[dylanfw]

> Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place.

It's interesting that you begin with a comment like this to seemingly dismiss Satre and Camus as not being real philosophers, and then you proceed to put forward your own terribly unfounded philosophy with no supporting argument.

[lngnmn]

Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style.

Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences.

Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism.

Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too and the branch which is called philosophy of science. Camus and Sartre have nothing to contribute here.

[AnimalMuppet]

dylanfw showed you a flaw in your facts. Sartre and Camus were in fact philosophers by any reasonable definition of the word.

Or rather, dylanfw claimed a flaw in your "facts". But your claim - that they were not philosophers - was just a claim, with no supporting reason given. It can be dismissed just as easily (and with more justice).

And, dylanfw said "... with no supporting argument". He/she can'd dismiss your logic because there is no logic - just some dogmatic claims, with no support whatsoever.

> Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the west, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract speculations, similar to theology.

With Hegel, philosophy became irrational. For a good explanation, see "Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer.

> Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too.

You think that Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why?

[lngnmn]

> philosophy became irrational

This is contradiction.

> Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why?

Due to its goal and its method. The goal was to find the ultimate reality, as they call it. The method was of removing nonsense, not pilling up more abstract concepts. A recursive process of reaching the ultimate base case, if you wish.

The culmination is, arguably, the Upanishads and to some extent Advaita Vedanta and the Buddhist philosophy of mind. For its time it was remarkable achievements and for the most parts in its fundamental principles it still does not have a contradiction with the principles confirmed by the findings of the classic sciences.

[coldtea]

>This is contradiction.

No, it's really not. Philosophy is just inquiry, if the inquiry leads you away from rationalism, you can still follow it, and several philosophers have done so.

[lngnmn]

It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is.

As soon as you ceased to follow the method and start to pile up nonsense it could not be called an inquiry anymore. Some other definition is needed, and the word speculation is better candidate or a dogmatic theology.

At least, ceasing to rigorously follow the scientific method disqualifies one from being a scientist. Similarly, ceasing to follow laws of logic and to keep a "converging/recursive process of approximating to what is by removing nonsense and misconceptions" (which maintains so called connection to reality) in philosophy disqualifies one from being a philosopher.

Please, lets not start about so called ultimate existence of abstractions. Categorization of abstractions is another kind of endeavor.

The obvious example is so-called philosophy of death. No one has been there but so many has a lot to say about it.

[coldtea]

>It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is.

Only assuming reality is rational. Which is a pre-conceived notion -- and that's even more in contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor.

Though, even scientists can get it wrong (e.g. "God doesn't play dice", when apparently, she does).

[UhUhUhUh]

Philosophy didn't become irrational on its own. It took Karl Marx's work to thoroughly debunked it as such (e.g. Manuscripts of 1844). At least the action and moral parts. The knowledge aspect remained open to speculation and reflection (i.e. epistemology). What they have in common is the successful negation of Marx's work by placing philosophy on life-support, which it still is today, and by acting as if either the marxist critique never happened, or, it is equivalent to leninist/stalinist ideology.

[pfortuny]

There cannot be a "flaw" in a sequence of statements which do not form a silogism. There is no flaw in your logic because there is no logic.

[lngnmn]

No one writes in formal way on a discussion board. Which statement in particular you personally do not like?