Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: What is philosophy?
Message-ID: <83@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Aug-87 13:58:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.83
Posted: Sat Aug  8 13:58:03 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 13:18:22 EDT
References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Distribution: world
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 56
Keywords: philosophy wisdom logic concepts truth empirical
Summary: Need a wider definition of philosophy


I greatly admire your courage in offering a definition (it exceeds mine).  And
I agree with you when, in article <3251@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rjf@ukc.ac.uk you
(Robin Faichney) write:

>Before the rise of experimental
>methodology, all serious thinking was philosophical. (Which is not to say
>that it was good philosophy.) When a branch of philosophy began to have
>(or be capable of having) its theories tested by experimentation, it became
>a science.

But when you say:

>Philosophy is the activity of attempting to discover and/or propagate
>conceptual truths
>
>where a conceptual truth is one which is true by definition (a tautology) or
>whose logical premises are conceptual truths.
>
>Thus formal logic, when dealing only with concepts, is the `purest' form of
>philosophy. Other forms of philosophy are less formal, but (hopefully) still
>logical methods of juggling concepts. 

we part company.  Surely this definition is a REdefinition that encompasses
far less than what is normally thought of as philosophy.  To me, your
definition seems to reduce philosophy to a combination of semantics and logic,
when it used to be "love of wisdom".

I agree with Biep when he says, "I like the part about concepts,"  But it seems
that you are only describing the "linguistic analysis" form of philosophy.  I
also agree with Biep when he says,

>I think in this way you cut off the more fundamental parts of philosophy.
>What about thinking about whether "truth" is a valid notion? What about
>ethics, aesthetics? Of course, logicians have tried to set up deontic and
>other logics, but then again, an aestheticist might view truth in terms of
>beauty.

Where would you classify what Biep is talking about, if not under philosophy?
Mere fuzzy-headedness?

I don't think the truths sought in philosophy are merely truths about the way
words are used.  At least it seems to me philosophy has a more grandiose
purpose than that.

But I do confess not to have a sufficient brainstorm to know exactly what that
purpose is and therefore what philosophy is, other than that it involves the
discovery of non-empirical truths.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge