In my philosophy class we are required to make posts in a private board online a certain amount of times a week. I figured I would also post it here because the level of expectation for my classmates, in regards to intellectual discourse, is lower than the depth I used to cruise on submarines at. (from what I have seen on the board anyway) This is in response to the limitations set by my professor, based on the philosophies in question to our text book and wikipedia. Philosophy transcends subject and title. I ask, what constitutes a valid philosopher outside of our limitations based on our text book, and wikipedia. I struggle to wrap my mind around the emphasised importance of holding the title of philosopher. While the word philosophy has a distinct defenition . . . phi·los·o·phy [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA noun, plural phi·los·o·phies. 1.the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. 2.any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy,that are accepted as composing this study. 3.a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation: the philosophy of Spinoza. 4.the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especiallywith a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science. 5.a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. However, this does nothing to define how we judge words like truth , rational, or knowledge. Only that we persue it. while I dont want to play word games and go into an infinite etymological debate, This subjective conjecture is about as blurry as a night in Las Vegas. I hope everyone took the time to fnish watching the video we touched on in class this week .of Philosopher Cornel West, we only watched the first few minutes of it, I highly recommend everyone finish it (here https://youtube/watch?v=YfhqEi6R5e8). Once you get past his agenda soaked drivel in the first few minutes, he touches on something I find to be important. He is asked do you have to go to school to be a philosopher? In which he replies (badly paraphrased) no. I whole heartedly agree with Dr. West on that point. To limit our scope of philosophy down to say, a popularity contest, or institutionally sponsored ideas only, would be a serious diservice to the discpiline. Allow me to throw an example out there. Of how I became bothered by this. Libertarianism is the philosophy I spend most of my time thinking about (probably because I agree with it). There are many, many leaders and figure heads that are credited with forming a basis of libertarianism. Two of the most prolific as well as my favorites, are Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Both are first known as economists. Lets talk about economics for a second. Economics, while a science, is far from an exact science. Many variables and subtle-or-not-so-sublte nuiances of economics reach in to the realm of behavior analysis. In order to understand how money works you literally have paritipate in each of those numbered definitions I stated earlier. ( the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especiallywith a view to improving or reconstituting them) These individuals took the aproach of taking what they know to be how economics works, and applied it as a way to live your life succesfully and peacefully. If that isnt the epitome of philosophy, than I dont know what is. Luckily, Ludwig Von Mises is listed also as a philospher in wikipedia, and rightfully so. ( see here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises) While Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, while being every bit as important to the libertarian philosophy, is not listed as philospher within his many titles. (see here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothbard) So who is the decider, and is it valid?
Posted on: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:23:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015