Philosophy: What does it take?

[Steel Accord 6,658]

To be a philosopher has long been a worthy pursuit in my opinion. However I've long struggled on not only what the word "philosophy" actually entails, but what it takes to rightfully claim the title of even being a novice philosopher.

 

Apart from a degree or coursework in the subject, what does it truly mean to be a philosopher?

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

Well, a philosopher is literally someone who loves wisdom, in Greek. I would say a philosopher is someone who puts a concerted effort into discerning the way things are and the way they should be. One should carefully consider other points of view, and check their own points for logical consistency.

Edited March 30, 2014 by OmniaVincitEquorum

[SCS 7,443]

I, too, have an interest in philosophy. I don't consider myself a philosopher, because to me that term has a connotation of having an immense amount of both knowledge and wisdom, which I do not have. However, another way to look at the term philosopher is to interpret it as one who asks questions about life. In that respect, anyone who does so is a philosopher. Ultimately, I feel this involves the most truth as that is the crux of the matter after all: a passion to understand life and reality. Knowledge and wisdom can come as a result of that passion. 
 
Passion is one of the fundamental forces behind everything in life, and can be wielded for tremendous good or tremendous evil. Fundamentally, one who is passionate about understanding life is already a philosopher.

[Scootalove 10,684]

A philosopher is someone who has intelligence and wisdom, a person who is interested in learning about knowledge, reality, and existence, etc. A person who wishes to understand and learn about life itself, that is what it takes.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Well, a philosopher is literally someone who loves wisdom, in Greek. I would say a philosopher is someone who puts a concerted effort into discerning the way things are and the way they should be. One should carefully consider other points of view, and check their own points for logical consistency.

 

Oddly, I've done exactly that within the context of fictional belief systems rather than real ones. The most recent example being my pondering of the Jedi and Sith.

 

http://mlpforums.com/topic/91576-jedi-or-sith/

[Nine 707]

A philosopher is a person who solves problems you didn't know you had.

[Discordian 6,013]

However, another way to look at the term philosopher is to interpret it as one who asks questions about life. In that respect, anyone who does so is a philosopher.

I ask questions about a great many things. Life, morality, social systems and reactions, even logic itself. Most people would just call me a nut who isn't willing to accept that the universe has set laws of physics and logic that make the universe what it is.

 

I'm the guy who questions the very standard most professional philosophy is built on: Logic. While logic helps things make sense I often question whether or not logic is the only go-to standard. Like...things that sound utterly crazy and totally illogical are often panned because they don't follow that standard. Those are the things I am most interested in because logic to me seems like a limiter to the way we think.

 

Granted that more often than not thinking outside of the logic box serves no real purpose and will likely make no progress in the world of science and philosophy I find it a worthy pursuit simply for the sake of understanding what does and doesn't make logic itself...and the potential to understand more than logic than ever tell us.

[Stancet 674]

I consider myself a philosopher, though, hardly a serious one. I don't mean to make a living at it, but pondering the big questions is a passion of mine. If philosophy is really your dream I don't recommend approaching it any other way. 

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I consider myself a philosopher, though, hardly a serious one. I don't mean to make a living at it, but pondering the big questions is a passion of mine. If philosophy is really your dream I don't recommend approaching it any other way. 

 

Well it's less of a dream and more of a pursuit. A by-product of my passion.

 

Martial arts have long been a visited passion of mine, I wish I could focus more on, but life and especially school keeps me from. Philosophy and martial arts go strongly hand in hand. To separate one from the other lessens it's counterpart.

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian, 

 

I'd like an explanation (in broad strokes if that's all you can offer) of what it would look like to know something without a means (logic) to know anything at all, and how one would achieve that?

[Discordian 6,013]

@@Discordian, 

 

I'd like an explanation (in broad strokes if that's all you can offer) of what it would look like to know something without a means (logic) to know anything at all, and how one would achieve that?

I could be using the word logic wrong but it seems like a lot of things are critically panned simply because they aren't "logical".

 

Something like the idea that every video game we play, every TV show or movie that we watch and every picture we take is a window into another world and the catalyst is usually one's imagination.

 

People write this off as fiction and not a valid idea of multiple universes simply because it's not logical like the regular multiple universes theory about how every action we take has another action that wasn't taken that potentially created another version of our world.

 

Yet I cannot shake the idea that this is very much potentially true. I don't consider fiction as the make-believe people treat it as.

 

It's maybe not the best example I could come up with but an example nonetheless.

