Isn’t it extremely vague? “Thinking” encompasses literally everything and to be honest, if we do not define the terms of what is “thinking” we cannot define philosophy rigorously. Otherwise we are just saying “well anything goes” as philosophy, which is alright but it makes for a pretty vague and all encompassing subject.

@@andreamucerino6745 If you read the books (wither of Arendt or Heidegger) you will find more than definitions, but entire thorough inquiries into the nature or condition of thinking and thought. But apart from that, wouldn't it be a bit self-contradictory if instead of inviting the reader to engage with further thinking these people were to give a straight simplistic definition right away and thus halting thinking altogether?

@@Godsen5 no, not at all: giving a definition isn’t stating a dogma, it’s like explaining what I am talking about, and THEN I can start thinking, otherwise I’m just talking to the wind. Obviously it’s more complex than this, one must inquire before giving a definition, and understanding when one explanation is more useful and in what context, how much of philosophy it encompasses etc, and see where the definition breaks. That’s what Socrates did with most people, even if he often got nowhere often, but the point was that he tried to reach one. The definition of philosophy will always be tricky probably, as it generally requires a bit of recursion, as the thought always uses the thought to define itself lol (so we will never be satisfied with one definition of it), but I still think we can be more precise with philosophy if we want to go somewhere. I mean they are really beautiful the inquiries they made, and reading this again, I was too fast responding like that, also because they actually defined their terms. But… I still think that philosophy is still too vague sometimes and should be more structured, that’s why I think that a part of analytic philosophy is more satisfying as it doesn’t give up before trying, and when fails it just reveals that something isn’t reachable, setting actual limits to knowledge.

I think the distinction you make is trivial as all philosophizing requires thinking; moreover, I think you are trying to draw a hard distinction between analytic and continental philosophy-it’s just not there and it’s sloppy not to recognize significant gradations among them, assuming you have a nominally decent conception of each type and their differences. And I hardly think Heidegger and Arendt are a sufficient sample size, let alone appropriate reoresentatives, to be so adamant in your claim.

@@andreamucerino6745 Philosophy is a tool defragmation: Organizational process to de-sect (methods) a concept, object, problem by attaching the WHAT, WHEREs, WHENs, WHYs, HOWs to any question or investigation. Just like mathematics, is a dapp, and linguistics dapp (Not Language which is relative)Philosophy is a dapp of the WHATs to defragmant the thought which is the logical output. Philosophy, mathematics, linguistics, and Axiology -Moral judgment are all little parts of what makes knowledge possible= knowledge.

I concur

That honestly sounds so great🤍

Agreed. I love a bit of both depending on what I’m working on.

​@@RCWaldundid u read kripke ? I highly recommend it

Kripke was absolutely fascinating when I tackled him in the Philosophy of language and I actually did a paper contrasting his view to Russell’s descriptivist account. But so far I have a soft spot for Grice and his implicatures & cooperative principles. There is so much to chew on, and I’ll definitely sit down with Kripke again when I find some time.

What does it mean to use philosophy for absolute certainty? I can think of only one 20th-21st century philosopher who invoked certainty as something obtainable epistemically, or at least that to know that P, is to be certain that P, and that’s Peter Unger, and it’s been decades since I even thought about his book Certainty, so I may be misremembering what he even argued. Analytic philosophy does precisely what you suggest Continental does. Certainty is not a thing analytics are mouthing off about.

Continental Philosophy is a canonical tradition while Analytic Philosophy is a methodological tradition. Heidegger is very clear in Being and Time. Unfortunately, philosophy got language so wrong historically that Heidegger had to invent a new vocabulary just to say what he was actually saying.

Logic isn't the foundation of math... vision is. People *look* at physics and write down what they see, math becomes the general ideas of what people see in physics: concepts of quantity, direction and length. Size, magnitude, volume, corellation, orthogonality, division -- none of it related to logic except for avoiding contradicting statements. Logic is just a tool to avoid contradictions.

But at the same time it isn't clear what the boundeies of logic are and so what it specifically is in the first place. In this way you could argue that logic *is* mathematical because you need to have concepts of quantity to exclude and include things in logical statements. And then there is the problem of induction which leads directly to skepticism.

Continental philosophy follows Aristotellian 'logic' which assumes the uniformity of nature. Brittish 'analytic' logic does not... This is actually a big deal.

From the computer science side of things, a course/book on discrete structures is probably useful as an intro to logic as well

I think about this and it terrifies me.

that math is a product of philosophy itself is a highly packed and dubious claim tho….

@sle279 Is it tho? It depends how you define philosophy: for Aristotle and Plato math was an independent subject, for Pythagoras maybe it was a sort of part of philosophy, but it has born before him

⁠@@andreamucerino6745yes, it is. the development of *modern* mathematics is deeply entrenched with philosophy, and it isn't even anything controversial to anyone who's studied a little bit of modern history. almost every mathematician was also a philosopher, and if not so directly, was influenced and learned it from those who were. this is simply explained by the fact that what is known to us as the contemporary intellectual division of labour into specific and autonomous institutionalized disciplines is a very recent development. to advance mathematics nearly every mathematician had to and indeed were very interested in reflecting upon philosophical matters. this is also true for physics, but nowadays they both seem weirdly eager to reject anything but their own supposedly isolated discipline. philosophy has always been and remains a powerful heuristic tool for advancing knowledge in a broader sense, and a brief look into history quickly and easily confirms this

@@SanKwon-cr4ghdepends on framing but ur right

The fact that a theoretical discipline that engages with mathematical objects and operations was born is a philosophical product. Because they sheer fact of theoretical disciplines in general is the result of the philosophical tradition (which is that tradition "of thought" specifically born and raised in ancient Greece - Lao Tzu was not a philosopher by any mean, piss off global philosophy people!) We have "mathematics" as we know it today because of the Greek philosophers. But different forms of engagements with the same objects and operations were developed along the whole history of humanity in plenty of different cultures.

