Bunge’s Ten Criticisms of Philosophy

For those who prefer the written word. Bunge's criticisms:

Link

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

There a some good point in that, but also some serious issues, the fields he claims to be exhausted (Kantianism, Existentialism, etc.) are not.

If he has read the classic, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, he should clearly see that what motivated the questions they asked were the consequences of the science of the time, that has very little practical consequence. Might as well criticize literature for not helping ordinary folk.

A few other issues.

He has merits in terms of too much specialization and obscurantism - and the fact that all of it has moved to academia is not ideal either.

Nevertheless, the "ivory tower" critique - which has merit, no doubt - is not at all exclusive to philosophy. It's a privilege, one that should be treasured. And if some can make these ideas communicable to the masses, such as Magee or Russell, then all the better.

Of course, being the one to claim the whole field is stagnant can create the impression that the person writing is enlightened, which is suspicious to say the least...

Quoting Art48

Carrier defends philosophy and makes several points I found very interesting.

Quoting Fooloso4

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

I watched the first 20 minutes of the video, but I stopped because I disagreed with so much the presenter said about what philosophy is and should be. His understanding of metaphysics is much different from mine. Since that is the aspect of philosophy that is the most important to me, it made the rest of is points unconvincing. I also found his argument that science once was and still is part of philosophy technically true but trivial and irrelevant.

Quoting Art48

Bunge’s ten criticisms of philosophy,

I too have been disappointed with much of Modern Philosophical Posturing, as compared to Ancient Wisdom Seeking. Especially the linguistic nit-picking of Postmodern academia. Fortunately for me, I have no formal training in philosophy, except for Logic, as a math requirement. Regarding the "intellectual engines of modern civilization", most of my amateur philosophizing is based on the paradoxes dug-up by scientists on the cutting-edge of understanding, such as Quantum & Information theories.

In the Feb/Mar 23 issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". "Science", as the name implies is in the business of obtaining practical knowledge from the real (material) world. But "Philosophy" is more like "Art", as an expression of ideas & impressions about the ideal (mental) world. Of course, the art of philosophy is supposed to be disciplined enough to sort-out the useful (meaningful) wheat from the useless (trivial) chaff. :smile:

Quoting Art48

1. Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions

Substantive contributions? Who decides that? Possibly like a clique of mathematicians who gather together to praise the subject to which they have devoted much time and effort. I've been there and done that and then looked with unbiased clarity and found little of consequence in a larger scheme of ideas.

Quoting T Clark

His understanding of metaphysics is much different from mine. Since that is the aspect of philosophy that is the most important to me, it made the rest of is points unconvincing.

Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting.

Reply to Art48 I have been posting this video for many years in this platform. Its good to see that you appreciate it.
You are right , Carrier is an atheist and a Methodological Naturalist (NOT a materialist) and its because of what he presents in his talk "Is philosophy stupid".

Quoting Gnomon

Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living".

This goes back at least to the story of Thales. Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates not only for the uselessness of philosophy but for it being dangerous. Both Plato and Xenophon address this. Whether it is useful or useless depends on the person and what they want for their life. It is with regard to this that Socrates says that the unexamined life is not worth living. In other words, the philosophic life is the only truly useful life.

Reply to T Clark I think his view of Metaphysics is the only meaningful one. After all Philosophy's goal is nothing more than our efforts to produce wise claims about our world(etymology). In order for any claim to be wise it needs to interpret verified knowledge and reflect on the consequences of it. So by default Metaphysics provide solutions to questions and problems.
The best example of how good philosophy can be in problem solving can be found in Scientific Frameworks (Theories).

My meta-meta-philosophical position is that Bunge's meta-philosophical position regarding the deficiencies in philosophy is itself the deficiency in philosophy.

Quoting Fooloso4

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom).
Knowledge is what verifies claims as Wise. So the Aristotelian Method (1.epistemology 2. Physika 3. Metaphysika etc) is not arbitrary or optional but mandatory.
We need knowledge to reflect upon and structure our metaphysics or else the outcome can never be recognized as "wise".
A verified Wise claim isn't something that we put in our trophy cabinet and forget about it but it carries epistemic value on its own. Again(I wrote it before) great example is Natural Philosophy and how Philosophy can take current knowledge, ask the correct question and construct Metaphysical hypotheses for Science to evaluate. ALL scientific Hypotheses are Metaphysics and all Scientific Theories are Philosophy capable to solve problems and produce additional knowledge.
Epistemic value in wise claims is inevitable and this is what makes Philosophy so important!
So I would add one more thing (Carrier agrees on that) in addition to problem solving and Knowledge. Asking the correct questions even when we are unable to arrive to solutions or knowledge.

Reply to Hanover Its a very accurate critique on a failing Academia especially when a specific Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) is doing great mainly because of a system capable to get rid off all ten issues.

Reply to Hanover
Bunge's observation about constructive criticism, as a lack in philosophical discourse, does bring into question his dismissal of so many thinkers on the grounds of being useless wankers.

That part, however, was fun.

Reply to Nickolasgaspar Reply to Paine

But is this unique to philosophy, or just the result of any over-specialization in the humanities? The value of basic knowledge of philosophy, literature, art, history, etc. is clear, as is a more advanced knowledge, but that value reduces as you grow more esoteric, but I'm not convinced the elimination of hyper-specialization and the competitve drive for originality would be an overall good thing.

Let the master puzzle players play I say. Every now and then a meaningful discovery is made. What is the alternative other than his general plea that it be fixed?

Reply to Fooloso4 Thanks for the link.

