What is philosophy?

[Age]

If 'you' REALLY WANT TO KNOW what I was referring to, then just REMAIN OPEN and CURIOS and ask the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NEEDED.

I already did ask those questions. And your answer was vague and stupid... because you are full of crap... and everything you write reveals that.

And, there 'we' go AGAIN.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how just ONE ASSUMPTION, and A BELIEF, can COMPLETELY and UTTERLY PREVENT and STOP FULLY one from discovering, learning, and understanding MORE and/or ANEW.

[Age]

The FACT that words only have meaning, in context, was a given, which I thought would NOT need saying at all.

Then why say this to FlashDangerpants:

You copy-pasted from a dictionary for most of your definition Ken.

OF COURSE. WHERE do you get YOUR DEFINITIONS from, EXACTLY?

Do you just MAKE THEM UP?

So do words only have meaning in context? Or do we get their meaning from dictionaries?

Words only have meaning in context, and, their meaning is just MADE UP, by 'you', human beings.

You seem to have just MISSED MY POINT, once more.

Time for a clarifying question then. What is your point?

Words, and their definition/s, do NOT necessarily mean EXACTLY some 'thing', AT ALL. By themselves, words and definitions do NOT mean ANY thing AT ALL.

EACH and EVERY word, and EACH and EVERY one of their definition/s, only means whatever 'meaning' 'you', human beings, put in them, or put behind them.

For example, the definition, or meaning, of the word 'hypothesis' 'you' and 'I' might AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, here and now, at this moment, is just what 'we' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, but this definition or meaning that 'you' and 'I' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT is NOT EXACTLY what 'it' means, as though that definition/meaning is 'universal', as 'you' proposed 'it' was by your words above.

Do you now understand my point?

[FlashDangerpants]

WHAT?

That is NOT EXACTLY what a 'hypothesis' is. That is what a 'hypothesis' is, to me

You copy-pasted from a dictionary for most of your definition Ken.

OF COURSE. WHERE do you get YOUR DEFINITIONS from, EXACTLY?

Do you just MAKE THEM UP?

So "what a 'hypothesis' is, to me" means the same as "what the dictionary tells me 'hypothesis' is" and the same as "That is what a 'hypothesis' is, to everyone who can read a dictionary"

[Age]

You copy-pasted from a dictionary for most of your definition Ken.

OF COURSE. WHERE do you get YOUR DEFINITIONS from, EXACTLY?

Do you just MAKE THEM UP?

So "what a 'hypothesis' is, to me" means the same as "what the dictionary tells me 'hypothesis' is" and the same as "That is what a 'hypothesis' is, to everyone who can read a dictionary"

But WHICH dictionary are you referring to?

Because, OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's a good job "what is philosophy" is such a boring question. Otherwise the idea of hijacking it just to discuss dictionaries with the least charismatic man ever to walk the Earth would be even more horrifying.

[Age]

It's a good job "what is philosophy" is such a boring question. Otherwise the idea of hijacking it just to discuss dictionaries with the least charismatic man ever to walk the Earth would be even more horrifying.

And yet here 'you' are discussing this very thing, with 'me', the LEAST charismatic thing ever to walk the earth.

LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING the evolving definition and meaning of the word 'philosophy', from what that word once meant, to where SOME people SEE 'it' now, can be very interesting to OBSERVE and become aware of.

Observing and noticing this CHANGE helps in EXPLAINING WHY 'you', adult human beings, RARELY find AGREEMENT, and so just end up MOSTLY BICKERING or DISAGREEING with each other on the MOST boring and trivial of things.

[Age]

What 'philosophy' can be IS whatever ANY one WANTS 'it' to be.

However, NO one can refute that the word 'philosophy', once meant or referred to, the LOVE-OF-WISDOM. Which seems to be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY LOST to, and FORGOTTEN by, a LOT of people, in the days when this was written. Even within a 'philosophy forum', itself, people are MISGUIDED and have LOST this LOVE.

Now that that has been RESOLVED, ONCE and for ALL, 'we' can now MOVE ALONG.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's always been a fairly reliable rule of thumb that anybody who even mentions "wisdom" in this context has no idea at all about what philosophy is.

Following their simplistic etymological principle, plumbers must be leadsmiths.

[Age]

It's always been a fairly reliable rule of thumb that anybody who even mentions "wisdom" in this context has no idea at all about what philosophy is.

