NationStates Jolt Archive

this isnt a thread for philosophical questions. this is a thread concerning the necesity of philosophical questioning. meaning, do we realy need to be thinking about philosophy? many philosophical questions have no answers.

questions like:

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?

there are countless others, most of wich we can only speculate on. so, the question is: do we, as humans, need philosophy? a study of things that cannot be explained, a search for answers that cannot be found. Or are we wasting our time with silly thoughts concerning chickens and eggs?

Philosophy is religion.

my opinion:
people who arent thinking about the bigger questions are a waste of space. they are going through life like a plant goes through life. they eat, drink, grow old, and die. they are vegatable-equivialant masses of useless matter, wasteing air.

I look at philosophy as more of a way to study what we can use to live our lives. Ways in which we can interact better with others and the environment. Ways in which we can become better people in general. Plus, it sounds good if you quote Confucius.

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?

Questions like that I think are worthless


what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?


Questions like that I think are essential in trying to live a fufilling life because trying to anserwer them makes us think how we should live our lives

Also you asked a philosophical question in asking if philosophy is necisary

Philosophy is religion.

not true.
many philosophical questions have nothing to do with religion.

religions have philosophies, but not all of philosophy includes religion.

Meh, those are some jenk-ass examples of questions contemporary philosophers try to tackle. The Mind/Body problem, Ethics, methods of government, etc. are far more valid examples of the necessity of philosophy.

What a lot of people don't realize is that it is thanks to philosophers and their many questions that the sciences are often advanced. Psychology, linguistics and theoretical physics are a select few examples that have benefited greatly from philosophy.

But, anyway, philosophy is something that should be required as a minor in all universities, I'd say. It teaches critical thinking skills and encourages objectivity to a superior degree than any other major, in my experience. Except, perhaps, advanced mathematics...but math tests make me die on the inside so I'll never encourage more of them. ;)

Necessary? Absolutely not. Few things are necessary. Interesting? Definitely.

The key is to not allow these questions to dominate your thoughts and decisions. Think about them, and discuss them, but not too much or too little. Hopefully, we'll all find out at some point in some manner...and I think we will.

Questions like that I think are worthless



Questions like that I think are essential in trying to live a fufilling life because trying to anserwer them makes us think how we should live our lives

Also you asked a philosophical question in asking if philosophy is necisary

i agree.
philosophy is a necesary part in a thinking persons life. we are all human, and we all think.

and yes, i couldnt ask a question about being philosophical without being alitle philosophical.

Philosophy is religion.

Therefore everyone is religious? Because Atheism is a philosophy, agnosticism, saying philosophy is worthless is a philosophy

not true.
many philosophical questions have nothing to do with religion.

religions have philosophies, but not all of philosophy includes religion.
You misunderstood me. Philosophy IS religion, on the deeper level that organized religion would have you think doesn't exist.

Therefore everyone is religious? Because Atheism is a philosophy, agnosticism, saying philosophy is worthless is a philosophy

Exactly.

Meh, those are some jenk-ass examples of questions contemporary philosophers try to tackle. The Mind/Body problem, Ethics, methods of government, etc. are far more valid examples of the necessity of philosophy.

What a lot of people don't realize is that it is thanks to philosophers and their many questions that the sciences are often advanced. Psychology, linguistics and theoretical physics are a select few examples that have benefited greatly from philosophy.

But, anyway, philosophy is something that should be required as a minor in all universities, I'd say. It teaches critical thinking skills and encourages objectivity to a superior degree than any other major, in my experience. Except, perhaps, advanced mathematics...but math tests make me die on the inside so I'll never encourage more of them. ;)

those examples were ones that only could be speculated on. i prefer discussions on ethics, myself. but i used those specifically that had no answers, you cannot give an answer to why we are here. we can only speculate.

and yes, many philosophers (especially in greece) were renowned for being very knoledgebale in mathematics, science, astronomy, physics, and many other fields of study.

philosophy has helped the world develope.

You misunderstood me. Philosophy IS religion, on the deeper level that organized religion would have you think doesn't exist.

Religion = belief system.
One's philosophy = a set of beliefs

So they are the same?

Religion = belief system.
One's philosophy = a set of beliefs

So they are the same?

Yes! You see, it is not what system of beliefs you believe in that determines your religion, it is what those beliefs are. Shed your previous thoughts on it being organized and structured, religion is exactly the opposite.
Well, thats my religion anyways. :)

Religion = belief system.
One's philosophy = a set of beliefs

So they are the same?

NO.
philosophy is NOT religion.

philosophy is the study of logic and knoledge, as well as human behavior and existance.

religion is a belief in a higher power(s), or a belief in life after death.

they are mixed up because of the other use for the word philosophy, wich is used in religion often. they seek to explain the same instances in some cases, but not all.

