No one has given the successful answer the first three, though logic may be able to fit under metaphysics (what is the nature of reasoning as an aspect of reality) and political theory would go under ethics. I certainly think that philosophy seeks to provide answers and insofar as philosophers provide "parallel possible solutions" they are only doing what they can. I do not mean to suggest that philosophers should be faulted for their failures, but rather that the enterprise of philosophy, insofar as it is a search for answers to the fundamental questions, has not been successful perhaps because of basic facts of the universe (i.e. man's limitations or alternatively the limited communication between nature/reality and man). My impression is that this is regrettable, as it means we still don't know how to live (we=humanity) and likely never will.
I see what you're saying. I suppose I can only deflect it by saying that insofar as you're positing that it is good that different philosophies appeal to different people you are making a philosophical claim which is subject to the same skepticism as all the rest. Sorry to over-intellectualize. Also, what would you say about philosophers who claim a universal truth or universal way of life?
It appears that you think there is some sort of actual truth, viz., the subjective truth of each philosophy. Is this right? I think it would correspond to the analytic/continental divide, as analytic philosophers often tend to reason generally, and from this find necessary truths, whereas continental thinkers seem more attuned to the individual and unique experiences of each person.
It seems you would claim philosophy has provided successful answers for individuals–is this right?
Philosophy is critical theory, I think. From a God's eye view, philosophy is thought, and literature. In modern times, philosophy is simply critical theory.
That is, art is about painting (etc). Politics is about doing politics. Math is about doing math. Philosophy is about not "doing" but reflectively critiquing *how* we do. It is pragmatism versus theory, Technik versus Wissenschaft, praxis versus logos.
That's crude, but how I see it, generally. Obviously the barriers between the sides are fluid, and constructed.
No one has given the successful answer the first three, though logic may be able to fit under metaphysics (what is the nature of reasoning as an aspect of reality) and political theory would go under ethics.
ReplyDeleteI certainly think that philosophy seeks to provide answers and insofar as philosophers provide "parallel possible solutions" they are only doing what they can.
I do not mean to suggest that philosophers should be faulted for their failures, but rather that the enterprise of philosophy, insofar as it is a search for answers to the fundamental questions, has not been successful perhaps because of basic facts of the universe (i.e. man's limitations or alternatively the limited communication between nature/reality and man). My impression is that this is regrettable, as it means we still don't know how to live (we=humanity) and likely never will.
I see what you're saying. I suppose I can only deflect it by saying that insofar as you're positing that it is good that different philosophies appeal to different people you are making a philosophical claim which is subject to the same skepticism as all the rest. Sorry to over-intellectualize.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what would you say about philosophers who claim a universal truth or universal way of life?
It appears that you think there is some sort of actual truth, viz., the subjective truth of each philosophy. Is this right?
ReplyDeleteI think it would correspond to the analytic/continental divide, as analytic philosophers often tend to reason generally, and from this find necessary truths, whereas continental thinkers seem more attuned to the individual and unique experiences of each person.
It seems you would claim philosophy has provided successful answers for individuals–is this right?
Philosophy is critical theory, I think. From a God's eye view, philosophy is thought, and literature. In modern times, philosophy is simply critical theory.
ReplyDeleteThat is, art is about painting (etc). Politics is about doing politics. Math is about doing math. Philosophy is about not "doing" but reflectively critiquing *how* we do. It is pragmatism versus theory, Technik versus Wissenschaft, praxis versus logos.
That's crude, but how I see it, generally. Obviously the barriers between the sides are fluid, and constructed.