Coming from math, what I don't like about most people who talk philosophy is that they are used to a way of thinking that's "like normal thinking, but about complex things", while some (I'd say most) subjectss are best approached if you think like you do in logic, taking axioms, theorems, hypotheses and procedures for what they are throughout the discourse.
Another thing I feel in people who talk philosophy is something of an inferiority complex against hard sciences, a famous example outside philosophy would be Lacan explaining the psyche in (needlessly complicated) terms of optic, or economy people with their theorems and axioms with no logical method between them. With me personally, philosopers hurry to downtalk logic and math, mainly citing Russell's paradox. In these instances they show a lack of understanding of logic, but I feel like they have a need to know that logic isn't really "that perfect". I think that this inferiority complex is unjustified as these disciplines are just different.>>600>There are also some people who are unwilling to explain their thoughts in more than a couple of sentences
I've seen this in lots of famous philosophy books, they write them in the form of numbered sentences and short paragraphs with groundless assertions about very varied subjects. The reasoning that supports them is up to every single reader.>>612>People who believe science is strictly the scientific method are complete morons, since there are multiple objective approaches to testing, experimenting, and viewing reality
I agree with this. Popper didn't define science and its ways for future scientists, his goal was to find a way to develop a way to discern science from pseudo science, with after-the-fact scrutiny.
>We are empirical animals, with brains functioning according to some logic.
Luckily we can use logic, math and such procedures as rails for our trains of thought.>>615
That's an interesting idea. I never liked the idea of philosophy being the "mother of all sciences", as it felt like any subset of science, taken back long enough in time, would reach a level of primitiveness that could be considered as part of philosophy. That way, for example, primitive physics would be natural philosophy.
But your model shines a different light over that, I like it because you put human thought as the root, then philosophy as one branch. I picture it as a "circular tree" where disciplines branch out from a centre (general human thought) and everytime a branch comes off of a discipline, it does so pointing in a different angle (meaning that some things this branch does (the horizontal component) will seem like unreasonable advance for its mother branch).
Very interesting, thanks for sharing it. One question, Would you say that human thought becomes/equates philosophy, or do you think that philosophy is one of many first-level branches of thought?
>might confuse philosophy with just "personal philosophy", which is an individual's or company's two cents.
Where can I read philosophy that's not personal?>>617
couln't have been clearer and >>619
was the average response, minus the "logic only takes you so far and then you need philosophy" line.>But that's not what philosophy is at all
I venture we all have a different conception of what it is, yet we talk about it. (this is meta for the actual discussion, I'm doing philosophy about it)>Philosophy has been crucial in the way we created our scientific models
And they stay in philosophy as a way to philosophize about science. You can do science without the scientific model; you just need logical methods (logic, math, etc) to provide correct procedures that let you grow a certain body of knowledge from its axioms.>philosophy applies logic to everyday tasks
What are you talking about? You made me remember that "question everything" pic with the guy staring at a stone. I really don't know what you mean.