NO.
philosophy is the study of logic and knoledge, as well as human behavior and existance.
religion is a belief in a higher power(s), or a belief in life after death.


Who said religion was any of those things?

My dear friend Webster says philosophy is the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group, while religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

It seems he agrees.

Who said religion was any of those things?

God.

Philosophy is a needed part of development. All children wonder about philosophy, even if they stop wondering quickly. Anyone who has goals in life has some kind of philosophy behind it, even if they aren't conscious of it.

Philosophy is an opinion one has on life and the universe, its impossible not to have one without being a brainwashed zombie.

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
These questions are what I’d call ‘pub philosophy’; questions that only people outside of philosophy departments contemplate in any serious manner.

what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?
These are more serious philosophical enquiries, though the ‘meaning of life’, I feel, is a rather moot question.

Philosophy is literally a ‘love of knowledge’, and most people could be said to enjoy, love even, knowledge. True, there are some epistemological or metaphysical philosophical questions that have little or no bearing on life, but I would argue that the real meaty philosophical questions — questions of ethics, and political philosophy especially — are current, important and worthy areas of enquiry. Applied or practical ethics is one of the most exciting fields in philosophy today.

As Socrates said in Plato’s Apology, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

not true.
many philosophical questions have nothing to do with religion.

religions have philosophies, but not all of philosophy includes religion.
You're too caught up in the deity thing...Any cause that one pursues with devotion (dedication) can be thought of as a religion. Hence ...

my opinion:
people who arent thinking about the bigger questions are a waste of space. they are going through life like a plant goes through life. they eat, drink, grow old, and die. they are vegatable-equivialant masses of useless matter, wasteing air.
So, I'm happy in my job fixing air conditioners. I don't particularly care about why I'm here and what my place in the universe should be. I'm content to know that I need to show up to work on time, do a good job, take care of my family and go to church.

I'm a waste of space? I'm useless? Tell that to the next repair man that bails you out of a sea of sewage or sweat.

So, I’m happy in my job fixing air conditioners. I don’t particularly care about why I’m here and what my place in the universe should be. I’m content to know that I need to show up to work on time, do a good job, take care of my family and go to church.
I doubt you never contemplate, as FB confusingly called them, the ‘bigger questions’.

You must, at some point in your life, mused on your political philosophy, debated whether there is a god or gods, questioned your role in life, etc.

Internal and external philosophical debate, no matter how lofty or lowly, is hard to get away from in human social life.

If you want philosophy you can truly live your life by, read the books by George Carlin:

'Brain Droppings', 'Napalm and Silly Putty' and 'When Will Jesus Bring The Porkchops?'

It is all the philosophy you need. For instance:

Life is not as difficult as people think; all one needs is a good set of rules. Since it is probably too late for you, here are some guidelines to pass along to your children.

1. Relax and take it easy. Don't get caught up in hollow conceits such as "doing something with your life." Such twaddle is outmoded and a sure formula for disappointment.

2. Whatever it is you pursue, try to do it just well enough to remain in the middle third of the field. Keep your thoughts and ideas to yourself and don't ask questions. Remember, the squeaky wheel is the first one to be replaced.

3. Size people up quickly, and develop rigid attitudes based on your first impression. If you try to delve deeper and get to "know" people, you're asking for trouble.

4. Don't fall for that superstitious nonsense about treating people the way you would like to be treated. It is a transparently narcissistic approach, and may be the sign of a weak mind.

5. Spend as much time as you can pleading and impressing others, even if it makes you unhappy. Pay special attention to shallow manipulators who can do you the most harm. Remember, in the overall scheme, you count for very little.

6. Surround yourself with inferiors and losers. Not only will you look good by comparison, but they will look up to you, and that will make you feel better.

7. Don't buy into the sentimental notion that everyone has shortcomings; it's the surest way of undermining yourself. Remember, the really best people have no defects. If you're not perfect, something is wrong.

8. If by some off chance you do detect a few faults, first, accept the fact that you are probably deeply flawed. Then make a list of your faults and dwell on them. Carry the list around and try to think of things to add. Blame yourself for everything.

9. Beware of intuition and gut instincts, they are completely unreliable. Instead, develop preconceived notions and don't waver unless someone tells you to. Then change your mind and adopt their point of view. But only if they seem to know what they're talking about.

10. Never give up on an idea simply because it is bad and doesn't work. Cling to it even when it is hopeless. Anyone can cut and run, but it takes a very special person to stay with something that is stupid and harmful.

11. Always remember, today doesn't count. Trying to make something out of today only robs you of precious time that could be spent daydreaming or resting up.

