The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:43 amBy making no effort to think about the whole, you failed to get the point entirely. This is normal for you.Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:29 amWhy did you NOT do it in this thread?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:57 am
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.
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'?
WHY EXACTLY do you BELIEVE this is SO?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:57 am 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.
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.
EVERY way you SEE ANY thing is a matter of perspective, OBVIOUSLY.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:57 am Whether you see that as promotion or demotion is a matter of perspective.
'Absolutely EVERY thing being relative to the observer' supports this FACT.
Talk about going OFF TANGENT and being Truly NOT COGENT AT ALL.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:57 am 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.
LOLFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:57 am 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
"science" NOR "philosophy" are 'things' that could even ASK QUESTIONS, to begin with.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:57 am 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?
Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?