PD asks... [S2E17]

This question is rather complex, so I’m posting the entire content in an attempt not to bias it:

PD •

There are and have been various, and wildly different approaches to doing philosophy. Some of these approaches have been religious (theistic, pantheistic or polytheistic), others agnostic or even anti-religious and atheistic. Some presume the existence of universal truths in the moral sphere; others see a plurality of often incompatible and conflicting moral claims which can't be reconciled; some see good prospects for a theory of knowledge that leads to absolute certainty (few of these types remain); others see certitude as unobtainable; and so on. So the first thing is to see the sheer variety of perspectives, initial assumptions/points of departure and cultural contexts (e.g. Christendom in the Middle Ages, Sci. Rev. in early modern period etc.) that situate famous philosophers and "schools" of philosophy.  Then, there are 4 traditional domains of philosophy which (despite changes within each) still provide a reasonable way to summarize much of the content one is likely to find in any philosophy whether ancient or modern. These domains are: 1) Metaphysics 2) Epistemology 3) Logic/s 4) Axiology.(It is more and more the case that logic has become its own specialty, having become increasingly abstruse and allied to various other fields like Quantum, computer sci, mathematics and so on-- but even if it branches off at some point, the philosophy OF logic will probably always have relevance in philosophy itself).

Metaphysics asks "What is Reality?" If it is not utterly subjective or culturally constructed or determined (as Sophists of old and post-modernists of our age have argued, among others) then HOW do we separate out mere "appearances" (X seems to be real but could be, say, an illusion) from reality (X IS objectively real )? A subset of this large field is Ontology which asks "what kinds of beings exist in the world?" Are, for example, all of them physical? Then one's ontology is physicalist. Are they all finally mathematical or conceptual? Then one may have a Platonist or other Idealist ontology? Maybe, the names we give to beings of any kind are merely conventions-- just so many labels we need to conceptualize/make sense of the bewildering flux of experience in life. That would yield something like a form of "nominalism" or "conceptualism," where names do not correspond to fixed essences, but have more pragmatic and contextual value for us.

Epistemology asks "What can I know to be true? If I can know anything to be true, then how is such knowledge achieved and justified?" It's worth noting that one's metaphysics will effect one's epistemology and vice versa. If I believe only physical entities exist, as many (but not all) in modern science do, then my views on HOW to achieve such knowledge will be very different from that of an Idealist. For example, I will probably emphasize a theory of evidence similar to that used by many empirical scientists. For something to count as good evidence, perhaps, it will have to a) be publicly observable either via unaided senses or technologies (e.g. radio telescopes) that augment our ability to study nature in ways that can be publicly shared. But If I believe in ideal essences, gods, demons and principalities, then I may claim that philosophically or theologically grounded introspection is necessary in order to apprehend these beings. Prayer, contemplation, meditation and scriptural exegesis will likely play some role in all this. And so, depending on what we think "there IS" (metaphysics) our picture of how we come to know it (epistemology) will in some ways depend. Similarly, if one's epistemology rules out certainty all together, certain metaphysical positions (e.g. Theism) become either untenable, or consigned to the level of "Faith." If the latter, we get into questions of whether this faith is blind or guided by or aimed at understanding as Augustine puts it ("faith seeking understanding" i.e. a dynamic exists between the experience of faith and reason).If the former we get "Fideism" -- belief in X without rational grounds (i.e. on the basis of faith alone). If the latter, we are confronted with the potential circularity of having no certainty regarding "understanding" or what counts as a "true understanding." Then, faith fails to do the work the religionist imagines. So, you see that theories of knowledge can influence the things we believe about reality, just as our positions on what is real can shape our epistemologies.

Axiology is the study of VALUES, whether in ethics or aesthetics. Both ethics and aesthetics, then are branches of axiology. Probably, ethical philosophy and aesthetics are better known to the general public than the first 2, and having gone on a bit longer than I'd thought, I'll leave the sketch here. Logic/s have become so complex, it would require at least a whole comment to discuss meaningfully. Here I've made a few basic, fairly non-controversial points about the field of philosophy. 1) It is arguably best thought of not in the singular but plural case, due to radical differences of perspective, belief, and method. 2) What gives philosophy at least some measure of unity as a somewhat coherent field is probably best appreciated by looking at the 4 KINDS of inquiry it has usually included (metaphysics, epistemology, logic/s, and axiology, i.e. ethics/aesthetics and other questions of values). Hope this helps.

I'll add a question to any readers here…

Do you think these 4 kinds of inquiry can be found in all cultures, some cultures, a few cultures or just western cultures? This has become an interesting debate in the fields of Comparative Philosophy and World Philosophy, so I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts.

 

Whoa, a lot there.  Very deep.  And now to bias it (i.e., corrupt it by trying to summarize)…  

Observation 1: The subject of philosophy can be approached from many different levels: religious vs. nonreligious; hard morality (universal truths) vs. soft morality (subjective/conflicting truths); certitude of knowledge (obtainable vs. unobtainable); etc.

Observation 2: The tentacles of philosophy can reach far and wide, depending on (i.) perspective -- categories mentioned in Observation 1), and (ii.) domain -- the four kinds of philosophical inquiry.

Repeating the question: Do you think these 4 kinds of inquiry can be found in all cultures, some cultures, a few cultures or just western cultures?

You’re back in philosophy class now.  Give our one-time sociology and philosophy professor, PD, your thoughts on this complex and controversial subject. 

May he give everyone an A+ (at least for effort)! 😊

And thanks for favoriting and supporting the thread!

(posted by PrimalSoup)