What do you exactly call philosophy?

[BlueChicken]

Originally Posted by BMW

What is the argument you obtain normally when you ask someone why isn't he or she interested in philosophy? In my case, I've been answered most times that it is useless.

I usually try to dismiss this argument by pointing out the other things that the questioner is not interested in. Philosopher is not unlike everything else in that it does not have a universal appeal to everyone: thinking critically AND abstractly is not an easy nor enjoyable enterprise for most people, even those who have one mode of thought or the other.

When people say that it is useless, I usually like to inquire of them something that is useful by comparison (Engineering and Medicine are the two that come up for me). When they offer their idea for what a 'useful' interest is, I like to outline that the basis of this interest often rests on philosophical notions and the various ways that philosophy intersects with these interests (which is enjoyable for me given my background in Evolutionary Philosophy and Biomedical Ethics for those who claim medicine). Khethil hits the nail on the head here: most people think of philosophers as a sort of Hegel-figure, ignoring the world around them to dream of lofty philosophical systems both intersecting but detached from the real world. The goal is to simply show them how prevalent philosophy actually is, and the uses it has globally to all fields and interests.

Would any kind of philosophy be of any use to someone who is completely satisfied about his way of living?

The very notions of philosophy are useful in the Socratic sense. It has been my experience (call me a pessemist) that those who are "completely satisfied" about their way of living are blinding themselves to their own reality. They need a gadfly to disturb their peace: while ignorance is blissful, it is often also harmful.

For 'specific' kinds of philosophy, I would have to say something along the lines of a critical theory perspective would be the most useful: allowing this person to see how they construct their happiness based on a set of ideological assumptions they have met, rather than attained any Romantic notion of happiness. Just because someone is satisfied, it doesn't mean they have found their peace.

I guess philosophy (not history of philosophy) is sort of patrimony of the unsatisfied.

I wouldn't go this far, as attempts have been made by scholars to suggest that philosophy is as much a way to legitimate what people already believe, sort of a backtracking. My interest in deontology lead me to an article (years ago, unfortunatly) which sought to suggest that the Categorical Imperative was Kant's attempt to normalize his Lutheran ethical views as a universal system, rather than being the result of his epistemology and metaphysics. Although I don't agree, I think the article opened my eyes to how much philosophers attempt to justify their own conceptions of the world, rather than figure out the world through philosophy and then develop their opinions based on that.

So I'll asume most people here thinks there must be something else/better... No matter wether he is religious or atheist or agnostic or...

I am religious, let me just state that.

That said, I don't know if I would be willing to say there is something 'better' that I am striving for. I have long given up on 'answers' coming out of philosophy, and the questions are often more unsettling rather than an improvement. Philosophy is an impossible quest, we seek answers which really aren't there: philosophy has never been a route to what is better but simply a means to understand what is already presented to us. Rather than try to improve the world, our goal is simply to understand our position in it; although philosophers often attempt to do both, often the first is considered more effective than the second.

What are you looking for?

I will let you know when I have found it, which I doubt will ever happen. One doesn't ask questions always expecting an answer, often simply asking the question is sufficient. My goals are never the end of thinking, but simply to understand the limits that it can offer and how they apply to me. The downside to philosophy is you either apply it to everyone and get it wrong, or apply it to yourself and make it meaningless for everyone else; I take the latter and simply enjoy the ride rather than the destination.

And, why are you looking for it? Do you think there is some universal reason to take interest in philosophy?

These questions are one in the same. I think the ability to do philosophy (whether it is inborn or can be trained) in itself moves one to study philosophy. Regardless of the divisions between philosophers there is always a sort of commonality, which is that drive that encourages us to discover philosophy. Under the many guises of 'truth', 'meaning', 'right-ness' or what-have-you, the need to cure the itch seems to be the only thing going: you think long enough that you want to express it to the world, and saying you figured it out seems like the best way to go about it.

Do you think mankind will evolve towards a philosophical way of understanding?

No. But then again I am a Calvanist who reads Schopenhauer for fun, so my opinions on humanity is slightly more cynical than most.

After seeing what farmers do to eggs my doubts on the majority of humanity are fairly certain. There are only a few good birds out there, and they seem to wander into the wrong pens and get quickly eaten.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by BMW

I started a thread more or less like this one some time ago.

What is the argument you obtain normally when you ask someone why isn't he or she (*) interested in philosophy? In my case, I've been answered most times that it is useless.

I am wondering why you should even think that anyone should defend why he is not interested in some subject. I am not interested in rock music, or sculpture, or architecture. Don't know what argument I should give, nor do I understand why anyone should think I have such an argument. Are you interested in everything?
span.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I am wondering why you should even think that anyone should defend why he is not interested in some subject. I am not interested in rock music, or sculpture, or architecture. Don't know what argument I should give, nor do I understand why anyone should think I have such an argument. Are you interested in everything?

I've come to think most people identify philosophy with history of philosophy.

There are some people who won't bother to question wether they are doing their best with their life or not, but everyone, indefectively, thinks s/he (thanks, Rose) is.

I think it is impossible for anything alive not to choose the best possible action within its (or his or her ) reach.

