What is philosophy and what is its purpose?

[RCSaunders]

What other disciplines are and what their purpose is seems obvious enough, like, chemistry, biology, physics, or medicine, even history and geography. If people are going to engage in the same discipline, it seems there ought to be some agreement about what that discipline is.

So this survey is interested only in what one thinks philosophy is, or ought to be, and what its purpose is or ought to be. It is not asking how philosophy should be conducted or what anyone's idea of a right philosophy is, only what philosophy itself is and what it's purpose or objective is.

There are no wrong answers to this question. It is your opinion that is being asked for and no proof or argument is required, but feel free to provide an explanation for your view, if you choose.

Thanks for your answer!

[Eodnhoj7]

What other disciplines are and what their purpose is seems obvious enough, like, chemistry, biology, physics, or medicine, even history and geography. If people are going to engage in the same discipline, it seems there ought to be some agreement about what that discipline is.

So this survey is interested only in what one thinks philosophy is, or ought to be, and what its purpose is or ought to be. It is not asking how philosophy should be conducted or what anyone's idea of a right philosophy is, only what philosophy itself is and what it's purpose or objective is.

There are no wrong answers to this question. It is your opinion that is being asked for and no proof or argument is required, but feel free to provide an explanation for your view, if you choose.

Thanks for your answer!

All those disciplines are pure assumptions about the nature of reality based upon a localized variable. History studies one thing, chemistry another, etc. However if you look at any one of these sciences they are interwoven with the other.

Each science is strictly the localization of one facet of reality to a point of origin, then connecting it to other classifications as localization, until and interconnection self maintaining loop is made present.

Philosophy just gets to the point...pardon the pun, and as such forms the psyche in such a manner where it gives defintion to itself and the reality through which it exists. It is the recursion and isomorphism of patterns as knowledge through the nature of internal and external dialogue as a means of reflecting upon reality.

In simpler terms, it is reflection and a natural product of what all people do by nature. Reflecting upon oneself and the environment through which they exist is the foundation of reality. Would the world be a better place if we just reflected everyonce in a while? Would we need x,y,z objects, or have a,b,c problems, if we just gave mind to them?

It is natural and universal.

[uwot]

Philosophy is basically storytelling. It's about creating a context that makes the products of other disciplines, some of which you mention, manageable. Some people think the most important aspect of philosophy is logic and, yeah, an incoherent story is a bit crap, but it is demonstrably the case that the choices people make about the stories they believe are aesthetic, rather than logical. Essentially people pick a set of premises they happen to like and weave a narrative out of them.

[PeteJ]

Philosophy is basically storytelling. It's about creating a context that makes the products of other disciplines, some of which you mention, manageable. Some people think the most important aspect of philosophy is logic and, yeah, an incoherent story is a bit crap, but it is demonstrably the case that the choices people make about the stories they believe are aesthetic, rather than logical. Essentially people pick a set of premises they happen to like and weave a narrative out of them.

I'd say the purpose of philosophy is to stop people doing this.

[uwot]

I'd say the purpose of philosophy is to stop people doing this.

Nah, it's up to other disciplines to determine whether their premises are true. Philosophy can tell you whether an argument is valid, but despite what those shysters calling themselves 'analytic philosophers' claim, the only premises you can demonstrate are true analytically are, as Parmenides said, there is something, and as Descartes pointed out, there is thought. The rest ya just have to discover

[PeteJ]

I'd say the purpose of philosophy is to stop people doing this.

Nah, it's up to other disciplines to determine whether their premises are true. Philosophy can tell you whether an argument is valid, but despite what those shysters calling themselves 'analytic philosophers' claim, the only premises you can demonstrate are true analytically are, as Parmenides said, there is something, and as Descartes pointed out, there is thought. The rest ya just have to discover

This does not alter my point.

[uwot]

Here's how it works:
Could it be true that there is nothing?
Not if the question can be posed.
Could it be true that there is no thought?
Not if something is thinking it.
Could it be true that there is no god?
Yes.
Somethings you either believe, or you don't. String theory, cosmic inflation, alien abduction, Bigfoot, all sorts of flim flam that logic is powerless to prove one way or the other

[Age]

To me, philosophy just is what it once meant; love of wisdom, or love of becoming wiser. This is done through and with a love of learning.

Learning is best done, obviously, when Truly OPEN.

The purpose of continual evolution is so that a species of natural philosophers, like human beings have emerged into, that is; born Truly OPEN and with a love and desire of continually wanting to discover and learn more and anew, is so that eventually the purpose for ALL-OF-THIS will become discovered, and known.

Life continues evolving, and, ever so slowly, thy Self is being discovered, or unveiled.

To know thy Self is deep within, and becomes known through phil-o-sophy, and having the desire to become wiser.

Through evolution Life emerges as Its True Self.

Who that actually is becomes fully known when the Answer to 'Who am 'I'?' is fully understood. How this is achieved is through phil-o-sophy.

Phil-o-sophy is the love of becoming wiser. The purpose of having the love of becoming wiser is so that thee Truth of things will eventually be uncovered and revealed.

Always remaining Truly OPEN is the simplest, quickest, and easiest way to becoming wiser.

Assuming and/or believing that 'you' already know what the truth is, is NOT being Truly OPEN.

[Age]

Here's how it works:
Could it be true that there is nothing?
Not if the question can be posed.
Could it be true that there is no thought?
Not if something is thinking it.
Could it be true that there is no god?
Yes.
Somethings you either believe, or you don't. String theory, cosmic inflation, alien abduction, Bigfoot, all sorts of flim flam that logic is powerless to prove one way or the other

Logic could prove or disprove things. But believing, or disbelieving, some things does not allow logic to do its work.

[uwot]

Logic could prove or disprove things.

As I said, in two and a half thousand years, logic has proven just two fundamental premises. If you can come up with a third, you will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers. Best of luck.

But believing, or disbelieving, some things does not allow logic to do its work.

Well, ya can't do logic without premises. It's a matter of taste whether you choose to believe them.

[PeteJ]

As I said, in two and a half thousand years, logic has proven just two fundamental premises. If you can come up with a third, you will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers. Best of luck.

What do you mean by 'proven two fundamental premises' ? A proven premise is not a premise.

Which two premises are you thinking of?

[uwot]

What do you mean by 'proven two fundamental premises' ? A proven premise is not a premise.

Well, Kant said there are no analytic a posteriori truths. So you're in good company. But:

Which two premises are you thinking of?

As above:
1. There is something.
2. There is thought.

[Skepdick]

Here's how it works:
Could it be true that there is nothing?

What is the difference between nothing and something?

If you can't juxtapose them, it's a distinction without a difference. And a synonym is all that is required fo sophistry to take off.

This place, where we are - it could be 'nothing'. Something is elsewhere.

[Skepdick]

Kant said there are no analytic a posteriori truths.

And Quine said that analyticity is circular. So there are no synthetic a priori truths either.

Philosophy flight 101. Willing, but unable to take off. The Foundationalist dream is in ashes.

[uwot]

What is the difference between nothing and something?

Bleedin' obvious.