What is the goal of philosophy

[chaource]

When I was a student, I was told (in the mandatory philosophy course) that philosophy is a study of "the most general laws governing the universe". This was, of course, incorrect. What is philosophy, then

Comments

[posic]

I would think, whenever someone fails to understand what a particular series of authors or branch of literature are talking about, the one and onlly correct conclusion is that that person does not belong to the intended audience (either generally and permanently, or at the time of the attempted reading). No implcations as to the quality, meaningfullness, or correctness of the texts under review can be made from such premises. Otherwise, it is just as easy to mock and dismiss physics, or mathematics, or astronomy, or biology, or whatever. With your beloved field of psychology, by the way, it surely is particularly very-very easy.

[chaource]

I disagree. It is true that I do not belong to Hegel's or Aristotle's intended audience, but I do not fail to understand what Hegel and Aristotle are talking about; and I can make conclusions about their texts. When you read them, at first you may have an impression that it's difficult to understand; but by now I moved past this impression.

It is not easy to significantly mock and dismiss physics, mathematics, or natural sciences in general. Especially since we are using computers for discussing all this. Psychology, yes, it's a very soft field that's mostly junk and self-delusion. Astrology, for instance, can be dismissed rather easily, and you don't have to become an expert in astrology to understand why it's junk.

[posic]

Well then, it all turns on the interpretation of "significant". I fail to see how your mockery and dismisal of philosophy is in any sense significant, but perhaps I just do not belong to the intended audience.

[chaource]

So far you are just saying that I am incompetent about philosophy, or that my conclusion is not significant. Well, this does not convince me that my conclusion is incorrect. Is there something incorrect in what I was saying? What specifically? What is your point of view?

[posic]

You are basically saying that the substantive content of philosophical ideas is inconsequential, as they do not cause anything but "feelings of satisfaction". Nothing can be farther from the truth. In fact, philosophy has far-reaching consequences, strongly influencing people's thoughts, and, therefore, behavior. That's its actual purpose.

[chaource]

I disagree that philosophy necessarily has a strong influence on people's thoughts. Texts by Hegel and Kant are not widely read by the public, and abstruse questions such as "does Being imply Becoming by its nature" are not widely discussed in the society. Any conclusions about "Being" or "Becoming" have never been directly influential in politics, ethics, or otherwise motivating people's behavior.

It is true that sometimes philosophers take on questions such as "What is justice" or "What is a dignified life", which seem to have a direct application in society and in human behavior. However, it seems to me that philosophers do not actually analyze such questions from some kind of abstract or logical perspective. I don't think anyone would be able to actually derive answers about justice or dignity from abstract considerations of "Being" and "Becoming". Rather, philosophers merely document the ideas and the prevalent impressions (about justice or dignity) that are already present in their contemporary society

[posic]

As I said, you just do not understand what they are talking about. E.g., this quotation about being and becoming

[chaource]

As I already said, I agree that questions about responsibility for the past, whether somebody is to be considered "the same person" (and thus responsible for certain actions), the notions of justice, dignity and so on are very important in practical life. What I disagree with, is the statement that philosophers actually can resolve these questions through their abstract discussions. I disagree that philosophers (or anyone else) can provide a theoretical resolution of these questions, because I maintain that such a theoretical resolution is impossible, because these questions are not well-posed. These questions are not questions about some entities whose properties we can ascertain or verify; there is no way to measure or otherwise objectively establish whether today's Germany is a "different" Germany or "the same" Germany as 100 years ago. These notions are just artifacts of the mind, and people's opinions on these matters are conditioned by psychology, tradition, culture, and history. No amount of theoretical discussion or practical

[chaource]

Similarly, one can ask whether you are today the same person as 20 years ago, or a "different" person. I regard this question as ill-posed: there is no way to establish which answer is correct, for there is no clear definition of what it means to be "the same" person or "not the same". All cells in the human body are physically renewed every 7 years, except perhaps for the female reproductive cells that are not renewed. This much we can verify; but this is certainly not what the question is about