From "A Brief on the Definition of Philosophy for the Purpose of A

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

“The fact that something is an ideal means that it could and ought to be.”

What “ought to be” if somebody has chosen to live is each person persuing what is of the greatest possible benefit to themself at any given time. If something goes against that then there’s nothing demanding that it exist. Creating clear, valid, useful definitions when current ones are not I can see being useful. However, taking existing clear, valid, useful definitions and reassigning them to new words I don’t see being of greatest possible benefit to anybody while there are other more efficient options to achieve the same intended goal of clear communication and thinking. As it stands, I don’t see people often getting confused between the two primary different meanings for the word “philosophy.” When something like “a”, “hers”, “his”, “thiers”, “yours”, “my”, “the” comes before the word ot it is in plural form than it is the second meaning, when it doesn’t then it is the first meaning. The people who say that the facts can vary from person to person - like for some people gravity exists and for others it doesn’t, for some people violating the rights of others is fine and dandy and for others it isn’t - didn’t reach this idea through some confusion about the definition of philosophy. Because there is neither common confusion caused by these multiple definitions with the word “philosophy” nor are people who already actually do have bad ideas getting them through such a confusion and the goals here are clarity and fighting off some bad ideas I don’t see a point in pursuing this avenue with the word “philosophy.” What you want to do I don’t see having any benefit to what you want to achieve. Opposing subjectivism can be done in other ways that are effective though, so I just suggest following those instead of this with your time and rescources and such. :slight_smile:

22

The people who say that the facts can vary from person to person - like for some people gravity exists and for others it doesn’t, for some people violating the rights of others is fine and dandy and for others it isn’t - didn’t reach this idea through some confusion about the definition of philosophy. Because there is neither common confusion caused by these multiple definitions with the word “philosophy” nor are people who already actually do have bad ideas getting them through such a confusion and the goals here are clarity and fighting off some bad ideas I don’t see a point in pursuing this avenue with the word “philosophy.”

I disagree with your assertion for the following reason: those who would, let’s say, deny that gravity exists, are the ones who think that philosophy is not a field of science, but rather, an ideology which can serve as their own reality, and which gives them no reason to respect another person’s freedom, since their reality is open to their own ideological fantasies. They describe it as their philosophy, and some then credit “their philosophy” as "their contribution to the field of philosophy, which is, to them, not a field of science which studies existence, but rather, a field of science which studies the most influential ideologies in human history. Philosophy and ideology need to be taught and understood separately otherwise that which the masses refer to as “philosophy” will encourage irrationality and subjectivism.

23

Some people may try to equivocate between the meanings. However, they do that after the fact of having made up their minds. Off the top of my head I can recall seeing such equivocations being attempted to try to show that the definition of philosophy does not discredit subjectivism, but I don’t recall seeing it used to actually advocate for it. Aside from that and more importantly, have you met many people who did not already believe in subjectivism who then looked at these two meanings in the dictionary (or sans dictionary examined them) and concluded there was more than one right answer for the existence of gravity among other things? I haven’t. I can’t recall any. I’m guessing if you Googled long enough you could find somebody eventually since just about anything is believed by somebody, but this is an extreme minority to the point of it never happening enough to be a real threat. I think that’s the primary issue for me here - I don’t have evidence to suggest the problem exists which you want to break up the word “philosophy” in order to fight.

24

Eiuol, since my response to your first question is quite thorough I shall first address your second question.

In some sense, you are right to the extent that the earliest philosophers basically were scientists. Socrates was into astronomy, I don’t know about Plato, and Aristotle had a lot to say about biology. Indeed, philosophy and science study aspects of existence. There is a close connection.

You seem to be equivocating, though. In terms of abstraction, there is a notable difference between natural sciences like biology, and the field of philosophy. With biology, scientific study is about narrowing understanding of particulars, which may include figuring out cell division, and narrowing down more so with study. Philosophy on the other hand really focuses on abstractions, going broader. Some ideas can be fine tuned, but they’re still abstracting for philosophy. So, that’s why there is philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, and so on. Those sciences need wider abstractions, and not just the narrowing of concepts. Math is closely related as a process of abstraction, and I don’t quite call it a science by nature of being so abstract. I suppose it goes into its own unique categorization.

I would classify economics as a science, and not a philosophy, and it actually doesn’t have anything to say about what one should produce or consume. Economics won’t say to not smoke, nor could it say in general one should pursue their life. As a matter of production, economics certainly relates to ethics, but I really would not consider it about philosophy. I believe this point has been disputed on this forum.

*

That’s a really long posting and I’m having a hard time reading it all. Communism is wrong, but “philosophy is not a science” isn’t as bad as you think it is. It’s just stating that the narrowing aspects are probably more important than philosophy, while also probably standing true to the scientific method. There is a contradiction, to be sure, but I don’t see it as any kind of postmodernist agenda. Postmodernism doesn’t even get that far. Communism at least has some basis, flawed though it may be, while postmodernism explicitly has no basis whatsoever. I don’t see postmodern communism being a tenable term. Who is a postmodern communist? Paul Krugman? I don’t have much of a referent to go off.

By the way, this is worth a read. http://www.stephenhi…-postmodernism/ You can read the first edition for free. I am linking this because you seem interested in the topic of postmodernism, and this is a book by an Objectivist philosopher. I read it before, it’s quite interesting.

25

(you may read the entire essay at http://seanoconnorli…m-and-thriving/ )

blank lines between paragraphs. please. “Wall of text” effect is strong here.

26

have you met many people who did not already believe in subjectivism who then looked at these two meanings in the dictionary (or sans dictionary examined them) and concluded there was more than one right answer for the existence of gravity among other things? …I think that’s the primary issue for me here - I don’t have evidence to suggest the problem exists which you want to break up the word “philosophy” in order to fight.

Bluecherry, first, I wish to apologize for my delayed response as I take your comment seriously and wanted to address it as soon as possible. Now, who I have or have not met here is irrelevant. It is context dropping, and for the following reason: there is only one issue when are defining a concept: to identify the distinguishing characteristic of what we are referring to and ultimately wording. So the question then is this: what is the distinguishing characteristic of philosophy? That it is the study of the fundamental facts of existence. And the key word in the context of my response to you is “facts”. If we were to say that philosophy is the study of “facts and false ideologies” we are implying, that unlike every other field of science (and by science, I mean the study of the aspects of the univere. And study does not mean “theorize” or “assert belief” it means “to fully retain and understand facts on a given subject”), the facts don’t deserve to be studied in a field or dilineation of their own which is irrational on two counts. 1) The field of facts is distinct where as “facts and false beliefs” are not distinct as is evident by the fact that facts and false beliefs are two very, very distinct things, each meriting their own field. 2) In terms of evaluating facts and evaluating “false beliefs”: facts are much more valuable—so valuable that they deserve special attention. And “false beliefs” are of negative value (i.e., they are destructive) and “fundamental lies of existence” and how to refute them (by means of having philosophical knowledge) require a seperate, distinct field of study.

27

You seem to be equivocating… In terms of abstraction, there is a notable difference between natural sciences like biology, and the field of philosophy. With biology, scientific study is about narrowing understanding of particulars, which may include figuring out cell division, and narrowing down more so with study. Philosophy on the other hand really focuses on abstractions, going broader. Some ideas can be fine tuned, but they’re still abstracting for philosophy.

I disagree with you when you say that I am equivocating as I am in fact especially explicit and definite in what I say to you. Now you are correct when you say that philosophy “focuses on abstractions” but that is not the distinguishing characteristic of philosophy. That is merely an aspect of it. As you stated earlier; it studies existence. Yes, it studies existence via abstractions, but existence is concrete and there are issues regarding existence which are furthermore concrete. Every branch of philosophy refers precisely to a concrete.

There is a second issue here that needs to be addressed as well and that is the nature of abstracting and abstract thinking. To do this we have to understand the relationship between the mind, and that which the mind percieves. Only after you have percieved a concrete, and identified it as a concept via a explicitly defined word have you abstracted something. When we percieve something it is "impressed"or recoreded in the mind. That impression/record, once it is intelligable, and conceptualized, is it an abstraction, i.e, it literally abstracted from perception and is one’s means of thinking, i.e., connecting concepts and/or anti-concepts. So in terms of abstractions there is not a fundamental difference between philosophy and “natural sciences” such as biology as the same exact psychological-neurological process is involved. As I stated in the essay, Leonard Peikoff writes an excellent essay himself, implying this. I demonstrate it’s relevance. It is called “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”.

Next: when you say that economics relates to ethics but not to philosophy that is a contradiction in terms since ethics is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is the antecedent concept of ethics. This is just one example of why economics relates to philosophy. Were you meaning to imply something different than what I addressed here? If you were I should like to know.

As for examples of the Postmodern- Communists I will again insist that you give the passages I provided a read as I make it very explicit. In fact, it is crucial that more people become aware of how these frauds are destroying weak minds and programming them into nihilistic, post modern, communist slaves. I will add a footenote to this however: and that is the implications of postmodernism. The implication and consequence is necessarily nihilistic, altruistic and communist and this can be understood metaphysically. If what’s true for you is true for you and what’s true for me is true for me than nobody’s convictions are worth more/more valuable than anyone else’s, which means nobody’s products can be more or less value than any one else’s and only a destructive tyrant would ever attempt to implant such a violent ideology into the minds of college students. …and thank you for your link.

28

blank lines between paragraphs. please. “Wall of text” effect is strong here.

Thank you for letting me know.

29

You are trying to lump two different usages of the word “philosophy” into one. Each of them has a related, but unique purpose it serves. I’m asking why bother insisting on only one usage of the word philosophy. You mentioned as one possible reason that the two usages were causing confusion, getting mushed together in people’s minds and leading people down the path of subjectivism. Multiple usages of the word “philosophy” were making it so people were unable to comprehend the possibility of some ideas being incorrect. Splitting the usages would fight that you’ve been getting at. I have no evidence that such a problem exists to be fought in the first place. You’ve also suggested that you consider language to ideally only ever involve one usage per word and that this proposed change to the word “philosophy” should be adopted in accordance with that. We’ve both recognized though that doing this with every word in the English language could never be achieved in our life times. That means you’d have to pick and choose words to do this with in your life time. “Philosophy” doesn’t cause trouble as it is as far as I’m aware of so time and effort could be better spent on adjusting words that clearly are problematic as they are. One could also spend their time and effort on something else entirely which may provide more benefit to one’s life in that time and with that effort then one would have gotten from using it on separating different meanings for one word ( or at least from separating “philosophy” up.) I’ve further proposed that I know a smaller task than separating all words up which could achieve at least comparable efficacy and may actually be do-able entirely within one’s life time.

Speaking of the word “science” as long as I’m at it, the trouble here is again mixing of two different usages of one word. One common usage of the word “science” is when it is being treated as opposed to “art.” “Science” in this case refers to pretty much anything which is very precise, orderly, involves following some sort of formula, has one right way to do things. “Art” is used to refer to things which have more room for variation. In this case, the subject of philosophy would fall under “science” as philosophy does not involve wiggle room for right answers. However, usually the word “science” is used to refer to studying certain things such as how various life forms function, what the universe is made of and what happens when you combine various chemicals. Philosophy is not among the things covered under this meaning of the word. It’s late, my rough definitions here are not the greatest due to writing them while I’m getting tired, but I think it should be decent enough that one can tell what I was trying to say still. If I wake up in the morning and think of another, better way to put things then I’ll add that in a new post.

30

There are two kinds of philosophy. One kind is subject or susceptible to empirical verification and the other kind is not.

ruveyn1

31

There are two kinds of philosophy. One kind is subject or susceptible to empirical validation (i.e. has empirical verification and is potentially falsifiable by empirical means) and the other kind is not.

ruveyn1

32

bluecherry,

Don’t worry about your rough definitions and writing as you are tired. You were nontheless, exceptionally thorough which is quite praise worthy and indicative of how rich you are spiritually. With that being said, I shall get right to our disagreement.

I actually want to begin with the definition of science because I can’t prove philosophy is a science if I don’t define science. Science is the study of the aspects of the universe. I believe I explained in a prior responce, the distinction between the universe and existence. As we know, “existence exists”. Existence is the state of being. That is obviously the “fundamental state” of the universe. (I here use the expression “fundamental state” because obviously there can be no other “fundamental” state since a thing can only exist. The issue of secondary states is a different issue) So what is it that a “scientist” does? A scientist discovers facts, or tries to. The actual science is the set of facts. If you were to teach Meteorology, for example, you would teach me facts about the atmosphere and weather, et cetera. The key point is that it is about facts. A particular field of science is a particular, distinct set of facts on a very specific subject.

Now, I have said that existence as such is a state of being. It is the fundamental state of all things. It is an aspect of the universe. It is its own subject. It gets its own “field” of science. That is philosophy. In epistemological terms, philosophy, refers specifically to facts about existence qua state which are discovered, and taught and applied. When somebody then, say Nietzsche, starts tossing these ideas about meaninglessness into the culture and labels it part of “philosophy” or identifies it as “his philosophy” that is simply a lie. Nihilism and the will to power- that is is his ideology, his system of beliefs. The distinction has to be made otherwise a lie is being furthered.

A fair question arises: what is the problem of teaching philosophy as a mix of facts, mistakes and lies, and thus referring to our belief systems as our philosophy? Let us use the exact same principle- the principle and implicitly postmodern premise- for another question. “what is the problem with teaching false theories and futile principles in math, which is the field of science which studies measurement and saying ‘My Math, Seanism teaches that 1+1=3’”? (That definition of mathematics is based on the one Ayn Rand gives in “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”.) It is, in the most literal sence, illogical since Math isn’t an ideology. It is a field of science. (And 1+1=2) To say “my philosophy, Seanism” or “oconnorism” is to say “my belief system is philosophy as such, i.e., speaking universally.”.

I shall make this even clearer by bringing up the law of identity. A is A. A is only A. I is not A, and B, and C. The nature of A can only be the nature of A. A and B may have certain things in common, such as the fact that they are both letters used in the English language but each has its own identity and it’s own nature. So the nature of philosophy cannot be the field of science which studies existence and also a synonym for my ideology. To assert that is illogical, i.e, one contradicts the other.

33

ruveyn,

Have you read Dr. Peikoff’s “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”?

34

“. . . I can’t prove philosophy is a science if . . .”

I already agreed there is a sense in which philosophy qualifies for the word “science” though. :stuck_out_tongue: I’ve just stated that there is also another, even more common usage that it does not fit. That it doesn’t qualify for this other usage of the word is the issue. It seems like you want to lump philosophy in with these other subjects that are what is meant by the more common meaning. This has been objected to at least partly because this current set of subjects having one term without including philosophy is useful.

"Science is the study of the aspects of the universe."I object to this definition as both overly broad and contrary to . . . anybody else’s usage but your own that I know of these days. This is from the start of the wiki page on science:

" Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), “science” refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).[2] Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words “science” and “philosophy” were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language.[citation needed] By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called “natural science”) was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, “science” continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.In modern use, “science” more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”[4]

Now, again, just because it is in a dictionary (and even more so just because it is on wikipedia) does not necessarily mean it is correct. However, it does at least indicate commonality. Commonality is a big deal when it comes to being able to communicate with others. Even when deviating from common usage is entirely justified, like with the word “selfish” (though it may be only a connotation we dropped, not any real definition alteration), it is still something which comes with big potentials for misunderstandings and so I don’t advise doing it just willy nilly. I can use “selfish” around here without worrying because I know we all are using the same meaning, but whenever I talk to other people I have to either try to use alternative wording or explain my usage of the term “selfish” to whoever I’m talking to. Even then, if I do the latter I have to hope we don’t get side tracked and dispute over that one word prevents us from ever resolving our original topic.

