Philosophy

["Scott L. Lewis" <lewissl@CSOC-MAIL.LVS.DUPONT.COM>]

Steven Belknap writes:

>Of course, perhaps there is an empirical philosophy which will someday
>rise from the mire like chemistry did from alchemy.

That happened a couple of hundred years ago.  The empirical philosophy that
rose from the mire is called "Science."  Up until then it was called
"Natural Philosophy."

>The dictionaries also lack the definition which to my mind gets at the
>heart of what philosophy is: a misguided attempt to apply rational
>thinking to existential angst.

This is a good thing.  It forces neurotics to express their angst with some
degree of rigor, and while they are distracted by that, we can tiptoe away
from them.  ;-)

However, your definition neglects to mention that Philosophy also applies
rational thinking to such things as ethics, beauty, the nature of knowledge,
and to what constitutes rational thinking.  Granted, it does not necessarily
lead to truth with a capital "T", but it can be useful for framing essential
questions and weeding out some of the BS.

The trouble with Philosophy is that every time someone enters a
philosophical domain and develops: 1) some useful ways of representing the
domain's knowledge, 2) an effective method for observation and measurement,
and 3) a practical methodology for experimenation, they call it a science
and run off with it.  This leaves philosophers with all the nasty,
intractible stuff that nobody else wants.  I don't know about you, but it's
enough to give *me* a bad case of existential angst! =8-0


>If you firmly believe that the concept "philosophy" can be translated
>into lojban lujvo, which do you prefer? I submit that you won't find
>any more satisfactory than the fu'ivla. Actually, philosophy seems to
>me to be a good example of why fu'ivla are important.
>

I heartily agree.  Reading this discussion reminds me of the old story about
the blind men describing an elephant.  Just as the blind men can't describe
the totality of the elephant by descibing one part they can touch, a single
lujvo would be woefully inadequate for naming something as complex and
multi-dimensional as Philosophy.  On the other hand, an effective way to
employ lujvo might be to discuss particular aspects of a broader topic.
This could be very handy for getting rid of ambiguity.  That way, your
listener/reader will know that you are discussing the
analysis-of-concepts-and-critique-of-beliefs part of Philosophy, and not the
experiencing-existential-angst part...which they probably don't want to hear
about anyway.

Regards,

Scott




Scott L. Lewis
Dupont Information Systems
Development Methodology & CASE Tool Support
lewissl@csoc-mail.lvs.dupont.com
(302) 774-1164