Sure, philosophy, like plumbing, can be done very badly. And when it is done badly, it is smelly and messy.

Is the answer to not do any plumbing?

Reply to Art48, Reply to Manuel, Reply to T Clark, Reply to Gnomon, Reply to jgill, Reply to Nickolasgaspar, consider this:

Mary Midgley: Philosophical Plumbing

Reply to Banno

It's a very good essay, and she makes some excellent points. This type of approach seems to me be quite pertinent and potentially very useful for ethical matters, as well as politics and political discourse.

It seems to me that it is much harder to do this, with say, epistemology and metaphysics. It could be done, to an extent, but the practical use of these fields is not immediately apparent.

Nevertheless, there is much here which is very valuable. And it certainly doesn't hurt that she writes very well, which is always a treat.

Reply to Hanover

Bunge points to a problem with specialization and then ends up tossing a lateral pass to a certain group of specialists. Others have made that move a part of their thesis. Bunge is excluding work on the basis of a value that is being negated by this list of thinkers.

Is that a set of judgements masquerading as facts?

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom).

Love of wisdom can mean different things. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world. It is outward directed. This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world.

Quoting Art48

Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting.

I can see why you and others would like what he said. I like meta-philosophy like his - philosophy about the nature of philosophy. I just didn't find his answers convincing.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

I think his view of Metaphysics is the only meaningful one. After all Philosophy's goal is nothing more than our efforts to produce wise claims about our world(etymology). In order for any claim to be wise it needs to interpret verified knowledge and reflect on the consequences of it. So by default Metaphysics provide solutions to questions and problems.
The best example of how good philosophy can be in problem solving can be found in Scientific Frameworks (Theories).

You and I are often in agreement about philosophical issues, but I disagree with just about all of your points here. No surprise - the definition and meaning of metaphysics is one of the most contentious and confusing issues on the forum and, I assume, in philosophy in general.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Carrier is an atheist and a Methodological Naturalist (NOT a materialist)

Yes, I believe you're correct.

Quoting Banno

Mary Midgley: Philosophical Plumbing

Thanks for the link. I skimmed the essay quickly. To start off, I agree with Midgley that metaphysics and epistemology are practical enterprises. I come to it from my pragmatic role as an engineer, which I come to from a natural inclination toward problem solving. Then she lost me. In the rest of the first half of the essay, she gave an unappealing, high falutin vision of the role of philosophy, metaphysics in particular.

I was ready to toss it aside, but in the second half she caught my interest again. She started describing the historic sequence of political philosophies and how the changes in metaphysics proceeded. That's something I've thought about a lot, but more in the precinct of ontology than ethics and politics. I haven't spent as much time thinking about them. I think that's because I live my life mostly through my intellect and I'm most interested in becoming more self-aware about how I think.

I may go back and put some more time into the essay, at least the second half.

Again, thanks.

Reply to Art48

1-4 is especially good.

Reply to Fooloso4 I do not see how that is true of philosophy.

In general philosophical areas stem from the basic question of ‘What we should do?’. People then attach ideas, opinions and speculation to this fundamental question.

One thing I hear repeatedly (and believe to be true) is that philosophy is mostly about Questions rather than Solutions.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others.

Quoting Art48

Bunge’s ten criticisms of philosophy

I saw this a few years ago and found it fairly conventional - most of what is said here would apply to any number of subjects taught at university. There's a famous quote - a piece of hyperbole by Theodore Sturgeon from the 1950's which nevertheless holds a truism - '90% of everything is crap.'

Daniel Dennett updated the quote 50 years later with - "90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap."

In other words, things are done badly... but I think we already knew this, which is why most of us are on the lookout for the gems amidst the dross.

Bunge wrote in2001. Here's the Guardian in 2018. There has been an attack on philosophy from the right for more than 20 years, and another from the left. The reason is very simple; however one governs, however one manufactures consent, philosophy departments and philosophers in general are in the business of criticism of society. They rock the boat. They not only do not help, they hinder, the orderly governance of society, and the progress of the dominant ideology {science}.


[quote=Bunge]No new broad and deep philosophies have been proposed in recent times, and none of the extant ideas has been of much help to understand the sea changes that have signed the twentieth century. [/quote]

This is just wrong. Much work has been done in reshaping man's relation to the world and conception of himself from the point of view of the environment as a whole. This gives rise to an entirely new value system which is necessarily in conflict with capitalism and scientism. It is very little discussed on this site, because it has been successfully marginalised, sidelined and ridiculed to a great extent. But there is a philosophy of ecology, that is even called Deep Ecology, and much related material on the concept of wilderness, and Ecosophy, and all sorts of interesting stuff that the Man does not want us to talk about.

There must be no alternative to moral nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, and despair. Therefore there must be no new philosophy. The nearest we can get here is the interminable lament of the Global Warming thread.

Biography of Arne Naess I mention this stuff now and then, as a way to think about how to live, which is the central concern of philosophy, or should be, but sadly, the natural world is so distant from everyone's actual life, that the non-human is taken to mean robotics and ChatGPT. The birds and the bees are a fairytale, fit only for euphemism. At the time, (early 80's) I was able to do some extra-mural courses on some of this, but that too came under attack and was defunded.

The philosophy of — I don't know what to call it; it is nameless and invisible because universal, but I'll say "Secular Humanism", to be as politically neutral as possible — your philosophy; is there room in it for the idea of restraint? Are there things, places, possibilities that humans should not, or can decide not to approach? Is there anything that is not our business, our property?