REALLY?

And this coming from the one who NEVER provided a HINT of what they envision 'what 'philosophy' is'.

Is there some thing you are HIDING "flashdangerpants", like your COMPLETE and UTTER INABILITIES here, or are you just TO SCARED to provide YOUR VIEW on 'what 'philosophy' is', here, to 'you'?

In case you get "SHOT DOWN", as some say?

You appear to LOVE sharing YOUR VIEWS on ANY thing that leads to the ATTEMPTED RIDICULE of "others", but when it comes to PROVIDING YOUR VIEWS on ANY thing of substance, or on ANY thing substantial, in a philosophy forum, then 'you' ARE VERY QUITE, INDEED.

Let 'us' SEE if 'you' can ACTUALLY STAND UP for "yourself", and SAY 'what 'philosophy' is', to 'you'.

Here 'I' will give 'you' a helping hand, as 'you' appear to REALLY NEED one. Start off by saying and writing;

Philosophy is ... [and then finish that sentence]. SHOW 'us' what 'you' ACTUALLY HAVE "flashdangerpants".

Following their simplistic etymological principle, plumbers must be leadsmiths.

And, following your simple "logic", ABSOLUTELY ANY one who uses the 'wisdom' word, in the context of what the word 'philosophy' IS, has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL 'what 'philosophy' ACTUALLY IS'. YET, 'you', "flashdangerpants", will NOT mention ABSOLUTELY ANY thing about 'what 'philosophy' even could be', and this is BECAUSE 'you' will NOT, correct?

[FlashDangerpants]

It's always been a fairly reliable rule of thumb that anybody who even mentions "wisdom" in this context has no idea at all about what philosophy is.

REALLY?

And this coming from the one who NEVER provided a HINT of what they envision 'what 'philosophy' is'.

Oh my, you seem to have made a rash and hasty ASSUMPTION... I've given my answer to the question this thread poses in other threads posing the exact same question.

Here's an example from three years ago

Philosophy asks the questions that science cannot and they will not always have easy answers to them

And just what are these questions that science cannot ask?

The way Isiah Berlin describes philosophy works for me.

In brief he says that philosophy asks questions where we aren't entirely sure yet how to verify, or in some circumstances even recognise a correct answer. Once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question though, that question is no longer philosophical, it becomes a question for science, or economics, or history or something. Whether you see that as promotion or demotion is a matter of perspective.

So an example would be all the time that Aristotle and friends spent arguing about what the universe is made out of. You might say the atomists won that one, but really it would be more accurate to say that a philosopher (Bacon I suppose) came up with a whole new way of looking at such questions, which then became a matter for scientists like Galileo.

So add a "yet" on the end of "Philosophy asks the questions that science cannot" and you sort of have a decent start I think. The only real error is that so many people here seem to be linking philosophy only to science. There are plenty of philosophical question that are not, and could never be scientific, such as "what makes killing people wrong?".

[uwot]

Words only have meaning in context, and, their meaning is just MADE UP, by 'you', human beings.

Since the meaning of words is just made up by 'us' human beings, why don't you listen to what we human beings tell you we mean? This has been an issue for some time:

Have you NOT noticed the lack of intellect I have in knowing the definitions of terms and words used?

Now that you have discovered dictionaries, perhaps you could consult one to discover the broad meaning of 'evidence'. We might still disagree about nuance, but at least we'll be on the same page.

EACH and EVERY word, and EACH and EVERY one of their definition/s, only means whatever 'meaning' 'you', human beings, put in them, or put behind them.

For example, the definition, or meaning, of the word 'hypothesis' 'you' and 'I' might AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, here and now, at this moment, is just what 'we' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, but this definition or meaning that 'you' and 'I' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT is NOT EXACTLY what 'it' means, as though that definition/meaning is 'universal', as 'you' proposed 'it' was by your words above.

Do you now understand my point?

If I thought you had the wit, I would think you were gas lighting. Age, I have made it clear many times that I think language is contextual, and now you ask me if I understand a point that can be traced at least to Wittgenstein.

[Age]

It's always been a fairly reliable rule of thumb that anybody who even mentions "wisdom" in this context has no idea at all about what philosophy is.

REALLY?

And this coming from the one who NEVER provided a HINT of what they envision 'what 'philosophy' is'.

Oh my, you seem to have made a rash and hasty ASSUMPTION... I've given my answer to the question this thread poses in other threads posing the exact same question.

Why did you NOT do it in this thread?

Here's an example from three years ago

And just what are these questions that science cannot ask?

The way Isiah Berlin describes philosophy works for me.

In brief he says that philosophy asks questions where we aren't entirely sure yet how to verify, or in some circumstances even recognise a correct answer.

How could a 'thing', besides a human being, "ask questions"?

So, to 'you', the way 'what philosophy is', which works for you is; the behavior of ONLY when you are asking those questions, which you are not entirely sure yet how to verify.

When 'what' you are not yet entirely sure how to verify? If you or that person are talking about the 'answer' to some question, then I suggest you say so.

Also, if you are not yet entirely sure how to recognize a correct answer, in SOME circumstances, then when in WHICH circumstances does this asking questions of which you are not yet entirely sure how to verify the answer to or do not yet even know how to even recognize a correct answer to are a part of 'what philosophy is', and 'what philosophy is not'?

Once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question though, that question is no longer philosophical, it becomes a question for science, or economics, or history or something.

WHY EXACTLY do you BELIEVE this is SO?

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW HOW to arrive at CORRECT ANSWERS for ALL QUESTIONS, then you REALLY have some MORE DISCOVERING and LEARNING ahead of you.

Whether you see that as promotion or demotion is a matter of perspective.

EVERY way you SEE ANY thing is a matter of perspective, OBVIOUSLY.

'Absolutely EVERY thing being relative to the observer' supports this FACT.

So an example would be all the time that Aristotle and friends spent arguing about what the universe is made out of. You might say the atomists won that one, but really it would be more accurate to say that a philosopher (Bacon I suppose) came up with a whole new way of looking at such questions, which then became a matter for scientists like Galileo.

Talk about going OFF TANGENT and being Truly NOT COGENT AT ALL.

So add a "yet" on the end of "Philosophy asks the questions that science cannot" and you sort of have a decent start I think.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"science" NOR "philosophy" are 'things' that could even ASK QUESTIONS, to begin with.

The only real error is that so many people here seem to be linking philosophy only to science. There are plenty of philosophical question that are not, and could never be scientific, such as "what makes killing people wrong?".

Well that is probably the WEAKEST explanation for 'what philosophy is' that I have been a WITNESS TO.

By the way, were they the EXACT WORDS that that person used?

[Age]

Words only have meaning in context, and, their meaning is just MADE UP, by 'you', human beings.

Since the meaning of words is just made up by 'us' human beings, why don't you listen to what we human beings tell you we mean?

LOL It is 'you', human beings, in the days when this was written who STILL BELIEVED in things, which ARE and WERE OBVIOUSLY NOT True, NOT Right, and NOT even CORRECT, YET you were STILL MAINTAINING that they were True, Right, and/or Correct, and as such NOT OPEN to ANY thing otherwise. So, WHY would I even start to begin to listen to OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect information?

Remember that it is 'you', people, in those days who were STILL KILLING EACH OTHER just because of YOUR LOVE OF MONEY, one of the MOST UNNEEDED things in Life, and, STILL KILLING EACH OTHER just because the "other" BELIEVES (in) some 'thing' DIFFERENT than "another" does.

Who do 'you', people, think you are, that you SHOULD EVEN BE LISTENED TO AT ALL?

The ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE, AND ATTITUDE of 'you', human beings, is, literally, ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE.

Also, BECAUSE you appear to be COMPLETELY IGNORANT of this FACT, I can NOT LISTEN to you in regards to what 'you mean' if you do NOT ANSWER MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS and TELL ME what 'you mean', OBVIOUSLY.

This has been an issue for some time:

Have you NOT noticed the lack of intellect I have in knowing the definitions of terms and words used?

And this issue STILL REMAINS.

You are, OBVIOUSLY, STILL BELIEVING IN the EXACT SAME things, over that time. After all, it does take SOME a LOT LONGER to RECOGNIZE and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

SHOWING thee ACTUAL Truth and PROOF that the sun REALLY DOES NOT revolve around the earth STILL took a LOT OF TIME for SOME to CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS. But that is the VERY NATURE of BELIEFS, "themselves". They do STOP and PREVENT people like "yourself" "uwot" from SEEING and RECOGNIZING thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

And let us NOT take one sentence, OUT OF A FEW, in case that could take OUT OF CONTEXT what I ACTUALLY MEANT, in what I ACTUALLY SAID.

