Philosophy is a focused attempt to clarify important issues, especially the discourse typically employed in conjunction with those issues. It is a discipline that seeks to identify and correct language that attends to discourse concerning such issues. It thus argues for or against certain positions, and supports rational argumentation with available facts or scientific findings. Its arguments are offered in consideration of the relevant history of philosophy and especially the history of the topics at stake. It is not, therefore, mere opinion.

It seems they are finally starting to ask the right questions that should be answered. Philosophy is not a science in the sense of the natural sciences. Philosophy is more than that. It is a human reflection on Man and his natural and social environment. Principled-philosophical commitments have always been a strong impetus for the development of all branches of scientific thought.

I believe that the current insufficiently comprehensive development of philosophy is the main reason for the lack of significant deeper breakthroughs in many scientific disciplines.

Daniel Romano Many thanks for your answer

Philosophy is an history of logical mistakes starting the day Thales said "the waters of Nile river go back due to the wind and not because of gods' will". As if the wind was independent from gods' willing.

Philosophy is the 27 centuries long track one need to walk through to get to the original science.

The difference between certainty of prehistoric science and skeptism of historical thought is well explained by Seneca:

"We (western philosophers, romanized humans) think that a storm is caused by clouds crashing. They (western scientist prehellenized) think clouds crash because they need to cause storms."

Thats why after thirdy years of philosophical studies covering the whole from presocratics to poststructuralists, I moved to the ancient paradigm.

That paradigm last appear in Etrusca Disciplina. I'm not ashamed to write it.

Hi Antonio

I think we ask sometimes ourselves questions that are not easy to answer, such as what we are and what reality is. This is the philosophy: living in the perplexity of our own existential ignorance

What do you think about? Philosophy?

All of the existing scientific disciplines have their origin in philosophy as well as the social sciences. Up until the 19th century, what we term "science" was known as natural philosophy. Philosophy provides the tools to examine phenomena in a systemic fashion while at the same time examining and questioning the very methodology that is being employed. The complexity of modern society and the ethical issues emerging from new technologies require the rational and measured evaluation that various philosophical approaches provide. It also furnishes a healthy skepticism to the everyday assumptions we make and the means by which we acquire information.

Philosophy is a focused attempt to clarify important issues, especially the discourse typically employed in conjunction with those issues. It is a discipline that seeks to identify and correct language that attends to discourse concerning such issues. It thus argues for or against certain positions, and supports rational argumentation with available facts or scientific findings. Its arguments are offered in consideration of the relevant history of philosophy and especially the history of the topics at stake. It is not, therefore, mere opinion.

Science wants to give you an answer.

Philosophy wants you to rethink the question.

Phylosophy is the source for creative thinking. Science implements creations.

There’s a strange sort of schizophrenia in philosophy. Logic is a big philosophy subject. Yet it is never applied. Let me explain.

Perhaps the most basic statement of philosophical logic says that if there are two propositions, A, B, then there are four possible truth values. These are A and not B, A and B, B and not A, not A and not B. In plain language: one and not the other, both, the other and not the first, neither.

Those are all the AND possibilities. Philosophers also write OR and NOR statements but they are of less interest for they rule out any relationship between the two propositions. What is interesting (to me, and in much philosophy discussion) is when the two are contrasted.

Why don’t philosophers apply the logic? For example, since the late 18th century two forms of freedom have been compared, known as negative freedom (people should be left alone) and positive freedom (people should be helped to be free). So there are four possibilities: N not P, N and P, P not N, not N not P. Nobody examines them systematically. Isaiah Berlin wrote a famous paper in 1958 “Two concepts of liberty” and examined only N not P along with P not N. Neither he nor anyone else explains why the other logical options are left out.

Another example. For at least a century two forms of equality have been compared: equality of opportunity and equality of condition. There is a mountain of literature but, as with freedom, it discusses only two of the four truth values and omits the other two, namely “both” and “neither,” i.e., both O and C, neither O nor C.

Yet another example is justice where just process and just outcome are the two commonly contrasted. Same thing; no one considers both together or neither.

