Philosophy 101 Question: Grouping of Philosophers

[diebitter]

I used to read a lot about philosphy, but haven't really done anything it 15 years.

To my mind, there are two branches of 'Philosophers'

- Those who think about 'thinking' (eg Aristotle)
- Those who meditate on who we conduct ourselves and how they consider things (eg Neitzche, Marcus Aurelius)


Is this grouping valid? Are there other groups?

[cambraceres]

The valid divisions are the temporal ones, the divisions you mentioned are so intertwined as to be the same.

Cam

[guesswest]

I'm not really sure what those distinctions are meant to represent. 'Thinking about thinking' would probably be philosophy of mind? - which is a fairly small, but very interesting, branch of philosophy. How we conduct ourselves would be ethics, which is a bigger branch of philosophy with a longer history. 'How they consider things' seems to be every philosopher. The single biggest/bulkiest branch of philosophy is probably epistemology/metaphysics.

[JonTheFox]

no, that is a poor categorization

lots of philosophers don't strictly fit into one of those things and lots of them would "fit into" both

[madnak]

What exactly do you mean by "think about 'thinking'?" I think the biggest general division among philosophers is that some believe in structuring their views according to a rigid logical system, and some don't. That difference is clear between, for example, Western and Eastern or analytic and continental philosophers.

I'd say that most philosophers from all time periods and areas could be considered to fall under both of the categories you've suggested, if I understand them.

Guesswest - why do you consider epistemology and metaphysics to be a single branch of philosophy? I haven't had much formal training in the subject, but I was always under the impression they were considered distinct branches.

[guesswest]

I wasn't really suggesting they were the same thing, it was meant as an 'and/or' type statement - I can see why you read it that way though, poor phrasing on my part. That said, I do think there's a fair bit of crossover between the two with issues like perception, identity etc.

[diebitter]

It looks to me, from the responses, my thinking on philosophers is cloudy. I always grouped them in my own head as 'real philosophers' (ie thinking about thinking, reasoning processes, use of logic etc), and those called Philosophers cos they put a lot of thought into the human conditions, such as Mill, Neitzche, Marcus Aurelius.

I think it's just cloudy thinking brought on by sleep deprivation and the busy-ness of life, and I need to immerse myself back in it.

thanks all,
db

[ElaineMonster]

Branches of philosophy... Well, you know, philosophy is the mother science of ALL sciences. So, in essence, every science is a branch of philosophy. However, I think you mean the commonly recognized branches, in which case I would say there are five:
Metaphysics
Ethics
Aesthetics
Politics
Epistemology
But, /images/graemlins/wink.gif of course, others disagree.

[hmkpoker]

Males and non-males. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bisonbison]

The proper word for a group of philosophers in the wild is a "herd"

[moorobot]

You can quickly see how your thinking here is a matter of degree and not necessarily kind.

Aritstotle, who claim thinks about thinking, wrote hundreds and hundreds of pages about 'who (I think you mean how here) we conduct ourselves and how they consider things', and that is generally thought to be his greatest contribution to 'philosophy'.

We can distinguish philosophy in all different ways. Analytical vs. continental, postmodern vs. modern, bourgeious vs. proletariat, normative vs. conceptual, interpretative vs. objective, subjective vs. objective, ones which claim you can get addicted to eating paper bags if you eat them enough vs. ones in which you cannot, etc.

I don't see why you care whether or not groupings are 'valid; or not. To me, there are two main reasons to study philosophy: 1) Some works might help you to understand what it is to be a decent human or a citizen, and hence it is 'good' for others that you study philosophy or 2) You enjoy this or that philosphers this or that writing, so it is good for you to read it.

[bunny]

For what it's worth, I always divided them up similar to you - I think of it as metaphysical or ethical. I agree with moorobot in that I dont think it really matters. I find it useful when deciding what article or book to read as I usually find ethics boring and metaphysics interesting.

[RagnarPirate]

I would clarify why studying philosophy is important. Everyone has a personal philosophy, whether explicit or not. The advantage of having a coherent, non-contradictory, rational philosophy is that it allows you to enjoy your life as fully as possible. The most reliable way to do this is to make your philosophy explicit by working through a rational metaphysics, epistomology and ethics. Politics and esthetics are then natural extensions of the code of moral values that are derived during this process. If you want the shortcut for studying, skip most philosophers and study Aristotle then Objectivism (Ayn Rand).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, there are two main reasons to study philosophy: 1) Some works might help you to understand what it is to be a decent human or a citizen, and hence it is 'good' for others that you study philosophy or 2) You enjoy this or that philosphers this or that writing, so it is good for you to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure nobody studies philosophy because they want to understand themselves and the world around them. Or because they want to experience greater fulfillment in life. Or because they appreciate the elegance and beauty of the subject. Or because they want to effect social change.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
The proper word for a group of philosophers in the wild is a "herd"

