What is philosophy?

[quirk]

Very briefly, philosophy might be regarded as a conceptual enquiry dealing with fundamental issues relating to life, knowledge and values. By conceptual enquiry we mean an enquiry that relies primarily on critical reasoning. This includes :

* Analysing the meaning of concepts
* Identifying logical connections between theories
* Evaluating arguments and exposing fallacies

Philosophy and other subjects

According to such a conception of philosophy, philosophy is distinctive in both its method and subject matter. Art or literature might also deal with fundamental issues in life, but the use of critical reasoning is not a necessary part of artistic expression. Critical reasoning of course plays an important role in science, but science is an empirical enquiry into the nature of the world, relying on observations and experiments.

In such respects philosophy is more like mathematics and logic. However, the subject matter of philosophy is more general in that it deals with all sorts of different areas outside mathematics and logic, such as religion and morality.

Although philosophy is different from science, it would be a mistake to conclude that philosophy cannot contribute to the development of science. Philosophers can help scientists clarify the basic concepts in scientific theories, and use their skills in logic to evaluate the strength of evidence supporting or criticizing particular theories. Many sciences (e.g. psychology) originally developed out of philosophy.

What philosophy can do

Why should you study philosophy? If you are busy and don't have the patience or interest to reflect on fundamental issues, then perhaps philosophy is not for you. But for people who are interested in critical reflection, philosophy can be an enjoyable activity.

There are other reasons for doing philosophy apart from pleasure. First, philosophical skills in thinking and writing and help us in describing and understanding theories and ideologies. Here philosophers take up the task of a cartographer, mapping out conceptual terrain and logical structure.

Second, as mentioned earlier, philosophy can be an important tool in helping us acquire knowledge. Logic and critical reasoning are necessary to achieve consistency and in determining the right conclusions to be drawn given our observations and experiences.

Finally, philosophy can also play a transformative role in our lives and social institutions. Through critical reflection on the justification and coherence of the values in social practices and our own actions, we do not just acquire a deeper understanding of our culture and of who we are. This understanding can also pave the way for us to improve ourselves and the world around us.

Two approaches to philosophy

You probably have heard about the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy in western philosophy. Personally I think it is a rather confusing distinction and is not very useful. First, "analytic" describes a method whereas "continental" describes a geographical region, so this is not quite the right contrast. The distinction gives the impression that if you study continental philosophy then you do not have to be analytic. But if being analytic is a matter of being careful and precise in our reasoning, surely this is important whichever branch of philosophy we are engaged in.

It is perhaps more useful to distinguish between history-based and problem-based approaches. A history-based approach to philosophy aims at understanding the history of ideas, the evolution of intellectual currents at different times, and what particular thinkers thought about certain philosophical problems. A problem-based approach is more concerned with understanding and solving particular philosophical problems, such as whether God exists. It pays more attention to the validity of the relevant arguments and care a bit less as to whether the arguments capture exactly the thoughts of past thinkers.

Quotes

Here are some quotes from some famous philosophers on what philosophy is about :

Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries.
Ludwig Wittgenstein Tractatus 4.112

Philosophy, beginning in wonder ... is able to fancy everything different from what it is. It sees the familiar as if it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar. It can take things up and lay them down again. Its mind is full of air that plays round every subject. It rouses us from our native dogmatic slumber and breaks up our caked prejudices. Historically it has been a sort of fecundation for different human interests, science, poetry, religion and logic ... It has sought by hard reasoning for results emotionally valuable. To have some sontact with it, to catch its influence, is thus good for both literary and scientific students. By its poetry it appeals to literary minds; but its logic stiffens them up and remedies their softness. By its logic it appeals to the scientific; but softens them by its other aspects, and saves them from too dry a technicality. Both types of student ought to get from philosophy a livelier spirit, more air, more mental backgroud ... A man with no philosophy in him is the most inauspicious and unprofitable of all possible social mates.
William James Some Problems of Philosophy

