Philosophy

Thinking hardly
or hardly thinking?
Philosophy

Major trains of thought

* Logic
* Morality
* Reality

The good, the bad,
and the brain fart

* Life (moral value)
* Logical positivism
* Anima Mundi
* Antitheism
* Confucius
* Antinatalism
* Objectivism
* Religious studies

Come to think of it

* Religion
* Science
* Philosophy of science
* Ethics
* Psychology

v \- t \- e

| This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

* * *

Philosophy could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

|

“”“Sometimes, in doing philosophy, one just wants to utter an inarticulate sound.”

—Ludwig Wittgenstein[1]

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".

## Contents

* 1 Branches
* 2 Epistemology
* 2.1 Definitions of knowledge
* 2.2 Problems in epistemology
* 3 Regional and cultural traditions
* 3.1 Western philosophy
* 3.2 Eastern philosophy
* 3.3 Indian philosophy
* 3.4 Modern and contemporary philosophy
* 4 See also
* 5 External links
* 6 Notes
* 7 References

## Branches[edit]

Philosophy is divided into branches.[notes 1] Some of the ones that interest us are:

* Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation, abstract and concrete. Traditional branches are cosmology (the study of existence as a whole i.e. the cosmos) and ontology (the study of what and how things fundamentally exist).
* Ethics, or "moral philosophy", is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live, and secondarily, concerning the question of whether this question can be answered. The main branches of ethics are meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics concerns the nature of ethical thought, comparison of various ethical systems, whether there are absolute ethical truths, and how such truths could be known. Ethics is also associated with the idea of morality.
* Aesthetics is concerned with art, taste and the psychology behind beauty and what makes something beautiful. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."
* Political philosophy is the normative study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state. It, depending on the philosopher, includes questions about justice, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen. Political philosophy and ethics are traditionally inter-linked subjects, as both discuss the question of what is good and how people should live, although there were philosophers that believed that government should not have anything to do with ethics.
* Logic is the study of valid argument forms. Today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.
* Philosophy of mind deals with the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between idealism, dualism and materialism. In recent years there has been increasing similarity between this branch of philosophy and cognitive science, as well as quantum mechanics. Some of the major questions in the philosophy of mind include the following. Is mind ultimately material or immaterial? The major answers include materialism, dualism and idealism. Is there free will? What is free will? What makes me the same person today as I was yesterday and as I will be tomorrow? This is a question of personal identity. How and why do we have qualia or phenomenal experiences? This is a question on the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
* Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy that asks questions about religion.
* Philosophy of language is the philosophical study of the nature of language. Fundamental questions in philosophy of language involve the nature of linguistic meaning, the relation between meaning and truth, and the ways in which language is used in communication. It is distinct from linguistics, although the two disciplines overlap significantly.

Most academic subjects have an associated branch of philosophy, for example the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of law, etc.

## Epistemology[edit]

Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. Among its central concerns has been the challenge posed by skepticism and the relationships between truth, belief, and justification.

“”He's got no tiddly just joogle! You can't just goat duggle something and expect it to grow! Beglat you've got these idiots just sitting glawhahwaglahhh what they're doing! I'm gettin' the hell outta here, you don't make any sense!

—Don Vito eloquently defining the core puzzle of epistemology[2]

Formal epistemology is a subfield of epistemology that uses formal systems such as from mathematics and computer science.

### Definitions of knowledge[edit]

Justified true belief (JTB) is one of the most common definitions of knowledge. It states that knowledge is:

* a belief: one can't know something if they don't believe it
* which is true: one cannot "know" 1=2, right?
* and justified: if one believes that there is a block of cheese orbiting Jupiter, and if it so happens that there is a block of delicious cheese orbiting Jupiter, that person still can't be said to have known that because they had no reason for their belief — they just lucked out that it was true.

The JTB model of knowledge is often sourced to Plato, who sought to ascertain the distinction between knowledge and mere true opinion. He identified justification as the key element. Various versions of the JTB model have been advanced by many subsequent philosophers. For the most part, the various versions differ on what constitutes justification.

The JTB model is not unquestioned. At some time or other all three elements of the JTB model have come under fire. David Lewis, for instance, maintains that knowledge requires neither belief nor justification. One notable objection to the JTB model of knowledge is the so-called "Gettier problem" or "Barn problem": Suppose a man looks at a large field, and he sees a cardboard cutout of a barn in that field. The barn facade resembles a real barn in every particular. Suppose further that there is a barn in the field, but so far away he couldn't possibly see it, or maybe behind a hill or something. Then the man will believe that there is a barn in the field, and his belief will be both true and justified (since he has reason to believe that there is a barn, and there is a barn). Nonetheless we are not inclined to say that he knows that there is a barn, since his justification is not appropriately related to his belief. Thus we have a counterexample to the JTB model. Responses to the Gettier problem have included Plantinga's "warranted true belief", which places additional requirements on the nature of the justification for the belief; and the argument that justification, truth and belief are necessary conditions for knowledge, but not sufficient – which leads to the claim that knowledge can be better defined as a justified true belief plus Mysterious Property X. The nature of mysterious property X is subject to debate.