That top, first line in the wiki quote also is fairly broad, but I think one issue in addition to commonality here is that not everything in philosophy can be tested. There is notably no feasible way to make a test for axioms. Tests depend on axioms. I also like though that in this small section from wiki it does mention how there is a historical case for the words science and philosophy to be used interchangeably. Science was considered a subtype of philosophy however, not vice versa and it explains that this is no longer the norm and how the change happened.

“Now, I have said that existence as such is a state of being. It is the fundamental state of all things. It is an aspect of the universe. It is its own subject. It gets its own ‘field’ of science. That is philosophy.”

How would that apply to, say, ethics? Ethics is definitely part of philosophy. Ethics needs to deal in more specifics of particular things rather than existence in general and it deals in what could and should be in addition to what already is. The one branch of philosophy known as metaphysics sounds closest to what you are claiming covers all areas of philosophy.

“. . . my belief system is philosophy . . .”

No, no it isn’t. It is *A* philosophy potentially though. Philosophy =/= a philosophy. They are closely related, but distinct. As for math, I’m sure there are some systems of mathematics which have been around and maybe still are where they proclaim different things. These certainly wouldn’t be “math” like they were the field of math itself, but perhaps they could be called “a math” so to speak. However, as I’ve mentioned before, none of that makes any statement either express or implied that multiple of them may be correct in places where they disagree. I don’t see “a math” being used often in speech or writing though probably because it doesn’t have as much it is useful for. I think a lot of people find it easier to see when something is or is not working in math than when it comes to philosophy though, so those other wrong ideas about math get left abandoned in the dust as irrelevant a lot more quickly and thouroughly.

Also, just something to consider here . . . a firefighter (A) could also be a gymnast ( B ). A firefighter (A) could not be not a firefighter (Not A) though assuming we’re not getting metaphoric or euphamistic or something. The law of identity rules out being and not being and neither being nor not being at the same time and in the same sense. Another example is the word “pig.” At the same time a person may not be a pig, as in literally a farm animal, and be a pig, as in a glutton. The law of identity doesn’t break due to a language having more than one meaning for a set of letters.

35

I disagree with you when you say that I am equivocating as I am in fact especially explicit and definite in what I say to you. Now you are correct when you say that philosophy “focuses on abstractions” but that is not the distinguishing characteristic of philosophy. That is merely an aspect of it. As you stated earlier; it studies existence. Yes, it studies existence via abstractions, but existence is concrete and there are issues regarding existence which are furthermore concrete. Every branch of philosophy refers precisely to a concrete.

To be specific, the axiom of existence is an abstract concept, and even existence is abstract to the degree it is impossible to perceive all of existence at once. One would have to be outside of existence or be everywhere in existence to be able to see it as a concrete. So, that’s where philosophy comes in. Abstraction is what philosophy deals with, taking basic concepts wider and wider. Even with ethics, or philosophy of science, the effort is towards abstracting to apply certain ideas to as many contexts as possible. Metaphysics is as wide as it goes. I acknowledge that philosophy has concrete referents, but that’s different than what philosophy sets out to do. Even in this discussion, we are extremely abstract, because our effort is to define some words on a very fundamental level. Another way to consider my thought is that philosophy is the “what” of existence.

Science I am only suggesting is a type of concretization of abstract principles, particular with questions about how the world works. Art and Mathematics are both distinct fields of thought as well. Still, when focusing on how things work, that does not involve abstracting in the same way as philosophy. If I want to study biology, I need to dive deeper and specify what cells do, which genes they have, mechanisms that allow for reproduction. Naming the processes and identifying them would be abstraction, although it heavily involves detailing the “how”. In other words, I’d be looking for specifics on the mechanisms of biology. Philosophy of biology would consider “what” questions, like what does evolution imply for how the world is classified if entities are changing all the time? I think my distinction is clearer now.