Philosophy ... is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
Bertrand Russell A History of Western Philosophy Introduction

Philosophers should not be specialists. For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man's knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in these riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from an obscurantist faith in the expert's special skill and in his personal knowledge and authority.
Karl Popper

One comes to philosophy already endowed with a stock of opinions. It is not the business of philosophy either to undermine or to justify these pre-existing opinions, to any great extent, but only to try to discover ways of expanding them into an orderly system. A metaphysician's analysis of mind is an attempt at systematizing our opinions about mind. It succeeds to the extent that (1) it is systematic, and (2) it respects those of our pre- philosophical opinions to which we are fimrly attached. In so far as it does both better than any alternative we have thought of, we give it credence. There is some give-and- take, but not too much: some of us sometimes change our minds on some points of common opinion, if they conflict irremediably with a doctrine that commands our belief by its systematic beauty and its agreement with more important common opinions.
David Lewis Counterfactuals


http://www3.hku.hk/philodep/intro/whatisphil.php

[bay]

Having traveled a few decades through this universe, my views have morphed a bit from strident leftism, anti vietnam war, to retreat to the great north woods, hide out and live back to the land life, to putting my trust in the universe to lead me where I am supposed to go and show me what I am supposed to do and with whom.

Thus I find myself here.

To quote Jerry Garcia, what a long strange trip it's been.

There was a time I'd debate philosophy with anyone from any angle. I was the only one in my college philosophy class to leave the semester with an "A." Now I know for me, the universe is what it is. I know now that what I put out to the universe is what comes back to me. i.e., if I put out hate and negativity, it's what I get back.

In the end, all of the major philosophers just tried to point us in the direction of understanding our place in the universe. They just tried different paths to get there.

I'm becoming more comfortable with the idea that wherever I am at a given moment in time is exactly where I am supposed to be.

Being Greek, I can identify with Aristotilean concepts but feel more drawn to Native American ways of looking at life and our purpose here. We are here, we have energy drawn from the earth, the same energy that courses through the grass, rocks, animals, sky. We can use that universal energy to do good or do harm. And in a karmic sense, what we give out is what we get back.

Western philosophy tries to hard to explain things, find ration and reason and logic where none exists or where it doesn't really matter. Sometimes we don't need to know why or how. All we need to know is that it is what it is. The why and how will come to us on a need to know basis.

[Viv]

What is philosophy to you?

Is it not just objective analysis?

[donquixote99]

No, Philosophy is the attempt to convince others that your view is supported by objective analysis, and other views are not.

[Viv]

No, Philosophy is the attempt to convince others that your view is supported by objective analysis, and other views are not.

I have not studied the subject, I am curious about the useful application of it and how realistic it is.

What is that based on, don?

Do you suggest there must be interaction with others and is it then about convincing others rather than an individual process?

philosophy Show phonetics
noun
1 [U] the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence, the use and limits of knowledge and the principles that govern and influence moral judgment:
René Descartes is regarded as the founder of modern philosophy.
See also PhD.

2 the philosophy of sth a group of theories and ideas related to the understanding of a particular subject:
the philosophy of education/religion/science

3 [C] a particular system of beliefs, values and principles:
the Ancient Greek philosophy of Stoicism

4 [C usually singular] INFORMAL someone's approach to life and their way of dealing with it:
Live now, pay later - that's my philosophy of life!

philosopher Show phonetics
noun [C]
someone who studies or writes about the meaning of life:
Plato was a Greek philosopher.

philosophical Show phonetics
adjective
1 relating to the study or writing of philosophy:
philosophical writings/essays

2 If you are philosophical in your reaction to something which is not satisfactory, you accept it calmly and without anger, understanding that failure and disappointment are a part of life.

philosophically Show phonetics
adverb
calmly accepting a difficult situation

[Gareth]

philosophy in simple terms is the love of wisdom if you look at the greek that makes it up

philo = love of
sophia = wisdom

[donquixote99]

Viv, I was being a little bit glib there, but my comment does reflect my belief that, for the most part, people's general view of things is the product of the temperment and their experiences, not a product of 'objective analysis.' Less-than-objective analysis, instead, is an attempt to justify the point of view, to defend it in the face of contradiction, and to perhaps communicate it in a way that convinces others to see things your way.

