Main branches of philosophy

Traditionally, there are five main branches of philosophy. They are:

• Metaphysics, which deals with the fundamental questions of reality.
• Epistemology, which deals with our concept of knowledge, how we learn and what we can know.
• Logic, which studies the rules of valid reasoning and argumentation
• Ethics, or moral philosophy, which is concerned with human values and how individuals should act.
• Aesthetics or esthetics, which deals with the notion of beauty and the philosophy of art

There are many other topics in philosophy which deal with one or more of these branches. For example:

• Philosophy of eductation
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of mind
• Philosophy of religion
• Philosophy of science
• Political philosophy

Philosophy is not knowledge. It is about the search for knowledge.

Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words, philein sophia, meaning lover of wisdom. In ancient times a lover of wisdom could be related to any area where intelligence was expressed. This could be in business, politics, human relations, or carpentry and other skills.

Main branches of philosophy

Traditionally, there are five main branches of philosophy. They are:

• Metaphysics, which deals with the fundamental questions of reality.
• Epistemology, which deals with our concept of knowledge, how we learn and what we can know.
• Logic, which studies the rules of valid reasoning and argumentation
• Ethics, or moral philosophy, which is concerned with human values and how individuals should act.
• Aesthetics or esthetics, which deals with the notion of beauty and the philosophy of art

There are many other topics in philosophy which deal with one or more of these branches. For example:

• Philosophy of eductation
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of mind
• Philosophy of religion
• Philosophy of science
• Political philosophy

Philosophy is defined in the language as wisdom, that is, love of wisdom. It is meant by all thoughts that the mind draws and leads to thinking. The term is defined as science, knowledge, meditation and reflection which is based on the search for, analysis and interpretation of facts.

The philosophy topics vary from one to the other. The various types of philosophy are political, scientific, material, ideal, historical, legal, religious, educational, intellectual, linguistic, mathematical, physical, psychological, literary and monetary.

Philosophy is driving force for human life with respect to:

1. Education

2. Knowledge

3. Religion

4. Ethics

5. Morality

Doctorate degree for academic Fraternity is 'Doctor of Philosophy' acknowledged by Article-18 of 'Constitution of India' and empower people against Article-14 explicitly equility law.

Following!

Philosophy may = Think Deeply + Go mentally far from people thinking + Interpret logically to touch the minds.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Jiang & readers,

You already have some good answers to this question.

However, I thought it would help to consult the dictionary. Webster's says:

2a: pursuit of wisdom

b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

3a: a system of philosophical concepts

b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought, e.g., the philosophy of war

4a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

---End quotation

I though the first entries under "philosophy," since they had more to do with phrases like "doctor of philosophy," and similar usage, were of somewhat lessor interest.

I think you can see here some reflections of the varieties of approaches to philosophical topics. (Philosophers of differing "schools" will sometimes be hard pressed to understand or converse with one another.) But "pursuit of wisdom" stands out. Some philosophers are more oriented toward speculation, usually speculation on unification of thought; while others tend more to "analysis." Contrast 2a and 2b.

Keep in mind that a dictionary definition merely summarizes or represents an overview of collected instances of actual usage. Still, that in itself, is not without significance.

Notice the reference to the differing philosophies of individuals or groups (4a), as in e.g., "British empiricism," "American pragmatism," and "Continental philosophy," etc. Philosophy can be quite culturally specific, though it aspires to be universal.

H.G. Callaway

to H. G. Callaway,

That's a beautiful answer of yours!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Jiang & readers,

Many thanks for your kind words! What strikes you as of greater interest for your question?

H.G. Callaway

Philosophy is the analysis of reasons behind the acts.

It is not just a subject, rather it is like any widespread waves like aether, stay behind every actions, but can not be seen or understood by all people.

Thanks.

It is obvious that there are different approaches to understanding what Philosophy means; they have changed historically and even currently many of them differ dramatically.

But I think all approaches try to find, by abstraction, the more general laws, rules, explaining the relations of the Nature, included the human being and his distinctive property: the conscious.

To Dear H. G. Callaway,

Many interests struck me in Waterloo, many interests helped me in Waterloo!

“…It is obvious that there are different approaches to understanding what Philosophy means; they have changed historically and even currently many of them differ dramatically. ….”

Yeah, that is so, but from that it evidently follows that mainstream philosophy simply isn’t a science, in any indeed science there cannot be approaches that differ dramatically. But in mainstream philosophy that is fundamentally inevitable.

Including, because of the above that

“…But I think all approaches try to find, by abstraction, the more general laws, rules, explaining the relations of the Nature, included the human being and his distinctive property: the conscious.……”

isn’t so; though if that would be something as “…all approaches in indeed philosophy must try to find, by abstraction, the more general laws, rules, explaining ….”, that would be correct. However, again, all existent approaches in the mainstream, though sometimes try, principally aren’t able to find anything indeed rational relating to any of the indeed philosophical problems/subjects for study.

The reason is evident also: to solve any indeed philosophical problem principally is necessary before to solve two utmost fundamental problems – what are utmost fundamental in philosophy and so in all sciences phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness”/[“philosophically” conscious “Ideas”, “Spirits”, etc.]?

This last problem isn’t solved in the mainstream till now, correspondingly in philosophy already a few thousands of years well simultaneously co-exist two main opposite doctrines, “Materialism” and “Idealism” [and innumerous number of sub-doctrines, “schools”, etc.], which have opposite “definitions” of what these phenomena are, which [the definitions] have no any rational grounds and so are principally non-provable, non-disprovable, and so transcendent/uncertain/irrational.

And, again, since any indeed philosophical answer on any indeed philosophical problem is possible only basing on the rational definitions of these phenomena, any attempt to solve other problems inevitably fail, it is impossible to derive something rational basing on the irrational.

These indeed philosophical problems can be, and are, rationally clarified only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” new philosophical conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ; including it is clarified what are Matter and Consciousness and it is rigorously shown that these utmost fundamental phenomena are fundamentally different.

more about “human being and his distinctive property: the conscious” see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now , DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209.

All papers have Engl. and Rus. versions; in the second link’s “Annex” the questions “What is philosophy?” and “Why so many parts are there in philosophy?, are considered more in detail.

Cheers

If you want to know what Western analytic style Philosophy is, read my BEGINNING PHILOSOPHY (Oxford Universtity Press). It covers ten topics: logic, theory of knowlege, nature of the external world, the mind-body problem, normative ethics, metaethics, the free will problem, the existence of God, the problem of evil, and a concluding chapter on the meaning of life.

To Dear Sergy Shenvchanko,

Thanks for your enlightenness. Phylosophy is a difficult topic to define not as others. I agree your view to phylosophy: phylosophy is a theory about the three problems: the realationship between nature origins of world and human beings idea; the relationship between human beings and external world, and internal human beings, i.e. ethics; how to study external world and human beings self, i.e. methodology.

To Dear Richard Double,

Your book named by Beginning Phylosophy is interest to me, it's covering maybe the main domains in phylosophy, if I feel free, I will read this book. Thanks for your attention.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Jiang,

I suspect you misunderstand my question. What struck you as interesting in the dictionary definition?

Give it another try.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Many interests struck me in Waterloo, many interests helped me in Waterloo!

Yaozhi Jiang RE: "Many interests struck me in Waterloo, many interests helped me in Waterloo! "

Huh? How did Waterloo get into the discussion? What am I missing?

Yaozhi Jiang Oh, I think I see.... Did Autocorrect give you Waterloo instead of Webster's?

What is it? Something that will take you around in circles till you get tired or you end up where you started.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Weisz & readers,

An auto-correction? Oh, I see.

H.G. Callaway

Philosophy is defined in the language as wisdom, that is, love of wisdom. It is meant by all thoughts that the mind draws and leads to thinking. The term is defined as science, knowledge, meditation and reflection which is based on the search for, analysis and interpretation of facts.

The philosophy topics vary from one to the other. The various types of philosophy are political, scientific, material, ideal, historical, legal, religious, educational, intellectual, linguistic, mathematical, physical, psychological, literary and monetary.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language..Historically, "philosophy" encompassed any body of knowledge.

Metaphysics, which deals with the fundamental questions of reality.

Epistemology, which deals with our concept of knowledge, how we learn and what we can know.

Logic, which studies the rules of valid reasoning and argumentation

Ethics, or moral philosophy, which is concerned with human values and how individuals should act.

Aesthetics or esthetics, which deals with the notion of beauty and the philosophy of art.

Plagiarism alert. Sadanand Pandey copied-and-pasted his answer verbatim without citing the source, which is:

http://www.philosophy-index.com/philosophy/branches/

I've withdrawn my recommendation by clicking on the "Recommended" link.

Plagiarism alert 2. Khansaa Azeez Obayes Al-Husseini 's answer is in part verbatim the same as Sanadand Pandey's answer. His opening paragraph consists of two sentences copied-and-pasted from different places on this Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.

The four main branches of philosophy are logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology. Logic studies the connection between evidence and conclusions which one wishes to draw from the evidence. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge itself.

Philosophy - is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach, and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom."

Six Branches of Philosophy - Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy. These branches originate from basic questions. What do I know? How do I know it? Where do we come from? What is good? What is beautiful? How do we act?

Philosophy is the science of logic

Philosophy is a thinking of a rational and critical nature that cares about man, the universe and the divinity ...., the most important field: metaphysics - nature - human - concepts ..

To Dear H. G. Callaway and Dear Karl Pfeifer,

No auto-correction! It plays a joke on funny, sensation of humorous. All interests have moved me deeply and enlightened me in my mind. I do not be the Napoleon, and I do not meet my Waterloo. Thanks for your attentions!

In spite of that is clarified in the SS post above, last more than ten posts in this thread again and again claim about some mythical science “mainstream philosophy”, which

“……Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language…Philosophy is a thinking of a rational and critical nature that cares about man, the universe and the divinity ..…”; etc.

Again, that is correct, if we talk about philosophy as some indeed science, only if instead of “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems….” will be “Philosophy must study of general and fundamental problems…..”; and in that subjects for study the indeed philosophy indeed differs from any other sciences, which study concrete problems that relate to three [really two] utmost fundamental [in the traditional philosophy] phenomena “Matter”, “Life”, “Consciousness”.