Nothing in logic suggest that two of the truth values are somehow inferior; no one discussing the above topics submits any argument to justify omitting two of the truth values. A conceivable argument would be if the two propositions were mutually exclusive but no one suggests this. No one would in the above instances for in all cases “both” and “neither” are perfectly reasonable.

Freedom, justice and equality are big subjects and in philosophy there is probably more written on them than any human could ever read. And yet it seems half the discussion has been simply overlooked.

There are plenty more such contrasting pairs. Here is one more, slightly more technical but equally important. Kant said that in the realm of ends there are two possibilities: price and dignity. He discusses the first without the second, the second without the first, but doesn't mention both together or the situation where neither obtains. Logic was a pretty big deal in Kant's day yet he did not apply logic’s most basic tenet.

It appears that for two hundred years philosophy students have discussed logic in one seminar and discussed moral philosophy in the next and never put two and two together.

It is amazing considering the whole idea of philosophy is to examine things systematically, especially things that get overlooked.

Why do philosophers not apply logic? (Mike Pepperday asks). Well, because life is not logical, because we try to get closer to what is derived from intuition, because we prentend to answer questions or elucidate concepts and definitions, because we intend to specify some abstracts aspects, and also, because, as far as possible, we aim eliminate ambiguity without using formal language

Keep following

Thanks Miquel. I’m not sure it is a philosophical given that life isn’t logical. Even if this were so, it would not mean one should avoid logic when trying to understand it.

Actually, philosophical writings strive to be logical. Yet, in the areas I am talking about, it seems they always overlook half the topic.

Hola Mike

I just made a distinction between logic as a discipline (method of reasoning) and that something it could be logical (that can be understood). Nobody understands life, nobody at all.

Best wishes

Mike Ricart

Making things difficult.

A recent article in Aeon Can you step in the same river twice? Wittgenstein v Heraclitus https://aeon.co/ideas/can-you-step-in-the-same-river-twice-wittgenstein-v-heraclitus?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AD_HTLGI_2019_08_09 may shed some llight on the question.

It's an odd experience this, needing to constantly re-invent the wheel. I'd be quite happy to engage on this article of mine. (which isn't just 'mine' - I'm simply passing on what the current scholarship is on this, insight don't 'belong' to anyone, it's accumulated wisdom we're all going to need in the turbulent times ahead: Chapter Communicative ethics

No one knows anything transcendent (beyond the obvious or scientifically proved).

The ridde is too complicated for us at this moment.

But it is inevitable, perhaps, to ask yourself some questions

Kind regards.

Mike

Every knowledge, Every Idea, Every thought, Even Every discoveries or claiming to understanding something ... is just shows that "you express your mental conditions-specially your mental conditions about that specific subject ". and philosophy has duty to discover that what conditions are behind your expressions.

Dear all,

Philosophy is a basis of all branches of science, not just one branch of it.

The Oxford Dictionary Philosophy 1 The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. 1.1 A particular system of philosophical thought. ‘the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle’ 1.2 The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. ‘the philosophy of science’ 2 A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/philosophy

"philosophy (n.) c. 1300, "knowledge, body of knowledge," from Old French filosofie "philosophy, knowledge" (12c., Modern French philosophie) and directly from Latin philosophia and from Greek philosophia "love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" of unknown origin. Meaning "system a person forms for conduct of life" is attested from 1771."

We all are using some philosophy in our activities, at times not formulating it verbally.

The reality should not be divided between separate sciences. And the science of reality is philosophy.

The philosophy should point direction of research, and several mistakes in path are leading to hazardous solutions like current Artificial Intelligence.

Preprint ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EVOLUTION

“Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honour for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.” - Gautama Buddha

Best regards,

Konstantin M. Golubev

dear ali and konstantin. First of all there is what to know what man is as animal. Everything refers to man: ideas, thoughts. But what is man?

Philosophy basically is love for wisdom it can be related to empirical world or beyond it. For me it is a wise way of leading my life in relation to environment around me.