|
|
|
|
|
|
by kosherhurricane
1203 days ago
|
|
|
I think philosophy is somewhat like math in that there is an attempt to create a logically self consistent system. Except it's not rigorous like math because the logic often have gaps that gets filled with observations (anecdotes), and it tries to explain the observed world. Philosophy is also not science, since there is no attempt to rigorously test the theories with experiments or data. So I lump philosophy with art. It's strongly tied with a person's sense of aesthetics as well as the culture around them. |
|
|
The philosophical sciences (I use this word in the classical sense, not the narrow modern/Anglo-American sense) can be said to couple the deductive rigor of math with general empirical observation. For example, consider metaphysics. Metaphysics often begins from very basic and general observations like "things change", observations that, btw, everyone generally presupposes, including the empirical scientist. From these observations, we can infer what must be true about reality in general and necessarily so. Metaphysics gives us the principles characteristic of being as being, or being in general. Such principles are therefore true of all things. If this seems very abstract, you would be right, as metaphysics concerns the most general things. Concrete-minded people will have a difficult time.
Sadly, because of ignorance, many take philosophy to be some kind of idle speculation or some kind of put on where anything goes. This may be a result of either bad experiences or simply a lack of preparation to understand what is being said. Also, certain philosophical "schools" seem to be notorious for their unintelligibility (Derrida has this reputation). But read someone like Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas, or better yet, recent commentators and didactic works, and you will breathe fresh air and feed your mind. Perhaps it won't be easy, but the clarity and value are there and there is plenty to chew on.
Philosophy also investigates the entailments of various held positions. For instance, your view of philosophy, science, mathematics, aesthetics, of what constitutes knowledge, etc, all very much present in your comment, all fall under the jurisdiction of philosophy. The assumptions you are making are philosophical in nature and they have profound logical consequences that make shock you and cause you to revise your views. For instance, a kind of quasi-/amateur positivist, scientistic materialism seems to be popular on HN. But a rather modest philosophical examination shows that logical positivism, scientism, and materialism are all self-refuting or incoherent. You can't escape philosophy. You can either do it well, or do it poorly.