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was a 'layabout of philosophers'

[ElaineMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
I would clarify why studying philosophy is important. Everyone has a personal philosophy, whether explicit or not. The advantage of having a coherent, non-contradictory, rational philosophy is that it allows you to enjoy your life as fully as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that there's no such thing as a coherent, non-contradictory, rational philosophy.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that there's no such thing as a coherent, non-contradictory, rational philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is: Empiricism.

[RagnarPirate]

wrong. you just are unaware of it.

take some time to study objectivism. you may consider www.aynrand.org (http://www.aynrand.org)

[diebitter]

All

I think my reading of philosophy has been distorted somewhat by my education.

I used to read a lot of book about philosphers/philosophy, rather than the source work. Sure, I read some; Utopia, Neitzche, Francis Bacon, and a few others, but mostly it was stuff like Russell's book on Western Philosophy etc

Then I did research for a while in AI. This made me really concentrate on reasoning/logic, and philosophy behind this. All the ethics/human condition stuff went out of the window at that point.


And I've never returned to it. Maybe it's time.

Thought some of you might be interested in that little background about my philosophical history, and maybe even think on what influenced you to read what works.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that there's no such thing as a coherent, non-contradictory, rational philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
This philosophy is consistent.

QED

[RagnarPirate]

my freshman roommate gave me a copy of fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Branches of philosophy... Well, you know, philosophy is the mother science of ALL sciences. So, in essence, every science is a branch of philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not let this pass, ElaineMonster. The above is simply flat wrong.

I will leave it to you to figure out why.

-Zeno

[guesswest]

Well, I can't see how it's wrong. Care to explain Zeno?

[diebitter]

Figuring out things through reasoning isn't science. It does not provide a clear means/path to be able to empirically refute in any testable, replicable way.

[madnak]

Science is a branch of philosophy, not the other way around.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is a branch of philosophy, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree. Philosophy, depending on definition of course, is a ruminate on a cud - A simple chewing up and the spitting out, or even worse, swallowing wholesale with belief. The problem is that most, credulously, lap up the philosophic drivel like it was the voice of God. “There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it”, quipped a wise old roman long ago.


Waxing a bit more serious and appealing to collective authority, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy offers a short and long, in a twofold manner, definition of philosophy as 1) thinking about thinking and 2) Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world, the justification of belief, and the conduct of life.

If you wish to strictly adhere to the first part of definition 2, then possibly science is a branch of philosophy but in my opinion that is a shaky stance.

Appealing to an individual authority, Bertrand Russell, he defined philosophy as the ‘no-man’s land’ between Science, all definite knowledge, and Theology, all dogma as to what surpass definite knowledge. To quote: “ But between theology and science there is a no man’s land, exposed to attack both sides; this no man’s land is philosophy. Almost all questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and if so, what is mind and what is matter? Has the world any utility and purpose…” And so on with more examples. This definition splits up all human inquiry and speculation into three separate spheres that overlap and compete somewhat and are also elastic in that science can push and squeeze at the other spheres as more definite knowledge becomes known, which often leads to more questions and thus can expand philosophy. Theology has been squeezed and loosing out for centuries but that has not detracted from its influence - An interesting thing in itself.


But then I doubt if a strict agreement can be made on the definition of philosophy itself and/or its relationship to science, if branch, twig, root, or completely separate.

Putting the issue into practical and real world terms, if you had one hundred philosophers in a house it would, in general, be a good thing to burn that house down. If you had one hundred scientists in the house it would not only be unwise to burn the house down, you wouldn’t be able to get away with it. We would have you nabbed and sacked in no time.

QED


-Zeno

[guesswest]

What he meant, I think, is that all the sciences were originally branches of philosophy, and the practicioners of biology/physics etc were philosophers.

As philosophers got better at, and learned more about, these specific disciplines - independent academic subjects took form. That's what philosophy does: when it has some success with an area that area emerges as it's own discipline, psychology being it's most recent offspring.

It's a historical/factual distinction more than it is a methodological one - nobody is suggesting a philosophy professor is qualified to perform brain surgery.

[Zeno]

Ahh. Nevermind.

Anyway, it was a fun post to write. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

By the way, many clerics and other scholastic scholars were nascent scientist. The classic example is Gregor Mendel and his work with pea plants.

-Zeno