Inspector Posted June 30, 2007 Report Share Posted June 30, 2007 I will stand out of the discussion as it seems I have nothing to gain by putting forth my argument. I think that mrocktor is simply looking for a definition of philosophy, before proceeding, and does not have access to ITOE. I do not believe the discussion would be harmed by the providing of that definition: Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true. So whenever you are in doubt about what is or is not a philosophical subject, ask yourself whether you need a specialized knowledge, beyond the knowledge available to you as a normal adult, unaided by any special knowledge or special instruments. And if the answer is possible to you on that basis alone, you are dealing with a philosophical question. If to answer it you would need training in physics, or psychology, or special equipment, etc., then you are dealing with a derivative or scientific field of knowledge, not philosophy. So philosophy is, in short, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. I believe a more complete and precise definition is possible, but perhaps this will suffice for the present discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2007 I would agree with Seekers position with the caveat that since such elements are not painstakingly argued in print, it ought to be an expectation that they are potentially more contested than areas that are, because each person doesn't have a potential guide as to how to integrate the concept, and everyone does have to integrate them for themselves. Also, ad veracundia is still fopah. Do you mean contested as to their validity, or contested as to whether they belong to Objectivism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Do you mean contested as to their validity, or contested as to whether they belong to Objectivism? Contested as in what are the proper principles to integrate them, and do the integrate back into the corpus. Maybe debated is a better word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.