What's is this sub-forum all about?

  • Thread starter Willowz
  • Start date
  • #26
Philosophy is also a word and a marker. It makes it possible to contrapose it to other words, like science, as it was done in this thread already. Ultimately these attempts at categorization are extremely weak in the face of what people do every day. Scientists do metaphysics all the time, have to revel in the wildest fictions as a matter of course, while philosophers are bound by their evidence and constrained to remain quiet without observation. The distinctions are political and internal to historical formations. Those that argue for their purity are often blinded by words and the belief that there are underlying "logics" to any academic discipline. Many locked threads in this forum are due more to someone having internalized certain origin myths about how science|philosophy relate, than the conversation becoming different in kind from any other conversation on these forums. Having the forum here to me seems like a symptom of scientists wishing to keep living in a kind of split-personality mode. To speak philosophically =/= to speak scientifically, so you have to go here. The kind of sense it makes is internal to certain scientistic discourses, the reasons for the partition will be sought in rules of method, conceptions of what reality itself is, traditions and so on. Philosophy will be done to tell you why philosophy has to remain external to "science". It's a very queer and mangled worldview, but consequential.
 
  • #27
184
1
Philosophy in its prime is criticism of use/misuse of language. Even philosophical theories often spring out from a refutation of former theories, or rather "ways of thinking", which corresponds to a certain usage of language. Radical philosophy in whatever kind consists of refuting current use of language.
This looks great. But, what do you mean by "ways of thinking"? I mean, you are only limited to your own way of thinking.
 
  • #28
disregardthat
Science Advisor
1,861
34
A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.
 
  • #29
I think the figure of paradigm is a useful one, but it's also homogenizing and totalizing in ways that don't account well for the particularities of situated organisms engaging philosophical talk and thought. So I would go even more concrete than paradigms and use of language. To me "ways of thinking" are closely related to the texts individuals congregate around. There is no immediate need to invoke already shared ways of thinking when philosophy as done today is an eminently textual practice. The literary corpus made relevant to any situation where philosophy is done might just be as close as one gets to pinpointing "ways of thinking".

One might say that philosophy is traditional in that individuals are encultured to the words and style of thought they have come to inherit. But clearly it's easy to overstate what a book does to different people. Each "system" received goes to meet what already populates the imaginative landscape of an individual. The outcomes are chronically uncertain. So there are many different styles to think and speak philosophically and commensurabilty is in my view not so much a feature of a system of thought, but the pragmatic problem of making any textual inheritance relevant to a discursive situation. It's much more of a plaid-knitting exercise done as we go along as it is the clashing of "ways of thinking".

Of course the "love for wisdom" is structuring minds today in ways that are institutionally specific, if one is an academic. An analytic philosopher might not be nourished by a work of continental philosophy because the mind has not been paved in certain ways. The conditions of felicity of "making sense" is a highly individually and institutionally structured good. Philosophy to one is not philosophy to another, as harsh realities as that effects. Understanding another well is not something we come endowed with but something to be achieved. This forum is such a curious example of that. I feel very clearly here that different styles of speaking and different theoretical hinterlands and commitments are at work. This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless it legitimates quick judgements of sense vs. nonsense. Philosophy might be an extraordinary goal of opening oneself to perpetually making better sense than before.
 
  • #30
184
1
A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.
So, philosophy is merely a composite of various paradigms? If so, then would you call philosophy an 'evolution' of paradigms?
 
  • #31
A way of thinking might more properly be called a philosophical paradigm. In a paradigm not only collectively accepted facts (insofar there are facts in philosophy) are present, but more generally as I mentioned a usage of language. In a usage of language some terms make sense in a certain way, and other terms relate to them logically in such-and-such a way which might very well be nonsense and nonsensical argumentation in other paradigms. A paradigm is more or less defined by the usage of language it contains.
That's interesting! Is there a paradigm collectively accepted by all(or most) philosophers for thinking about certain problems? I've always thought that philosophers never agreed to anything. You say there are collectively accepted facts in philosophy. It'd really like to know these so, if you have a link that describes these facts, please share!
 