12. Try to dwell on the past. Think of all the mistakes you've made, and how much better it would be if you hadn't made them. Think of what you should have done, and blame yourself for not doing so. And don't go easy. Be really hard on yourself.

13. If by chance you make a fresh mistake, especially a costly one, try to repeat it a few times so you become familiar with it and can do it easily in the future. Write it down. Put it with your list of faults.

14. Beware also of the dangerous trap of looking ahead; it will only get you in trouble. Instead, try to drift along from day to day in a meandering fashion. Don't get sidetracked with some foolish "plan."

15. Finally, enjoy yourself all the time, and do whatever you want. Don't be seduced by that mindless chatter going around about "responsibility." That's exactly the sort of thing that can ruin your life.


:)

I doubt you never contemplate, as FB confusingly called them, the ‘bigger questions’.

You must, at some point in your life, mused on your political philosophy, debated whether there is a god or gods, questioned your role in life, etc.

Internal and external philosophical debate, no matter how lofty or lowly, is hard to get away from in human social life.
The example is hypothetical. But the question isn't. Why should I spend any time at all caring about my place in the universe. It is what it is. If I like what I am, why should I worry about anything else?

If you want philosophy you can truly live your life by, read the books by George Carlin:

‘Brain Droppings’, ‘Napalm and Silly Putty’ and ‘When Will Jesus Bring The Porkchops?’
Amusing but much of it is ‘pub philosophy’ again.

Smart little anecdotes.

The example is hypothetical. But the question isn't. Why should I spend any time at all caring about my place in the universe. It is what it is. If I like what I am, why should I worry about anything else?
Because many of these 'big' questions (I've never liked that term) determine our standing on everyday issues.

You have political views, and I'd wager, views on many other philosophical topics. You don't have to be involved in existential debates about the meaning of life to be involved with philosophy; much of what we discuss here on NS:G is political or moral philosophy, for example.

A life without metaphysical enquiry is not meaningless, but it would be nigh on impossible to live in today's world without musing on some ethical and political philosophy. How does one vote, or indeed not vote, without philosophical views on the State, political participation, etc.? How does one hold views on religion without philosophical views on god, gods, or lack of either? How does one hold views on everything from abortion to slavery without philosophical enquiry?

I think people are suffering from a major misunderstanding of what philosophy is. Rarely do you see the contemporary (hell, even the classical) philosopher debating "man's place in the universe and the meaning of life and bla bla bla". As Chumblywumbly has said multiple times now, philosophy takes on much more important questions such as: what is a just government and is this justice thing anyway? How do we come about knowledge and when we come about it what methods do we use to verify its truth? .....Logic in all its varied forms happily dances between philosophy, mathematics and computer science, as well. Etc.

It is very unlikely that a person can exist without creating, intentional or not, an ethical framework by which they live, consistent or not. People, all people, have political opinions (I've yet to encounter a single person who doesn't....non-attitudes be damned) and a sense of right and wrong (well, there are exceptions but those people are generally considered abnormal).

Also, while I'm posting, I want to address criticism of philosophy classes that drives me nuts. "It's too gray." That's nonsense and just betrays a dislike of abstract analysis. There is very little "gray" in philosophy, when you actually come down to it. Oh, there is a whole lot of disagreement and debate, but it isn't vague in nature. Contemporary philosophy hinges on logic: true premises and valid logic give you the wonderful gift of a sound argument. Granted, there are schools of thought that reject rationalism and analytic philosophy (though, they really don't, imo) but, by and large, things are actually very black and white in philosophy. No one should ever make the nonsense claim that philosophy is "too gray." It's just semantic garbage, meaningless or incorrect or both.

Though, the strongest argument against philosophy is that philosophy students-well, departments, actually- tend to be really full of themselves. I don't know what it is about philosophic debate but it has a very real ability to turn people into pretentious, self-important asses. This is an observable trend in history. Hell, just read The Republic for an example of this. Philosopher-kings and just cities, my ass.

this isnt a thread for philosophical questions. this is a thread concerning the necesity of philosophical questioning. meaning, do we realy need to be thinking about philosophy? many philosophical questions have no answers.

questions like:

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?


These aren't philosophical questions. They're just mental masturbations.

Philosophers, today, try to answer some other smallish things, like:
-is the Copenhagen interpretation correct?
-can sociology be rewritten into a fully logical-mathematical form?
-do some non-binary logics work?
-is there a natural source of the human rights, or are they relative conventions?

etc...

Religion = belief system.
One's philosophy = a set of beliefs

So they are the same?

I think philosophy=a set of questions

That is the beauty of it. Questions like 'Why are we here?' have no concrete answers, so the discussion of them and the possibilities the question raises are the meat of the matter. The very fact that there are no real answers, only more questions, is what makes philosophy NOT a religion.