Reply to I like sushi

Descartes "provisional moral code" from the Discourse on Method marks the difference between ancient and modern philosophy.

My third maxim was to try always to master myself rather than fortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world.

This is the approach of the ancients. It is provisional because his method will allow man to master fortune. Man will no longer have to accept things the way they are. Descartes method of reason is, as he says in the Meditations, the Archimedean point from which he can move the world.

Quoting I like sushi

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others.

The question of what we should do is tied to the question of what we can do. With the modern project of the conquest of nature the possibilities of what we can do is greatly expanded. Mastering oneself becomes secondary to mastering fortune. Why change yourself when you can change the world to accord with the self?

The self, following Descartes, is that "thinking thing". Here philosophy and psychology split off. The ancient maxim "know thyself" no longer has a place. It is replaced by the acceptance of an objective attitude, a "view from nowhere".

Political philosophy is replaced by political science. The question of 'What should we do?' is replaced by the question of how to make people's lives 'better'. The question of what makes life better fades into the background, as if answered and settled.

Quoting Tom Storm

Daniel Dennett updated the quote 50 years later with - "90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap."

I always looked at it a little differently - 25% of people are really good at what they do, 25% are really bad. The rest are in the middle, somewhere along the line from pretty good down through mediocre to pretty bad. I have a friend who's a therapist. She told me the range for really good therapists isn't the top 25%, but the topo 10%.

Quoting unenlightened

This is just wrong. Much work has been done in reshaping man's relation to the world and conception of himself from the point of view of the environment as a whole. This gives rise to an entirely new value system which is necessarily in conflict with capitalism and scientism. It is very little discussed on this site, because it has been successfully marginalised, sidelined and ridiculed to a great extent. But there is a philosophy of ecology, that is even called Deep Ecology, and much related material on the concept of wilderness, and Ecosophy, and all sorts of interesting stuff that the Man does not want us to talk about.

Really good, thoughtful post.

I think this is right. I remember coming across a fairly well-known essay - "Should Trees have Standing" - looking at whether the environment should have legal rights. It struck me as both radical and sensible. I've spent some time thinking about what changes in metaphysics have taken place in my lifetime. I never even thought about ecology and environmental ethics.

Quoting Fooloso4

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

Yes. Philosophy shouldn't be pinned-down to a narrow job description. Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens, but he focused on one-man-at-a-time. His teachings were more like self-development than political or scientific problem-solving. However, Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) to Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". And other philosophers, through the years, have focused their "problem seeking"*1 on particular aspects of the quest for General Wisdom (know-that) and Practical Knowledge (know-how).

For example book-bound Marx asserted that, “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Ironically, if there is a typical personality type for philosophers, it seems to be Introverted or Introspective. Which is not well-suited to changing what's wrong with the world, via political revolutions. Nevertheless, the strong words of bookish thinkers can indeed inspire others to, not just point-out the problems, but to fix them. Yet a forum of brainy introverts talking to shy recluses is not likely to de-constipate the "plugged-up plumbing" of the natural or cultural milieu. :joke:


*1. In his 1977 book Problem Seeking, architect William Pena observed : "you can't solve a problem unless you know what it is". He didn't mean you should go out looking for trouble. Instead, his book on Architectural Programming presented methods for discovering the underlying (fundamental)*2 problems that motivate people to spend time & money to build something new, rather than to hold-on to something old. Those step-by-step procedures are essentially the same as Philosophical & Scientific methods --- e.g. analysis & synthesis.

*2. Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. ___Wiki

Quoting Gnomon

Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens

He didn't.

Quoting Gnomon

Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science)

Good point, but the goal was not to know in order to change the world.

Quoting Gnomon

Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself".

In what sense is this metaphysical?

Quoting Gnomon

Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.

Certainly that is one approach or way of doing philosophy, but not the only one. Systematic attempts can force things to fit in place within the system or leave them out.

Quoting Banno

Sure, philosophy, like plumbing, can be done very badly. And when it is done badly, it is smelly and messy.

Is the answer to not do any plumbing?

The real problem is that most "philosophers" do "plumbing" while they think they are doing Philosophy.

Quoting Fooloso4

Love of wisdom can mean different things.

-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings.
I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". I find it really simple and precise.

Quoting Fooloso4

. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world.

-No that's not true. Problem solving is an inescapable side effect, a pragmatic necessity that bind any wise claim about our world.
Quoting Fooloso4

It is outward directed.

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me).

Quoting Fooloso4

This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world.

-Your last sentence provides you the answer. Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world).
From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions.

Quoting T Clark

You and I are often in agreement about philosophical issues, but I disagree with just about all of your points here.

-That's true ! I must say though I was pretty sure we were going to disagree on this one!

Quoting T Clark

No surprise - the definition and meaning of metaphysics is one of the most contentious and confusing issues on the forum and, I assume, in philosophy in general.

- I agree , words don't have absolute meanings, they have common usages and they tend to change over time.
My problem is not with which definition one uses but my argument is that only the Aristotelian definition (well Andronicus of Rhodes came up with the word/ definition) is relevant to philosophy.
And by that I mean: the Metaphysical hypotheses/questions sprouting(starting point) from credible epistemology are meaningful and have the chance to be evaluated for their wisdom.
i.e. Only after knowing the existence of gravity we can conclude about the wisdom of a claim that includes using a top floor window as a shortcut to our car.

Religions are a great example on how epistemically divorced metaphysical claims(they also happen to be supernatural) can be so unwise.
I am really interested to hear examples of epistemically disconnected "metaphysics" which can or have guided us to wisdom.