Modern philosophy that does indeed press on with the analysis generaly gets to proving that nothing can be proved, knowing that nothing can be known, disolving all ground for value, and showing that the the search for meaning is hopeless. And yes, since nothing can be known, you can't really know that nothing can be known. About this tiime, practioners often become unhinged--with reason debunked, one is defenseless against the monsters. This was a arc of Neitzsche, for example.

Slightly saner and more prudent men are able to retreat from nihilism, or sense enough not to go there. They wind up suggesting in various ways that objective philosophy is actually beyond us, but it's a good idea to fake it. And that faking it is good enough.

You may be able to gather from this discussion my own view on how realistic philosophy is, and it's useful applications.

I do sort of admire Marcus Aurelus. Be stoic. Take care of things the best you can. Don't get giddy and self-indulgent if things go well, don't whine if they don't.

[Viv]

Viv, I was being a little bit glib there, but my comment does reflect my belief that, for the most part, people's general view of things is the product of the temperment and their experiences, not a product of 'objective analysis.' Less-than-objective analysis, instead, is an attempt to justify the point of view, to defend it in the face of contradiction, and to perhaps communicate it in a way that convinces others to see things your way.

Modern philosophy that does indeed press on with the analysis generaly gets to proving that nothing can be proved, knowing that nothing can be known, disolving all ground for value, and showing that the the search for meaning is hopeless. And yes, since nothing can be known, you can't really know that nothing can be known. About this tiime, practioners often become unhinged--with reason debunked, one is defenseless against the monsters. This was a arc of Neitzsche, for example.

Slightly saner and more prudent men are able to retreat from nihilism, or sense enough not to go there. They wind up suggesting in various ways that objective philosophy is actually beyond us, but it's a good idea to fake it. And that faking it is good enough.

You may be able to gather from this discussion my own view on how realistic philosophy is, and it's useful applications.

I do sort of admire Marcus Aurelus. Be stoic. Take care of things the best you can. Don't get giddy and self-indulgent if things go well, don't whine if they don't.

Yes, I'm not a fan of it and would not choose to study it, but read Descartes a few years back and sounds similar to what you suggest.

Stoic..I really try. But sometimes I am just too much a female and emotion throws reason and theory straight out the window...;)

[An Céachta Dearg]

Stoic..I really try. But sometimes I am just too much a female and emotion throws reason and theory straight out the window...;)

Female in sex or gender?

Tw very different things

[Viv]

Female in sex or gender?

Tw very different things

Is that one of your trick questions then, Red?

[An Céachta Dearg]

Is that one of your trick questions then, Red?


No its a very important part of sociological theory.

[Lightweaver]

Female in sex or gender?

Tw very different things

Could you explain the difference? I see one's gender as one's sex so I don't understand your angle...

[An Céachta Dearg]

Could you explain the difference? I see one's gender as one's sex so I don't understand your angle...

Sex is innate. It is biological and is determined by ones genitalia. However Gender is a social constrcution based on the ideas of masculinity and feminity. however this is not innate and not natural. It is buitl from an expectation of how one is expected to behave because of ones sex.

[Lightweaver]

OK, I understand now. Thanks. Although I use those terms interchangeably I can see what you mean.

[An Céachta Dearg]

OK, I understand now. Thanks. Although I use those terms interchangeably I can see what you mean.


Its what I do:p;)

[Viv]

Its what I do:p;)

No idea. I just know sometimes I need chocolate to survive and logic is a little less obvious to me than normal. Emotionally sensitive is probably a way to think of it. And I don't think men are that way. I do not think it's a learned behaviour, it's pretty hard to control even when you are consciously focusing on doing so. It can be controlled though, with determination.

[An Céachta Dearg]

No idea. I just know sometimes I need chocolate to survive and logic is a little less obvious to me than normal. Emotionally sensitive is probably a way to think of it. And I don't think men are that way. I do not think it's a learned behaviour, it's pretty hard to control even when you are consciously focusing on doing so. It can be controlled though, with determination.

You are "genderised" from the moment you are born. Thiink of it blue for a boy and pink for a Girl. Think of the toys and games you recieved as a child. Dolls, Dolls houses, Kitchens tea sets. This was to domesticate you. Boys got guns, trains, cars and were encouraged to do sports. A girl doing this is called a tom boy. Boys are thaught to bottle their emotions and not let their feelings known men who are emotional are seen as odd and maybe classed as gay when they are infact heterosexual. Also this explaisn the far higher suicide rate in men than in women.

[Viv]

You are "genderised" from the moment you are born. Thiink of it blue for a boy and pink for a Girl. Think of the toys and games you recieved as a child. Dolls, Dolls houses, Kitchens tea sets. This was to domesticate you. Boys got guns, trains, cars and were encouraged to do sports. A girl doing this is called a tom boy. Boys are thaught to bottle their emotions and not let their feelings known men who are emotional are seen as odd and maybe classed as gay when they are infact heterosexual. Also this explaisn the far higher suicide rate in men than in women.

Thank you for the lesson in sociology...Generalisation though. I was a tomboy and feminine, tree-climber and pretty girly pink wearer, soft and vulnerable but play sport highly competitively. Is this because we hung about with an older brother and his mates? :p Where did genderising go wrong...

[Phædrus]

"Philosophy is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Philosophers can persuade themselves of anything."
- My adaptation of Heinlein's quote on Theology

[bay]

Good one Phaedrus!

[An Céachta Dearg]

Thank you for the lesson in sociology...Generalisation though. I was a tomboy and feminine, tree-climber and pretty girly pink wearer, soft and vulnerable but play sport highly competitively. Is this because we hung about with an older brother and his mates? :p Where did genderising go wrong...

That is a critique of the nurturing argument. But the fact you wore pink means that you behaved in the manner constructed for you. You only believed you were soft and vunerable as that is the way society has conditioned you!

[Viv]

That is a critique of the nurturing argument. But the fact you wore pink means that you behaved in the manner constructed for you. You only believed you were soft and vunerable as that is the way society has conditioned you!

Lol...I just like pink. Also like blue, currently wearing green...it cannot apply to all people, there are variations and scope for independent thought.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Lol...I just like pink. Also like blue, currently wearing green...it cannot apply to all people, there are variations and scope for independent thought.

You mistook the point. Its not about what colours you wear its more about your behaviourial patterns and the patterns of behaviour by others towards you.

[Viv]

You mistook the point. Its not about what colours you wear its more about your behaviourial patterns and the patterns of behaviour by others towards you.

Colour is a behavioural example quoted by you.

Those patterns may hold true in a traditional family setting, but not all families behave traditionally or treat the girls differently from the boys. That is pretty outdated thinking IMO.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Colour is a behavioural example quoted by you.

Those patterns may hold true in a traditional family setting, but not all families behave traditionally or treat the girls differently from the boys. That is pretty outdated thinking IMO.


Physcological experiments have shown that girls and boys are treateddifferently according to their sex even when the parents think they are treating both the same. This hase been research over almost the course of a century.
I used colours as they have been used to identify sex in hospitals and in general culture. However the colour you actually wear isn't really relevant.
Infact the fact you refered to yourself as a thomboy which is a derogtory term for a girl who participates in "masculine" activities is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.