I think philosophy=a set of questions

That is the beauty of it. Questions like 'Why are we here?' have no concrete answers, so the discussion of them and the possibilities the question raises are the meat of the matter. The very fact that there are no real answers, only more questions, is what makes philosophy NOT a religion.

Guar....head asplode!

I think philosophy=a set of questions

That is the beauty of it. Questions like ‘Why are we here?’ have no concrete answers, so the discussion of them and the possibilities the question raises are the meat of the matter. The very fact that there are no real answers, only more questions, is what makes philosophy NOT a religion.
I wouldn’t entirely agree, but I think there is a clear distinction between religion and philosophy.

The two most obvious examples are that, firstly, religion can, I think, can be confined to belief systems that involve spirituality at some level, while some philosophy is clearly non-spiritualistic.

Secondly, and more importantly, a religion is a (relatively) coherent set of beliefs. Philosophy in no way can be said to be sticking to one set of beliefs. It is a field of enquiry, not a single belief-system. You can't easily talk about philosophy as a whole.

Philosophy is religion.

Philosophy = Knowledge
Religion = Belief

This has been somewhat suggested earlier as Philosophy deals with logic, although not exclusively. Philosophy seeks to understand and explain the world in a verifiable way. Religion explains on belief/faith/dogma.

Because many of these 'big' questions (I've never liked that term) determine our standing on everyday issues.

You have political views, and I'd wager, views on many other philosophical topics. You don't have to be involved in existential debates about the meaning of life to be involved with philosophy; much of what we discuss here on NS:G is political or moral philosophy, for example.

A life without metaphysical enquiry is not meaningless, but it would be nigh on impossible to live in today's world without musing on some ethical and political philosophy. How does one vote, or indeed not vote, without philosophical views on the State, political participation, etc.? How does one hold views on religion without philosophical views on god, gods, or lack of either? How does one hold views on everything from abortion to slavery without philosophical enquiry?
Everyone has 'views'. Not everyone wants to support them, discuss them, or even recognize that there may be deeper motivation behind any of them.

I go to church because I always have. I'm satisfied that I'm right. I'm not worried about you -- that may make me a bad Christian, but not a philosophical one.

How do opinions become philosophy? Isn't that what you're implying? I have an opinion on color. Does that mean I've debated the meaning of 'red' and how it fits into my living room? Of course not. And why should politics be any different. Sometimes opinions are enough.

Everyone has ‘views’. Not everyone wants to support them, discuss them, or even recognize that there may be deeper motivation behind any of them.
I find that rather intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Why shouldn’t we examine our beliefs? Surely we don’t want to hold beliefs that are incorrect. Why adopt a belief system without examining its tenets?

This is a separate issue from what my original point is; namely that we all hold philosophical concepts.

I go to church because I always have. I’m satisfied that I’m right. I’m not worried about you — that may make me a bad Christian, but not a philosophical one.
But you still hold philosophical concepts; most importantly to the above, that there is a Supreme Being. This philosophical concept leads on to other philosophical enquiries, especially in moral philosophy.

How do opinions become philosophy? Isn’t that what you’re implying?
No, I’m not implying that overall. However many opinions about religion, politics, morality, etc. are philosophical.

I have an opinion on color. Does that mean I’ve debated the meaning of ‘red’ and how it fits into my living room? Of course not. And why should politics be any different. Sometimes opinions are enough.
But this is blind dogmatic belief, something that most people would see as a poor choice, especially in politics.

Why do you hold the political views that you do? There must be some reasoning behind them, unless you are parroting what your parents or peers say. I mean, you hold some very strong political beliefs Myrm. We’ve all seen that on these boards.

Are you saying you have never once contemplated why you hold such beliefs?

Religion is, arguably, a branch of philosophy. So is science.

Religion is, arguably, a branch of philosophy. So is science.
Science is certainly so, but religion isn’t a field of enquiry like philosophy or science.

Religion holds philosophical concepts, but isn’t a sub-set of philosophy. Theology, or the philosophy of religion are, obviously, part of philosophy. But religion itself?

I don’t think so.

what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

I find that rather intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Why shouldn’t we examine our beliefs? Surely we don’t want to hold beliefs that are incorrect. Why adopt a belief system without examining its tenets?

This is a separate issue from what my original point is; namely that we all hold philosophical concepts.

First, your point is different from the thesis presented by Flame Bait, or whatever his name was... I mostly agree with your point of view. I'm mostly trying to stir up a discussion and avoid the religion != philosophy stuff that everyone seems to be caught up in.

Some beliefs are worth considering, but not all are arrived at by deliberate means.

I believe strongly in experience. That may not answer the question of religion, but certainly can go a long way toward deciding which candidate deserves my vote. For people with some years on them, I think experience plays a much bigger role in selecting a candidate to back than does wrangling over the alternatives. If you don't have the experience, then wrangling does serve a purpose.