I moved in Greece really early in my life, where Philosophy was a standard dish in school. The definition(metaphysics) we were taught was the classical one (Using our epistemology to theorize beyond our current knowledge and understanding). So Carrier's definition was nothing special or new to me. These last 15 years I found out that many use the meanings of the words "meta/????" and "yper(super)/????" interchangeably.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". I find it really simple and precise.

I don't disagree (how can I, when I have no real view on the matter?) but I'd like to explore this with you some more if that's ok.

Is not a 'wise statement' always measured or understood against some form of value system or worldview? How do you account for the perspectival nature of such values? What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others. What does philosophy tell us about identifying the wise from the faux wise?

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Love of wisdom can mean different things.
— Fooloso4
-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings.

You give a very good example:

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors".

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live.

In the Republic the philosopher is compelled to return to the cave. The life of contemplation cannot be lived unless the philosopher is wise with regard to political life. Socrates' trial is a case in point. Xenophon is instructive here as well. In his Socratic dialogues Socrates deals with quotidian practical matters, not just intellectual endeavors.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

No that's not true.

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me).

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just.

For more on inward versus outward directedness see Descrtes provisional morality above.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world)./quote]

Look at what happens in the Republic when the philosopher is compelled to return to the city/cave. Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth. There is clear empirical evidence of philosophy's corruptive influence. They came to question the beliefs and values of their ancestors.

How we evaluate empirical results can differ depending on our state of self-knowledge, with what we value and take to be important.

[quote="Nickolasgaspar;794939"]From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions.

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want.

Reply to Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm

I don't disagree (how can I, when I have no real view on the matter?) but I'd like to explore this with you some more if that's ok.

-its more than ok!

Quoting Tom Storm

Is not a 'wise statement' always measured or understood against some form of value system or worldview? How do you account for the perspectival nature of such values? What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others.

-True. As humans we are curious and we value learning facts about our world. Its human nature. We observe it in small kids asking "why this/why that" all the time. We observe it in "older kids" who go on and make up their own "answers" and what is right or wise to do (religions with rules traditions and dogma).
Making sense of the world is what we are "hardwired" for. Anil Seth describes our brain function as a "prediction machine", an organ constantly scanning our environment for facts helpful in the prediction of near future events .
ITs so valuable that we also have a biological mechanism ready to reward us with a "soup of endorphins" every time we realize we are right on an assessment.
It turns out , this specific characteristic increases our percentage of survival and flourishing.(increase happiness/avoid suffering).
So a Wisdom is not just a " great story" , it also carries an instrumental value and as empirical beasts we do like practical "advises".

Quoting Tom Storm

What is wise for some may seem like a banal nothing to others.

Sure, but that doesn't reduce the value of wisdom in a claim! i.e. The value is not affected by the magnitude of our excitement. i.e. An order "don't use an elevator during an earthquake" is wise to be followed and we teach it to our children even if it sound banal to grown ups who live in tall buildings.

Quoting Tom Storm

What does philosophy tell us about identifying the wise from the faux wise?

-That's a very good question! Natural Philosophy abandon the Academic "ship" and became an independent Philosophical "category", established really strict peer reviewing process and high standards of evaluation just to be sure for the quality of Wisdom in its Theoretical Frameworks.
We systematized Logic in order to be able to evaluate the sound foundations of our claims.
If you look up the definition of "Wise" you'll see that almost all include the following.
"Good judgment/Having or showing good judgment(to say, to decide, to act)".
So there must be something to judge in the first place.
In Philosophy its knowledge, in everyday life ..facts.
Not my best post...but its really late over here! =)

Quoting Fooloso4

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live.

I think we have a misunderstanding here.
You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method. His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life.
Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements. This can be achieved by gathering facts, assembling them in to knowledge and finally reflecting on them to find meaning. If that is done successfully the produced framework contains wisdom.

Quoting Fooloso4

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge.

-No I don't mean that. Bunge points out that when a statement is wise,it can be used to address real world issues. (sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more).

Quoting Fooloso4

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just.

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy.Try finding an example of a well accepted wise statement that isn't based on verified knowledge(any type).

Quoting Fooloso4

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want.

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise". This is why Mario includes "problem solving" and Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.

Quoting T Clark

She started describing the historic sequence of political philosophies and how the changes in metaphysics proceeded. That's something I've thought about a lot, but more in the precinct of ontology than ethics and politics. I haven't spent as much time thinking about them. I think that's because I live my life mostly through my intellect and I'm most interested in becoming more self-aware about how I think.

You seem to imply that the intellect has little to do with ethics and politics...

Quoting Banno

You seem to imply that the intellect has little to do with ethics and politics...

That certainly wasn't my point, which was that I am most interested in the intellectual process itself, not the results of that process. The experience of thinking. What thinking, feeling, knowing feels like. Not as much the conclusions the discussions come to. I am interested in ethics and aesthetics, but, again, mostly about what moral and artistic feeling and thought feel like. How I experience them. There's a structure to thought, knowing, and language which is at the heart of my interest.

Reply to T Clark Interesting. So on a rough line, which approach, which perspective, comes closer to the interests you express here - Bunge's "real man" approach, decisive and practical, or Midgley's open, piecemeal, remedial approach?

Quoting Banno

So on a rough line, which approach, which perspective, comes closer to the interests you express here - Bunge's "real man" approach, decisive and practical, or Midgley's open, piecemeal, remedial approach?

I was unimpressed by Carrier's presentation of Bunge's approach. My philosophy, such as it is, is far from any kind of academic approach, so I don't feel any need to fix it. My approach is very personal. As I mentioned, I got into Midgley's essay in the second half.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method.