[Viv]

Physcological experiments have shown that girls and boys are treateddifferently according to their sex even when the parents think they are treating both the same. This hase been research over almost the course of a century.
I used colours as they have been used to identify sex in hospitals and in general culture. However the colour you actually wear isn't really relevant.
Infact the fact you refered to yourself as a thomboy which is a derogtory term for a girl who participates in "masculine" activities is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm sure you're right, as you read it in a book. But I will debate it anyway...:D

Tomboy is like any descriptive term. For some, it denotes something derogatory. To me, I liked being a tomboy and being as capable as the boys of climbing trees and skimming stones and such. Then it was possible to revert to girliness and have all the benefits associated with that. Both are good things to be.

I do not have a great deal of respect for "studies", having studied some studies in my time and found them laughable. For example, the study of how children acquire language took an hour to read and the stunning discovery was that they can acquire it from interaction with and imitation of the mother. Took some male linguistic researcher to "discover"... that obvious piece of common knowledge.

[An Céachta Dearg]

I'm sure you're right, as you read it in a book. But I will debate it anyway...:D

Tomboy is like any descriptive term. For some, it denotes something derogatory. To me, I liked being a tomboy and being as capable as the boys of climbing trees and skimming stones and such. Then it was possible to revert to girliness and have all the benefits associated with that. Both are good things to be. .

Your missing the point a girl is called a tomboy because she expresses masculine behaviour. Masculine behaviour in itself is not natural but a social construction and by acting like a boy your not meeting societies expectations an are called a tomboy to discourage you from doing these activities.

I do not have a great deal of respect for "studies", having studied some studies in my time and found them laughable. For example, the study of how children acquire language took an hour to read and the stunning discovery was that they can acquire it from interaction with and imitation of the mother. Took some male linguistic researcher to "discover"... that obvious piece of common knowledge.

Whether you respect them or not is irrelavent they are extremely important in understanding the mindset of an individual and indeed the mindset of a culture or society.

[Viv]

Your missing the point a girl is called a tomboy because she expresses masculine behaviour. Masculine behaviour in itself is not natural but a social construction and by acting like a boy your not meeting societies expectations an are called a tomboy to discourage you from doing these activities.



Whether you respect them or not is irrelavent they are extremely important in understanding the mindset of an individual and indeed the mindset of a culture or society.

I got the point.

They are a tool, but your comment indicates you feel they are almost set in stone, which cannot be the case when dealing with humans?

[bay]

Define masculine, feminine behavior? There's innate qualities each sex has and then there's the qualities that society wants us to live up or down to.

Yup, I was a tomboy too. Hated girlie stuff when i was a kid, but I'm all female, not gay. Would rather be outside doing stuff than indoors. I think we are wired with whatever tendencies we have and when society tries to pound us square pegs into the proverbial round holes, it just doesn't work.

My dear mother, God bless her pointy head, tried her damndest...wasted a lot of money on charm school for me, haha.

[donquixote99]

You are "genderised" from the moment you are born. Thiink of it blue for a boy and pink for a Girl. Think of the toys and games you recieved as a child. Dolls, Dolls houses, Kitchens tea sets. This was to domesticate you. Boys got guns, trains, cars and were encouraged to do sports. A girl doing this is called a tom boy. Boys are thaught to bottle their emotions and not let their feelings known men who are emotional are seen as odd and maybe classed as gay when they are infact heterosexual. Also this explaisn the far higher suicide rate in men than in women.

Red, are you a 'blank slate it's all learned' person?

I mean, just because some of this 'genderizing' comes before temperment and personality are fully expressed doesn't mean they necessairily cause it. 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is the name of a fallacy.

[donquixote99]

I do not have a great deal of respect for "studies", having studied some studies in my time and found them laughable. For example, the study of how children acquire language took an hour to read and the stunning discovery was that they can acquire it from interaction with and imitation of the mother. Took some male linguistic researcher to "discover"... that obvious piece of common knowledge.

You are right to be skeptical of 'studies,' particularly in the social "sciences." But there has been some fascinating work in this area. It's worth considering because it bears on the 'blank slate' issue.