What I meant by “related to” is that when thinking about economics, the concern is largely with human behavior in trade. Human behavior of any sort isn’t far from ethics, but isn’t strictly looking to find what one’s pursuit in life should be. Economics is quite informative to how to make the most economical decisions which maximize an individual’s behaviors. Economic principles are normative to the degree that there are judgments of “best” involved, but doesn’t study the same aspects as ethics, although there is plenty of crossover with rationality. All knowledge is at least connected indirectly, so my argument here isn’t an attempt to disprove any connection. If anything, I imagine you’ll use the previous point to expand on your “philosophy is science” idea, so I look forward to seeing what you say.

I agree that Postmodernism is destructive, I just think Postmodern-Communist is an impossibility on ideological grounds. Postmodernism certainly is the logical conclusion of all the Hegelians, and is more dangerous than communism ever was. Not only is there a destructive element to it of denying any truth whatsoever, there are no leaders to it. I question actually that it has taken hold. That aforementioned postmodern professor I had, most students thought he wasn’t really anything to take seriously. You’re welcome for the link!

36

bluecherry,

I shall preface this response by submitting a principle for wording a concept: no more than one concept per word. This may seem unnecessary but it would prevent word usage from inevitably succumbing to ambiguity. More specifically, it is logical in the most literal sense, it is strict “non-contradiction”, i.e., “this word will never contradict the concept it refers to”. Some may argue that giving a word two concepts is not a contradiction but in fact it is because once that word, in use, refers to something other than its first concept, that is by nature, a contradictory instance. We are used to looking up definitions to words, and seeing 2,3,4, sometimes 7,8, 9 or more definitions! That’s extremely sloppy language and it does not have to stay this way. Can a language be sharpened over night? Obviously not. And of course I know that you know I am not proposing that! Should a language, however, be reduced? Absolutely! Especially if, say, the word freedom is said to be defined as “self determination” by capitalists, but is said, by Socialists, socialists such as president Barack Obama, to be defined as "absence of need for general sustenance (ranging from perhaps a small monthly check -or job for all guaranteed by law, food stamps, government facilitated housing, health care, etc) Or here is another example: when an atheist socialist goes about referring to himself as rational on the one hand, an objectivist then, on the other hand, is saying “no, I’m rational!”. Obviously both are using different definitions and are making communication much more confusing than it could and ought to be.

You said that the definition I submit for science, which is the study of the aspects of the universe is overly broad? By what standards do you deem something as too broad? Or which term in that definition do you think makes it overly broad? Is the definition overly broad, or is the reach of science simply extremely wide- as wide as the universe is massive? I love one question in particular Ayn Rand asks when discussing concept formation and definition. “To what in reality does the concept refer?”. Do you know exactly what I am referring to when I say “the study of the aspects of the universe”? Let us do a little experiment. Tell me, when you read that definition, what precisely do you picture in your mind. I picture a person examining something, and identifying and discovering facts about it- whatever those facts may be. I think the only possible confusion/ambiguity/equivocation one could accuse me of there is “what exactly does ‘study’ mean? I think I said in a prior response that when I say “study” I mean “discover and/or learn a fact or facts about a particular subject”. Now, the dictionary on my computer- The New Oxford American Dictionary- offers nine different definitions for the word study. One such definition is “devote time and attention to acquiring knowledge on (an academic subject), esp. by means of books : she studied biology and botany.” (Again, why the hell would I want to sort through nine Goddamn definitions if I can ultimately enjoy the luxury of one very clear, exact definition? I’m a busy man! :-P) If you dispute my definition of study, I would be open to that argument. But returning to science, and what the word “science” refers to- it refers specifically to” discovering and organizing facts about the aspects of the universe." A perfect example of how this definition works: what is it that a “science” teacher teaches? Facts, about some particular aspects of the universe. What is it Einstein set out to discover, fundamentally? Facts. Facts about particular aspects of the universe. As for the fact that I am on the only one submitting particular definitions that is because I am a pioneer! Pioneers always discover something, or invent something nobody else has. And if it opens up a vast amount of new work to be done, such as say, clarifying the English language and reducing words to a single concept: it is a vast undertaking, but not an irrational one. Ayn Rand did the right thing by clarifying “selfishness” and as you’ve said, many-actually most- people still will not accept the proper definition. But most people also won’t accept the fact that nobody has the right to violate private property; that nobody has the right to violate an individual’s self determination. They are a little bit slow but that doesn’t mean we, the scientists and inventors should slow down! Quite the opposite. Let’s produce knowledge and inventions their state university’s don’t know as incentive for people to start going to private universities of more advanced knowledge and technology.

