June 25, 2007
-
Realms of Philosophy
It's been a while since we took a serious look at Philosophy itself.
A disclaimer: I'm not a philosopher, or even a student of philosophy; I'm a student of Social and Technical History.
Part of this has necessarily been a study of the development of Philosophy including a casual look at the modern Epistemologs and their ilk.
For those who might not be familiar with the realms of Philosophy; classically they are:
Logic - The key to rationality
Epistemology - How do we say and understand what we rationally know. This is far-and-away the over-riding concern of modern scholastic philosophers.
Metaphysics - Not a description of the Cosmos, rather the study of the Meaning of the Cosmos.
History - The study of the past and its records,
Politics - The philosophies of politics have probably led to the misery and death of more people than any area of philosophy except Religion.
Aesthetics - What is beauty? One of the most fascinating and understudied realms of philosophy.
Ethics - What is moral and morally right? Why?
Theology - Religion from the philosophic viewpoint, the most dangerous of the realms.
You will note that almost all of our Socrates Cafe discussions fall into one or another of these realms. Personally, I think it is a mistake to spend too much time "defining our terms" instead of discussing how we feel about them and the impact on our lives.
Which of these realms do you find most fascinating? Which do you think is most important? Why?
Comments (11)
I like your breakdown of the elements of philosophy. If we go back to the root of philosophy is is however a love for wisdom....their is beneath all the arguments a sincere passion to know. Without that passion philosophy is without content. I think I travel mostly in the realm of metaphysics nd probably the least in the realm of Aesthetics.
Wow... well said, and well done. My personal favorite? Theology. But as you have noted, it can be the most dangerous as well. However, that is in and of itself a philosophical question. Why are some areas considered "dangerous?" What makes them more dangerous than others?
Zeal, this is by no means a list I thought up - these are the classic realms which were laid out in this form during the Renaissance. Since "Philosophy" - philo sophos - means roughly "love of knowledge"; it's not too surprising that passion to know is absolutely part of the process. We seem to have moved away from knowledge for knowledge's sake and into the Utilitarian modern world
Will Durant's book "Pleasures of Philosophy" is a good serious introduction and very readable. Alas, it was published in 1929 and revised in 1953. My copy is over forty years old - I don't know if it's still in print.
Tx -Why are some philosophic ideas dangerous? Generally because they call for people and societies to take a careful, reasoned look at their cherished beliefs and perhaps modify them. In the Realms of Religion and Politics, based as they generally are on dogma and faith,
e.g. "Islam is perfection", or "Communism is the only true and right form of Government" such questioning can get a lot of people killed.
Don't feel too secure, you can make the same comments about Christianity and Democracy, indeed about almost all religions and governmental theories.
I should create a character. It will be like McGruff the dog. His name will be Spot. Whenever I read blogs like yours I will call out, "Spot! World veiw?"
Creed, which realm of philosophy are you most attracted to?
Religion and Politics are dangerous for philosophers because many philosophers see their role as questioning and clarifying basic beliefs, and many people (and States) don't care to have their beliefs questioned - especially in matters of R&P.
When you commanded Spot with "Spot! World veiw (sic)" What would Spot's reaction be?
I like aesthetics and logic.
However, I do enjoy watching debates
over politics. I myself generally don't
get involved in politics (I don't like
them), but I enjoy observing the tension
and anxiety. Weird personality thing I
have... I enjoy being in the midst of
anxiety...
Because of this, I sometimes enjoy seeing
debates of the most dangerous topic, or,
theology. But because of my strong ties
to Christian beliefs, I am more involved
in the anxiety, and I tend to get extremely
passionate and heated. I don't like that...
Although, if people are passionate about
any topic they debate on, tension will be
created, and thus, enjoyable for me.
...I'm so odd.
But yeah, I like logic probably the most
(to be actually involved in). And aesthetics
secondly, although I've noticed my personal
opinions in aesthetics differ from most.
Say, I used to love symmetry, but I loved
it too much, and now I don't like it at
all. I think things that are asymmetrical
are much more pleasing, and even balanced.
I think I am primarily an epistemologist. I find that trying to express myself so that others understand me tends to clarify my own thinking. I think that is one of the big reasons that I enjoy teaching. I find that I learn so much from it.
People who accept without question scare me. That seems to be what a lot of religious and political leaders want. I think that to question and understand strengthens beliefs and makes them more valid.
Why are the disciplines of philosophy important in our world today?
I love philosophy (ha! loving the love of knowledge..) overall. But that could be due to the fact that i'm still a greenhorn in these areas.
Philosophy has really opened my eyes.. made me a sharper thinker.. and more confident in general.
In philosophy graduate school, at least in US east coast analytic schools, we use the term metaphysics quite differently. Metaphysics is the study of the logical structures behind knowledge (part to whole relations [mereology], necessary and possibility conditions, and the like) and, unfortunately, this is the field that dominates analytic philosophy rather than epistemology. Even most of my graduate level epistemology classes were but thinly disguised "analytic metaphysics". I found epistemology, really, only in the subdomains of philosophy of science and philosophy of physics, and even more of it in the my history of science cross courses than i did in actually epistemology courses. It has close ties with logic, of course, but is more the "applied" side, and also with the subdomain of philosophy of language.
[I often use the term "analytic metaphysics" intentionally, to avoid confusion with the metaphysics as you have the definition, and also to avoid confusion with that label as used in book stores which is different yet again.]
Classical, modern and 20th century continental philosophy do place a lot more emphasis on epistemology than do analytic philosophers. I don't mean to claim that the labels are not classically correct. Just noting that if you speak to analytic philosophers you will find a slightly different grouping than these.
I maintain that the ancient term "Epistomology" certainly covers "Analytic Philosophy". The idea that you would spend a lifetime studying the logical structures and conditions "behind" the knowledge rather than than ideas themselves smacks of scholasticism at its worst.
"But", says the modern analytic philosopher, "How do I know if what you mean is what I think you mean?"
Philosophers, I suggest, should do as they have always done: State their views and theses in terms meaningful to them and let the viewers sort it out according to their own views. If the ideas are true, the viewer wil have little trouble.
I'll now sit back and let any passing philosophers attack me visciously.
I had been honored to receive a call from my friend as soon as he found out the important ideas shared in your site. Examining your blog write-up is a real fantastic experience. Thanks again for thinking of readers at all like me, and I want for you the best of achievements as being a professional in this area.