What is the Essence of Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

All Philosophy Is Bunk
All philosophers are bad, but the worst are Plato, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer ...

I note the thinking of many in regard to 'what is philosophy' is too narrow and shallow, given the term 'philosophy' has existed explicitly and implicitly for thousands of years, e.g. > 10,000 years in relation to Vedic philosophy.

The ignoramus jumped in hastily without even defining what they are talking about, i.e. "what is philosophy."

To be effective re "what is philosophy" one has to be exhaustive to understand the essence of 'what is philosophy' within human history, not merely from the West, but also East, and everywhere else.

When one is thinking too narrowly and shallowly re what is philosophy, one are likely be influenced by people like Saunders who are brainwashed to interpret philosophy more towards academic philosophers [who bastardized philosophy] and by the bunch of people who just want to condemn whatever they are ignorant of without any rigorous research into what the subject-matter really is about.
The philosophy that is most condemnable are those from bastardized academic and armchair philosophies which focus merely on words and no actions nor useful purposes.

It is said that the number of definition of 'what is philosophy' is the same as the number of people who attempt to define it. That is quite true.

I don't believe the term 'philosophy' was coined without it relating to some essence and human function and impulses of human nature.
For example the term science was coined from the etymological origin to "to know" which is a tool of philosophy-proper.

To understand what 'philosophy' is about, I have done extensive research into it.
I have gather and read more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' [from West, East and everywhere] with a wide variety and diversity of meanings [wisdom, blah, blah, blah] attached to it.

From the wide variety of definition of what is philosophy there is a core essence of what is philosophy, i.e. philosophy-proper.

This core essence of philosophy-proper is related to a fundamental overriding human function to promote continual progress for the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
The basic tool of such a function is 'wisdom' whereby philosophy is commonly defined as the 'love of wisdom' but that is not the only tool philosophy relied upon. Philosophy will rely on whatever tools and resources that are necessary to achieve its purpose, i.e. well-being which is not directly happiness and pleasure.

Philosophy-proper is a fundamental function within all humans but the problem is, it is not active in the majority of people. Thus there is a need to expedite to trigger the philosophical function in the majority in the future. This will depend on those philosophers who has a more active philosophy-function within them.

Those who condemn philosophy by ignorance of philosophy-proper is doing a disservice to mankind.

• Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
  Philosophy has always played an essential role in the development of science, physics in particular, and is likely to continue to do so
  By Carlo Rovelli on July 18, 2018
  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... s-physics/

All fields of knowledge must be overridden, encompassed and modulated by philosophy-proper, that is why the term 'philosophy' is a prefix to any knowledge or thoughts.

Why is 'philosophy-proper' so Critical to Humanity
Philosophy-proper has always been active behind the scene [analogically like a symphony conductor, CEO, ] in all progress of mankind from the beginning.

Why philosophy-proper is so critical as human evolves is because as human evolves with greater knowledge of reality, humanity is also aware of more dangerous threats to the species, e.g. climate change and those threat that could push humans into extinction.
Humanity is also aware the human species is under serious threats as population increases whilst resources on Earth is limited.

A rogue asteriod could appear from nowhere and blast the Earth to smithereens. Though the event is slim Scientists are now providing for this contingency and humanity need philosophy-proper to co-ordinate all the different fields to work in harmony to ensure effectiveness.

As human knowledge expand on an exponential rate, there is a need for a corresponding expansion in Morality & Ethics which must be supported by philosophy-proper.

So note the above IF your thinking is too narrow and shallow in the case of 'what is philosophy' in term of its essence and original drives.

Views?

[uwot]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

[henry quirk]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

[RCSaunders]

All Philosophy Is Bunk
All philosophers are bad, but the worst are Plato, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer ...

I note the thinking of many in regard to 'what is philosophy' is too narrow and shallow, given the term 'philosophy' has existed explicitly and implicitly for thousands of years, e.g. > 10,000 years in relation to Vedic philosophy.

Link to the original, "All Philosophy Is Bunk" article.

[Sculptor]

All Philosophy Is Bunk
All philosophers are bad, but the worst are Plato, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer ...

I note the thinking of many in regard to 'what is philosophy' is too narrow and shallow, given the term 'philosophy' has existed explicitly and implicitly for thousands of years, e.g. > 10,000 years in relation to Vedic philosophy.

