Any Philosophers out there?

[mrgnash]

I assumed that when he said "Thinking about thinking" that was suggesting how he was thinking, i.e. a meta-analysis of thinking. I thought that "what" is important because if you are thinking complete and utter nonsensical rubbish, then I am not sure if you would want to class it as philosophy. Although, there is loads of nonsensical rubbish in philosophy of course.

True, "how" one thinks is a hallmark of philosophy but surely content is also important. Although there are so many debates about the methodology of philosophy now days (is philosophy limited to conceptual analysis? is experimental philosophy real philosophy? etc) that I am not sure how one would cash out "how" to do philosophy.

This is just my take on it, but I tend to think that whether or not you are doing philosophy depends on the type of questions that you are asking/contemplating. What is the good life? How do we know what we know? What do we basis our moral codes upon? Are just some of the questions I would class as belonging to the realm of philosophy. If you are attempting to answer those questions, even if not at a particularly advanced or sophisticated level, then you are engaged in philosophy.

[Chessmaster]

This is just my take on it, but I tend to think that whether or not you are doing philosophy depends on the type of questions that you are asking/contemplating. What is the good life? How do we know what we know? What do we basis our moral codes upon? Are just some of the questions I would class as belonging to the realm of philosophy. If you are attempting to answer those questions, even if not at a particularly advanced or sophisticated level, then you are engaged in philosophy.

Nice post. I guess it also includes lots of non-philosophy subjects as well, but the more the merrier - especially seeing as most disciplines originated in early philosophy and broke away as they became more specialised there are definitely connections. And the boundaries between disciplines themselves are becoming less robust and there is loads of 'leakage' between them.

[mrgnash]

Nice post. I guess it also includes lots of non-philosophy subjects as well, but the more the merrier - especially seeing as most disciplines originated in early philosophy and broke away as they became more specialised there are definitely connections. And the boundaries between disciplines themselves are becoming less robust and there is loads of 'leakage' between them.

Precisely. There is still a good deal of philosophy in psychology, particularly psychoanalysis, and that is why it was a very natural progression for me, and I know that for many others the move from philosophy to psychology, or vice versa, is not only a natural one, but one that tends to be very enriching. Besides, a lot of psych. and philosophy units include a lot of the same thinkers and subject matter (Freud, Descartes, Locke, Socrates, etc.) But I'm getting off track now. The point is, philosophy is everywhere

[ZarathustraDK]

Getting my bachelor this summer (I hope) with major in philosophy and Multimedia as a supplementary course. Going for the whole interdisciplinary perspective. It was quite a change to be seated in front of a computer and told "learn java" for me hehe

Though, late in the night, I mess around with Descartes and all the other 'you're gonna go crazy if you believe it' philosophies.

[areteichi]

I'm not really in agreement with his argument, but it was the first challenging argument I ran into in that field, I recall. It is somewhat a hallmark for me, which is probably why I took on his name... that, and I respect the guy.

- John

Speaking of John Searle, I'm taking a class from him on Philosophy of Language right now. I'm an undergrad planning on pursuing a grad degree after finishing up my BA in phil next month.

Searle's lectures aren't like any other philosophy courses in that they are pretty entertaining at times but I don't know if I can say anything positive about his character traits.

And to add my naive opinion on JS Mill, I don't see how consequentialist theory of ethics is supposed to capture our moral intuitions in regards to the intention/motive behind the actions. In other words, any moral theory if it claims to be a theory should be deontological, though I do find Nietzsche and his extra-moral notion fascinating as well.

[Chessmaster]

And to add my naive opinion on JS Mill, I don't see how consequentialist theory of ethics is supposed to capture our moral intuitions in regards to the intention/motive behind the actions. In other words, any moral theory if it claims to be a theory should be deontological, though I do find Nietzsche and his extra-moral notion fascinating as well.

Interestingly, in the US most ethicists are deontologists. In Australasia (and to some extent the UK) most philosophers would call themselves some form of consequentialist. (I am not saying in either case all, but the majority) Why? Not sure if it is a wider cultural thing or perhaps an institutional thing.

As for how it captures ones intuitions, for me consequentialism it is (in most cases) intuitive and captures my pre-philosophical intuitions (I just don't see how one can relegate consequences in their ethical reasoning). As a utilitarian, maximising say happiness / pleasure / preferences (depending on how you cash it out) and minimising the opposite captures my intuitions about motives - for me anyhow. Should we kill to one to save the five. Yes we should.

I actually find Kantian style deontology to be counter intuitive.

But, anyway. I suspect that the problem with ethical intuitions is that as everyday ethical beings we operate by a hodgepodge of different ethical folk theories, some deontological, some consequentialist, and sometimes some form of virtue ethics. Hence, in different intuitions appeal to different theories.

Should we kill one to say 100,000. Yes. Hence consequentialism sounds right.

Should we kill the lonesome stranger to placate a town. No. Here some form of deontology sounds right.

I always find ethical intuition pumping very suspect myself.

[areteichi]

> Chessmaster

Going off topic a bit, but what do you think about the essay by Bernard Williams, "The Human Prejudice"?

I actually found it quite illuminating in that it tried to give an account for a possible viewpoint from which we can quite justifiably discuss ethics (though some moves he makes may be problematic). For many of the reactionaries to the Enlightenment period seemed to have annihilated what appeared to have been the objective ground for ethics. (e.g. Nietzsche, Freud, Marx)

[linuxbeatswin]

I teach. I have to think on my feet and make sure my kids are actually learning something instead of memorizing crap. Does that count toward actual thinking?

[Chessmaster]

> Chessmaster

Going off topic a bit, but what do you think about the essay by Bernard Williams, "The Human Prejudice"?

I actually found it quite illuminating in that it tried to give an account for a possible viewpoint from which we can quite justifiably discuss ethics (though some moves he makes may be problematic). For many of the reactionaries to the Enlightenment period seemed to have annihilated what appeared to have been the objective ground for ethics. (e.g. Nietzsche, Freud, Marx)

I haven't read it. I will endeavour to over the next few days (if I can get hold of a copy) and let you know what I think.

[Bubba64]

I am a Psychology major, and have studied Depth Psychology for about 15 years from a comfortable chair. Carl Jung uses a lot of philosophers abstractions in his writing, and so do many others. This is a good way of looking at various subjects from an abstract point of view, as well as existential. I realize that not all philosophers are from these general schools but looking from the outside rather from within is generally helpful.