Everything in philosophy can be tested and proven via logic. “Despite what [a theorist named Dr. Julian] Friedland implies, he contradicts himself and fabricates a definition of philosophy towards the end of his article. He writes that philosophy ‘employs the tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement. And this approach, when carefully carried out, can yield knowledge at times more reliable and enduring than science’ What is logical analysis? What is logic? He does not define either. Why not? Because then he can use it as a blank word to mean whatever he attaches it to. [A point I referred to earlier](This is comparable to fiat money which claims to have a specific value, but is based on nothing other than the public’s submission to it.) Logic, again, is the art of non-contradictory identification. This means “logical analysis” is the identification and removal of contradictions. Furthermore, what does one ‘logically analyze’? A particular aspect of the universe. Logical analysis is an element of science. When Friedland says ‘in lieu of empirical measurement’ he evades a fact which philosopher Leonard Peikoff articulates perfectly: ‘There is no distinction between the ‘logically’ and the ‘empirically’ possible (or impossible). All truths…are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience. This applies as much to the identification of possibilities as of actualities’. (“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”)”(From my essay “A Brief On The Definition Of Philosophy For The Purpose Of Advancing Freedom And Thriving”)

How does existence, the fundamental state of the universe, apply to ethics? The answer is: ethics tells you how to regard/treat existence as such, human existence, and specifically your existence, i.e., the existence of the individual person. Another example of philosophy’s reach: economics-it helps us understand that existence and its aspects are resources, what we should produce and consume and why. Like politics, economics obviously depends on ethics, as ethics depends on epistemology which depends on metaphysics.

37

There are no proper/improper definition nor are the true/false definitions. Definitions arise from consensus and common use of words.

To show this is true consider how there are many words whose meaning has changed over the the years.

If a definition were a -fact- there would be no such change. 1 + 1 has always equaled 2 (we are assuming the + means aggregating objects into a set).

See the following for a discourse on how definitions of some words have changed over time.

http://ezinearticles.com/?-Etymology–How-Words-Change-Over-Time&id=12709

ruveyn1

38

I tried to read the OP (well, I scanned it, like I usually do with long posts), and my impression is that most of it is about what falls under the definition of philosophy and what under the definition of ideology. I really don’t care about that.

But you also imply that Ayn Rand is wrong, whenever she departs from whatever you define as philosophy, and that she does this often. I would be curious what specifically you think is wrong about Objectivism (without relying on this game of definitions, because a definition is not a valid argument; whether something falls under your definition of philosophy or not doesn’t affect its truth value).

I’m not asking you to prove her wrong, just list a quick few things you think she’s wrong about. It’s just to help me (and probably others, too) figure out if I’m interested in paying a little more attention or not.

39

I try to read the op’s post but I end up scanning too.

Check your premises, ‘existence’ is not a concrete.

40

Eiuol, Regarding the question of the abstractness and/or concreteness of existence there are two separate issues. One is existence as such, and furthermore the axiom “existence exists” and the other is the vast expanse of existence. Existence as such as about as concrete as anything since consciousness itself exists. To try and describe the most basic psychological experience one can have, it more or less would express itself-implicitly of course- as “something exists”. I see this computer screen. The fact that it exists is as concrete as anything can be. But then there is a second issue, and that is the expanse of existence which is abstract. What is the expanse of existence? The unexplored, unknown space of the universe, that which we do not yet know about existence, unrealized possibility, et cetera.