As that happened a few thousands of years ago, when practically only religions have answers on these fundamental problems, and some people attempted to find something more rational explanations of, including, religious dogmas; and to ground rationally these explanations. Correspondingly in those times the main philosophical problems were formulated, and that was indeed fundamental scientific result, that was quite obligatory scientific step, as that is at forming of any science; including two main philosophical doctrines were formed.

However in next thousands of years , and that is in the mainstream till now, no any rational development of the mainstream philosophy happened, it practically doesn’t differ from the Antic one; when, however, some Antic branches become be “usual sciences”, say, as “Logic”, which is rather developed, comparimg with Aristotle researches, branch of mathematics.

The last is quite natural process, that is the main goal of the indeed philosophy – to solve the fundamental problem up to level when this problem can be studied in detail in corresponding sciences without “fundamental questions” that can puzzle “usual” scientists at their researches. As well as it quite natural, that these “usual” sciences and scientists elaborate concrete problems much better then philosophers, which aren’t professionals in such cases.

Correspondingly practically all “new” what is the mainstream philosophy’s “development” is

“…Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach, and its reliance on rational argument.……”

Indeed in the mainstream a huge number “systematic approaches”, and corresponding sub-doctrines, schools, etc., appeared, which are based on practically arbitrary a la scientific non-provable and non-disprovable initial conjectures, and practically all philosophical “researches” are really only “clarifying ” of what/who is “materialism/st”, “idealism/st”, “pragmatism/st”, “constructivism/st”, “realisn/st”, “scientism/st”, etc., etc., etc.; what is absolutely senseless for any science, including for indeed philosophy.

And, though such allegations as

“…Six Branches of Philosophy - Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy. These branches originate from basic questions. What do I know? How do I know it? Where do we come from? What is good? What is beautiful? How do we act?……”

are, in general, correct, however they aren’t principally complete: any scientific answer of the questions that are listed above fundamentally are possible only the two main questions: what is Matter? , and “what is Consciousness/[in philosophy “Ideas”, “Spirits”, etc., however, say, the fundamental phenomenon "human's consciousness" is more interesting]” are answered. Which aren’t answered in the mainstream till now and so the mainstream philosophy is as it is, as see above here, including the SS post above and papers linked in this post. Just therefore the questions in the quote, though are indeed philosophical, aren't and cannot be, answered in the mainstream also.

Again the answers on the two main questions above, and on the questions in the quote, are given in the new, indeed philosophical Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, the links see SS post above, now 1 day ago.

The main [“The Information as Absolute”] paper was rejected by editors 10 mainstream philosophical journals, though for that there isn’t and cannot be rational reasons, the rejections were made by reasons that are far from science and ethics. However, regrettably, now such cases are the best compliments for any scientific work…

Cheers

On account of the first question, my opinion is in accordance to Pythagoras' definition ( t

On account of the first question, my opinion is in accodance to Pythagoras' (6th c. BC) definition (the fervour of the consideration of the best things - Iamblichus "On Pythagoreanism"- 3rd - 4th c. CE ).

On account of the second question, my opinion is in accordance to Pythagoras' definition again (there are four main parts in philosophy, the good, the first, the divine and the chaste).

Israa Burhanuddin Abdurrahman You have simply copy-and-pasted your above answers from various webpages without acknowledging the source! To present someone else's writing as if it is your own is PLAGIARISM. You should know better.

Some of Israa Burhanuddin Abdurrahman's omitted references:

Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

The four main branches of philosophy are logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology. Logic studies the connection between evidence and conclusions which one wishes to draw from the evidence. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge itself.

https://ninewells.vuletic.com/philosophy/which-branch-of-philosophy-is-most-important/

Philosophy - is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach, and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophy

Six Branches of Philosophy - Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy. These branches originate from basic questions. What do I know? How do I know it? Where do we come from? What is good? What is beautiful? How do we act?

http://www.evphil.com/philosophy-101.html

Philosophy is the love of wisdom and to be given wisdom is a great good. There are well documented books on the branches of philosophy that you addressed as 'parts' but to list them here may be too long. If you google books on philosophy, plenty can be found for free in pdf that will guide you to explore in greater detail.

Back to the answer.

Philosophy as the love for wisdom, and everybody loves wisdom if aware of it or not, is part of our lives that resolve our hardships in such a way to make our life meaningful once again, and over and over again when we fall. Philosophy is closely linked to ontological and epistemological questions that may differ from one person to the other. Sometimes it may be the same but the understanding may differ. This understanding makes sometimes a person think that philosophical is to copy-paste without due recognition of other persons' contributions while another person will strive to establish justice and make genuine philosophy with its epistemological and ontological roots prevail so that others can learn, relearn and then share.

Philosophy is the wisdom to love justice more than ourselves. :)

For completion, Iamblichus "On Pythagoreanism" Book 12 or chapters 58 - 59.

“…Philosophy is the love of wisdom and to be given wisdom is a great good.….”