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life.

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements.

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy.

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise".

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge?

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.

(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.

(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems.

My criticism is that there are no philosophers, and haven’t been in decades. We get people like Zizek. I think it’s a low point in philosophy.

Reply to Nickolasgaspar Apprecaite the feedback.

Quoting Mikie

My criticism is that there are no philosophers

I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Can you say some more?

Quoting Tom Storm

I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Can you say some more?

Sure. Who would you point to as a living philosopher? Not a chronicler.

Nagel is still alive, and Charles Taylor and John Searle and Dan Dennett…I guess they’re considered philosophers, but I’ve never been particularly impressed. Seems like professionalization run amok. Where’s our truly original thinkers? In my opinion the last one died in ‘76.

But that’s me.

Quoting Mikie

Where’s our truly original thinkers?

Original thinkers perhaps go elsewhere?

Quoting Mikie

Nagel is still alive, and Charles Taylor and John Searle and Dan Dennett

Hmm... it's not really Mount Rushmore is it?

Quoting Mikie

In my opinion the last one died in ‘76.

Heidegger or Ryle?

Quoting Fooloso4

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others.

Quoting Fooloso4

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom?
Can you list such breakthroughs and the methods used?
How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge?

Quoting Fooloso4

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism.

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim.
You are confusing the content of his philosophy with the general quality of all philosophical statements.

Quoting Fooloso4

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole.

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement!
Quoting Fooloso4

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more
— Nickolasgaspar

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it.

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates

Quoting Fooloso4

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others.

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product. Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical. This can only be achieved through epistemic verification.

Quoting Fooloso4

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge?

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example.
Quoting Fooloso4

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method.
— Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.
(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.
(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems.

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect . After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems.
But he is correct, not all knowledge is wisdom. I.e. tautologies (deduction) / simple facts are not wisdom. Induction/abduction demand judgement. Aka wisdom

Reply to Mikie there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work. My opinion is that we the audience are polluted by worldviews( pseudo philosophy) keeping us from appreciating their work.

Quoting Tom Storm

Original thinkers perhaps go elsewhere?

Where? I’m talking about worldwide.

Quoting Tom Storm

Heidegger or Ryle?

Heidegger.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work.

Who?

Quoting Mikie

Where? I’m talking about worldwide.

No idea, but I wonder to what extent people are interested in participating in public discourse any more. Apart from the social media tosspots.

Reply to Mikie anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions. Just pick a field, Natural Philosophy (science),Philosophy of Science, Atheism, Secular Ethics etc. btw Scientific Literature is a great way to find great Philosophers.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions.

A Ph.D.? Thousands of those are handed out. That makes you a philosopher? In terms of important contributions — yeah, exactly. Who?

Reply to Mikie Well PhD's aren't necessary, what's important are the contributions to our Philosophy.
Hoyningen, Sanders, Harris, Kraus, Carroll,Sapolsky,Solomon,Harari,Searle,Becker,Adams, Carrier, Al Khalili, Solms, Wilczekm, Greene, Seth, Bloom, Mate', Fischer,Ariely, Diamond,Dawkins, Hawking,Wyman,Fallon,Churchland,etc etc etc etc.

Haidt,Zimbardo,Weinberg, Fresco,Josheph, Sandel,Kagan,Ogilvie,Ramachandran and I am not sure if I must include Pinker

Reply to Nickolasgaspar

You seem to be simply naming people you’re familiar with. Haidt and Zimbardo aren’t philosophers. Neither is Sean Caroll or Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking, just to name a few. If we’re considering anyone we like to be philosophers, then “philosopher” becomes relatively meaningless.

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different.

Reply to Mikie First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers.
Second important point is that they all publish literature reflective on our current knowledge and its implication on specific fields of study and beyond.
Any one can be a philosopher as long as he contributes to a specific category. Some philosophers (i.e. Chalmers) are way worse in contributing even if they carry the label.

Quoting Mikie

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different.

He has major contributions to Philosophy of mind, language and social philosophy.
His ideas on the mind are verified by Neuroscience today.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom?

What two basic steps?

Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge?

I don't see how they could.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim.

This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements".

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement!

I don't know what this means. Statements have content.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates

Plato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product.

"Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue. That we cannot arrive at a "final product" is the point. We are left without wisdom. We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise.

Now you may not agree, but your disagreement does not mean that the dialogues are excluded from philosophy.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical.

This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example.

Self-knowledge is the example.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect

Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption.

Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems.

According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers.

:rofl:

Bye.

Reply to Mikie Ignorance is bliss...I guess

Quoting Fooloso4

What two basic steps?
Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom.

You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field.



Quoting Nickolasgaspar

How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge?
[quote="Fooloso4;795198"]I don't see how they could.

-And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry.

Quoting Fooloso4

This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements".

Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude.
Yes Socrates's method guided a discussion through challenging questions(???????), but those questions were design to expose inconsistencies between opinions, facts of the world and logic.
So its not wrong. Socrates identified the inconsistencies between popular beliefs and real life facts and attempted to expose them through diplomacy allowing the interlocutor to answer the final "aporia" set by the philosopher.


Quoting Fooloso4

I don't know what this means. Statements have content.

Yes they do but their content doesn't change the Philosophical method.
A philosopher first needs to acknolwedge the available knowledge , identify the most credible through the latest empirical evaluations and attempt to arrive to a wise statement or right question.