[PsychedelicPony 440]

A philosopher is a person who makes claims and refutes claims based on logic and evidence alone. In philosophy there is no wiggle room for faith, gut instinct, and the like. Your argument has to be clear, concise, and with logic.

[Zekromic 1,054]

To be a philosopher has long been a worthy pursuit in my opinion. However I've long struggled on not only what the word "philosophy" actually entails, but what it takes to rightfully claim the title of even being a novice philosopher.

 

Apart from a degree or coursework in the subject, what does it truly mean to be a philosopher?

Well, for me, this has worked so far, in this unkind world I'm currently living in

 

 

There is no book or teacher to give you the answers, to show you the way. Choose your own way! Do not follow me, or anyone else.

-Ezio Auditore da Firenze

[Something Floaty 1,333]

I've long struggled on not only what the word "philosophy" actually entails, but what it takes to rightfully claim the title of even being a novice philosopher.

 

I'd say you're already most of the way there!

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian, 

 

I'm pretty sure I get the idea. The reason it's panned though isn't because it's not logical per-se; science fiction can be logically consistent. The actual reason is because it's arbitrary - a thought or abstraction with no basis for belief.

 

That absence of evidence is used to make inductive assumptions about what we don't know, based on what we do. I think what you're interested in is the problem of induction.

[Discordian 6,013]

@@Discordian, 

 

I'm pretty sure I get the idea. The reason it's panned though isn't because it's not logical per-se; science fiction can be logically consistent. The actual reason is because it's arbitrary - a thought or abstraction with no basis for belief.

 

That absence of evidence is used to make inductive assumptions about what we don't know, based on what we do. I think what you're interested in is the problem of induction.

That does sound something similar to what I'm thinking. I really find it hard to believe that just because there's proof of existence or nonexistence of something that makes it utterly and absolutely untrue and not possible.

 

I stand by my belief that there is far too much we don't understand, and may never be able to understand, simply because there is a ceiling to what we can understand. That ceiling is more often than not what we can logically surmise with the data given.

 

Of course, as you said it may not be strictly logic that I question.

 

But whether something is arbitrary or unimportant doesn't affect my interest in such things. You don't have to make big waves to come to an understanding.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@@Discordian,

 

If it means anything, I consider the many-worlds theory to be completely valid. Call it a part of being a man of faith, but to me, "not knowable" doesn't mean "impossible." 

 

To think that a reality exists for every conceivable outcome and beyond, the possibility of it alone already makes existence that much more wondrous.

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian, 

 

If you drew one circle inside another with the smaller one being what we know, and the difference in area between the two being what we don't know, logic constrains us to the Flatlander's means of pushing the boundaries of the inner circle out from within. What you're proposing is a three dimensional way of stepping up and over that boundary. That's the best metaphor I can fit into two sentences but it can't be done, and if it could you'd find that means would be subsumed by logic regardless.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I'd say you're already most of the way there!

 

What makes you say that? Out of curiosity?

[Discordian 6,013]

@@Discordian,

 

If it means anything, I consider the many-worlds theory to be completely valid. Call it a part of being a man of faith, but to me, "not knowable" doesn't mean "impossible." 

 

To think that a reality exists for every conceivable outcome and beyond, the possibility of it alone already makes existence that much more wondrous.

There's also at least two multiple-world theories. One where it's simply small steps in differences between worlds and one that's more far-fetched like what I said.

 

Some people hold to the idea that in the former version laws of physics cannot be broken under any circumstances. I don't think that's entirely true.

 

 

@@Discordian, 

 

If you drew one circle inside another with the smaller one being what we know, and the difference in area between the two being what we don't know, logic constrains us to the Flatlander's means of pushing the boundaries of the inner circle out from within. What you're proposing is a three dimensional way of stepping up and over that boundary. That's the best metaphor I can fit into two sentences but it can't be done, and if it could you'd find that means would be subsumed by logic regardless.

So what you're saying is that logic isn't uniform and much like science can change if the rules themselves are redefined?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I think that literally anything is possible though. We simply don't have the means or even necessarily the brain power to do or understand how to do such a thing. The closest we have is imagination but we don't have the ability to bring imagination into the real world through anything but communication.

 

And this is why I'm often considered a nut. Whereas most people who say "there is no such thing as impossible" usually still have an idea of what is and isn't possible I defy the very idea of impossibility, or at least the way it's currently defined.

 

I'll reiterate what I said in another philosophy topic:

 

Don't mind me, I'm just a madman.