Link to the original, "All Philosophy Is Bunk" article.

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then youhave failed to make your point.

[promethean75]

So y'all are basically saying of the four kinds of statements, the declarative statement is 'philosophical' because it makes a claim to some fact/truth, and as such is open to examination... which we shall call 'philosophical' by nature.

I mean I guess. But this can get outta control real quick like if it falls into the hands of somebody other than a logician or linguisist.

Whatever you do, for the love of man, don't let ontologists and metaphysicists get a'hold of it.

[RCSaunders]

I note the thinking of many in regard to 'what is philosophy' is too narrow and shallow, given the term 'philosophy' has existed explicitly and implicitly for thousands of years, e.g. > 10,000 years in relation to Vedic philosophy.

Link to the original, "All Philosophy Is Bunk" article.

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then you have failed to make your point.

That's great, if you are satisfied with it. Of course your, "example," may not convince anyone else. I know I'd like to know just one positive contribution to human knowledge and achievement made by philosophy. I can think of endless disasters and atrocities harming both individuals and civilized societies resulting from individuals practicing their philosophies (like every government and every war and all of academia), but cannot think of one positive contribution.

[Sculptor]

Link to the original, "All Philosophy Is Bunk" article.

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then you have failed to make your point.

That's great, if you are satisfied with it. Of course your, "example," may not convince anyone else.

I would only need to convince myslef - and your claim would be wrong. That is because you have been dumb enough to make an absolute claim.
If I were you, I'd do some philosophy so as not to make such a fool of yourself, and hold off on your silly superlatives.

I know I'd like to know just one positive contribution to human knowledge and achievement made by philosophy. I can think of endless disasters and atrocities harming both individuals and civilized societies resulting from individuals practicing their philosophies (like every government and every war and all of academia), but cannot think of one positive contribution.

How about Harvey's understanding of the circulation system, or Bacon's New Atlantis (1626) which laid the ground work for sicence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

The concept of "Story telling" is too general to be bothered with.
Besides story telling is merely 'knowing' and not 'doing' to get results.

1. The further question is what is the proximate and ultimate of purpose science, religion, metaphysics, or any field of knowledge [models] for?
2. On what basis and principles are these models or framework and system of knowledge established, structured, operated and controlled to be effective.
Re 1 & 2 and others aspects that set up, operate, maintain and sustained the FSK, we need philosophy as defined above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Link to the original, "All Philosophy Is Bunk" article.

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then you have failed to make your point.

That's great, if you are satisfied with it. Of course your, "example," may not convince anyone else. I know I'd like to know just one positive contribution to human knowledge and achievement made by philosophy. I can think of endless disasters and atrocities harming both individuals and civilized societies resulting from individuals practicing their philosophies (like every government and every war and all of academia), but cannot think of one positive contribution.

As anticipated in the OP you have NOT bothered to define 'what is philosophy' but merely jumped in hastily with your conclusions that 'philosophy is bunk and useless'.

As explained above, philosophy-proper provides the managerial expertise for humans individually and collectively to ensure the well being of the individuals and humanity. Note the following points I raised above.

• 1. The further question is what is the proximate and ultimate of purpose science, religion, metaphysics, or any field of knowledge [models] for?
  2. On what basis and principles are these models or framework and system of knowledge established, structured, operated and controlled to be effective.
  Re 1 & 2 and others aspects that set up, operate, maintain and sustained the FSK, we need philosophy as defined above.

Therefore whatever is a net-positive contribution to humanity from science and any other fields of knowledge or technology is backed ultimately by philosophy-proper. [not the bastardized-philosophy you are so familiar with].

In any case, I am not expecting you to acknowledge what I have written but rather will continue to make noises from your ignorance. I am posting this for my own sake, not yours.

[Age]

All Philosophy Is Bunk
All philosophers are bad, but the worst are Plato, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer ...

I note the thinking of many in regard to 'what is philosophy' is too narrow and shallow, given the term 'philosophy' has existed explicitly and implicitly for thousands of years, e.g. > 10,000 years in relation to Vedic philosophy.

The ignoramus jumped in hastily without even defining what they are talking about, i.e. "what is philosophy."