Such and similar claims seems are written practically in every post here, however nobody writes – so what is this “wisdom”? Though this case isn’t unique, it is impossible to find any rational answer on this question in any of the huge number of mainstream philosophical publications.

When seems only provided that the answer on this question is known, it is possible to love just “wisdom”; in other cases some loves can be rather specific, up to some unnatural perversions.

Again, the indeed philosophy, where the main philosophical problems can be, and many are, solved on the level when they become be subjects for study by concrete sciences is possible only in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception, including only in framework of this conception in

“…in accordance to Pythagoras' definition again (there are four main parts in philosophy, the good, the first, the divine and the chaste).…..”

it is possible to understand rationally what is the “good’?, what is the “first”?, what is the “divine”? And what is the “chaste”? And what is “wisdom”, though.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts; though since the discussion was rather animate and the links are rather far back in the thread, for convenience that are at least: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now , DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209.

Cheers

DearTheodore John Drizis,

Near “…days,…hours ago” on the line where name of author of post is placed there is reverse “^”. After mouse click on this sign, options “Edit” and “Delete” appear; so, for example, you can delete seems one your wrong [day ago] post

Cheers

I agree with Jasmin Omercic

philosophy its environment of knowledge.

Concerning the definition of the "Wisdom", Iamblichus again says: "...Wisdom, the true science,..." (Iamblichus, On the Pythagoreanism, Book 12 or chapter 59).

Consequently, a definition of the wisdom is the Iamblichus' definition, according to it, wisdom is the true science.

Let to continue about the indeed philosophy. So again – the philosophy can be some indeed science only after the utmost fundamental phenomena in tribal Universe, and notions in the philosophy and other sciences, “Matter” and “Consciousness” are rationally understandable/ properly defined. And just because of these phenomena in the mainstream are transcendent/uncertain/irrational, in spite of a huge number of brilliant philosophical minds and publications about “ontology of Matter and Consciousness”, and just because of correspondingly these minds and publications are in framework of opposite two main mainstream philosophical branches, these phenomena/notions in the mainstream are as they were thousands of years ago, i.e. as that is pointed above.

However in the mainstream publications usually there are no of these questions “what are Matter?, and Consciousness?”, when, though, in the publications one can read indeed rational questions that relate to indeed philosophy, as

“…What do I know? How do I know it? Where do we come from? What is good? What is beautiful? How do we act?… http://www.evphil.com/philosophy-101.html…..”

these [quoted] questions can be rationally answered only provided that the utmost fundamental Matter/Consciousness problem is clarified.

This point becomes be evident if the quoted questions should be formulated more clearly, as, for example, for a case if in this post we consider mostly the mainstream branch “Epistemology” and nature sciences, which study Matter:

What is Matter?, what is human’s consciousness”?, why humans seems adequately to the objective reality discover some laws/links/constants in Matter?; including - why, if humans knowledge is correct, in Matter some laws/links/constants exist at all?

The mainstream isn’t able to answer on any of these questions principally, in spite of in the mainstream there exist a huge number of “epistemological” minds, schools, publications, etc.; however for any normal human, i.e. for who is able to think objectively and critically, these “philosophical fundamental findings” are seemed as nothing more than sets of quite banal and well known for humans “truths”. An example is “the scientific method” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ], which consists of the steps

1. Define a question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner

5. Analyze the data

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

. 8 Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Every mentally sound human in everyday practice, making every concrete job, always execute these steps seems tens of thousands of years of homo sapiens sapiens existence. Who don’t make so, simply don’t live long in mostly aggressive environment. Moreover, that even animals do, including “Publish results” learning from each other, say, of some methods of hunting, and “Retest” the methods.

Nonetheless the library of the “scientific method” publications is very large [see, e.g. the reference list in the link above; though that is only a “top of iceberg”], in spite of that it seems evident that to believe frankly that such publications contain indeed something new and important, is necessary to have some childish mind; and at reading of such publications sometimes a thought appear, that in this love to wisdom the wisdom must be tried for pedophilia.

In the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception it is rigorously proven, that there cannot exist something else then some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

Including Matter and any consciousness, including human’s one, are some informational systems also, and there is nothing surprising in that the self-aware, having ability to analyze logically acquired information, informational system “consciousness” finds sometimes in some informational material objects/systems some logical rules/links and construct for such cases adequate models. Here is no any difference between a physicist’ researches and, say, an Egyptologist’s work, when she/he decode some inscription on an antic Egyptian temple.

The branch “Epistemology” is simply superfluous, researchers in other sciences, after they understand what they are and what they study, have no any questions to philosophy, when what is the “scientific method” and how the steps above should be applied in every concrete case the researches know much better then philosophers.

More see the papers that are linked in the SS post above; though once remark more:

“…Philosophy is the wisdom to love justice more than ourselves. :)…..”

As that was pointed here already, the papers about the “The Information as Absolute” conception were rejected by tens of official mainstream philosophical journals, in spite of they are evidently publishable, and contain the conception, which transforms philosophy into indeed science. So the quote above is correct, however that has no relation to the mainstream philosophy; more correctly to mainstream philosophers, though….