Consider the early language of toddlers. They don't speak in adult-type sentances, they don't used sophisticated grammar. If they want to be picked up, they may say something like "me up!" You mention imitation, but this is not mere imitation. There are no adults going around saying "me up." What is happening is much more wonderful. The young person has associated some sounds with some concepts, including a concept of self! Then he or she is using the sounds to communicate, by putting them together according to rules of grammar. But WHAT rules of grammar? Not the ones heard from adults, but different, simpler rules. And where did these rules come from?

They don't exist in the child's environment. They must have been in the kid's head from the start. We are evidently born with the ability to accociate sounds and concepts, and with a baby grammar, in our heads, ready to use as soon as we pick up some local words.

Noam Chomsky made his reputation initially writing some of this stuff up.

[Viv]

[QUOTE=donquixote99;6011]You are right to be skeptical of 'studies,' particularly in the social "sciences." But there has been some fascinating work in this area. It's worth considering because it bears on the 'blank slate' issue.

Consider the early language of toddlers. They don't speak in adult-type sentances, they don't used sophisticated grammar. If they want to be picked up, they may say something like "me up!" You mention imitation, but this is not mere imitation.

Thank you, Don...I know I am right to be skeptical and was trying to communicate that to Red there...;)

I mentioned that they can learn through imitation and being a mother, I do support the suggestion that in children with mothers who frequently talk and interact with the baby, making connections and eye-contact and having fun, the norm is that they pick speech up pretty quickly, both through imitation and enjoyment of interaction.

There are no adults going around saying "me up." What is happening is much more wonderful. The young person has associated some sounds with some concepts, including a concept of self! Then he or she is using the sounds to communicate, by putting them together according to rules of grammar. But WHAT rules of grammar? Not the ones heard from adults, but different, simpler rules. And where did these rules come from?

They don't exist in the child's environment. They must have been in the kid's head from the start. We are evidently born with the ability to accociate sounds and concepts, and with a baby grammar, in our heads, ready to use as soon as we pick up some local words.

Or the same function as adults but with less developed ability to imitate accurately...:)

Noam Chomsky made his reputation initially writing some of this stuff up.

Yes, I mentioned in another thread that I studied his work at university, but as part of a linguistics course, not the subjects he is known for here.

Isn't it a scandal that I found his linguistic study findings to be obvious and simplistic...:eek::D...when he is so venerated for his intellect.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Red, are you a 'blank slate it's all learned' person?

I mean, just because some of this 'genderizing' comes before temperment and personality are fully expressed doesn't mean they necessairily cause it. 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is the name of a fallacy.

Not neccessarily, I'm just trying to create an interestig argument like

[Viv]

Not neccessarily, I'm just trying to create an interestig argument like

God Red... sometime your honesty is so disarming. ;)

[bay]

Yes, there's a lot fo societal influence in behavior and expectations, but there's also some genetic predispositions to gender behavior.

My horses of the male gender, even though they have lost their manhood (sorry boys) still play rough and aggressive, biting running chasing kicking.

The female horses are quieter. That's not to say they dont' have aggressive moments, but nothing like the boys do! they do more with subtle communication, evil looks and such, LOL.......

so I think there's some inherent difference in the genders and thank goodness for thatl!

[White Rabbit]

First of all, my compliments to the author of the article cited by the OP. That was a good introduction to the art of philosophy. :)

No, Philosophy is the attempt to convince others that your view is supported by objective analysis, and other views are not.
Technically speaking, this looks more like the definition of sophistry. :D

Indeed, sophistry is a useful art, but to call that philosophy does not do justice to my beloved sophia.

philosophy in simple terms is the love of wisdom if you look at the greek that makes it up

philo = love of
sophia = wisdom

Simple answers are often the best answers. :)


Viv, I was being a little bit glib there, but my comment does reflect my belief that, for the most part, people's general view of things is the product of the temperment and their experiences, not a product of 'objective analysis.'
You will have no trouble at all convincing me that human beings are mostly irrational and that reason and rationality are rather more the exception than the rule.