### Problems in epistemology[edit]

* What is knowledge? In particular, what distinguishes knowledge from true belief?
* What is the object of knowledge? Typically, knowledge is understood as a relation between a knower and a proposition, but perhaps this is not the best way to understand things.
* Does knowledge require justification If so, what is required in order for a belief to be justified?
* Do we know anything at all? We think we know all kinds of things, but perhaps we are mistaken. This is the problem of skepticism. There are various kinds of skepticism, from the global skepticism of Pyrrhonism to various kinds of local skepticism. A person might, for instance, be a local skeptic about ethical claims, which would entail believing that we cannot know anything about ethical claims.
* Is knowledge closed? If so, what is it closed under?

## Regional and cultural traditions[edit]

Raphael's The School of Athens, showing a number of philosophers.

Due to the enormous distances in space and time that exist between human cultures, different philosophical traditions (not to be confused with 'schools', which share basic views of the world) have arisen. There is much discussion about which traditions existed and which did not, but as only a few peoples have ever been completely isolated from the world, traditions mostly flow into each other at any given time, so that any given tradition and its characterization is more or less constructed by outsiders and descendants.

### Western philosophy[edit]

The furthest back Western philosophy tends to go is to Ancient Greece. The Greek tradition was brought into future generations with religious philosophers like Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas. Philosophy in the Western world was of course somewhat regional, but as modernity reared its head, and the concept of "Western culture" took shape, so the idea of a Western philosophy took shape, too.

Modern Western philosophy is broadly divided into two camps: Analytic and Continental.

* Analytic philosophy derives a lot from the work of the early 20th century Vienna Circle and the late 19th century Gottlob Frege. Analytic philosophy typically has a heavy emphasis on rigorous logic and explores topics like ontology, consciousness, and ethics.

* Continental philosophy is a far more eclectic tradition that basically just indicates almost everyone that isn't Analytic. While it includes post-modernism, it also includes people stridently hostile to post-modernism, like some critical theory. Continental philosophy is often marked by an interest in culture, aesthetics, politics, and human experience, and often draws from past philosophical frameworks to explore these topics.

The main reason for this is that the divide is primarily one of style, where analytics write papers, and continentals write books. The analytic style itself is one of the main points of contention, with analytics consciously attempting to be "scientific", and continentals mocking them heavily for this. Sub-traditions like German Idealism and American Pragmatism exist, but these dont have the same clout or power as Analytic and Continental philosophy, and often end up grouping or dialoguing themselves with one or the other.

The division is somewhat arbitrary but does represent a real schism in philosophical work. There is a lot of overlap of subject matter; for example, there was a major turn towards philosophy of language in the 20th century. Both at present seem to be moving towards philosophy of mind, due to advances in neuroscience and then philosophical commentary on the same. This manifests mainly as bad takes from Žižek and Kant scholars screaming in pain as neuroscientists constantly conflate the mind and brain. Many a grad student has been subjected to the tortures of undergrads saying "yeah but its all like just the brain isn't it?"

### Eastern philosophy[edit]

Eastern philosophy, which usually refers to philosophical tradition emerging from Eastern Asia, is historically structured by a holistic (going from the largest to the smallest) worldview and a teacheresque or poetic style of writing. The documentation of its philosophers is of questionable historical accuracy, so it is unknown if Confucius and Laozi ever actually existed, or if their ideas are simply the canonized ideas of hundreds of other unknown people. Eastern philosophy cannot be clearly separated from Eastern religions, as this tradition is not analytic. Such a thought did not occur to its main adherents, so it consists of mostly universal schools of thought, which penetrate into every branch of philosophy.

### Indian philosophy[edit]

Indian (the subcontinent, not the American natives) philosophy is nearly indistinguishable from religion, being largely inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism. However, it also has the oldest known atheist traditions. Its style swings back and forth between holistic and analytic argumentation. The dearth of written records of these teachings owes itself to the fact that writing had historically been treated with contempt in the region. Instead, the philosophical and religious texts have been memorized word-for-word. The stories feature elaborate rhyming schemes, intended to allow for easier memorization and fluid recitation. The tradition of oral lore has resulted in the irony that Indian philosophical texts are more faithful to their origins than those of Western philosophers. An explanation for this curiosity involves the tendency of Western scribes to heavily abbreviate and condense the subject matter, even going as far as omitting entire passages of a text — sometimes the very concepts and ideas themselves were modified in order to adapt them into the Christian worldview of the Middle Ages.

### Modern and contemporary philosophy[edit]

Due to the effects of colonization, imperialism (especially the Arabian Empire of the Middle Ages) and globalization, the mentioned traditions fuse more and more into a single tradition. Eastern philosophers picked up ideas of Western philosophers and vice versa (Schopenhauer for example) by the 18th century. The style of modern works tends to follow the lines of Western philosophy, but some still argue for ideas of other traditions.

## See also[edit]

* Natural philosophy — proto-modern science

## External links[edit]

| For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about Philosophy.

|

* Philosopher Football

## Notes[edit]

1. ↑ Which can often be interconnected.

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations.
2. ↑ Don Vito Mumbling (May 3, 2014) YouTube.