Cheers

Karl Pfeifer, Theodore John Drizis , and Jasmin Omercic have contributed valuable points. May I add Brother Francis Maluf's definition of wisdom? (This may answer Sergey Shevchenko 's objection.) "Wisdom is the most perfect knowledge of the most important truths, in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total, permanent disposition to live accordingly." This definition is the result of a life time of study.

Brother Francis spent many hours -- years, even -- as a young man trying to understand the modern philosophers. When he was introduced to philosophis perennis, he was delighted that philosophy could actually be understandable. He spend the rest of his life studying and teaching it. His Introduction to Philosophy as Wisdom may be read on-line here .

Brother rearranges the courses of philosophy a bit so that the concrete and visible is studied and a platform built before the more abstract topics are covered: Logic, Cosmology, Psychology, Ethics, History of Greek Philosophy, History of Modern Philosophy (subtitled “Polemics”), Epistemology (major logic), and Ontology (general metaphysics).

Dear @Sister Maria Philomena,

“[Brother Francis Maluf's definition] …Wisdom is the most perfect knowledge of the most important truths, in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total, permanent disposition to live accordingly. ….”

You are the first in this thread, who at last attempted to answer on the first question, which should be answered by every “lover of wisdom”; and only basing on some answer on it is principally possible to love the wisdom consciously, including if attempt to research some indeed philosophical subjects, to love wisdom professionally.

Nonetheless the quoted answer, in spite that it is rather clear and comprehensive, it isn’t applicable in humans’ “mainstream” practice; including, rather probably, in the Brother Francis Maluf's philosophy.

Any normal human, i.e. who able to think objectively and understands that: (i) - because of any knowledge about the external World, and about human’s her/himself, is empirical, when (ii) - any empirical information principally cannot prove any inference from it,

understands also, that any human’s truth really isn’t an indeed truth, because of any knowledge about the external World, and about human her/himself, is principally empirical.

All what is possible is to believe that some basic conjectures are true; and, if the conjectures are some postulates, which, again, are adopted as true without any proof, to believe that corresponding theories, conceptions, plans with predicted results, etc. are true also.

Really practically all/every in humans’ knowledge eventually is based on unproved beliefs, and so, say, any scientific theory principally doesn’t differ, for example, from any religion.

First of all from any empiric information about some events, objects, etc., which are observable in concrete actual time moment by any means doesn’t follow, that these events, objects, etc. will be existent in a next time moment; moreover, everything in Matter and consciousnesses changes constantly, and observed events/ objects often simply disappear.

So, for example, though every mainstream philosophical doctrine states that “Matter” and “Ideas/””Spirits”, i.e. some “Consciousnesses”, are “eternal” Essenties, and any religion states the same - “God(s) is/are eternal”, that is nothing more than some bare, having no any rigid rational grounds, declarations.

Thus really [besides the exlusions below] there cannot, and so don’t, exist some indeed “the most perfect knowledge of the most important truths, in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total, permanent disposition to live accordingly”,

and just therefore now there exist innumerous quite different and mostly opposite mainstream philosophical doctrines, schools, etc., and quite different and mostly opposite innumerous religions as well, every of which claims quite different and mostly opposite own “most perfect knowledge, of the most important truths, in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total, permanent disposition to live accordingly”.

From this above there exist only two exclusions.

The first one is purely abstract non-material product of fundamentally non-material informational system “homo sapiens sapiens consciousness”, “mathematics”, which is created by the consciousness on the highest, i.e. “conscious”, or “verbal” level of her operation

[in that mathematics principally differs from any other purely consciousness’s information about the consciousness itself that is used/proceeds at the consciousness operation on lower, “proto” and “sub-conscious” levels, more see SS post [now 2 days ago, the second link; though all links are useful].

In this [mathematics] case there is no problem with a proof of existence – in mathematics the basic objects and operations are simply introduced as “Let A is….”, “Let B is…”, etc.

The second exclusion, which is unique that relates to the External and so follows from principally empiric information, is the “The Information as Absolute” conception,

where it is sufficient only once experimentally to detect some informational pattern as a data, and from this experimental fact follows logical proof of the basic statement [which isn’t a postulate, since is proven] in the conception: any information absolutely fundamentally cannot be non-existent; any information[al pattern/system] is absolutely fundamentally is eternal. This proof is possible just because of the phenomenon “Information” is absolutely fundamental, in contrast to “simply fundamental” phenomena in our Universe.

Further, basing on this fact, and so by discovering some proven as always existent, properties of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information” the conception above as a whole follows.

Which is so just the absolute truth; and which so should be base of any knowledge. And just because of that the conception is indeed true knowledge, to make indeed correct scientific inferences, by using the conception, from observed empirical data, becomes be much more difficult problem, comparing with producing next and next non-provable and non-disprovable “fundamental philosophical findings” in existent mainstream philosophy.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

Of course, this definition is applicable! The fact that there are so many contradictory schools/theories just goes to show that philosophia perennis is not being followed. What happened to the Square of Contradition? Philosophy is supposed to make things clear -- not more muddled.

