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

[duchifat]

Excellent essay, makes a good point, and by itself serves a good example of a philosophic rhetoric text that discusses extremely vague and abstract questions in such a way that the contemporary (and sufficiently educated) audience feels psychologically convinced that your essay provides meaningful answers to those questions.

[chaource]

No.

[duchifat]

You ask the abstract question "Why philosophy exists?" Then you come with a long answer with precise quotes from some earlier thinkers (using technical terms such as "being and becoming") and show familiarity with the subject and literary skills to satisfy reader's expectations of what an educated person should know and be able to do. And after al that you reach a conclusion which is vague and cannot be tested or applied in practical manner ("Philosopher's work consists of documenting the patterns of idle and ill-directed thought, as manifested in a particular language and culture among the highly educated").

[chaource]

I disagree with every sentence of your response

[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?

[ext_1282008]

Тысячи лет женщины рожали и рожают детей после совокупления с мужчинами. Вместе с тем появилось множество извращений, отклонений и частично или полностью признаваемых обществом форм отношений. Некоторые из них достаточно далеко отстоят от изначальной простоты. То же самое случилось и в заинтересовавшей Вас сфере. От мудрости и любви к ней многие отошли в самых разных направлениях. А началось с того, что хотелось понять: как мудрецам удается быть такими, что иные им завидуют.

[gineer]

То что профессиональные философы -- это на самом деле софисты,
это далеко не новость.
Сама же философия, в чистом виде,
то есть там, где она не подчинена клановым интересам,
это просто такой способ рассуждения...

[noncivilian]

Хорошо, что Вы все-таки удосужились почитать философские сочинения, в отличии от Витгенштейна. Поразительно, но ваши выводы совпадают.