  • #32
disregardthat
Science Advisor
1,861
34
So, philosophy is merely a composite of various paradigms? If so, then would you call philosophy an 'evolution' of paradigms?
Some probably would, but I don't. I said that philosophy in its prime is essentially criticism of certain kinds of usage of language, which is perhaps what you meant by 'evolution' of paradigms.

Constantinos: A philosophical disagreement does not always consist in a disagreement of paradigms however. Furthermore, "facts" is not a proper description of what philosophers may agree upon. Rather, the agreement consists of the proper usage of terms, and how they relate to eachother.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
184
1
I'm interested on what basis can philosophers criticize paradigms. I mean, that in itself requires another kind of 'paradigm'. It all seems so circular.
 
  • #34
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,214
272
who cares about philosophers? this sub-forum is about philosophy, which permeates all disciplines.

Most philosophy is an attempt to sort the amalgamate of assumptions that we develop through experiencing a skewed sample space (constrained spatially by the limited reach of our perceptive fields and temporally by the number of summers we've experienced). We tend to use our imagination to predict future outcomes.
 
  • #35
27
0
1) Philosophy is distinguished mainly by being dependent on reasoned arguments rather than empirical evidence.
2) It considers what is rationally or logically possible as well as what is provenly actual.
.
1) Can you give me just one example of empirical evidence that does not require reasoned argument?
.. b) (viceversa) ...do you believe in a priori knowledge?
2) what is reason (and logic(s) its codified principles), in what is it different from commonsense?

3) When you state a Law of Physics are you doing Physics or Phylosophy (Metaphysics)? remember that metaphysics is just The First Principles
... b) when you are framing a law of (meta)-Physics in (language) words are you doing physics?
4) When you give a definition in Physics are you doing Physics or Semantics ?

has Phylosphy been abjured? When? by Whom?
The Most Revered Physicist of them all wrote a book about what?,must I recall it?
.....principles ...Philosophiae naturalis.

So, when you are just doing physics?

(P.S. thread "time exists?" was moved to phylosophy, then, after 57 posts, it was locked by a mentor with these words "...it is even less of a philosophical question than ...a physical one") ! :surprised
 
Last edited:
  • #36
apeiron
Gold Member
2,013
1
1) Can you give me just one example of empirical evidence that does not require reasoned argument?
I wouldn't expect so. Science is modelling so must depend on metaphysical concepts and formal descriptions of causal relationships. That is what models are made of.

The diffence is science is reasoned argument that demands empirical test, while philosophy - among other things - is about seeing how far you can get with just rational tests of an argument.

So, when you are just doing physics?
I would say when you are simply applying a theory rather than thinking about how something else might be a deeper view.

It's the difference between forging a tool and using a tool.
 
  • #37
27
0
1) I wouldn't expect so.
2) science is reasoned argument that demands empirical test,
while philosophy - among other things - is about seeing how far you can get with just rational tests of an argument.
3) I would say when you are simply applying a theory
4) It's the difference between forging a tool and using a tool.
1) that is equivalent to saying "you are right, I cannot produce one single example, but I am not prepared to admit it"
2),3) you are ,sorry but, again saying "I was wrong but I would climb a mirror before I admit it. In the bolded text you are admitting it, (unconsciously, I hope.):
you MUST always do metaphysics, before doing what you consider (right or wrong) physics.

(hope #4 is superfluous)
 
  • #38
apeiron
Gold Member
2,013
1
1) that is equivalent to saying "you are right, I cannot produce one single example, but I am not prepared to admit it"
2),3) you are ,sorry but, again saying "I was wrong but I would climb a mirror before I admit it. In the bolded text you are admitting it, (unconsciously, I hope.):
you MUST always do metaphysics, before doing what you consider (right or wrong) physics.

(hope #4 is superfluous)
You seem a little hard of understanding here.

Of course the ideas must ground the impressions. And the impressions in turn build the ideas.

You appear to want to frame this as an either/or situation, whereas I have stressed that reasoned argument and empirical observation are the naturally complementary components of any modelling, of any attempt to know reality.
 
  • #39
Evo
Mentor
23,174
2,924
formal is the banned crackpot simpatico.
 

Related Threads on What's is this sub-forum all about?

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
35
Views
17K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
70
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
153
Top