Another Attempt at Defining Philosophy
I would like to address the definition of philosophy in more depth. This is an ongoing process, and this is not means the first nor last attempt to correctly define this complex entity.
Etymologically, it is the love of wisdom; Φιλοσοφία. Yet how does this relate to the actual definition in 2006? My position is that philosophy is a branch of study, consisting of ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics and logic. This criterion may require some expansion or may need to be decreased, but for now I believe that it is correct, yet I may be wrong.
Leaving the definition of philosophy at the love of wisdom is fundamentally flawed because wisdom is an incredibly complex term and requires a definition. Wisdom is not a simple term and it is open for interpretation. To call something the love of apples is much simpler to grasp than the love of wisdom.
So philosophy is not the love is wisdom but a collective study of intellectual subjects that philosophers have studied. The idea of who is a philosopher has changed over time, and now we have called people “philosophers of x.” There are philosophers of mathematics, philosophers of science, philosophers of art, et cetera. This clearly shows a difference in the way that the word philosophy is taken.
Philosophy has, for some unfortunate reason, been taken as a personal credo on a given subject. One may say, “My philosophy of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” However, this is not the same as saying that “My love of wisdom of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price”, or to say, “My collective study of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, aesthetics and ethics of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” We would not say that, so there is a difference between the terms, ‘philosophy of’ and ‘philosophy.’ (If I have erred in the punctuation of that last paragraph, please inform me, respectfully.)
Where is the line to be drawn between philosophy of and philosophy? It is my belief that to say that one has a philosophy of something is to misuse the term ‘philosophy’, but it is so entrenched in our vocabularies that it cannot easily be removed. Here is where the line must be drawn. Philosophy as a noun is a collective branch of study. Philosophy of x shall be defined as the personal belief system with respect to x. When philosophizes, one is critically thinking about matters pertaining to ethics, metaphysics, etc. A philosopher, is one whose profession, in some capacity, deals with studying and or teaching and writing about philosophical matters. Leaving philosophy at the love of wisdom is to assign philosophy the primitive definition it shed at the death of Aristotle some 2300 years ago.
This has been another attempt at narrowing down the definition of philosophy. I know I have not wholly succeeded, but I have worked toward a better definition. Read my first post, which is a work in progress essay, as are almost all my posts, works in progress, with the exception of the Aurelius paper, the Riemann paper, the Kafka essay, and I believe that is it. I do not claim to have a perfect definition but the point is "the love of wisdom" is insufficient.
Etymologically, it is the love of wisdom; Φιλοσοφία. Yet how does this relate to the actual definition in 2006? My position is that philosophy is a branch of study, consisting of ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics and logic. This criterion may require some expansion or may need to be decreased, but for now I believe that it is correct, yet I may be wrong.
Leaving the definition of philosophy at the love of wisdom is fundamentally flawed because wisdom is an incredibly complex term and requires a definition. Wisdom is not a simple term and it is open for interpretation. To call something the love of apples is much simpler to grasp than the love of wisdom.
So philosophy is not the love is wisdom but a collective study of intellectual subjects that philosophers have studied. The idea of who is a philosopher has changed over time, and now we have called people “philosophers of x.” There are philosophers of mathematics, philosophers of science, philosophers of art, et cetera. This clearly shows a difference in the way that the word philosophy is taken.
Philosophy has, for some unfortunate reason, been taken as a personal credo on a given subject. One may say, “My philosophy of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” However, this is not the same as saying that “My love of wisdom of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price”, or to say, “My collective study of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, aesthetics and ethics of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” We would not say that, so there is a difference between the terms, ‘philosophy of’ and ‘philosophy.’ (If I have erred in the punctuation of that last paragraph, please inform me, respectfully.)
Where is the line to be drawn between philosophy of and philosophy? It is my belief that to say that one has a philosophy of something is to misuse the term ‘philosophy’, but it is so entrenched in our vocabularies that it cannot easily be removed. Here is where the line must be drawn. Philosophy as a noun is a collective branch of study. Philosophy of x shall be defined as the personal belief system with respect to x. When philosophizes, one is critically thinking about matters pertaining to ethics, metaphysics, etc. A philosopher, is one whose profession, in some capacity, deals with studying and or teaching and writing about philosophical matters. Leaving philosophy at the love of wisdom is to assign philosophy the primitive definition it shed at the death of Aristotle some 2300 years ago.
This has been another attempt at narrowing down the definition of philosophy. I know I have not wholly succeeded, but I have worked toward a better definition. Read my first post, which is a work in progress essay, as are almost all my posts, works in progress, with the exception of the Aurelius paper, the Riemann paper, the Kafka essay, and I believe that is it. I do not claim to have a perfect definition but the point is "the love of wisdom" is insufficient.
posted by Brian Hillman at 10:00 PM
1 Comments:
I very much agree that 'love of wisdom' is insufficent. To confuse the origin of a word with its meaning is the most common instance of the Genetic Fallacy.
However, definitions also are not lists. This is shown in painstaking detail in the first book of Plato. Also, there is a problem in that occuassionally new areas have been added to philosophy. Most notably, epistomology really came into flurish with Descartes. Yet, epistomology is undeniably philosophy. So any current list, may lose out on the next new branch of Philosophy.
In my experiance, a study becomes philosophical when it is a critical, sympathetic, cautious, and deep discourse. The subject is less important. If their was publsihed the journal of Dog Do-Do that had debates of such qualitites, I'd be sorely tempeted to call it the philosophy of Do-Do.
However, looking upon it self critically, I may have defined the type of university anayltic philosophy I'm accustomed to- more than the whole beast. So I fail too. :)
Good luck.
Post a Comment
<< Home