Quoting Fooloso4

Plato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim.

-No they don't. Like in any Philosophical work, there is good philosophy and bad philosophy in Plato's work. We don't throw the baby with the bath water
But I still don't understand why you insist on talking about Plato or Socrates.
My question is really simple. How one can philosophize without using objective knowledge as the foundation for his auxiliary assumptions.
I have a great example of a thread (The hard problem of matter.(consciousness)) where the author ignores the science around the topic but he goes on using a pseudo philosophical assumption (Chalmers's fallacious teleology) for his main question.
The same is true with a guy I was chatting in a different thread,who ignores the scientific definition of matter but he has no problem making strawmen claims on what scientist claim about matter.
The list of such individuals is long.....they trying to do philosophy while ignoring relevant knowledge.

Quoting Fooloso4

"Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia.

Sure, apories (asking right questions) are also the strong point of Philosophy. Right questions need to be wise too...and how do you know when a question is wise? We check their empirical routes.

Quoting Fooloso4

They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue

Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science. Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics.

Quoting Fooloso4

We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise.

You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer .

Quoting Fooloso4

This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical.

Of course they are...they posses this value. I already explained it.(above)

Quoting Fooloso4

Self-knowledge is the example.

that isn't an example. that is a vague claim. what Self knowledge means to you and how do you achieve it. Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge) ...how do you arrive to this type of knowledge. You just pick ideas without any type of criteria or judgment???

Quoting Fooloso4

Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption.

-You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact. This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions.
You can not separate Wisdom and knowledge from puzzle solving. Knowing wise things is how we successfully inform our actions.

Quoting Fooloso4

Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding.

That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate?

Quoting Fooloso4

According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science.

- Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field.

What are Aristotle's two basic steps? How do they form a system? What is the framework that led to knowledge of certain principles and causes?

Aristotle, like Plato and Socrates before him was a zetetic skeptic. He does not give us answers, although it may appear to the casual reader that he does. He wants us to think, not hang posters of wise statements on our cave walls.

In both the Physics and Metaphysics Aristotle introduces accidental causes. What are the implications of Aristotle’s accidental causes? Simply put, the cosmos cannot be understood in terms of the four causes or necessity. This fifth cause makes a systematic philosophy impossible.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry.

You mean the two steps you refuse to identify?

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude.

Socrates was a real person. His contemporaries Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote about him. In any case, in the Phaedrus Plato's Socrates discusses the problem. "Wise statements" cannot be questioned. They cannot clarify or defend themselves.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Yes Socrates's method guided a discussion through challenging questions(???????), but those questions were design to expose inconsistencies between opinions, facts of the world and logic.

Aporia are not challenging questions, they are an impasse. The point where logos or reasoned discussion can go no further. The point where there are no answers to our questions. The point where problems go unsolved.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

No they don't.

This is like answering the question "this or that?" by saying yes.

quote="Nickolasgaspar;795213"]But I still don't understand why you insist on talking about Plato or Socrates.[/quote]

In order to show that Bunge's assumption that philosophy is about problem solving is too narrow. It is true of much of modern philosophy but not ancient philosophy.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

My question is really simple. How one can philosophize without using objective knowledge as the foundation for his auxiliary assumptions.

My answer is really simple. Philosophy is not grounded on objective knowledge. Modern philosophy attempted to establish such a ground but failed. This is one reason why there is so much interest in ancient philosophy. But we can also look at contemporary anti-foundationalist philosophers.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science.

We are more or less in agreement on this.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics.

If you are claiming that philosophical frameworks are not frameworks for doing philosophy, then we are in agreement. But I do not agree that theories in science and mathematics are a philosophical framework or wise statements.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer .

In Plato's Symposium Socrates describes the philosopher as someone who loves wisdom. He calls this love eros, desire for something one does not have. Aristotle begins the Metaphysics by saying we desire to know. The Metaphysics does not satisfy that desire. The desire to know always exceeds what we know. In your own terms, it is not science.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

that isn't an example. that is a vague claim.

Self-knowledge is not about:

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions.

We often deceive ourselves about ourselves. The problem is honesty, not empirical data. We can collect data that supports what we want to believe about ourselves and ignore what does not. We can think our self-evaluation is objective when it is not.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge)

Two different things. Of course I make observations. I have not said anything that should lead you to think otherwise. We do acquire knowledge through observation, but have you ever observed that two people observing the same thing come away with different opinions? Opinions rather than knowledge.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact.

It is an assumption about philosophy as a whole, about all of philosophy as it is or should be.

The fact is, not all philosophy is about problem solving. That is why I have been talking about ancient philosophy.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions.

Not all human beings are philosophers and not all attempts to solve problems are philosophical attempts to solve philosophical problems.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate?

You have unwittingly made my point. You ask for elaboration. A statement cannot provide elaboration.

That statements do not explain themselves does not mean that statements have "a self". It is necessary for someone to do what the statement cannot, address your misunderstanding.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment.

What one can do with knowledge of principles and causes is not the reason they are sought. The desire to know and what one does with that knowledge are not the same.

Reply to Art48

Seems myopic. Philosophy is huge.

And if Marx is correct, then philosophy isn't written in journals alone (which means Bunge is certainly a poor judge of Marxism, at least)

In Bunge's view do philosophers show up to the philosophy factory and make 100 proto-ideas that can then be assembled into the Brand New Idea to Sell? The philosopher as the maker of sayings, like a Hallmark card writer? :D

Looking at his list of things for reconstructing philosophy it looks like he just wants people to write different things. And most importantly, to write with these virtues in mind: "Authenticity, clarity, criticism, depth, enlightenment, interest, materialism, nobility, openness, realism, systemism, and topicality."

