Re: What is Philosophy?

[Nick Dippie <nd603@soton.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


hey paul

your definition of philosophy is pretty interesting (incidentally, judging
by the way that this subject was debated over the summer, this topic will
either die on its arse or kick off a massive debate) and i think it kind of
talies with the way i think of it, although you've exposed yourself to
unnecessary attacks by saying that it appears to barely count as an
academic discipline.

you are wrong that it is the only subject to examine itself - but when other
subjects go for a 'what is....' type question they tend to call it
'philosophy of....' by which they mean an examination fo the basic
underlying principles of the discipline.philosophy itself does this with
anything it encounters - epistemology is a study of the foundations of our
knowledge, metaphysics the basics of reality, etc etc. obviously in the
areas where the basics are established it can then go further - such as in
the philosophy of religion, where the basic thoughts as to what a religion
is are well enough established to allow a study of specific gods or beliefs
(if there is such a distinction).thats what i think anyway.


oh and i'd be would be quite interested in a discussion on heidegger.i'd had
enough of him the other day, but then i'd just finished writing a
last-minute essay on him, and as i'm sure you'll appreciate, getting your
head round heidegger is not easy at the best of times, let alone in a
rush!seems to me Being pretty much translates as 'nature' in heidegger,
though quite what he thinks is the Being of dasein is a different matter!

nick


Quoting Paul Hubbard <curley_boy_99@yahoo.co.uk>:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
> BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
> Greetings to all of you.  My name is Paul Hubbard, and
> I am a 3rd year undergraduate philosophy student at
> the University of Bolton.  My first post to this list
> was going to be an examination of Martin Heidegger's
> concept of 'Being'.  However, seeing as that
> particular philosopher is generally about as welcome
> as a fart in an lift ? for numerous reasons ? I
> thought I'd try to cover slightly safer ground in my
> introduction.  Therefore, my first post to this group
> will be an attempt to uncover a suitable definition of
> philosophy.
>
> Now the question, ?What is philosophy? is hardly new.
> I suspect that many of you have been asked this
> question many times over by friends and family, when
> you have confided in them that you have chosen to
> study such an 'obscure' subject.  When my grandmother
> asks me (and she does this every time I see her ? she
> has a poor memory, bless her!) I am always left
> floundering for a comprehensible, and yet meaningful,
> response.  What is it that I actually DO as a
> philosopher, what is my subject area?  A series of
> endless and arbitrary possibilities face us when we
> consider this question.  Admittedly, faced with such a
> multitude bewildering choices, and the clock ticking
> for my response, I invariably mumble something about
> ?the meaning of life? or ?the possible existence of
> God? etc.  But such answers are not really answers at
> all, they are merely what I say to bluff my way out of
> a difficult question ? to disguise the awful truth:
> that I do not know what my subject is about nor, by
> implication, what I am actually doing when I study
> philosophy.
>
> Then, one day, an answer came to me (in the bath, as
> all good answers do):  ?What philosophers are
> interested in,? I thought, ?are all those questions
> which are left-over from other subjects ? the ones
> that nobody else thinks to ask.?  Was my bath time
> revelation correct?  Is philosophy merely scraps and
> left-overs from other disciplines, or those questions
> that are considered 'too trivial' ('irrelevant') to
> everyday folk?  I asked my father what he thought
> about my definition (although he is not a philosopher,
> he is an accountant, and should therefore be trusted
> in all things).  He said that such a definition would
> be an insult to philosophy and philosophers
> everywhere.  If it were true, my definition would mean
> that philosophy was a subject of no great importance
> or significance; and, furthermore, could not be
> considered an autonomous discipline ? as it would be
> constantly leeching off others for its very existence
> and survival.
>
> However, I am going to ignore my father, just this
> once, and claim that philosophy is indeed involved
> with 'trivial' questions that, nevertheless, do not
> degrade it as a subject: rather, it is enhanced by
> such concerns.  Consider the following questions:
>
> ?What's that?? (pointing to a book on the table).
> ?What is it that makes all books 'book-like'??
>
> ?What do you think about...?? (asking for an opinion).
> ?What is the nature of 'thinking'??
>
> ?Was that a good thing to do?? (was that particular
> act morally approved of?).
> ?What is the nature of 'the good'??
>
> These question pairs illustrate (hopefully!) that the
> distinction between a standard question and a
> 'philosophical' one lies at the level at which each is
> asked.  The first question in each pair skims over the
> surface of all sorts of interesting problems (probably
> without even seeing them).  However, the second
> question in each example goes one step further and
> inquires at the foundations of the first.  Philosophy
> is like no other discipline, because no other
> discipline would think to ask a question like ?do
> numbers exist??, rather than simply making use of them
> like mathematicians do.  Philosophy is a subject that
> defies the traditional kind of definition because one
> cannot 'fit' it into one particular mould.  It
> examines those areas that other subjects have claimed
> for themselves, but then discarded or overlooked as
> 'trivial' or 'unimportant'.  To my knowledge,
> philosophy is the only subject (in academia or
> elsewhere) that offers up itself as a subject for its
> own critical investigations.  To ask the question,
> ?What is philosophy?? one must actually think about
> the question, and treat it as such (ie as a question,
> not as an opportunity to trot out a textbook
> definition).  In seeking to answer the question one
> must actually engage in and DO some philosophy.
>
> In conclusion, 'philosophy' today might be seen by
> those on the outside as clinging onto its reputation
> (and funding), as a 'serious' discipline, by the skin
> of its teeth.  But, by picking up where others have
> left off, and daring to go further ? deeper - we
> ensure that the original goal of learning and inquiry
> is continued: to find fulfilment in the asking of a
> question, and then not being satisfied until we
> receive a genuine answer (even if, in the end, that
> answer turns out to be the 'wrong' one)!
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars
> online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
> list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
>
>
>





Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml