What is Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy-proper is an inherent fundamental function [tool] and an impulse that drive to facilitate the optimal well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity within reality.


However, the term 'philosophy' at present had been bastardized by academic philosophy.

However there is still what is inherent Philosophy [basically lover of wisdom], i.e. philosophy-proper as a cognitive and faculty within the human brain.
Philosophy is not merely 'lover of wisdom' but note the implied 'practical' within the term 'wisdom' i.e. the applied knowledge.

DNA wise, all humans are "programmed" with an algorithm for philosophical competence which is necessary for the preservation of the human species in the advent of humanity's greater awareness of larger scale threats, e.g. galactical, rogue meteors, pandemic, WMDs, etc.

To abstract and understand what is philosophy-proper as a natural tendency within all human beings, one need to research every aspects of 'what is philosophy' from the whole of the human database since human emerged and covering Eastern, Western philosophies and philosophies from every corner of the world.
Note the Eastern philosophies already existed as 'philosophy-proper' thousands of years before the Greek Philosophies [the ground for Western Philosophy].

In addition, the Greek Philosophies were heavily influenced by Buddhist and Hindu Philosophies in their initial phases and the reverse vice-versa happened very much later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q

I suggest to abstract the common-pattern and understand what is 'philosophy-proper' one need to research on at least 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' that is defined within Eastern, Western and everywhere the term - philosophy' is used and implied.
I have done that.

From what I have gathered, the essence of what is philosophy-proper is this;
Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.
Mental tools encompass logic, rationality, knowledge, wisdom, whatever that necessary and is net-positive.

Philosophy-proper is 'meta' i.e. it overrides all form of knowledge and mental activities including philosophy-itself as a source of knowledge.
This is why we have "the Philosophy of X" where 'X' can be anything.

That is why we have appropriately 'The Philosophy of Science' where philosophy-proper overrides Science and not 'The Science of Philosophy'.

My point:
Despite being bastardized by academia, 'philosophy' is still valid as represented by an inherent neural algorithm within the brain and mind of all humans. To differentiate from its negative association, we need the appropriate term 'philosophy-proper' as defined above.

Views?

[Age]

To me, 'Phil-o-sophy' just means the love-of-wisdom.

What happens with a love-of-wisdom? One naturally becomes wiser. How does one become wiser? Through learning. How does one learn? Through being inquisitive and open.

ALL human beings are born naturally with a love-of-wisdom. ALL human beings are born natural philosophers. Every one is born inquisitive and open, each with a love-of-learning. This 'love', however, sadly and unfortunately quickly diminishes in human beings, in this current and present "world", in the days of when this is written in.

Most adult human beings in these days lack so much interest in learning and are so closed, that most do not really learn that much more than what they learned at school, other than what they learn their workplaces, let alone learn any thing actually new and useful about Life, and living.

[Lacewing]

To me, 'Phil-o-sophy' just means the love-of-wisdom.

I can see this viewpoint. I might describe it myself as a love of awareness of connections.

How does one become wiser? Through learning. How does one learn? Through being inquisitive and open.

That's one idea. There could be more going on. For example, it could be something like "remembering" what we are already aware of beneath all the noise.

ALL human beings are born naturally with a love-of-wisdom. ALL human beings are born natural philosophers.

I'm not sure about this. Although I think all beings have access to greater wisdom/awareness, there surely appears to be varying levels of tuning into that even in very young children. So there could be more going on. For example, beings may be taking on different roles and energies when they are here in this physical realm... and that may be totally perfect within the larger landscape. In other words, there may be no NEED to attain or experience or become anything in particular now or ever, because it is already "in order".

(No, Age, I'm not interested in answering a stream of every-question-you-can-think-of about what I've just said. If you are able to understand the meaning of what I've just said, without fussing over every word and phrase, and can therefore ask something worthwhile, then that might be interesting. Otherwise, don't bother. Thanks.)

[nothing]

Love of wisdom.

The beauty of
the love of wisdom
is in her ever-loving back
thus to ever-seek the light of wisdom
is to be as ever-bound as to find her bliss.

[Nick_A]

Fro Jacob Needleman:s book: "The Heart of Philosophy." Seems right to me.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead...............

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

[tapaticmadness]

My point:
Despite being bastardized by academia, 'philosophy' is still valid as represented by an inherent neural algorithm within the brain and mind of all humans. To differentiate from its negative association, we need the appropriate term 'philosophy-proper' as defined above.

Views?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the philosophy of Pragmatism is the correct philosophy. Whatever helps humans survive and flourish is good philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point:
Despite being bastardized by academia, 'philosophy' is still valid as represented by an inherent neural algorithm within the brain and mind of all humans. To differentiate from its negative association, we need the appropriate term 'philosophy-proper' as defined above.

Views?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the philosophy of Pragmatism is the correct philosophy. Whatever helps humans survive and flourish is good philosophy.

• Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.
  -wiki

In a way it is Pragmatism but not absolutely, i.e. I am not aligning my thoughts to any specific or group of philosophers who claimed to be pragmatists.
However, I will consider their claims on a one to one basis.

Re: "...are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes."
By what standard are we referring to 'uses' and 'successes.'

As such, what is Philosophy-proper is defined and explained as above.
The more complex issue is 'what is meant by well-being' which I have not explained in depth.

What is most critical to philosophy proper is the reference to the inherent neural alogorithm in the brain. There is a need to identify this variable so that we can manage it [not now but in the future] for improvements.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fro Jacob Needleman:s book: "The Heart of Philosophy." Seems right to me.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead...............