You said "philosophy is the ‘what’ of existence. I would like to add that philosophy is furthermore the regard for and treatment of existence, and obviously, especially human existence. I think this is important because it emphasizes what is most enlightening about philosophy: how, in the most basic, fundamental, principled way, we are to think and live our lives. And the key implications here: those principles can be proven true by logic, so those principles exist qua facts on a given, concrete subject (a subject concerning lifestyle ultimately), which is philosophy, which is then a science, and not to be confused with false principles on how one should live one’s life (an ideology/ religion).

“Philosophy of biology” would be an anti-concept. Philosophy concerns living in general. But let me address, specifically, what you suggest would be a question that the “philosophy of biology” deals with: “Philosophy of biology would consider ‘what’ questions, like what does evolution imply for how the world is classified if entities are changing all the time?” That, would be a taxonomic question. The New Oxford American Dictionary corroborates this.

"taxonomy |takˈsänəmē|

noun chiefly Biology

the branch of science concerned with classification, esp. of organisms; systematics.

• the classification of something, esp. organisms : the taxonomy of these fossils.

• a scheme of classification : a taxonomy of smells."

My only criticism of their definition is they could be more succinct! But it is true that when one studies biology, (or anything) that philosophical issues will arise. The most fundamental question would be “what does this new fact I have just learned or discovered mean to me?” or “what do I want to know about x that I do not yet know? And why?” And- in fact- this transitions me right to your next point about the inevitable cross over when discussing branches of philosophy. Here I should like to say that philosophical statements consist of an integrated knowledge of philosophical principles. John Galt’s speech obviously demonstrates this perfectly. Galt doesn’t only discuss politics. He doesn’t only discuss ethics. And furthermore, each advanced branch of philosophy obviously depends on its antecedent branches. Once you say reality is an objective absolute, you prove how you know so, once you understand your means of knowledge you say, so now that I know how I know things, how the hell am I to live my life? How am I to act? What am I to do with myself? How do I treat others? Once you say, well I know how we ought to live- both how we treat ourselves and we ought to treat others, the next question is- how do we morally keep “law and order” (so to speak) and thus we enter politics. Once we know how a society-and to what severe limit(!)- society ought to be organized, one may ask- what should I produce and what should I consume. (I understand that this could seem more like a moral question than an “economic” one - but it would “seem” so in the same way politics would- since politics is still an implementation of rational self interest. But I think rational self interest in the basic moral sense is more geared towards behavior as such and not specifically an in depth analysis of production and consumption. Maybe a clearer way to explain economics would emphasize treatment of resources. Then once we know what we ought to produce the question is: “how do I optimize my mind; how do I navigate it as succinctly as possible?” One may argue that this is epistemological, and say, "obviously the answer is ‘think rationally’ but that overlooks the prospect of concentrating on enhancing visualization, working with one’s subconscious, efficient introspection, et cetera- which the field of psychology deals with. I wanted to show the full hierarchy of philosophical advancement here to demonstrate- as I think you were getting at- that each advanced branch is consistent with the antecedent principles and that discussing any philosophical issue, thus, is going to have crossovers.

You pointed out something quite profound that I confess I had never realized- and so I must thank you for it. That is your statement that “Postmodernism certainly is the logical conclusion of all the Hegelians, and is more dangerous than communism ever was. Not only is there a destructive element to it of denying any truth whatsoever, there are no leaders to it.” Indeed, postmodernism necessarily implies an anarchic political system since it really is just a chaotic riot of one person’s power versus another person’s power (as we see in practice via special interest groups and the freaks of occupy wall street, and the terrorists, etc). That being said, communists nonetheless use the postmodern and nihilistic metaphysics to say “nothing is of any value- not on an ideological level, and not on an economic level. Your believe is worth nothing. My belief is worth nothing. That computer you build is worth the same amount of money as an illegal immigrant’s 4 hour dish washing shift. You’ll both be paid the same.” In other words, I am saying that communists “steal” from postmodernism (by teaching it in public colleges) as means to indoctrinate their evil socialist-communist agenda.