I agree with your statement about philosophy being waste of time as we cannot truly gain knowledge in the world other than the inventor itself, so famous philosophers might as well be completely wrong entirely about something and most people will follow it even though they are not the creators, as they are basically the same as us (humans) being born in this world not some mystical beings. I guess it is the product of our curiosity that drives us to know something even though it might be difficult or even impossible to know and along the way we create a purpose of why something existed so that people have something to believe in I guess (it might be far or close to the truth) but only the inventor will truly know for sure not us. It doesn't help that there is no one that could verify on what we think if it is correct or not, only us humans. If there is something wrong in my understanding please don't hesitate to correct me as I'm no expert in this field thanks.

I like to think of logic as a practice. We can be logical, we just have to do more than that to go on living, for logic to have any value.

@@fruitygarlic3601 I think being logical is overrated and potentially dangerous because while thinking we are ‘logical’ we become unguarded against our deep & unconscious biases. It is better to pursue virtue instead.

@@SC-gw8np the problem with postmodern philosophy is that it hates the human. Often presenting him as an anomaly, because it analyzes his mistakes and logically believes that he should disappear. In the times that precede us, philosophy has had either an anthropocentric, theocentric or cosmocentric approach. And in all these approaches the human beings were in their place.

Enter: Alain Badiou.

I am sorry but unfortunately I do not agree with you. You seem to elevate and privilege analytical philosophy over other methods of doing philosophy (such as those by great thinkers like Derrida, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Foucault etc). I used to do exactly this for many years by following the analytical path laid out by Bertrand Russell and logical positivists like Ayer and Popper. The problem is that analytical philosophy is very narrow minded and assumes the existence of a single absolute Truth (with a capital T) to be derived only by certain methods. The problem with Analytical philosophy is that it dismisses so much of what is important in thinking and life. Karl Popper pretty much dismissed anything that cannot be directly observed or falsified (which includes evolution, psychology, much of cosmology and quantum theory). AJ Ayer dismissed much of moral philosophy for more or less positivistic reasons. This is why other forms of philosophy by Derrida (deconstruction), Foucault (knowledge and power) and Nietzsche are so important. You can see a different dimension to the world that many people, including scientists, do not even know exists. Many thanks for listening. 😊

@@enlightenedanalysis1071 But the reason that I did not name any names was precisely to avoid this criticism of yours which I believe does not apply to me, at least not exactly or completely; I do not live under the banner of this or that philosopher, one or another thinker, a famous intellectual or two or five. I live by what is, by my lights, the truth and I try to study various approaches to get to it. Your saying it seemed in my comment as though I was defending analytical philosophy more than other kinds could be due to my having found it to be the best way to get to the truth in "some" areas; the keyword here is 'some'. Of course, I included continental philosophy in my comment as well, not because of the accuracy of the answers it provides (not to be confused with saying its answers are therefore necessarily wrong, for on many topics, they are not), but for the interesting ideas and ways of looking at the world with which it provides us: a perspective Indeed, that is what I meant by "the sense of wonder" which I deem to be an undeniably important and fundumental element of philosophy. The value of continental philosophy, to me, does not particularly lie in the accuracy of the answers, their "correctness", but in the spirit of the attempt, the struggle, to illuminate a vareity of paths for us in the darkness of life using the lamp of ideas; the journey is the point, not the destination. The process itself aids us in becoming better thinkers, and hopefully, better humans as well. So when I speak of these two types of philosophizing, I speak not necessarily of the actual thinkers and their ideas or the detailed approaches they use, but of "spirits of life", "modes of thinking", and "patterns of problem-solving". Each is more strongly attuned to tackling specific aspects of our existence, and the value of neither can be justified to eliminate the other. Having said all of that, I have to admit that I do think many a time people overestimate the value of continental philosophy in giving us answers with which we can reliably live, solve our problems or set up functional societies with functioning laws that make sense both on a theoretical level and satisfy the hunger for truth on a practical level. It is not even that they overestimate the value of this type of philosophizing, but to be more exact, they mistake the role it plays and ask it more than it can provide, or something different from what it is best able to provide. Do people do the same to anaytical philosophy too? Yes. I am not a die-hard, zealous super-fan of either, but I believe this should not try to do the other's job, and that should not meddle in this one's crusade.

​@daedricdragon5976 thanks for your reply. My apologies if I misunderstood you. I appreciate your feedback. 👍

Heidegger's Being and Time is explicitly trying to answer the question of "what is Being?" While most modern Continental Philosophy is just critical theory or deconstruction, the canon on which it rests absolutely attempts to answer these questions.

Touché. 👌🏻

Don’t need to be rude. You can present your argument calmly.

As for metaphysics, that's certainly not the case up to the 19th century. It might be true because there have been so many philosophers in the last 100+ years, but I doubt it nonetheless.

Philosophy has killed science today? There are thousands of scientists across the world who would say that’s absurd, especially as they just keep cranking out science and technological progress.

@@Summalogicae no its not absurd. science has been proven to be far less accurate than we think. that doesnt mean science is not real or anything, its the most accurate thing we have. but science ia heavily biased by nature, as humans do it. especially the process of starting hypothesis is more guessing and hunch based than logical. science critique is actually very interesting and isnt antiscientific. its just better to know these critiques to better underatand science and the "human factor" behind it.