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

"Philosophy ... to help Man remember."
The above is all talk without pointing to anything solid with justification.

It is not heart but note I pointed to the neural algorithm within the brain.

There is no ontological teleological end for Philosophy, but it must flow in alignment with the River of Life of Humanity.

[tapaticmadness]

What is most critical to philosophy proper is the reference to the inherent neural alogorithm in the brain. There is a need to identify this variable so that we can manage it [not now but in the future] for improvements.

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

[Skepdick]

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

To be a materialist, idealist, or any "ist" - to choose and subscribe to one philosophy and reject another, on ethical or moral grounds one must concede that ethics/morality is more foundational than philosophy.

[tapaticmadness]

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

To be a materialist, idealist, or any "ist" - to choose and subscribe to a philosophy, any philosophy, on ethical or moral grounds one must concede that ethics/morality is more foundational than philosophy.

So do you think ethics and concern for all the individuals that make up humanity is more foundational than philosophy?

[Skepdick]

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

To be a materialist, idealist, or any "ist" - to choose and subscribe to a philosophy, any philosophy, on ethical or moral grounds one must concede that ethics/morality is more foundational than philosophy.

So do you think ethics and concern for all the individuals that make up humanity is more foundational than philosophy?

Yes it is more foundational. That is what I said. That is why I said it.

To be able to discern one philosophy as being moral/ethical, and another philosophy as being unethical/immoral - one must first have a moral system.

This is the problem of choice. Buridan''s ass applied to choosing Philosophies.

In so far as I care to put myself in a box I am a Humanist. Unless Humanists start doing unethical/immoral acts under the banner of Humanism. Then I'll reject that label too.

[Age]

To me, 'Phil-o-sophy' just means the love-of-wisdom.

I can see this viewpoint. I might describe it myself as a love of awareness of connections.

How does one become wiser? Through learning. How does one learn? Through being inquisitive and open.

That's one idea. There could be more going on. For example, it could be something like "remembering" what we are already aware of beneath all the noise.

ALL human beings are born naturally with a love-of-wisdom. ALL human beings are born natural philosophers.

I'm not sure about this. Although I think all beings have access to greater wisdom/awareness, there surely appears to be varying levels of tuning into that even in very young children. So there could be more going on. For example, beings may be taking on different roles and energies when they are here in this physical realm... and that may be totally perfect within the larger landscape. In other words, there may be no NEED to attain or experience or become anything in particular now or ever, because it is already "in order".

When ALL human beings are born they are in perfect alignment with 'greater wisdom', this is because they are in absolute, or in pure, Awareness, as they are. They are Aware of their surroundings exactly as they are.

This is why very young children pick up and learn things that adults are completely unaware of, when this is being written, and learn at a rate faster than adults learn now when this is being written.

(No, Age, I'm not interested in answering a stream of every-question-you-can-think-of about what I've just said.

Why did you assume and/or believe that this is what was going to happen?

If you are able to understand the meaning of what I've just said, without fussing over every word and phrase, and can therefore ask something worthwhile, then that might be interesting. Otherwise, don't bother. Thanks.)

But I already do understand the meaning of what you have said. I also understand the deeper and more meaningful meanings, which you have yet even considered.

Greater wisdom and True Awareness goes far deeper and reaches out far more than just your narrowed sighted view of things here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is most critical to philosophy proper is the reference to the inherent neural alogorithm in the brain. There is a need to identify this variable so that we can manage it [not now but in the future] for improvements.

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

I wonder how you ever arrive at the above conclusion?
Nope, I am not a materialist.
Philosophical Materialism had been debunked long ago.
I am an empirical realist.

You are ignorant of what is inherent in your brain and your own human nature.
The morally and ethics I proposed are directed towards ideal empathy, compassion, caring and the likes for all human beings & optimally for all living things.

It is hypothesized some aspects of the Mirror Neurons in the brain are responsible for empathy and compassion.

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
-wiki
[15]

Therefore when humanity is able to identify and trace the algorithm of neural circuits of the mirror neurons and its related connections, there will be a basis to increase the average capacity & competency of each individual for empathy, compassion and caring to other human beings.
You dispute this?

If you have an alternative in contrast to my above proposals, it is likely to be a crude and inefficient method.
Show me what is your proposals for humans to be more caring, empathetic and compassionate to others in the future?

[tapaticmadness]

What is most critical to philosophy proper is the reference to the inherent neural alogorithm in the brain. There is a need to identify this variable so that we can manage it [not now but in the future] for improvements.

Are you a materialist because you think materialism is the most ethical of all philosophies? And that all other philosophies are too too too impersonal and uncaring?

I wonder how you ever arrive at the above conclusion?
Nope, I am not a materialist.
Philosophical Materialism had been debunked long ago.
I am an empirical realist.

You are ignorant of what is inherent in your brain and your own human nature.
The morally and ethics I proposed are directed towards ideal empathy, compassion, caring and the likes for all human beings & optimally for all living things.

It is hypothesized some aspects of the Mirror Neurons in the brain are responsible for empathy and compassion.

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
-wiki
[15]

Therefore when humanity is able to identify and trace the algorithm of neural circuits of the mirror neurons and its related connections, there will be a basis to increase the average capacity & competency of each individual for empathy, compassion and caring to other human beings.
You dispute this?

If you have an alternative in contrast to my above proposals, it is likely to be a crude and inefficient method.
Show me what is your proposals for humans to be more caring, empathetic and compassionate to others in the future?

I like the way you turn human beings into machines. Andy Warhol said he wanted to be a machine. So do I. I think machines are so very erotic.