And, what I ACTUALLY SAID in that post was:

You are joking, right?

Have you NOT seen the clumsily way I write and word things?

Have you NOT noticed the lack of intellect I have in knowing the definitions of terms and words used?

Have you NOT noticed the way I am continually misunderstood and misinterpreted, even when all I am doing is just asking simple straightforward questions, for clarification?

Have you NOT noticed even My most simplest of questions get taken out of context?

I have many years to go of learning just how to communicate with others successfully, before I even begin to learn how to communicate succinctly, and then I would only be ready to start explaining. Then when I am ready, I will have to start looking for a person who is genuinely open and honest and interested in listening and hearing what I have to actually say. I am NOT looking for the ones who just pretend they are, like your self. Nor am I looking for those who just want to dismiss or discredit what I say, that can obviously be done all to very easily.

Now that you have discovered dictionaries, perhaps you could consult one to discover the broad meaning of 'evidence'.

I have NO CLUE what you are basing the 'now' word on here, EXACTLY. But, each to their OWN.

We might still disagree about nuance, but at least we'll be on the same page.

Well considering how you use the 'evidence' word, have you considered consulting a dictionary?

And what "page" do you think or believe you are on, EXACTLY?

What is your definition for the word 'evidence'?

We might still DISAGREE about nuance, or not. We will ACTUALLY just have to WAIT and SEE, correct?

EACH and EVERY word, and EACH and EVERY one of their definition/s, only means whatever 'meaning' 'you', human beings, put in them, or put behind them.

For example, the definition, or meaning, of the word 'hypothesis' 'you' and 'I' might AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, here and now, at this moment, is just what 'we' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, but this definition or meaning that 'you' and 'I' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT is NOT EXACTLY what 'it' means, as though that definition/meaning is 'universal', as 'you' proposed 'it' was by your words above.

Do you now understand my point?

If I thought you had the wit, I would think you were gas lighting.

AND, if I thought you DID understand, then I would NOT have asked you THAT question.

TELLING US what you THOUGHT or WERE TO is, by the way, NOT an ANSWER to the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION, which 'I' posed to 'you'.

Age, I have made it clear many times that I think language is contextual, and now you ask me if I understand a point that can be traced at least to Wittgenstein.

Have you FORGOTTEN that it was 'you', "uwot", who ACTUALLY WROTE:

"that's exactly what it is."

As though that was thee One and ONLY ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct DEFINITION.

You ALSO asked me; "What is your point?"

So, I JUST told you. And, now, AFTER, I told you, then you 'try' and make out that there was NO need to tell you, which is OBVIOUSLY rather CONTRADICTORY.

LOOK, I have asked you REPEATEDLY to EXPLAIN what 'blue shift' is EVIDENCE for. YOU REFUSE TO DO. And ALL the DETRACTING and DEFLECTING TACTICS will NOT REMOVE THIS FACT.

[FlashDangerpants]

REALLY?

And this coming from the one who NEVER provided a HINT of what they envision 'what 'philosophy' is'.

Oh my, you seem to have made a rash and hasty ASSUMPTION... I've given my answer to the question this thread poses in other threads posing the exact same question.

Why did you NOT do it in this thread?

Here's an example from three years ago

The way Isiah Berlin describes philosophy works for me.

In brief he says that philosophy asks questions where we aren't entirely sure yet how to verify, or in some circumstances even recognise a correct answer.

How could a 'thing', besides a human being, "ask questions"?

So, to 'you', the way 'what philosophy is', which works for you is; the behavior of ONLY when you are asking those questions, which you are not entirely sure yet how to verify.

When 'what' you are not yet entirely sure how to verify? If you or that person are talking about the 'answer' to some question, then I suggest you say so.

Also, if you are not yet entirely sure how to recognize a correct answer, in SOME circumstances, then when in WHICH circumstances does this asking questions of which you are not yet entirely sure how to verify the answer to or do not yet even know how to even recognize a correct answer to are a part of 'what philosophy is', and 'what philosophy is not'?

Once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question though, that question is no longer philosophical, it becomes a question for science, or economics, or history or something.

WHY EXACTLY do you BELIEVE this is SO?

