First, you say this;
JackHamiltonJames wrote:Philosophy is the exploration of any school of thought.
I say that philosophy can be the exploration, via critical thought, of anything (there need be no "school of thought" limitations).
But that's not my point, as your statement above says that philosophy is 'this and that' and yet your very next sentence decries what you have just written;
As soon as you say it is this or it is that then you have developed a philosophy, but no longer have the mind set of a philosopher which is continously open.
Defining something is not ordinarily a 'philosophy'.
Philosophers don't (shouldn't?) have "set
minds", which are contrary to being "continually open"/flexible.
According to your first two statements, you "no longer have the mind set of a philosopher which is continously open".
Of course it is then reasonable to say what i have sais must not be of philosophical mind, but a philosophy about philosophy, and you would be right. The point is that this thread demonstrates the difference between those who only 'suppose this is true, then this and this' which is a philosopher and those who say 'this is so because of this' who have made a philosophy and entered an absolute. If you are of this kind then religion or science forum may be of more appeal to you.
Are you speaking to me?!?
You couldn't be speaking to me!
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but science is a part of philosophy. One can support a philosophical statement with logic and science and mathematics or whatever branch is appropriate. A religious forum is something different, again, as there are 'beliefs' in predominance, uncritical thought, rather than 'critical thought' (philosophy).
Without stating it i believe this the point wootah was making to begin with.
He(?) is on my 'ignore' list, and I'm uninterested in anything that he might have to say, so there is no need to 'translate'.
Philosophy is more than ideas and words, unless you believe otherwise and if you do you have a philosophy but not at perhaps that moment the conscious of a philosopher, if you are to be so certain, as to be absolute.
I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense.
words and ideas/thoughts. Just what more than that do you think it is?? A paid position of petrification in the hallowed halls of academe?
Philosophy seems to be critical thought..
It doesn't even need words, it is a way of thinking. More than thought? Present your evidence/argument.
It'll have to be better then 'this' embarassing version of "If you don't believe what I say, you should/will go to Hell!"
And if I ever present something as an 'absolute/Universal' feel free to question and examine and refute, but whining that something presented as an absolute (whatever you might be referring to I know not, as you neglect to specify with your vague remarks) is an error that is less than philosophy, is simply nonsense and an ad-hominem fallacy.