How to write Philosophy

[Victor Eremita]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

I agree, there is a somewhat visable distinction between academic and philosophy in general. But that division is evident now because past standards of writing were different than today’s standards of writing. Descartes and his ilk had to write in a particular way to confront scholastics, etc. Today, philosophers have to confront one of the most difficult opponents to argue with… science. Science has a set methodology and in order to relate, philosophy adapts to that methodology. That is perhaps why logic and formal structure are so heavily emphasized in universities today.

Since when did philosophy become subservient to science? Wasn't it Heidegger that said 'science is the handmaiden of philosophy'. And wasn't it Aquinas before him that said 'theology is the handmaiden of philosophy'. What happened to this once great discipline called philosophy, where we play 2nd fiddle to religious fundamentalists and the scientists

[Fido]

Vid; Consider that when you concieve of reality, you are abstracting it into another form, and that in doing so, the measure of the value of your abstraction; how well it reveals reality, is truth. The step from nothing to everything in philosophy is covered in the same three steps of all knowledge. Only the human element remains, which is the driving force, and the will behind it, the wanting to know, as the primary truth, if we are real, and is life real. Sure you want to organize your thoughts, but some paths cannot be rectified, and people see their goals, but in seeing them are blind to all the twists and turns and pitfalls that await them. And getting there is half the fun, and it makes the goal a real pleasure to achieve.

When you write philosophy, you are telling your truth, your story, your method. The best you can give is an example, because everyone has to find truth on their own journey, and write their own story. But, I wish you would look at my suggestions, and consider them. It would save you a lot of confusion since it is quite common to see people abstract reality and then abstract it again in hopes of making better sense of it only to reap greater confusion. What is the relationship of your conceptions of reality to reality. If they are theories, are they not in appearance true?

[VideCorSpoon]

Victor,

Philosophy became subservient to science the way philosophy became subservient to theism, etc, etc, etc. We are talking in terms of trends. Philosophy is divided many times over into respective schools and thoughts (i.e. stoicism, existentialism, etc.) I think you get at that in post #11. The science I refer to is the type of modern science that we do in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Now I can see how that looks problematic. I could read that and determine that “philosophy is modern science and has always been modern science.” But keep in mind that science (in general) is probably the best term to describe philosophy because it is a collective study of abstract notions. But I also liken the word “science” to “art.” Not in the laymen sense, but in the skill set sense. Science never had an indefinite stranglehold over philosophy, but it happens to be the trend right now. These trends become a lot more evident as time goes on and we can look back and say, “The turn of the second millennium was dominated by the philosophy of science the way theism dominated philosophy a few hundred years prior”

When Descartes kicked off the rationalist buzz, followed by Spinoza and Leibniz, they started a trend called rationalism. Around that same time and a little later, Hume, Berkeley, and Locke kicked off empiricism. It was a drastic change from the scholastics before them, who said the same thing, “since when did philosophy become subservient to science.” The face of philosophy is constantly changing… none of us can dispute that. So the way we write and convey philosophy is changing as well incorporating technology and methods along with it... look at John Searle’s “the myth of the computer” or Hilary Putnam’s “brain in a vat” contrasted with Descartes “meditations.” So you are right to wonder on the different perspectives of philosophy (i.e. Heidegger, Aquinas) That is also why Saint Thomas Aquinas said (translated by Sir Francis Bacon) that “man doth like an ape that the higher he climbed, the more he showed of his bottom.”

Was there ever a great discipline known as philosophy? Sure. But it is constantly changing. Moreover, philosophy is (to my mind) less about oratory and semantics and more about critical problem solving. . Academic philosophy imparts this notion to its students through formality and knowledge of the different schools of thought.

Fido,

For the most part irrelevant. Yes there is a drive for knowledge, sure we can discern phenomenological thingy’s, granted that we can see a relativistic sense of perspective, etc, etc, etc.

[VideCorSpoon]

Originally Posted by Fido

When you write philosophy, you are telling your truth, your story, your method. The best you can give is an example, because everyone has to find truth on their own journey, and write their own story. But, I wish you would look at my suggestions, and consider them. It would save you a lot of confusion since it is quite common to see people abstract reality and then abstract it again in hopes of making better sense of it only to reap greater confusion. What is the relationship of your conceptions of reality to reality. If they are theories, are they not in appearance true?

Fido,

It’s not that I don’t take a look at your suggestions, in fact I have to spend a good deal of time deciphering them. But your type of philosophy is poetics. And it is irrevocably axiomatic. Aristotle ran into this very problem when he was conveying his own thoughts on ontology. Hesoid, a very great poet of his time, conveyed the phenomenological theories of cosmogony in what was at the time the best means of explaining various phenomena. His work was well known and somewhat valuable. But Aristotle points out in the first page of the metaphysics that Hesoid’s methodology was useful mostly because of the fact that it showed that he thought outside the box, and “sought knowledge for its own gain and not for any others.” But more was required if we were to get any real answers. Forgive me, but your means of conveyance reminds me of Hesoid… not Aristotle. That is certainly not a bad thing. I have not yet encountered a commentator on this forum with such a good grasp of oratoric revolution as you have displayed. Your thoughts are not discounted, but somewhat random.