I disagree with you about empirical knowledge. "All knowledge comes to us through the senses." (Aristotle) We can then take that information, and -- with our intellect (a spiritual faculty) -- move to universals and abstract concepts, but we start with our senses. As soon as you say that there is no objective reality, you start spinning off into error.

Philosophy is more fundamental that science -- in fact, it illumines it.

Common sense is not so common any more! May Our Lady, the Seat of Wisdom, lead us to her Son, the eternal Logos, Wisdom Himself.

Philosophy is an attitude more than a discipline, namely a questioning and exploring attitude. A philosopher should explore all possibilities and weigh common sense against alternative hypotheses. Personally I prefer systematic approaches (Carnap, Husserl, Kant for example) but there is a great tradition of data-driven empiricist approaches. Questions that philosophers consider are: what things exist and how they exist, how humans know things, what it means to express wishes and intentions and what moral behaviour is. But rvery subject has a “philosophy of”, which explores the basis of the subject.

To add something other to this concept is that in my opinion, characteristics of the wisdom (true science) are the clear, the unalterable and the everlasting.

Dear Sister Maria Philomena ,

You seems don’t read SS posts attentively enough:

“…Of course, this definition is applicable! ….”

That is indeed so, and in the SS post above that this [wisdom’s] definition is true is written. However it is written also that:

(i) - however it cannot be applicable fundamentally, if relates to the mainstream philosophical love of wisdom; and, when you quite adequately to the reality write that

“…The fact that there are so many contradictory schools/theories just goes to show that philosophia perennis is not being followed.…”

you, since remain in the mainstream, cannot explain – why this, rather strange irrational for any normal human situation, nonetheless quite objectively exists in the mainstream.

Though this situation is fundamentally natural, since in the mainstream the main utmost fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are principally non-defined/uncertain/irrational. From such situation fundamentally, logically cannot follow something rationally grounded rational philosophical construction; all what is possible, and what really exists, is that the mainstream philosophy is a huge set of non-provable, non-disprovable different and opposite, and so evidently meaningless mental constructions.

The point above is a bit too categorical, these constructions are meaningless if we say about philosophy as about an indeed science; when the mainstream conceptions, though being non-scientific, are adequate to the reality in a number of points. These points mostly are banal and trivial [example see SS post above about “scientific method”], including in such banal points, when some doctrines/schools, etc. having no understanding what is human’s consciousness , claim that the consciousness is some material system, or, more often, even the “state” of human [see, e.g. Oxford dictionary], thus claiming, infact, that material needs of really practically material body are the intrinsic needs of the consciousness.

This position is in the reality, in spite of it is fundamentally wrong, very popular, and so the behavior of humans’ societies, including countries, when is in accordance with the mainstream philosophical principle above, is very primitive, it doesn’t differ from, say behavior of bacteria. And, correspondingly, such mainstream doctrines don’t differ from bacteria’ “philosophical doctrines”.

The religions are more adequate to the reality, since at least [quite correctly] (1) - differ fundamentally material human’s body and consciousness/soul; (2) - when state that the consciousnesses are eternal, and (3) – point on the fact that humans’ souls aren’t independent, they interact not only with Matter and each others, but, very possibly, with some other Consciousnesses, and so every human must hold some ethical rules; which must take into account a number of aspects oh humans’ souls’ lifes in both - on Earth and after human’s death - cases.

One of Karamazov brothers said “If God doesn’t exist, than everything [for a human] is allowed ”. This allegation, however, is essentially unclear, and becomes be clear if would be as “If God, doesn’t exist, and/or human’s soul isn’t eternal than everything is allowed ”; and it means so, if by using “philosophical words”, that the indeed philosophical branch “Ethics” is meaningless.

Just therefore the ethics rules were and are established by religions, when the mainstream philosophy didn’t change in this point something; all what was/is done are inventions of some “ethical” systems that sometimes simply contradict with the traditional ethics; and

(ii) - the definition [of wisdom] is indeed applicable only in one case - in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception, where the main indeed philosophical problems are solved on levels, when corresponding phenomena become be subjects for study by other sciences, and so in the indeed philosophy only one branch remains – “Ethics”.

Since in the conception there cannot be fundamentally transcendent phenomena, everything is/are some informational structures, including any God(s), if exist, is/are some informational structure also; when Information, in spite of that she is absolutely fundamental phenomenon, isn’t transcendent and so can be effectively studied also, in framework of the conception the ethical problems can be rationally, unlike any religion, studied.

And, since now science becomes be so mighty, that a few men having a few $millions, can, for example, to invent a virus that can liquidate humanity, or some society rather possibly will be able to construct some “special” humans, etc.; now practically any “anti-utopian” projects can be realized.

Thus Ethics, and so the indeed philosophy, becomes be utmost important science in humanity. If Ethics will be the science, of course, till now the conception only makes such situation be possible.

Again, more see the SS posts and papers that are linked in the posts; relating to ethics – first of all https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now , DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209.

Cheers

Well, more serious than last time, it helps to see yourself and others in a wider human context, to help solve problems.

That is philosphy I take it.

Otherwise Im ocasionally attracted to bits and pieces of it, like motion in Zeno of Elea, also Bergson on vitalism. Cannot stand Wittgenstein, a real nitwit, do not understand his supposed importance.