 

I also understand that such things won't ultimately do anything significant for myself or the world of philosophy but I do it anyway. Because I can. There is no better reasoning than "because I can" in my world.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Discordian

[TheChosenPony 279]

It takes a calm and open mind, a steady heart, and boundless imagination

[Steel Accord 6,658]

A philosopher is a person who makes claims and refutes claims based on logic and evidence alone. In philosophy there is no wiggle room for faith, gut instinct, and the like. Your argument has to be clear, concise, and with logic.

 

Could one's theories involve them as factors? Not as claims to validity but pieces of the overall theory?

 

For example, would it be philosophical to logically theorize if faith itself was an intrinsic expression of the human condition?

Well, for me, this has worked so far, in this unkind world I'm currently living in

-Ezio Auditore da Firenze

 

Perhaps, but isn't heeding Ezio's words alone, adopting the wisdom of a teacher?

 

Ezio obtained the title of "mentor" after all and even said he was "a teacher, of a kind."

 

He later explains to Sofia the philosophy of the Brothehood's Creed. In summation, that humans have a right to choose their own outlooks and that very freedom of thought and action should be embraced and celebrated. A very deontological standpoint.

 

In contrast, the Templars believe humans to naturally be "weak, base, and petty" and true or not, take steps to curb people's ability to think and act on their own volition based on that outlook. The Order holds that any foul deeds committed in the pursuit to control the dangers of Free Will are excusable by the achieved ends. Which is a directly opposed teleological stance to the Assassins.

 

So what can we gather from this? Is the Assassin's Creed a sort of "meta-philosophy?"

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Nine 707]

 

 

So what you're saying is that logic isn't uniform and much like science can change if the rules themselves are redefined?

 

I'm saying that skepticism is healthy to the degree that a person is willing to challenge old information with new information, both in terms of facts themselves and how we validate something as knowledge, but unhealthy at the point where a person's concern with what we don't know leads them to reject the things we do.

 

I'm confident in the knowledge I have, derived logically. I say confidence, some people call it faith, you could even call induction a sort of statistical analysis? But whatever you call it, the only way to "get around" in this world, in this lifetime, is to trust what we know, even if we just think we know it, because there are no practical alternatives.

 

My first post in the thread was a half-joke about philosophers solving problems we don't know we have. I think the better ones keep their focus on the practical use of knowledge to advance our personal and social goals, and the lesser ones .. well they seem a lot more interested in the IMpractical alternatives.

[PsychedelicPony 440]

Could one's theories involve them as factors? Not as claims to validity but pieces of the overall theory?

 

For example, would it be philosophical to logically theorize if faith itself was an intrinsic expression of the human condition?

 

 

 

That is heavily debated philosophical question whether or not faith is innate to human nature, I was more saying that faith has no weight when it comes to certain arguments like does God exist?, do we have free will?, and is there something after death?.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

There's also at least two multiple-world theories. One where it's simply small steps in differences between worlds and one that's more far-fetched like what I said. Some people hold to the idea that in the former version laws of physics cannot be broken under any circumstances. I don't think that's entirely true.

 

Well they are unbreakable as far as we are concerned. Perhaps if we breach some kind of High-end Toposophical Singularity, we may be able to reach other realities, where the laws of physics are either different from ours, or otherwise mutable. 

That is heavily debated philosophical question whether or not faith is innate to human nature, I was more saying that faith has no weight when it comes to certain arguments like does God exist?, do we have free will?, and is there something after death?.

 

Oh I see.

 

No I understand that point. I do believe in God, but trying to prove He/It exists simply based on "I just feel it" is nothing but baseless conjecture; and is no more intellectually valuable than trying to claim there's a "missing" digit in between 0-9 simply because the novelty of the idea is subjectively interesting. 

I'm saying that skepticism is healthy to the degree that a person is willing to challenge old information with new information, both in terms of facts themselves and how we validate something as knowledge, but unhealthy at the point where a person's concern with what we don't know leads them to reject the things we do.

 

I'm confident in the knowledge I have, derived logically. I say confidence, some people call it faith, you could even call induction a sort of statistical analysis? But whatever you call it, the only way to "get around" in this world, in this lifetime, is to trust what we know, even if we just think we know it, because there are no practical alternatives.

 

My first post in the thread was a half-joke about philosophers solving problems we don't know we have. I think the better ones keep their focus on the practical use of knowledge to advance our personal and social goals, and the lesser ones .. well they seem a lot more interested in the IMpractical alternatives.

 

Perhaps, but asking questions and trying to get answers about the very nature of knowledge, sounds like a good time to me even if it's not strictly "practical." I do think those kinds of philosophers should "work up" to that level though.

 

Asking "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" should really follow more immediate or "present" issues such as modern systems of morality.