My views? Some are real, some are made up, some I just try out for a while.

As a Computer Science major at a liberal arts school, I was annoyed to find out that I was required to take two Philosophy courses (PLUS two Religion courses, and the Philosophy and Religion majors only are required to take ONE math course... but I won't get into that :P)

Anyways, I thought Philosophy was a big waste of my time. I knew enough about history to know that early philosophers were basically early scientists and I respected them for that, but I felt that modern philosophy teachers were the equivalent of buggy drivers now that cars are around. A quaint, but ultimately useless study. In fact, I failed the first Philosophy course I took because I disdained it so much.

Then, I took a teacher who showed me what Philosophy is REALLY about. Science (mostly) can give us the answers, but Philosophy tells us the questions.

For example: How ought we to make decisions? By what's best for us? What's best for the most amount of people? What's best for the planet as a whole?

Science helps us come up with a sustainable future for the planet or the best way to explain our natural rescources THIS generation, but deciding between the two, that's Philosophy's job.

Finally: What do you think you're doing on NationStates? You are making decisions for a (fictional) country based on your philosophy.

I’m mostly trying to stir up a discussion
Like a true philosopher! ;)

Some beliefs are worth considering, but not all are arrived at by deliberate means.
True, and I would want to point out at this juncture that examination of philosophical concepts may not always be as concious as, “Do I agree with proposition X”. Some, as you say, are arrived at than less than deliberate means.

I believe strongly in experience. That may not answer the question of religion, but certainly can go a long way toward deciding which candidate deserves my vote. For people with some years on them, I think experience plays a much bigger role in selecting a candidate to back than does wrangling over the alternatives. If you don’t have the experience, then wrangling does serve a purpose.
A fair point, though I’d argue that reasoning or wrangling may be an ongoing process while we are experiencing.

many philosophical questions have no answers.

and you have an argument for this philosophical position, yes?

Science is certainly so, but religion isn’t a field of enquiry like philosophy or science.


You can say that it is a conclusion from said fields of enquiries.

Fun fact: reptiles were laying eggs long before there were chickens.

jenk-ass examples

teehee.

But yah, chicken egg before chicken adult.

Fun fact: reptiles were laying eggs long before there were chickens.

or to put it generally, evolution exists and chickens were not the first lifeforms.

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?
A counter question to all of those would be - "why should we care, why don't you silly bastards get on with your lives?
my opinion:
people who arent thinking about the bigger questions are a waste of space. they are going through life like a plant goes through life. they eat, drink, grow old, and die. they are vegatable-equivialant masses of useless matter, wasteing air.
I'd say the same of the unbearably pretentious who also have never heard of the search button.

The bigger questions in life aren't about pointless intellectual one-upmanship, they're questions of economics, politics and military matters, which are, after all, a bit more pressing than "are we awake, or are we dreaming right now", which is unprovable and hence not really worth wasting time over.

A counter question to all of those would be - "why should we care, why don't you silly bastards get on with your lives?

I'd say the same of the unbearably pretentious who also have never heard of the search button.

The bigger questions in life aren't about pointless intellectual one-upmanship, they're questions of economics, politics and military matters, which are, after all, a bit more pressing than "are we awake, or are we dreaming right now", which is unprovable and hence not really worth wasting time over.


Meh it's all subjective isn't it. Some of use thing that the questions of religion and spirituality are the better type of questions to concern our selves with. Some think questions on governace and fiscal responsibilities, some
ponder the meaning of life.

I say they all have there place, they are all important to one or more aspects of life, and I for one am very greatful that experts seem to exist in all realms of knowledge. Shit wouldn't it be boring if we all thought alike, and placed the same importance on the same things?

Anytime you think about something you are applying a philosophy. A philosophy is very important as it is capable of making or breaking a person in terms of how they use their brain.

You're too caught up in the deity thing...Any cause that one pursues with devotion (dedication) can be thought of as a religion. Hence ...

I think it's useless to define religion so vaguely-- it's best to stick to what is conventionally meant by religion: a belief in the supernatural, and usually a deity (or multiple deities) and an afterlife, and usually including some sort of worship/prayer/meditation/etc. If you change it so that any belief or any cause that one is dedicated to counts, the word is pretty much worthless.

Sure, if you define religion your way, then everybody is religious, but you could also say "I define God as wind" and say "well, everybody knows that wind exists, therefore, God exists. QED." Again, it's best to stick, in most cases, to conventional definitions.

lol... The question: Is Philosophy Necessary?, is, itself, a philisophical question!

Either side of the question requires a philosophy to answer it. It would seem that we're inextricably bound to philosophy. Philosophy Is. We use it whether we believe we need it or not.