I like the oriental saying that no one is master of ones own destiny, that you cannot contemplate all the consequences of ones actions; we are too hard on ourselvs.(do not know the exact origin of this)

An example how the “The Information as Absolute” conception clarifies some concrete small sub-problem of the fundamental problem “what is Consciousness”? see the last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_mathematically_model_consciousness#view=5c8cfebeaa1f095ea7642950

Cheers

An example how the “The Information as Absolute” conception clarifies some concrete non-small sub-problem of the fundamental problem “what is Consciousness”? [i.e. the "free will" problem, and so essentially, in spite of implicitly, relates to Ethics] see the last two SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5c8e7dd7661123b98260d60a

Cheers

Nothing absolute about information. It is only such if you are able to understand it.

“Nothing absolute about information. It is only such if you are able to understand it”

If somebody understands what means “to understand”, “to be able to understand”, and what is “you/she/he” and “it”, though,

this somebody, if hasn’t some other than to write correct claims reasons, never will write that “Nothing absolute about information”.

Now a next SS post in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5c904399b93ecd7d3b1dd594 that relates to “free will/Ethics” problems appeared.

Cheers

Respecting the consciousness, my opinion is that it has not a position in the information and in the science in generall, mainly the true science (wisdom), such as any relation, due to the fact that the consciousness and the coscience are fallible subjective and unconnected.

“…Respecting the consciousness, my opinion is that it has not a position in the information and in the science in generall … such as any relation, due to the fact that the consciousness and the coscience are fallible subjective and unconnected...”

That in the quote above is an quite legitimate in the mainstream philosophy allegation and is the main reason of existence of the mainstream philosophical branch “Epistemology”; where a huge number of mainstream philosophers have attempted and attempts to solve this problem in published huge number of “solutions”.

Without any reasonable result, quite naturally, because of to solve this problem is necessary before to know – what are [say, when a science studies some objects/systems/processes in Matter] the principally transcendent/ uncertain/irrational in the mainstream phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” [at least what is the consciousness of some homo sapiens sapiens].

Since these fundamental for all mainstream doctrines/schools, etc. phenomena/notions aren’t, and principally cannot be, reasonably/rationally defined in the mainstream, the result of hard work above is as it is: the next and next “solutions”, which have no relations to indeed solutions, next and next time appear in this endless “highly intellectual” process.

Again, the solution is possible and is done only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, [since the link to the main paper is rather far above in the thread, it is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904],

where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else then some informational patterns/systems, including Matter [and every material object/system] and the consciousness are some informational systems also.

At interactions of everything, so, there is nothing else than some exchange by some informational messages; in any case, i.e. when some material objects interact, when some consciousnesses interact, and when material objects, through material senses of human’s body, interact with the fundamentally non-material consciousness.

The three cases above are different, in that, because of Matter is a simple and rigorously logically organized system that is based on rigorously determined set of laws/links/constants, in the first case every material object generate messages in rigid accordance with this set and so the object that acquire some message, which contains principally only totally adequate, complete [in certain sense, if we remember about fundamental QM uncertainty], and completely understandable by the object, information, answers/behaves always without any problems and only in complete accordance with the set.

In two other cases, when some consciousness interacts with other consciousness or with some material object, this consciousness prinipally hasn’t complete information; besides, at practically all interactions the consciousness has only limited ability to test the validity of the information. Nonetheless that isn’t principal, and, in spite of the subjectively processed by consciousness information is always partially uncertain, she principally able to process the information as essentially adequate to the reality. The result is well known – in XXI humans’ adequate to the objective realty knowledge about Matter is much larger, than, say, that was in Antic times.

In contrast to the knowledge about what is consciousness, though; because of the mainstream sciences, having no understanding what the consciousness is, till now dully study using material instruments the practically material brain, believing at that that they study the consciousness, which is non-material. More about what is consciousness see the links in the last “long” SS post.

Cheers

Following.

If you are not conscious, you cannot absorb information.

Would that be a definition of consciousness, the ability to absorb information, or do people give it some other definition?

“…If you are not conscious, you cannot absorb information.….”

If that relates to humans [and any living beings on Earth, though] that is correct only if is as “If you are not conscious by some reason, you cannot absorb information consciously”.

However to understand what is the assertion above means, it is indeed necessary [besides an ability to think non-standardly and to understand that not only something “conscious” always processes some information] before to answer on the question

“…Would that be a definition of consciousness, the ability to absorb information, or do people give it some other definition?...”

which [the question] can be, and is, answered only in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception, the link to corresponding paper see in the last SS post above. Where, again, it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else then some informational patterns/systems, which are elements of the absolutely infinite and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter [and every material object/system] and every consciousness are nothing else than some informational systems also;

which are, though are “made from the same stuff”, nonetheless, fundamentally different because of are based/organized, and operate, in accordance with fundamentally different sets of basic logical rules/links/constants.

And, again, every interaction of every material and conscious objects is nothing else then acquiring, elaboration, basing on some known laws/links/constants and other known information, messages of some sending object by some acquiring the messages object.