To be effective re "what is philosophy" one has to be exhaustive to understand the essence of 'what is philosophy' within human history, not merely from the West, but also East, and everywhere else.

When one is thinking too narrowly and shallowly re what is philosophy, one are likely be influenced by people like Saunders who are brainwashed to interpret philosophy more towards academic philosophers [who bastardized philosophy] and by the bunch of people who just want to condemn whatever they are ignorant of without any rigorous research into what the subject-matter really is about.
The philosophy that is most condemnable are those from bastardized academic and armchair philosophies which focus merely on words and no actions nor useful purposes.

It is said that the number of definition of 'what is philosophy' is the same as the number of people who attempt to define it. That is quite true.

I don't believe the term 'philosophy' was coined without it relating to some essence and human function and impulses of human nature.
For example the term science was coined from the etymological origin to "to know" which is a tool of philosophy-proper.

To understand what 'philosophy' is about, I have done extensive research into it.
I have gather and read more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' [from West, East and everywhere] with a wide variety and diversity of meanings [wisdom, blah, blah, blah] attached to it.

From the wide variety of definition of what is philosophy there is a core essence of what is philosophy, i.e. philosophy-proper.

This core essence of philosophy-proper is related to a fundamental overriding human function to promote continual progress for the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
The basic tool of such a function is 'wisdom' whereby philosophy is commonly defined as the 'love of wisdom' but that is not the only tool philosophy relied upon. Philosophy will rely on whatever tools and resources that are necessary to achieve its purpose, i.e. well-being which is not directly happiness and pleasure.

Philosophy-proper is a fundamental function within all humans but the problem is, it is not active in the majority of people. Thus there is a need to expedite to trigger the philosophical function in the majority in the future. This will depend on those philosophers who has a more active philosophy-function within them.

Those who condemn philosophy by ignorance of philosophy-proper is doing a disservice to mankind.

• Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
  Philosophy has always played an essential role in the development of science, physics in particular, and is likely to continue to do so
  By Carlo Rovelli on July 18, 2018
  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... s-physics/

All fields of knowledge must be overridden, encompassed and modulated by philosophy-proper, that is why the term 'philosophy' is a prefix to any knowledge or thoughts.

Why is 'philosophy-proper' so Critical to Humanity
Philosophy-proper has always been active behind the scene [analogically like a symphony conductor, CEO, ] in all progress of mankind from the beginning.

Why philosophy-proper is so critical as human evolves is because as human evolves with greater knowledge of reality, humanity is also aware of more dangerous threats to the species, e.g. climate change and those threat that could push humans into extinction.
Humanity is also aware the human species is under serious threats as population increases whilst resources on Earth is limited.

A rogue asteriod could appear from nowhere and blast the Earth to smithereens. Though the event is slim Scientists are now providing for this contingency and humanity need philosophy-proper to co-ordinate all the different fields to work in harmony to ensure effectiveness.

As human knowledge expand on an exponential rate, there is a need for a corresponding expansion in Morality & Ethics which must be supported by philosophy-proper.

So note the above IF your thinking is too narrow and shallow in the case of 'what is philosophy' in term of its essence and original drives.

Views?

What the essence of 'philosophy', to me is to just become wiser. So, 'philosophy-proper', contrary to what "others" say, is just to become wiser, properly.

There is NOTHING hard NOR complex here. And, there is absolutely NOTHING ANY one could REFUTE here. So, this IRREFUTABLE Truth here EXISTS, and WILL EXIST, forever more.

But, PLEASE feel FREE to define the 'philosophy' word absolutely ANY way you so WISH TO.

[Age]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

And, if that 'reason' can be explained, logically, soundly, AND validly, then 'that reason' is thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth, which NO one could refute. No matter if 'that reason' is known by the names 'science', 'metaphysics', 'religion', or not.

ALL of 'those reasons' can be PROVED True or NOT, logically AND soundly and validly.

Some 'stories' are just FAR MORE True than others are. Like for the 'story' the WHOLE of thee Universe BEGAN, and is EXPANDING is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, as this has ALREADY been PROVED True. Though some are YET to LEARN of this Fact. That is; in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

Link to the original, "All Philosophy Is Bunk" article.

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then you have failed to make your point.