Which is just to say: More philosophers should be like me. The oldest philosophical prejudice of all :D

I can't help but wonder what other subjects taught in institutions of higher education would be subject to similar criticisms. I suspect there are several.

Quoting Tom Storm

most of us are on the lookout for the gems amidst the dross.

:up:

Reply to unenlightened
Well said. The focus on Naess is appreciated. I would add the perspective of Gregory Bateson as one who saw a 'humanism' integral to the conditions of life. Bateson's development of 'feedback loops' and 'recursion' to draw parallels between the 'mental' development of types and changes in other organisms blows past Bunge's clumsy distinction between what is an 'ideal' or a 'material'.

Naess and Bateson also bring into question Bunge's need to dispel nihilism because it is degrading. That is an odd way to dismiss any discussion of a pathology as a well established condition.

Reply to Fooloso4 check my thumbnail, you will find all the steps of the Philosophical method ...

Reply to Nickolasgaspar

These are not steps in a philosophical method, they are branches of philosophy, areas of philosophical study. What you might find in a college philosophy course catalog.

There are philosophical methods not one single method.

I appreciate your desire to have a step by step guide to philosophical thought, but that ain't the way it works.

Wittgenstein, Culture and Value:When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there.

Reply to Fooloso4 Yes these steps include "visiting" specific philosophical branches and science. Again you can close your ears and shout all you want. This is the method you need to follow, if of course you are not a fan of Pseudo Philosophy.
You are appreciating the wrong Man. Appreciate those who systematized the field.

Reply to Nickolasgaspar

Thanks for your advice, but I prefer to think rather than follow the misguided idea that there are steps that are not even steps.

Dismissing what you have not read or have not understood as "Pseudo Philosophy" does harm to your credibility.

By the way, it is Paul Hoyningen-Huene not Paul Hoyningen. His use of the term science is not limited to physics as you have it in your chart, bur rather it applies to each topic in the chart and much more. I don't know if he shares your disdain for Wittgenstein, but he makes use of Wittgenstein's notion of "family resemblances" with regard to the meaning of systematicity. You brandish this term about but give no indication of understanding what he means. By linking it to a step by step process it seems you do not understand it.

Quoting Fooloso4

Thanks for your advice, but I prefer to think rather than follow the misguided idea that there are steps that are not even steps.

Yeap treat systematic knowledge as ordinary opinions is your thing, you made it clear.

Quoting Fooloso4

Dismissing what you have not read or have not understood as "Pseudo Philosophy" does harm to your credibility.

That's not the criterion for pseudo philosophy....
I quote form the same source:
"What is pseudo-philosophy?
Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn't corrected when discovered."

Quoting Fooloso4

By the way, it is Paul Hoyningen-Huene not Paul Hoyningen.

Seriously.....you felt the need to add that? lol oh boy...sad.
(maybe you can also tell Paul to change the name of his youtube channel ...because it only goes by Paul Hoyningen). Again sad.

Quoting Fooloso4

His use of the term science is not limited to physics as you have it in your chart, bur rather it applies to each topic in the chart and much more.

So you don't know the difference between Physics and Aristotle's Physika ...proud to be ignorant I guess.
Cheers

Quoting Fooloso4

?Nickolasgaspar
These are not steps in a philosophical method, they are branches of philosophy, areas of philosophical study. What you might find in a college philosophy course catalog.

I agree. Calling them steps of a method implies a certain order that must be followed. For instance, beginning with epistemology, we'd have epistemology then physics then metaphysics then aesthetics then ethics then politics.

But it's trivial to find philosophers who never wrote about about one or more of the "steps," who, for example, never wrote about aesthetics or ethics or politics. In other words, they didn't follow all the steps of the philosophical method. And consequently what? That they aren't genuine philosophers? That they weren't genuinely practicing philosophy?

Me thinks not.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Yeap treat systematic knowledge as ordinary opinions is your thing, you made it clear.

Once again you create a straw man to attack. I said nothing about ordinary opinions. Systematicity, as used by Hoyningen-Huene, is not itself a system or method. It does not contain steps. In his own words:

The Heart of Science: Systematicity?:Thus, the unity of science consists in family resemblances that hold between different branches of science, resulting in a very loose network represented by the abstract concept of systematicity.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

That's not the criterion for pseudo philosophy....
I quote form the same source:
"What is pseudo-philosophy?
Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn't corrected when discovered."

It seems as though there is another participant here that only you can hear who you choose to respond to instead of me. I have not given any criterion for pseudo philosophy. If you think that Wittgenstein is pseudo-philosophy as you have defined it my comment stands:

Quoting Fooloso4

Dismissing what you have not read or have not understood as "Pseudo Philosophy" does harm to your credibility.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

maybe you can also tell Paul to change the name of his youtube channel ...because it only goes by Paul Hoyningen)

He can call it whatever he wants. What it goes by and what he goes by are not the same. But I suppose you can call him whatever you want.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

So you don't know the difference between Physics and Aristotle's Physika ...proud to be ignorant I guess.

What???? It would be helpful if you silenced that voice in your head and responded to what I have actually said instead of to it.

'Physika' is the Latinized spelling of the Greek ??????, transliterated from Latin to English as physics. Aristotle's Physics differs from modern physics in significant ways, but what does this have to do with what is under discussion here?

Reply to Fooloso4 I am not interested in tap dances....have a great evening sir.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

I am not interested in tap dances....have a great evening sir.