So possibly someone who declares him(/her)self not interested in philosophy:
- Does not define philosophy as the set of any rational being's attempts to achieve the optimal behaviour, but as the set of books written on the subject by famous philosophers
or
- Is completely satisfied with his ([1]) own behaviour
or
- Is mistaken.

Are there more possibilities?

Finally: I'm not interested in everything. I can think of lots of things I'm not interested in. But I've been testing myself and I can find a cause for my lack of interest on most things. Moreover, it tends to be always one of the same two causes. It's been a very good question, hadn't thought of it. It is much easier to explain an interest, isn't it?

How do you define philosophy?

---
[1] I'm beginning to hate political correctness.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by BMW

I've come to think most people identify philosophy with history of philosophy.

There are some people who won't bother to question wether they are doing their best with their life or not, but everyone, indefectively, thinks s/he (thanks, Rose) is.

I think it is impossible for anything alive not to choose the best possible action within its (or his or her ) reach.

So possibly someone who declares him(/her)self not interested in philosophy:
- Does not define philosophy as the set of any rational being's attempts to achieve the optimal behaviour, but as the set of books written on the subject by famous philosophers
or
- Is completely satisfied with his ([1]) own behaviour
or
- Is mistaken.

Are there more possibilities?

Finally: I'm not interested in everything. I can think of lots of things I'm not interested in. But I've been testing myself and I can find a cause for my lack of interest on most things. Moreover, it tends to be always one of the same two causes. It's been a very good question, hadn't thought of it. It is much easier to explain an interest, isn't it?

How do you define philosophy?

---
[1] I'm beginning to hate political correctness.

Sure there is another possibility. He's just not interested. He has other things on his mind, etc. You seem to think that the question, "Why doesn't philosophy interest you?" is a request that you give a reason it doesn't in the sense of a justification for you uninterest. But it need not be a request for a justification, but only a request for a cause of your uninterest. And there is an important difference between a justification and cause. I think too that you have an exalted idea of what philosophy is , and what philosophy can do. It isn't a kind of therapy, or a key that unlocks mysteries. It is a study of some (what I find) very interesting (and maybe important) problems. One thing to remember (I think) is that the problem, "what is philosophy" is, itself, a philosophical problem. This is unique, since the problem of "what is physics" is not a problem in physics, or "what is history" is not an historical problem. There have been some philosophers who have thought that the key problem of philosophy is, what it is and how the problems of philosophy arise, and they have thought that if that problem could be solved, all the other problems of philosophy would fall into place.

[the wise one]

philosophy is the expression of human mind it is few people that can philophize a lot of people believe more in religion than philosophy many people that i have met do not reason like a philosophier philosophy is strange to many people religion is the opium of the masses

it is only those who are inteligent that can philosophize any person that philosophize is not human he can be clasfied to the status of an inteligent human but any person that do not philosophize is within the animal bracket

[nameless]

Originally Posted by BMW

What is the argument you obtain normally when you ask someone why isn't he or she (*) interested in philosophy?

I'd never ask someone 'why' they are not other than they are. Seems pointless as we cannot ever be other than as we are.
Philosophy is, as I see it 'critical thought'.

In my case, I've been answered most times that it is useless.

Various people have various capability for critical thought. Many have only a mediocre ability, and hence, no ability to philosophise.
No 'why', just is.

Would any kind of philosophy be of any use to someone who is completely satisfied about his way of living?

Ignorance is truly bliss!

(**) I mean: Is there any kind of pattern in the events that lead someone to take interest in philosophy?

No.
'Causality' is refuted and obsolete.
Some are able to think critically, at times, others are not. Some take interest, some do not...

[BMW]

Originally Posted by nameless

I'd never ask someone 'why' they are not other than they are. Seems pointless as we cannot ever be other than as we are.

Wow. That must be quite depressing.

Originally Posted by nameless

Philosophy is, as I see it 'critical thought'.

Is it the same to you to be able to see incoherence in any kind of system (natural or artificial)? I guess everybody thinks critically in the system they live in. At least everybody that succeeds to remain alive.

Originally Posted by nameless

Various people have various capability for critical thought. Many have only a mediocre ability, and hence, no ability to philosophise.
No 'why', just is.

So you think work and practice do nothing to some kind of abilities.

Moreover, you think significance of at least some category of objects and/or strategies is something that comes with DNA or something like that...

Don't you think objects become significant when they are related to an emotion? How do you think we filter (or categorize) the information we remember and use from the loads we get every instant?

Originally Posted by nameless

No.
'Causality' is refuted and obsolete.
Some are able to think critically, at times, others are not. Some take interest, some do not...

All that sounds a bit too cryptic to me. When did causality become obsolete? Why? What has replaced it?

[Imnotrussian]

Philosophy is a question that cannot be answered. once it has been answered it becomes science.

[Joe]

I call it a system like other systems. Nothing special without human participation.

[Imnotrussian]

Originally Posted by Joe

I call it a system like other systems. Nothing special without human participation.

A system like other systems, collapses with human intervention, lets face it, philosophy is the oldest proffession purely because as long as human curiosity exists we will have philosophers