It's a shame that so many thousands of years ago the Greeks were so much more enlightened than people seem to be these days about philosophy.

It's a shame that so many thousands of years ago the Greeks were so much more enlightened than people seem to be these days about philosophy.


Is that true, though. I can only name a few greek philosophers out of millions of greeks that lived back then. :confused:

Is that true, though. I can only name a few greek philosophers out of millions of greeks that lived back then. :confused:

lol that's true

and if your philosophy is different from that of the state you can be in big big trouble see: Socrates

my opinion:
people who arent thinking about the bigger questions are a waste of space. they are going through life like a plant goes through life. they eat, drink, grow old, and die. they are vegatable-equivialant masses of useless matter, wasteing air.

i quite like this notion...

Plants are important too. >_>

I think a common mistake that is being made here - especially towards the beginning of this topic - is a misunderstanding of the word philosophy. Used loosely, philosophy can refer to a system of beliefs; that is, I hold a 'philosophy' of how something should be. However in the true sense of the word, and what the academic study of philosophy represents, philosophy is more of an activity. Depending on where you stand, that activity exists either as a separate branch of enquiry or simply to clarify for other branches of enquiry like the natural sciences.

Perhaps one of the main things that gives philosophy a bad name is the misunderstanding of thought experiments. The "Am I dreaming?" thing has been mentioned quite a number of times here, yet to stay that it is actually used to genuinely suggest we are dreaming is a mistake. Rather, thought experiments are generally used to demonstrate how that if our currently epistemology is accepted, we can end up with truly bizarre possibilities. Therefore, there's probably something that needs to be worked out. That people hear about the bizarre circumstance part and not the 'so how can we sort this out' part is regrettable.

Religion is, arguably, a branch of philosophy. So is science.

As a grad student in philosophy (:::lowers reading glasses whilst smoking pipe:::), I have to respectfully disagree with you on the first point, and elaborate on the second. However, you DID say "arguably," though, so I may not necessarily disagree with you. Anyway....

It should be noted that what we call "science" today once went by the label "natural philosophy." There is certainly a connection there, although in their present states, the two disciplines are considered and approached as two radically different fields.

Philosophers of the so-called "analytic" school (e.g., Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer, Saul Kripke, Robert Nozick) approach philosophy almost as if it were discrete mathematics. It should be noted that math (at least more basic math) is itself technically unrelated to science, although the "hard" sciences (i.e., chemistry, physics, etc.) count math as their foundation.

I actually prefer the traditional "continental" school of philosophy (e.g., Hegel, Levinas, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, and so on), which isn't nearly as "hard" and "technical" as analytic philosophy, though continental philosophy is subject to the same laws of logic. Basically, the analytics see the continentals as having their heads in the clouds, and the continentals see the analytics as having their heads buried in the sand, if that makes sense.

But back to the main point - now that I've ranted enough to make you skip this post - religion can't really be considered a branch of philosophy in and of itself, since, using the Bible as an example, the Bible needs no logical foundation. If it DID, then there would be no such thing as a "Christian," "Jew," or "Muslim," because the Bible is, quite simply, illogical (or at least not subject to the laws of logic, as I would contend).

Now, there IS a branch of philosophy that studies, critiques, and attempts to EXPLAIN religion in a philosophical manner, but this is altogether different than religion considered as philosophy.

Finally, science is not a philosophy in itself, either, because it is INDUCTIVE (reliant on empirical data) rather than DEDUCTIVE (i.e., subject only to the strict laws of logic). Some great philosophers such as Kant attempted to ground empirical laws in reason, but more often than not they failed miserably. This is not because science is in any way inferior; it is just an unrelated field, technically speaking. Consider the following logically valid proposition:

If my car is black, then a cow can jump over the moon
-----
My car is black
-----
Therefore, a cow can jump over the moon.

The conclusion is LOGICALLY true, but any sane scientist would agree that it is not possible EMPIRICALLY, or at least not very PROBABLE.

I kind of forgot what else I had to add to the discussion, but I don't think it really matters anymore.

this isnt a thread for philosophical questions. this is a thread concerning the necesity of philosophical questioning. meaning, do we realy need to be thinking about philosophy? many philosophical questions have no answers.

questions like:

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?

there are countless others, most of wich we can only speculate on. so, the question is: do we, as humans, need philosophy? a study of things that cannot be explained, a search for answers that cannot be found. Or are we wasting our time with silly thoughts concerning chickens and eggs?

The questions without answers are meaningless. Any question that has a clear meaning can be answered by one with the necessary resources. Thus, discussion of such questions are pointless.

As a grad student in philosophy (:::lowers reading glasses whilst smoking pipe:::), I have to respectfully disagree with you on the first point, and elaborate on the second. However, you DID say "arguably," though, so I may not necessarily disagree with you. Anyway....

