Monty Cantsin
20th July 2005, 15:13
The question I have posed is what is philosophy?
This question is harder then it seems because to engage in answering it we engage in meta-philosophy, at least when you try and define science you’re actually doing philosophy of science.
In my mind philosophy is theoretical consciousness (sometimes deluded) of the world and the creation of concepts to quantify and understand the human condition. But what differs philosophy from general opinion of the layman? Well what would differ philosophical inquiry from general discourse but method? The methods of argumentation to derive our ‘considered opinions’ is what separates philosophy from general opinion (not to say laymen can’t have considered opinions). When we talk of sciences we normally see as an investigation into the empirical world (which demands a certain metaphysical point of view which is assumed) and the creation of concepts and explanations thereof but this is primarily philosophies task. The division of the two fields is often seen in their respective methods of proof or rather the burden of proof. Philosophers deal with priories as well as empirical issues where as scientist deal purely with empirical. The question them needs to be asked when is the line between philosophy and science drawn? String theory is taught in physics often seen as one of the higher sciences but when it comes right down to it with the burden of proof presented should be classed as metaphysics if you divide science and philosophy along the popperian line but if you follow Quine’s division between the two it rests as a scientific theory pending verification.
So what separates the different fields and what is the task of philosophy?
This question is harder then it seems because to engage in answering it we engage in meta-philosophy, at least when you try and define science you’re actually doing philosophy of science.
In my mind philosophy is theoretical consciousness (sometimes deluded) of the world and the creation of concepts to quantify and understand the human condition. But what differs philosophy from general opinion of the layman? Well what would differ philosophical inquiry from general discourse but method? The methods of argumentation to derive our ‘considered opinions’ is what separates philosophy from general opinion (not to say laymen can’t have considered opinions). When we talk of sciences we normally see as an investigation into the empirical world (which demands a certain metaphysical point of view which is assumed) and the creation of concepts and explanations thereof but this is primarily philosophies task. The division of the two fields is often seen in their respective methods of proof or rather the burden of proof. Philosophers deal with priories as well as empirical issues where as scientist deal purely with empirical. The question them needs to be asked when is the line between philosophy and science drawn? String theory is taught in physics often seen as one of the higher sciences but when it comes right down to it with the burden of proof presented should be classed as metaphysics if you divide science and philosophy along the popperian line but if you follow Quine’s division between the two it rests as a scientific theory pending verification.
So what separates the different fields and what is the task of philosophy?