And just for fun, since this is a philosophy thread and I love epistemology, I'll assert that 'objective' analysis is ultimately, technically speaking, an impossible enterprise. Objectivity is like 'perfection' - it is something that is sought after or approached, but never to be reached. :)

That is a bit of 'troll' to see who are the philosophers here. I'm curious since I'm a newbie...

[White Rabbit]

May I jump into this discussion of sex and gender? Just a few comments...

Your missing the point a girl is called a tomboy because she expresses masculine behaviour.
Not necessarily. Nasty bitch women who 'express masculine' behavior by acting aggressive, violent and/or demanding are not called tomboys. :)

Generally speaking, it is girls who apparently enjoy partaking of 'boy-labeled' play activites that are called tomboys.

Masculine behaviour in itself is not natural but a social construction and by acting like a boy your not meeting societies expectations an are called a tomboy to discourage you from doing these activities.
To be technical and specific, I'd say that one is called a 'tomboy' based on simple observation of an apparent fact - that the behavior matches that defined as a 'tomboy'. There is no necessary motive of expectation here on the part of the observer (though one certainly could exist).

That is to say, one can infer by 'meta-analysis' the socially prescribed behavior that is being discouraged here, but that is not necessarily a conscious 'motive' held by any given person describing any given girl as a 'tomboy'.

Whether you respect them or not is irrelavent they are extremely important in understanding the mindset of an individual and indeed the mindset of a culture or society.
As I've noted above, I think you are being too sweeping in assuming personal or individual awareness of an imputed motive here. Certainly these ideas permeate our society and culture, and individuals are one of the 'vehicles' for this, but most individuals are not consciously aware of all the socio-cultural implications of their opinions, words, actions and deeds, even if they are outwardly consistent with an oppressive patriarchal-liberal-capitalist regime. :)

[donquixote99]

I'll assert that 'objective' analysis is ultimately, technically speaking, an impossible enterprise. Objectivity is like 'perfection' - it is something that is sought after or approached, but never to be reached.


Oh, I agree. But I don't recall saying that claims of value discovered by 'objective knowledge' are valid, and in fact I specifically deny that. Reason is good for 1) solving practical problems, like how, with stone age weaponry, to have meat for dinner, and 2) for arguing with others.

I may indeed be a sophist. But I don't think that's a very unusual thing to be.....

[White Rabbit]

I may indeed be a sophist. But I don't think that's a very unusual thing to be.....
They are a heck of a lot more common than philosophers, that's for sure. :)

With a MA in Philosophy, I'm technically entitled to call myself a philosopher, without the 'quotemarks', though I can't deny that I do love sophistry, if only for the art of it. :D

[donquixote99]

Ah. Your formal study may enable you to answer a question then. Going back to the OP, it claims that "Through critical reflection on the justification and coherence of the values in social practices and our own actions, we do not just acquire a deeper understanding of our culture and of who we are. This understanding can also pave the way for us to improve ourselves and the world around us."

My question: can you give any examples of philosophical thought actually enabling such improvement?

[White Rabbit]

Ah. Your formal study may enable you to answer a question then. Going back to the OP, it claims that "Through critical reflection on the justification and coherence of the values in social practices and our own actions, we do not just acquire a deeper understanding of our culture and of who we are. This understanding can also pave the way for us to improve ourselves and the world around us."

My question: can you give any examples of philosophical thought actually enabling such improvement?
Thales (pre-Socratic philosopher of the 8th century BC) description of the formation of the earth 'as similar to the process of the Nile silting up' is the first known explanation of a given natural phenomena without the action of a supernatural being. This is the beginning of all western science and technological development. Philosophy makes science possible.

Or, could the US revolution have occured if it wasn't for Locke arguing that rebellion was acceptable under certain conditions? Could the French revolution have occured without the pen and polished wit of Voltaire? Both inspired great political events by their philosophic words and ideas. Philosophy makes politics possible.