Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Different Approaches to Doing Philosophy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Different Approaches to Doing Philosophy?

    Doing philosophy involves evaluating arguments and checking to see if one's assumptions have a good justification concerning ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and so on. I wonder if there are different approaches of doing philosophy. There are philosophers who are Christians and they have the desire to not advocate anything that would contradict biblical teaching. Non-Christian philosophers don't care if they contradict the Bible.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
    Doing philosophy involves evaluating arguments and checking to see if one's assumptions have a good justification concerning ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and so on. I wonder if there are different approaches of doing philosophy. There are philosophers who are Christians and they have the desire to not advocate anything that would contradict biblical teaching. Non-Christian philosophers don't care if they contradict the Bible.
    First, I am not certain that all Christian philosophers 'desire to not advocate any thing that would (contradict?) Biblical teaching.' I will check further on this.

    I believe the skeptical Socratic Philosophy does not follow the above criteria for philosophy. The Socratic would be more questioning everything even that which appears logic. It does not preclude 'believing' things, but it does include a less biased view of even equally questioning ones own beliefs and logic. The extreme view in Philosophy would be would be 'Radical Skepticism.'
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-23-2017, 07:29 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      All philosophies have starting premises. All views have premises. Premises being presuppositions. One`s own language is part of it.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        All philosophies have starting premises. All views have premises. Premises being presuppositions. One`s own language is part of it.
        Probably true to an extent, but too simplistic a generalization for ALL philosophies to be meaningful. It depends in what you consider premises, and needs more explanation. Many starting premises and presuppositions lead to circular arguments.

        One more comment on skeptical philosophies. Various forms of skepticism question in one way or another that claims of 'true belief' have sufficient objective reasons (presuppositions) for that belief. Skeptics claim that it is not possible to have an adequate justification based on assumptions of belief nor non-belief. Part of the objections by skeptics is that contrary and conflicting arguments can lead to logical conclusions based different assumptions and presuppositions, which are not based on objective verifiable evidence. Skeptical philosophies range from 'Mitigated Skepticism' like that of David Hume to Radical Skepticism.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          First, I am not certain that all Christian philosophers 'desire to not advocate any thing that would (contradict?) Biblical teaching.' I will check further on this.

          I believe the skeptical Socratic Philosophy does not follow the above criteria for philosophy. The Socratic would be more questioning everything even that which appears logic. It does not preclude 'believing' things, but it does include a less biased view of even equally questioning ones own beliefs and logic. The extreme view in Philosophy would be would be 'Radical Skepticism.'
          It would be odd for a professing Christian to not care whether his beliefs contradict the Bible.

          Yes, the skeptical Socratic Philosophy would question everything.

          The Christian philosopher would seek to find justification for all of his beliefs including his belief that the Bible is the word of God.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
            Doing philosophy involves evaluating arguments and checking to see if one's assumptions have a good justification concerning ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and so on. I wonder if there are different approaches of doing philosophy. There are philosophers who are Christians and they have the desire to not advocate anything that would contradict biblical teaching. Non-Christian philosophers don't care if they contradict the Bible.
            If they're evaluating arguments against a desired conclusion, it's not philosophy.

            There aren't different approaches to philosophy, no. The basic system of "does A lead to B" works regardless of what A and B are. You could, however, insert any manner of unprovable premises that still lead to a given conclusion. That pushes you away from sound arguments into valid only, which kinda defeats the point imo.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
              The Christian philosopher would seek to find justification for all of his beliefs including his belief that the Bible is the word of God.
              Then they're looking for apologetics, not philosophy.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                Then they're looking for apologetics, not philosophy.
                I consider your definition of philosophy too narrow. Epistemology, and apologetics would be considered a Branch of Philosophy in the Philosophy of Religion.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-23-2017, 12:37 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                  Doing philosophy involves evaluating arguments and checking to see if one's assumptions have a good justification concerning ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and so on. I wonder if there are different approaches of doing philosophy. There are philosophers who are Christians and they have the desire to not advocate anything that would contradict biblical teaching. Non-Christian philosophers don't care if they contradict the Bible.
                  There is another way to look at philosophy?...the use of language (and its rules) to articulate and make sense of "reality"---questions such as who are "we"/humans, why are we "here"/in this reality, what is our purpose/meaning, what is the "good" life?....etc. Therefore, science (and its methods) and philosophy are complementary. Both assist our attempts to understand "reality".

                  as to evaluation---there are aspects of philosophy and science that are objective---such as the rules of that particular language or the methods or math used in science...but there are also areas that are subjective. The starting paradigm/world-view will color the interpretations and therefore the conclusion one arrives at.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                  161 responses
                  513 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                  88 responses
                  354 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                  21 responses
                  133 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X