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW HOW to arrive at CORRECT ANSWERS for ALL QUESTIONS, then you REALLY have some MORE DISCOVERING and LEARNING ahead of you.

Whether you see that as promotion or demotion is a matter of perspective.

EVERY way you SEE ANY thing is a matter of perspective, OBVIOUSLY.

'Absolutely EVERY thing being relative to the observer' supports this FACT.

So an example would be all the time that Aristotle and friends spent arguing about what the universe is made out of. You might say the atomists won that one, but really it would be more accurate to say that a philosopher (Bacon I suppose) came up with a whole new way of looking at such questions, which then became a matter for scientists like Galileo.

Talk about going OFF TANGENT and being Truly NOT COGENT AT ALL.

So add a "yet" on the end of "Philosophy asks the questions that science cannot" and you sort of have a decent start I think.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"science" NOR "philosophy" are 'things' that could even ASK QUESTIONS, to begin with.

The only real error is that so many people here seem to be linking philosophy only to science. There are plenty of philosophical question that are not, and could never be scientific, such as "what makes killing people wrong?".

Well that is probably the WEAKEST explanation for 'what philosophy is' that I have been a WITNESS TO.

By the way, were they the EXACT WORDS that that person used?

By making no effort to think about the whole, you failed to get the point entirely. This is normal for you.

[Age]

Oh my, you seem to have made a rash and hasty ASSUMPTION... I've given my answer to the question this thread poses in other threads posing the exact same question.

Why did you NOT do it in this thread?

Here's an example from three years ago

How could a 'thing', besides a human being, "ask questions"?

So, to 'you', the way 'what philosophy is', which works for you is; the behavior of ONLY when you are asking those questions, which you are not entirely sure yet how to verify.

When 'what' you are not yet entirely sure how to verify? If you or that person are talking about the 'answer' to some question, then I suggest you say so.

Also, if you are not yet entirely sure how to recognize a correct answer, in SOME circumstances, then when in WHICH circumstances does this asking questions of which you are not yet entirely sure how to verify the answer to or do not yet even know how to even recognize a correct answer to are a part of 'what philosophy is', and 'what philosophy is not'?

Once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question though, that question is no longer philosophical, it becomes a question for science, or economics, or history or something.

WHY EXACTLY do you BELIEVE this is SO?

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW HOW to arrive at CORRECT ANSWERS for ALL QUESTIONS, then you REALLY have some MORE DISCOVERING and LEARNING ahead of you.

Whether you see that as promotion or demotion is a matter of perspective.

EVERY way you SEE ANY thing is a matter of perspective, OBVIOUSLY.

'Absolutely EVERY thing being relative to the observer' supports this FACT.

So an example would be all the time that Aristotle and friends spent arguing about what the universe is made out of. You might say the atomists won that one, but really it would be more accurate to say that a philosopher (Bacon I suppose) came up with a whole new way of looking at such questions, which then became a matter for scientists like Galileo.

Talk about going OFF TANGENT and being Truly NOT COGENT AT ALL.

So add a "yet" on the end of "Philosophy asks the questions that science cannot" and you sort of have a decent start I think.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"science" NOR "philosophy" are 'things' that could even ASK QUESTIONS, to begin with.

The only real error is that so many people here seem to be linking philosophy only to science. There are plenty of philosophical question that are not, and could never be scientific, such as "what makes killing people wrong?".

Well that is probably the WEAKEST explanation for 'what philosophy is' that I have been a WITNESS TO.

By the way, were they the EXACT WORDS that that person used?

By making no effort to think about the whole, you failed to get the point entirely. This is normal for you.

1. You CLAIMED that I FAILED to get the point ENTIRELY. Without EVER expressing what THE POINT is, to you. Therefore, there is NO indication AT ALL of what you CLAIM THE POINT IS, which I have SUPPOSEDLY FAILED TO GET.

I suggest STOP HIDING and START REVEALING.

2. You CLAIM this is "normal for me". Yet have NEVER ONCE PROVIDED ABSOLUTELY ANY thing SUBSTANTIAL that even SUGGESTED that I have FAILED to get THE POINT ENTIRELY, PREVIOUSLY.

All we ever get is UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS.

Also, you were QUERYING ME WHY this threads BECOME about 'me'. I SUGGEST LOOKING AT your OWN WORDS, for WHY they END UP THIS WAY.