It should be noted that what we call "science" today once went by the label "natural philosophy." There is certainly a connection there, although in their present states, the two disciplines are considered and approached as two radically different fields.

Philosophers of the so-called "analytic" school (e.g., Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer, Saul Kripke, Robert Nozick) approach philosophy almost as if it were discrete mathematics. It should be noted that math (at least more basic math) is itself technically unrelated to science, although the "hard" sciences (i.e., chemistry, physics, etc.) count math as their foundation.

I actually prefer the traditional "continental" school of philosophy (e.g., Hegel, Levinas, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, and so on), which isn't nearly as "hard" and "technical" as analytic philosophy, though continental philosophy is subject to the same laws of logic. Basically, the analytics see the continentals as having their heads in the clouds, and the continentals see the analytics as having their heads buried in the sand, if that makes sense.

But back to the main point - now that I've ranted enough to make you skip this post - religion can't really be considered a branch of philosophy in and of itself, since, using the Bible as an example, the Bible needs no logical foundation. If it DID, then there would be no such thing as a "Christian," "Jew," or "Muslim," because the Bible is, quite simply, illogical (or at least not subject to the laws of logic, as I would contend).

Now, there IS a branch of philosophy that studies, critiques, and attempts to EXPLAIN religion in a philosophical manner, but this is altogether different than religion considered as philosophy.

Finally, science is not a philosophy in itself, either, because it is INDUCTIVE (reliant on empirical data) rather than DEDUCTIVE (i.e., subject only to the strict laws of logic). Some great philosophers such as Kant attempted to ground empirical laws in reason, but more often than not they failed miserably. This is not because science is in any way inferior; it is just an unrelated field, technically speaking. Consider the following logically valid proposition:

If my car is black, then a cow can jump over the moon
-----
My car is black
-----
Therefore, a cow can jump over the moon.

The conclusion is LOGICALLY true, but any sane scientist would agree that it is not possible EMPIRICALLY, or at least not very PROBABLE.

I kind of forgot what else I had to add to the discussion, but I don't think it really matters anymore.

Quoted for two reasons. One, this is probably the best explanation of philosophy, so far, in this thread.

Two, actually...as I type this, I realize where I went wrong with my point of objection, so never mind. Brings me to something else, though...since you're a philosophy grad student maybe you can explain intentionality to me, because I'm having a really hard time with it in my Philosophy of Mind class, right now. =p

Oh, and....Perhaps one of the main things that gives philosophy a bad name is the misunderstanding of thought experiments. The "Am I dreaming?" thing has been mentioned quite a number of times here, yet to stay that it is actually used to genuinely suggest we are dreaming is a mistake. Rather, thought experiments are generally used to demonstrate how that if our currently epistemology is accepted, we can end up with truly bizarre possibilities. Therefore, there's probably something that needs to be worked out. That people hear about the bizarre circumstance part and not the 'so how can we sort this out' part is regrettable.You have no idea how many times I've been in a debate with a friend (engineers) and tried to explain a point with a thought experiment that is a simple exaggeration of what they're saying and all they do is go, "But that's impossible!" I usually just give up because engineering apparently doesn't often teach basic logic. =\

this isnt a thread for philosophical questions. this is a thread concerning the necesity of philosophical questioning. meaning, do we realy need to be thinking about philosophy? many philosophical questions have no answers.

questions like:

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?

there are countless others, most of wich we can only speculate on. so, the question is: do we, as humans, need philosophy? a study of things that cannot be explained, a search for answers that cannot be found. Or are we wasting our time with silly thoughts concerning chickens and eggs?
Yes, we need philosophy. We need philosophy so that we'll know that we don't know those answers. Otherwise we'll be susceptible to some religion coming along and telling us that it DOES know those answers, and that we need to listen to them.

Philosophy allows us to tell them to shove it.

this isnt a thread for philosophical questions.

You then go on to pose an unanswerable question which would require considerable philosophy to address let alone answer, to wit "is philosophy necessary?"

Just admit you find philosophy too hard, and a great deal of time could be saved.

Philosophy is necessary for several reasons. First, it is the source of thought. Without a philosophy, ideas would just float around never to combine into reason.

Now if we speak of the logic aspect of philosophy: all mathematics are based on philosophical logic. With math comes physics, and then all the sciences.

Philosophy is necessary for several reasons. First, it is the source of thought. Without a philosophy, ideas would just float around never to combine into reason.

Now if we speak of the logic aspect of philosophy: all mathematics are based on philosophical logic. With math comes physics, and then all the sciences.

While there are definitely strong relationships between logic and mathematics, the identification of one with the other was one of the challenges that David Hilbert put to the world. One that was attempted by Frege, only to be shot down by Russel and finally laid to rest by Gödel.