That's great, if you are satisfied with it. Of course your, "example," may not convince anyone else. I know I'd like to know just one positive contribution to human knowledge and achievement made by philosophy.

What does the word 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

ONLY when you PROVIDE 'this', then ONLY THEN can a 'positive contribution to human knowledge and achievement made by 'philosophy' can be SHOWN, to you. That is; OF COURSE, unless the definition for the 'philosophy' word, which you use, NEVER allows for one positive contribution to be made to human knowledge and achievement', by 'that philosophy'.

I can think of endless disasters and atrocities harming both individuals and civilized societies resulting from individuals practicing their philosophies (like every government and every war and all of academia), but cannot think of one positive contribution.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, could ONLY SEE some 'things' and NOT other 'things', depending on their current BELIEFS and VIEWS. They REALLY were completely and utterly BLINDED by their OWN DISTORTED thinking or BELIEVING.

[Age]

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then you have failed to make your point.

That's great, if you are satisfied with it. Of course your, "example," may not convince anyone else.

I would only need to convince myslef - and your claim would be wrong. That is because you have been dumb enough to make an absolute claim.

But what you wrote here "sculptor" is also an 'absolute claim'.

The claim that "rcsaunders" made about how if 'you' are satisfied with an example, then that example may not convince anyone else, is a Truth, which could NEVER be refuted. For example, the absolute claim that 'thee Truth' can NEVER be known can be 'refuted' with one example to the contrary. But, that one example may not convince anyone else, other than say 'me', for example.

So, your own 'absolute claim' here, "sculptor", that you only need to convince "yourself", with an example, and then 'your claim' that, 'that example' MAY NOT convince anyone else, would be wrong, IS Wrong, Itself.

Obviously, 'an example' may convince 'you', but just 'you' convincing "yourself" with 'an example', does NOT mean that 'that example' WILL convince anyone else, as well.

So, were 'you' "dumb" to also make an absolute claim also? Or, does this so called being "dumb" only work on and for "others".

Also, if ANY one of 'you', in the days when this is being written, could work out what I wrote just here now, then I would be very surprised.

But when, and IF, ANY of you can, then just let 'us' know. But, very SIMPLY, what "rcsaunders" wrote and claimed here was NOT wrong, like 'you', "sculptor", CLAIMED it was. And, as it turns out that, it was 'you', "sculptor", who have actually made 'an absolute claim' here "yourself", which, that claim, itself, turns out to be what is ACTUALLY Wrong here.

If I were you, I'd do some philosophy so as not to make such a fool of yourself, and hold off on your silly superlatives.

It can be funny to observe when those who provide advice do NOT follow that exact same advice "themselves".

[Age]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

The concept of "Story telling" is too general to be bothered with.
Besides story telling is merely 'knowing' and not 'doing' to get results.

Since WHEN has 'story telling' been "merely knowing"?

'Story telling' can also be, literally, 'making up' 'stories' that are based on absolutely NOTHING ACTUALLY KNOWN, and then just 'telling' those Truly made up, and previously UNKNOWN 'stories'.

1. The further question is what is the proximate and ultimate of purpose science, religion, metaphysics, or any field of knowledge [models] for?

BUT, they are NOT necessarily so-called 'fields of knowledge'.

In fact, those three things are FAR MORE less 'fields of knowledge' than they are ACTUAL 'fields of guesses or presumptions'.

For it is a Fact that 'science' NEVER deals with ACTUAL Facts, but instead just makes ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, or THEORIES, and then 'tries to' work out IF those guess/theories are right or correct or not. The same could also be said for 'metaphysics' and/or 'religion' also. And, once some 'thing' becomes an IRREFUTABLE and KNOWN Fact, then 'science' NEVER deals with 'It' again, and it could also be said that NEITHER does 'metaphysics' NOR 'religion' deal with absolute or IRREFUTABLE and KNOWN Facts, EVER AGAIN.

2. On what basis and principles are these models or framework and system of knowledge established, structured, operated and controlled to be effective.

The EXACT SAME your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS are operated and controlled to be effective. USUALLY on absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

Re 1 & 2 and others aspects that set up, operate, maintain and sustained the FSK, we need philosophy as defined above.

If you SAY and BELIEVE so, the 'it' MUST BE SO, to you, ONLY.