just making definitions.

tmalsburg2 8y ago
Why? Could you please elaborate(
- edna314 8y ago
  For example take this quote from Nietzsche on the sentence "I think" from Beyond Good and Evil: >"When I analyze the process that is expressed in this sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove—for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I know what thinking is. Good luck convincing a skeptic like that to take your definitions for granted, or believe in any conclusions you draw from your definitions.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    I would guess that quote is Nietzsche attacking one of the most famous first principles in Western philosophy, Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." "I think" is too complex to be accepted a priori for him, he's not discounting definitions completely.
    - edna314 8y ago
      I think, I would disagree in the sense that he was not only completely discounting on metaphysics, but also on ontology. Because one cannot write up a definition without using the word 'is' he must have been somewhat also completely discounting on definitions. His philosophy is in a sense Heraclitean because it is centered around 'becoming' rather than 'being'.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

Why do you think this? Philosophers don't write dictionaries; they write huge, creative and systematic theoretical treatises. Of course, that requires a certain amount of conceptual innovation - but so did Shakespeare's plays, and that doesn't mean that Macbeth is, in reality, just a very odd dictionary.

nyc111 8y ago
You are right of course, generally they don’t but at least one philosoper I know of wrote a dictionary: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volindex.html https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volindex.html But I think definitions are in the foundation of philosophy because if philosophers argue with badly defined or undefined words, the discussion turns into a discussion to assert academic authority. In this case, definitions of words are not explicit but implicit. I think this is what most people think philosophy is, ie sophistry. In computer languages I cannot use an undefined word. I would get an error message. It would be nice to institute a similar mechanism in philosophical discussions too.

paganel 8y ago

> I would say philosophy is the science of definitions It depends, I guess. If it matters I for one stand on Socrates's side when it comes to what philosophy is and I find definitions to be just "syntactic sugar", they don't bring anything new to the table. This is also one of the reasons for why I found Aristotle pretty boring, I think he started this trend with categorizing things and defining terms, without trying to explain why we do the things that we do. I also think that philosophy nowadays should stick to ethics and political philosophy, the physics and maths are too complicated and I honestly think that not even the mathematicians and physicists have a "grand view" of it all anymore. Case in point the pseudo-psychosis around the quantum theory thing and how, if proven "right" (whatever that means) it might obliterate the concept of free will (or vice-versa, I didn't really follow) and we might start killing each other out of the blue just because a physicist has proven a theory in some forsaken lab. That is not the case.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy? There is no grand view in philosophy either, but millions of tiny conflicts coexisting from which no truth can be gleaned as the philosophers will wriggle out with sophistry. (Just like politicians for that matter.) It is a good old Wittgesteinian challenge. Hope so you define concept of free will in axiomatic logic? Should we start with axiom of choice perhaps?
- paganel 8y ago
  > Axiomatized mathematics and logic too complicated, compared to undefined meanings in philosophy? I agree that those two can be "simplified" to something that people who haven't a PhD in mathematics can talk and write about, but once we go to more advanced stuff things become really, really hard to describe in layman's terms, and as such they are not interesting from a philosophical point of view. I mean, things like a double integral or an Abelian group are indeed useful from an efficiency point of view, meaning that a technical society like ours needed them in order to build most of the stuff that surrounds us (bridges that don't fall at the first major earthquake, computers, rockets that have taken us to space) but they are completely and utterly useless at answering questions that have bugged us for thousands of years: why is it bad to randomly kill someone? Why is it bad to kill someone even if that potentially means a better economical prospect for me and my family? Why is it bad to kill at all? Why shouldn't we kill ourselves right here and now, thus avoiding future psychic and physical pains like illness or the disappearance of closed ones? These are all fundamental questions related to our very nature to which philosophy has offered some answers which have been satisfactory to some people, in any case, the rate of success has been much higher for philosophy compared to maths or physics when trying to find a satisfactory answer. > Should we start with axiom of choice perhaps? What does that say?