3 ms·

+1 on the “Fuzzy thinking” bit I’d caution reading philosophy as all about hair splitting. Hairs are split because language is the tool and precision is necess

by 0kl 7y ago

+1 on the “Fuzzy thinking” bit I’d caution reading philosophy as all about hair splitting. Hairs are split because language is the tool and precision is necessary, but splitting hairs is not what it’s _about_. What is it about? That depends on the philosopher. The heavy hitters (Plato, Nietzsche, Kant) often try to answer the oracle’s command to “know thyself,” whim ranging over multiple branches of philosophy, while others focus on anything from language to ethics to aesthetics. (And Nietzsche, for example, does not spend time splitting many hairs at all)

dredmorbius 7y ago
Yes, about hair splitting was a poor word choice, though hair-splitting remains a very frequent activity in philosophy. Fine gradations in distinction and meaning using the blunt tool of language is difficult. I've been digging into the "what is philosophy about" question on several fronts. The Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu https://plato.stanford.edu) has a pretty good outline, as does the Basics of Philosophy ( https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch.html https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch.html) I've also been partial to digging through various library classifications and subject headings (LCC / LCSH), particularly CLASS B / Subclass BC, generally metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, cosmology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, logic. Another view is that philosophy consists (as a residual) of disciplines which have resisted formalisation under either mathematics (which has laid claim to much of logic), cosmology (now mostly natural sciences), moral philosophy (largely social sciences), and philosophy of mind (now largely a sub-discipline of psychology). What still survives today as philosophy is mostly the "messy bits". And a tremendous amount of religion-adjacent concepts. That's not knocking philosophy, which I'm finding quite useful, but it's a reality of the field.

by 0kl 7y ago

dredmorbius 7y ago

Yes, about hair splitting was a poor word choice, though hair-splitting remains a very frequent activity in philosophy. Fine gradations in distinction and meaning using the blunt tool of language is difficult. I've been digging into the "what is philosophy about" question on several fronts. The Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu https://plato.stanford.edu) has a pretty good outline, as does the Basics of Philosophy ( https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch.html https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch.html) I've also been partial to digging through various library classifications and subject headings (LCC / LCSH), particularly CLASS B / Subclass BC, generally metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, cosmology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, logic. Another view is that philosophy consists (as a residual) of disciplines which have resisted formalisation under either mathematics (which has laid claim to much of logic), cosmology (now mostly natural sciences), moral philosophy (largely social sciences), and philosophy of mind (now largely a sub-discipline of psychology). What still survives today as philosophy is mostly the "messy bits". And a tremendous amount of religion-adjacent concepts. That's not knocking philosophy, which I'm finding quite useful, but it's a reality of the field.