[Heratical]

Thanks for this fascinating thread Videcorspoon. Perhaps the domination by science and the rationalist paradigm is limiting philosophy to only those insights which can be 'verified' or justified as true. But lived reality is embodied and rich and often irrational, even delightfully so. So the rules of good philsophical writing can just reinforce a way of seeing and its limitations. There was another thread started by Plato which is dramatic and dialogical and character based and metaphorical. We have taken up only one of his invitations, the one to pursue truth. Couldn't we write character studies where opponents tease, challenge and affirm each other as full people just as those in Platonic dialogues did? Couldn't we spend more time chasing the great metaphor rather than the perfect truth tree? Story and symbol could be as much good philosophy as sound arguments. Couldn't they?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Heratical

Thanks for this fascinating thread Videcorspoon. Perhaps the domination by science and the rationalist paradigm is limiting philosophy to only those insights which can be 'verified' or justified as true. But lived reality is embodied and rich and often irrational, even delightfully so. So the rules of good philsophical writing can just reinforce a way of seeing and its limitations. There was another thread started by Plato which is dramatic and dialogical and character based and metaphorical. We have taken up only one of his invitations, the one to pursue truth. Couldn't we write character studies where opponents tease, challenge and affirm each other as full people just as those in Platonic dialogues did? Couldn't we spend more time chasing the great metaphor rather than the perfect truth tree? Story and symbol could be as much good philosophy as sound arguments. Couldn't they?

Truth is easy. Don't lie, or if inclined, shet yourself. What seems to be wanting is meaning. For physical reality, being is essential. Our world is rather populated with moral realities which cannot be except for their meaning. Our defined moral realities far surpass our supply of meaning. We have a moral meaning deficit. Write about that, and find the well from which meaning flows and you will sell more books than Nietzsche.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Fido,

It’s not that I don’t take a look at your suggestions, in fact I have to spend a good deal of time deciphering them. But your type of philosophy is poetics. And it is irrevocably axiomatic. Aristotle ran into this very problem when he was conveying his own thoughts on ontology. Hesoid, a very great poet of his time, conveyed the phenomenological theories of cosmogony in what was at the time the best means of explaining various phenomena. His work was well known and somewhat valuable. But Aristotle points out in the first page of the metaphysics that Hesoid’s methodology was useful mostly because of the fact that it showed that he thought outside the box, and “sought knowledge for its own gain and not for any others.” But more was required if we were to get any real answers. Forgive me, but your means of conveyance reminds me of Hesoid… not Aristotle. That is certainly not a bad thing. I have not yet encountered a commentator on this forum with such a good grasp of oratoric revolution as you have displayed. Your thoughts are not discounted, but somewhat random.

I don't think you get it. My philosophy is Ethics. Moral philosophy is my game. The problems which seem most intractible are the first to get my attention because their solution is our survival. There is nothing formal in my approach because I am practically minded, and the world offeres many examples of happy people and happy societies that may whither under the glare of capitalist work lights, so look fast.

I pursue truth so much as it has been proved by practice. I seek no ideal man, but an ideal understanding that sheds light on the practical man, or woman. You have to understand that people are not better because they know how to be, but in spite of their knowing how to be better. They do not know what is troubling them except in general terms; and most never have time in their lives or opportunity to capture the big picture with sweeping panoramas. We all suffer from narrowness of vision, and few can ever manage to free themselves from the cave of blindness. And having seen life from the mountaintop, no one can ever be certain that their vision is complete, and that blindness does not rule in some shadow in their soul; so doubt must be accepted as much as fact. There are no young philosophers, and age makes all willing minds philosophical.

[VideCorSpoon]

Fido,

"I have not yet encountered a commentator on this forum with such a good grasp of oratoric revolution as you have displayed. Your thoughts are not discounted, but somewhat random." (post #14)

[Holiday20310401]

Fido,

I don't really agree that "the measure of the value of your abstraction; how well it reveals reality, is truth".

Isn't actuality more so the truth and how our perception (reality) is its potential.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Fido,

I don't really agree that "the measure of the value of your abstraction; how well it reveals reality, is truth".

Isn't actuality more so the truth and how our perception (reality) is its potential.

If you see a bit of reality, a phenomen of sorts, perhaps a blue sky, a few birds, some high clouds; and you wish to capture that just so color of blue, so you mix up some paint just so, and you splash it on a convass just so it will reveal the subtle shift to bright as the sky begins to touch the sun, and then the paint dries off three shades light, and the effect is gone. The aquamarine, the turquois, the greens and the glistens of tiny motes dancing in sunlight are gone, washed out, faded. How can the painting as a conception, tell the truth it intended? Maybe the painting would stand for any blue sky on any clear day, if you did not know the conception behind the creation. Our concepts are true to reality, and it is there they serve us, because when we build we do not build from scratch, but from conceptions of nature. We wear coats in the winter because we can concieve of the animals pelt. We see the way water drips from one leaf to another, and sheds away from the tree base, and we concieve of shingles for a house. All of our knowledge is how we concieve of nature, and if it is true knowledge it is true in relation to nature. Do we make it true? No. We judge it true. Or false. If it is powerful, having potential, it is because it affects us as something good, or dangerous.