Maths is not logic, nor is logic maths.

However this does not mean that philosophers were not and are not (of necessity that is) mathematicians as well.

While there are definitely strong relationships between logic and mathematics, the identification of one with the other was one of the challenges that David Hilbert put to the world. One that was attempted by Frege, only to be shot down by Russel and finally laid to rest by Gödel.

Maths is not logic, nor is logic maths.

However this does not mean that philosophers were not and are not (of necessity that is) mathematicians as well.

Very true that they are not one the same, but however many concepts of one has proven to be very useful in the other. Not to mention the rise in existential mathematics. (as I like to call them)

While there are definitely strong relationships between logic and mathematics, the identification of one with the other was one of the challenges that David Hilbert put to the world. One that was attempted by Frege, only to be shot down by Russel and finally laid to rest by Gödel.
Someone tried to explain Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to me last night.

I sure ain’t no philosopher of maths! :p

Someone tried to explain Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to me last night.

I sure ain’t no philosopher of maths! :p

Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not actually hard to understand, it is just hard to follow the proof.

What it says is that any formal system necessarily contains at least one statement that can not be evaluated using that system. i.e. there is always something that can't be proved using whatever set of rules you care to choose.

Now proving this, is no cakewalk.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not actually hard to understand, it is just hard to follow the proof.

What it says is that any formal system necessarily contains at least one statement that can not be evaluated using that system. i.e. there is always something that can't be proved using whatever set of rules you care to choose.

Now proving this, is no cakewalk.

How do you understand the theorems without understanding the proofs?

How do you understand the theorems without understanding the proofs?
He understands what the proofs prove, just like someone who has never heard of gravity knows that things fall.

He understands what the proofs prove, just like someone who has never heard of gravity knows that things fall.

That isn't understanding, that is regurgitation.

That isn't understanding, that is regurgitation.

Okay, then his wording was poor. I think that's what he meant, otherwise you're right, it makes no sense.

How do you understand the theorems without understanding the proofs?

The theorem is a statement which may or may not be true. If you can understand what it posits, see the claim being made, you understand the theorem.

In fact, even if there exists no proof or in fact a disproof, one could still understand the theorem.

If my theorem was that all blue round things are balls, I fail to see how you could not understand my theorem. Even though disproving it would only take you a second.

Now, I don't understand Godel's Last Theorem, but that is because I don't have a clear idea of what "any formal system" might mean. So I can't even begin to formulate a proof or disproof. Perhaps it's a bad example, because I doubt many people understand the theorem without defining the terms used in it.

this isnt a thread for philosophical questions. this is a thread concerning the necesity of philosophical questioning. meaning, do we realy need to be thinking about philosophy? many philosophical questions have no answers.

questions like:

what came first, the chicken or the egg?
if a tree falls in the middle of the forest.......
what is the meaning of life?
why are we here/where are we going/who are we?
are we awake, or are we dreaming right now?

there are countless others, most of wich we can only speculate on. so, the question is: do we, as humans, need philosophy? a study of things that cannot be explained, a search for answers that cannot be found. Or are we wasting our time with silly thoughts concerning chickens and eggs?
It really depends on how you use it. Philosophy does teach critical thinking and in that regard is invaluable, but the problem is that most philosophies are just "thinking" and no "testing." They come up with something and invent reasons for following it and never bother to test their assumptions.

Then there's also the many "questions" that aren't actually questions that one should try pondering, like "Why are we here?" because they give the impression that we have some sort of "higher reason" for existing then being the pseudo-evolutionary-type random creatures that evolved in a universe that simply came to be through natural processes that we are. We're not God endowed special creatures in that sense at all and as such philosophy can be misleading.

So, as I said, it depends upon the purpose.

Consider the following logically valid proposition:

If my car is black, then a cow can jump over the moon
-----
My car is black
-----
Therefore, a cow can jump over the moon.

The conclusion is LOGICALLY true, but any sane scientist would agree that it is not possible EMPIRICALLY, or at least not very PROBABLE.

:)
This deductive reasoning considers validity not necessarily truth. In logic argument forms tell you that if the first two premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Since we know that the first premise is untrue we never need to even bother worrying about the conclusion even if we spend all our time looking at all other following true premises. But if the first premise had been true and the following premises as well (of course relevant premises) then the conclusion would have to be true as well.... that is how deductive logic works.

As for religion and philosophy.... philosophy majors are convinced that each is a distinct discipline and they have books to promote their viewpoint (quite interesting to read); meanwhile, religion studies majors are convinced that philosophy explores a set of beliefs of how the world is organized which is considered by them as a religion (they also have books to promote their viewpoint which are also interesting reads). :)