The difference in this case, though fundamental, but non-principal, is only in that informational exchange between material objects is rigorously defined and all messages for all objects in Matter are practically completely [in certain sense, because of the fundamental QM uncertainty, but that isn’t essential] understandable; and results of processing of the messages by impacting object is always in framework of the Matter’s laws/links/constants; when every consciousness always processes at least partially uncertain information.

At that the consciousness, in contrast to any object/system/structure in Matter, is “consciously self-aware” informational system that “consciously” selects herself from the environment by some “consciously percepted” criteria [which are resident utilities in the “computer+program Consciousness”],

which [the consciousness], even on the highest state on her development, i.e., the “homo sapiens sapiens” state, is forced to solve the basic problem [which follows from that consciousness always is impacted by uncertain information in the “Information” Set]: providing her utmost stable existence and operation in the Set.

Just therefore the informational system “consciousness”, which could even exist in some rudiment/closed, and so stable, state in the Set before this Universe creation, a few billions of years made some biostructures [and further stable material bodies] on Earth as the stable residences in the Set [including concretely in rather aggressive environment on Earth] ; and elaborate incoming through material body’s sensors information aimed at, first of all, stable existence of the bodies.

A few thousands of years ago practically 100% of any consciousness’s on Earth , and of every consciousness’s of other than humans living beings now, operation was the provision of the aim above; however the development of technology allow now at least as essential part of humans’ consciousnesses to elaborate information outside this aim, developing sciences, art, etc.

At that, as that seems evidently follows from the well observed trend of development of the “computer+program Consciousness”, which is “more and more out Matter”, it seems as rather probable that this trend will continue, and the “spiritual” part of the human’s consciousness operation will be more and more important. Just seeking for optimal humans’ behavior, which could be optimize this process, is now the utmost problem in humanity, which should be studied, first of all, in practically unique branch that remains in the indeed philosophy, “Ethics”.

More about what is consciousness see SS posts above and the papers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now , DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209.

Cheers

In my opinion, true science (wisdom) does not be interested for the coscience and the cosciousness of the man but it asks the acceptance of its instructions and

calls to its contemplation.

Theodore

If you use the word science you are talking only about what can be observed and or measured.

My idea is that conciousness can be considered a scientific topic.

But this depends on the definition you give it, thats my question.

Even in the limited scientific sense there could be many questions. Is it purely rational mind or irrational also?

Is it strictly individual or can it be collective?

Granted that in Philosophy there is much else contained.

To define the term wisdom would take us on a very long trip. I suppose you could take it from Eclesiastes, Proverbs and so on.

So from philosophy, it is a very long topic.

“…My idea is that conciousness can be considered a scientific topic.

But this depends on the definition you give it, thats my question….”

What is consciousness is explained in SS posts above rather clearly; including in that

“…..Even in the limited scientific sense there could be many questions. Is it purely rational mind or irrational also?…..”

instead of the notion “mind” more correct is to use the notion “consciousness”, including that relates to consciousnesses of other living beings on Earth; when

human’s consciousness [“mind”] isn’t “irrational”, consciousness is consciously [in contrast to informational material objects/systems] self-aware informational system that is able to acquire information and logically analyze this information. That any others, including material objects/systems in tribal Universe do, however here is fundamental difference:

- when material objects exchange at interaction by some information, this happens when both – the sending information objects and acquiring information objects, make that in framework of rigorously determined laws/links/constants, and so the exchange is always rational and happens without any errors;

- when fundamentally non-material consciousness always processes incomplete and so, at least partially, uncertain, information, and at the consciousness’s data processing some irrational inferences are possible.

“…Granted that in Philosophy there is much else contained.….”

There exist two main types of the philosophy – the indeed philosophy in framework of the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” philosophical conception, and the mainstream philosophy where, because of the last isn’t some indeed philosophy, there exists simultaneously at least hundreds, possibly thousands, of different and opposite, however equally “true” and legitimate, “philosophies”.

More about what is consciousness see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720. ; where, including, in the Annex it is clarified what is the mainstream philosophy.

Besides relating to some concrete indeed philosophical problems see the last SS post in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5c954f7af8ea524c3e06f628

Cheers

Certainly, either what can be observed or measured and either what will be observed or measured in the future, is science, undoubtedly. Nevertheless, the proof of the infinite and of the unmeasured is science, too.

A next SS post that relates to the relevant to this thread “free will” problem appeared in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5c971d8da5a2e28457175e91

Cheers

A next SS posts appeared in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5c9aeec0f0fb6208434a9c2b

that is relevant to this thread.

Cheers

A next SS posts that is relevant to this thread appeared in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5ca952ff0f95f1872815c597

Cheers

A next SS posts that is relevant to this thread appeared in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5caab1dc979fdcba48393f2e

Cheers

The last SS post in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5cab51f6a7cbaf6981065c81

seems as is relevant to this thread.

Cheers

The last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5cacf3bfb93ecd1bb653c38d

seems as is relevant to this thread.

Cheers

The last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_destiny_a_philosophy_or_a_provable_statement_of_fact#view=5cacf3bfb93ecd1bb653c38d

seems as is relevant to this thread.

Cheers