But you should be interested in what those who you rely on actually say. Or not. That's up to you. The problem is your repeated criticisms of others based on your misunderstanding of the sources you rely on.

" My grandma, the skateboard!".
An other criticism particularly relevant to this Philosophical platform are all those "ifisms" people use to add some kind of value in an irrational speculation.
[i]"if" this is true and if that is true then this magical conclusion must be true.
I tend to call these arguments "[/i] My grandma, the skateboard".
If my grandmother had wheels she would be a skateboard.
The problem with all these statements is that they tend to be useless tautologies. Its more than obvious that if all those things were true we will be forced to accept that specific conclusion...but since most of those conditions are unfalsifiable or against the current established knowledge, they don't really offer anything to the discussion or make us wiser.

Quoting Fooloso4

But you should be interested in what those who you rely on actually say. Or not. That's up to you. The problem is your repeated criticisms of others based on your misunderstanding of the sources you rely on.

Criticism:
9. Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization

Imagine thinking that philosophy follows a recipe conjured in the mind of some internet guy, and that everything not conforming to it is “pseudo philosophy.”

The forum attracts egomaniacs of all kinds. You can tell they’ve spent too much time alone, their ideas (so called) completely un-scrutinized for too long.

It’s funny to watch these homegrown ramblings have a head-on collision with the outside social world. Speaks to the power and importance of peer review.

Reply to Mikie

This is why Socrates was both revered and hated. Even back then there was the equivalent of the internet guy.

I think this is one reason why Plato wrote dialogues. If the interlocutor is to benefit he must first come to see that he does not know what he thinks he knows. But the character of the person may stand in the way of his seeing this. Put differently, Socratic philosophy is not impersonal

Socrates the mid-wife points out that whatever ideas he helps someone give birth to, however deformed, it is hard for someone to abandon what is his own.

Quoting Moliere

Which is just to say: More philosophers should be like me. The oldest philosophical prejudice of all :D

:up:

Reacting to some quotes from the text here : http://www.ditext.com/bunge/crisis.html

In philosophy, obscure writing is sometimes just a cloak to pass off platitude or nonsense for depth. This is how Heidegger won his reputation as a deep thinker: by writing such sentences as "Time is the ripening of temporality." Had he not been a German professor and the star pupil of another professor famous for his hermetism -- namely Husserl -- Heidegger might have been taken for a madman or an impostor.

This is Cantorcrankish and implies that all the scholars who have spent years on Heidegger's work are deluded and caught up in a fad. Bunge is wiser and brighter than all of them. Specialist who spend years developing a proper and precise set of concepts are supposed to immediately understandable in terms of the day's typical jabber.

If they restrict their attention to language, they are bound to irritate linguists and bore everyone else. In this way they will enrich neither linguistics nor philosophy... In sum, glossocentrism is mistaken and barren. But it is easy, since it only requires familiarity with one language. This explains its popularity.

This is embarrassingly crude, especially the explanation for the linguistic turn.

Whoever writes hermetic texts like Heidegger's Sein und Zeit perpetrates a philosophical imposture. He incurs the same sin as someone who, writing clearly, tackles pseudoproblems or digresses without contributing anything new, as is the case with Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Authentic philosophizing contributes new knowledge, however modest.

Now he's taking down Wittgenstein too. Now I'll grant that some of Sein und Zeit is terribly written, but there are at least 200 pages of low hanging fruit. Philosophical Investigations can seem dry and meandering to those who don't feel it's issues, but it's great. This idea that one just licks up Knowledge from some carton of InstaMeal is maybe the problem. Give us this day our delay productivity, as we squeeze those around us for theirs.

All good philosophies are radical: that is, they look for the roots of things and the presuppositions (tacit assumptions) behind the explicit assumptions.

I agree with him here, but he elsewhere implies that this can be done in terms of the usual jabber and the usual style. Heid and Witt did just this and our 'obscure.'

Any doctrine that degrades the human condition and discourages attempts at enhancing human dignity deserves being called vile. Examples: racism and the dogmas of original sin, predestination, and the noble lie; Freud's dogma that infancy is destiny: that no one can fully recover from infantile traumas; the theses that poverty is the punishment for sins incurred in an earlier life, or the price for inferior genetic endowment; that humans are only sophisticated automata; that individuals are like leaves swept by the hurricane of history; that social progress is impossible: that "the poor will always be with us"; that we live mainly to die (Heidegger's Sein zum Tode); that the masses are herds that deserve being led by inscrutable and unaccountable supermen; that the truth is or ought to be accessible only to a social elite; that reason is useless or pernicious; and that we need two morals: one for the rulers and another for the ruled. By contrast, a noble philosophy is one that helps improve the human condition. It does so by promoting research, rational debate, grounded valuation, generous action, good will, liberty, equality, and solidarity.

Bunge has done the hard work for us of determining what kind of nontriggering Knowledge Product such pass quality control. The idea that we might be Darwinian androids is as bad as racism. The idea that the way infants are treated could limit their future achievement is equated with a shameless irrationalism. Any recognition of that 'time and chance happeneth to the them all,' or that individuals are caught up in history is forbidden. Are we to blame those killed systematically by governments for being insufficiently alert ? Child victims of the plague for bad taste in their place and time of birth ?

The sentimental platitude at the end in the context of everything else is botspeak fit for cynical politicians, for an aspiring member of the Inner Party. After limiting what kind of debate counts as noble (and therefore rational?), we get the spiel on liberty and research.

Many thanks to Captain Goodthink.