Has Philosophy over stepped it's boundaries?

[genkaus]

Because how we think is absolutely critical to our survival.

That's true - but guiding survival isn't the purpose of philosophy either.

[dissily mordentroge]

Because how we think is absolutely critical to our survival.

That's true - but guiding survival isn't the purpose of philosophy either.

Then what is the central purpose of philosophy?
A reading of the French de-constructionists has me thinking the authors imagine it's purpose is to turn the discipline into an incomprehensible and meaningless word salad drowned in a pathetic attempt at imposing a 'style' onto it. I'm not forgetting here however that in times past the definition and scope of what was termed philosophy was far wider than today's.

[bennyboy]

Then what is the central purpose of philosophy?

It's all in the word. The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom.

[dissily mordentroge]

Then what is the central purpose of philosophy?

It's all in the word. The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom.

A somewhat circular definition.

[Endo]

It's all in the word. The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom.

A somewhat circular definition.

So? That's not an argument. Also, I disagree with that statement. If the "central purpose" of philosophy is "the love of wisdom", then it follows that some side-purposes would be things like "the application of wisdom to the world", "the spreading of wisdom" and so on and so forth. It's not saying that the love of wisdom creates more philosophy, but it certainly could cycle in that manner. Either way, cyclic processes aren't equatable to circular logic or reasoning. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning... is different from "The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom which drives a person to study and read more philosophy."

Also, what's this drivel about "Intellectual party games"? Philosophy doesn't have to fit into your cute little box of "brutally practical thoughts" in order to be valid. If a person wants to spin a theoretical situation to test the bounds of their reasoning, then so be it. If a system of morals or ethics or philosophizing is able to deal with all the odd and weird theoretical situations, then it should have passed any sorts of test a person would wish to place upon that system. It shows that the system is complete, and fleshed out, instead of just being some overtly practical system cobbled together in someone's mental equivalent of a backyard shed.

[bennyboy]

It's all in the word. The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom.

A somewhat circular definition.

How so? Philo (love) + sophy (wisdom) = love of wisdom.

The problem is you think Philosophy = _____, and that I'm saying _____ has as its central purpose the love of wisdom. That's mistaken. The word philosophy IS ITSELF a statement of purpose, and all the things we do in, with, and about philosophy must by definition have the love of wisdom at their core-- or they must be called by a different word.

[genkaus]

Then what is the central purpose of philosophy?

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

[dissily mordentroge]

It shows that the system is complete, and fleshed out, instead of just being some overtly practical system cobbled together in someone's mental equivalent of a backyard shed.

Why does that smell to me of academic snobbery of the worst kind?

[bennyboy]

It shows that the system is complete, and fleshed out, instead of just being some overtly practical system cobbled together in someone's mental equivalent of a backyard shed.

Why does that smell to me of academic snobbery of the worst kind?

If you'd read the whole passage, you'd see the exact opposite is true. Philosophy allows for the examination of an issue from as many different perspectives as a person cares to put on it-- and if some of these perspectives prove fruitless, no matter. At least the final product won't be dogma; it will be a battle-tested strongman, worthy of transmission to the next set of ears, or the next culture. It seems to me that is the exact opposite of snobbery.

[dissily mordentroge]

. . . . . . If the "central purpose" of philosophy is "the love of wisdom",

I'm pleased to note your use of 'if' as there's some doubt a strong case can be made for such an assertion. It may be the case a number of those who classify themselves as philosophers do so out of something they think of as a love of wisdom. What actually is 'wisdom' and how will we recognise it when we come across it? By conducting a discussion with an internal consistency of definition funtioning according to rules agreed to by all participants? By exposing our methodology and conclusions to the world outside the ivory tower to test their effectiveness? By reference to the 'beauty' of the dialogue?

---

Why does that smell to me of academic snobbery of the worst kind?

If you'd read the whole passage, you'd see the exact opposite is true. Philosophy allows for the examination of an issue from as many different perspectives as a person cares to put on it-- and if some of these perspectives prove fruitless, no matter. At least the final product won't be dogma; it will be a battle-tested strongman, worthy of transmission to the next set of ears, or the next culture. It seems to me that is the exact opposite of snobbery.

…" as many different perspectives as a person cares to put on it" And what if the entire set of perspectives a person cares to put on it are beside the point or worse still, irrational?
"Battle tested strongman, worthy of transmission to the next set of ears"? Putting ideas to the test within a purely acadmic environment without reference to any practical application in the world is from my perspective at the very heart of why philosophy is vanishing up it's own backside at this point in time, and more tragically, regarded by the general public as no more than an obscure academic party game with no relevance to the real world. (Let's not get into a debate about 'real' for now.)
I'm tempted to quote Ayn Rand's epistemology here but since she's regarded as a non-philosopher by the 'wise' I'll desist.

I don't see how dogma came into this or why you've introduced the concept in this context so I'll avoid commenting on it.

---

A somewhat circular definition.

How so? Philo (love) + sophy (wisdom) = love of wisdom.

The problem is you think Philosophy = _____, and that I'm saying _____ has as its central purpose the love of wisdom. That's mistaken. The word philosophy IS ITSELF a statement of purpose, and all the things we do in, with, and about philosophy must by definition have the love of wisdom at their core-- or they must be called by a different word.

Must they? Haven't you noticed how so many philosophers use particular words with a meaning unique to their own writings?
As to the origin of the word philosophy, so what? The origins of any term used to denote a particular discipline can't bind or limit the scope, meaning and purpose of that discipline for all eternity. Take for instance the simple difference between, say, the medieval use of the term to include a vast array of intellectual pursuits many of which today are not regarded as within the scope of philosophy proper. Physics, for instance, comes to mind.