Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Surely the question is more about the definition of "art" that includes "The Humanities" such as Geography, History etc... as opposed to Science.
Is that not the real question here. To what degree can philosophy be scientific?

Do you ask the extent to which philosophy can be scientific, or the extent to which it should be so? For we only have to look at Analytic Philosophy to see science and its methods alive and well within philosophy. But there is more, too, to philosophy than 'being scientific', as we all know. Ethics and metaphysics are examples...

[Sculptor1]

What you have not really done here is to state what is the thread in all this description that would validate the single concept "art"...

The same objections keep on cropping up. 'You can't discuss it if you can't define it', is a common objection. It is often applied to general discussions, where the terms are often generally defined. It is sometimes difficult or impossible for us to offer detailed definitions or descriptions of things we know and understand well, but only in a vague and general way.

...And we all know what art is, and that the word can apply in a broad and all-encompassing way, or it can be seen as a more focussed thing. It doesn't matter — whichever definition(s) we use, we all know clearly what is meant, if only in general.

I am not saying you if you cannot define it, you cannot talk about it.
What I see is a list of "art" things, with little attempt to distil a meaning for the word from those things.

[Sculptor1]

Surely the question is more about the definition of "art" that includes "The Humanities" such as Geography, History etc... as opposed to Science.
Is that not the real question here. To what degree can philosophy be scientific?

Do you ask the extent to which philosophy can be scientific, or the extent to which it should be so? For we only have to look at Analytic Philosophy to see science and its methods alive and well within philosophy. But there is more, too, to philosophy than 'being scientific', as we all know. Ethics and metaphysics are examples...

Both, take you pick!

[Stoppelmann]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom (or the wisdom of love), which is an impression that finds expression in many ways. Thought, and in particular imagination, has found expression in words, and logic is a means by way we express that thought, which produces an internal coherence, just like art forms have their own internal coherence and logic.

Has there never been philosophy that is beautiful, or an expression of a deep impression made? Has it always been a cool and rational look at life that has no resemblance to art? Of course not, there have been various forms of philosophy that have been considered an art form throughout history.

You only have to look at Ancient Greece, where philosophy was often intertwined with art, poetry, and rhetoric, and where philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle viewed philosophy as a form of creative expression, with many of their works written in a poetic style. Closer to home, existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche often used literary forms such as essays, novels, and plays to express their ideas about the human condition. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of beauty and art. So, we can see that there are forms of philosophical inquiry that involve the use of creative and artistic expression.

But also turn eastwards and look to Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes the importance of direct experience and intuition over analytical thinking. Zen teachings often employ paradoxes, poetry, and other artistic forms to convey their expression. Read Zhuang Zhou (or Zhuangzi), who was renowned for his brilliant wordplay and use of parables to convey messages. His critiques of Confucian society and historical figures are humorous and at times ironic.

So, the answer to the question as to whether philosophy can be an art form is yes, philosophy has often been a means of expressing complex ideas in a way that engages the imagination and emotions of the reader or listener. The use of artful techniques such as metaphor, symbolism, and imagery, philosophers has been used to convey ideas in a way that is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally compelling.

[Pattern-chaser]

Surely the question is more about the definition of "art" that includes "The Humanities" such as Geography, History etc... as opposed to Science.
Is that not the real question here. To what degree can philosophy be scientific?

Do you ask the extent to which philosophy can be scientific, or the extent to which it should be so? For we only have to look at Analytic Philosophy to see science and its methods alive and well within philosophy. But there is more, too, to philosophy than 'being scientific', as we all know. Ethics and metaphysics are examples...

Both, take you[r] pick!

In that case, the answers are already well-known. Philosophy can be scientific, because Analytic Philosophy already is scientific. As for "should" it? No, not if we mean it should be solely so, otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Edited to add: I think philosophy should be scientific where, and only where, the matter in hand is well-suited to, and well-served by, scientific methods and techniques. Where this is not the case, philosophy should drop scientific enquiry like a hot brick, because it is, in such a case, unhelpful.

[Sculptor1]

Surely the question is more about the definition of "art" that includes "The Humanities" such as Geography, History etc... as opposed to Science.
Is that not the real question here. To what degree can philosophy be scientific?

Do you ask the extent to which philosophy can be scientific, or the extent to which it should be so? For we only have to look at Analytic Philosophy to see science and its methods alive and well within philosophy. But there is more, too, to philosophy than 'being scientific', as we all know. Ethics and metaphysics are examples...

Both, take you[r] pick!

In that case, the answers are already well-known. Philosophy can be scientific, because Analytic Philosophy already is scientific. As for "should" it? No, not if we mean it should be solely so, otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Edited to add: I think philosophy should be scientific where, and only where, the matter in hand is well-suited to, and well-served by, scientific methods and techniques. Where this is not the case, philosophy should drop scientific enquiry like a hot brick, because it is, in such a case, unhelpful.

Before there was any such thing as "science" to mean anything more than "I know", what we now like to call science was "Natural Philosophy". So it seems rather redundant to suggest that philosophy can be scientific, and I am puzzled why this is now an issue since the thread is asks "is philosophy an art form".

[Pattern-chaser]

...To what degree can philosophy be scientific?

Before there was any such thing as "science" to mean anything more than "I know", what we now like to call science was "Natural Philosophy". So it seems rather redundant to suggest that philosophy can be scientific, and I am puzzled why this is now an issue since the thread is asks "is philosophy an art form".

I commented following your initial mention of it, above. I share your wonderment as to why this is being discussed in a topic about philosophy↔art.

[Sculptor1]

...To what degree can philosophy be scientific?

Before there was any such thing as "science" to mean anything more than "I know", what we now like to call science was "Natural Philosophy". So it seems rather redundant to suggest that philosophy can be scientific, and I am puzzled why this is now an issue since the thread is asks "is philosophy an art form".

I commented following your initial mention of it, above. I share your wonderment as to why this is being discussed in a topic about philosophy↔art.

Yes, if it were not for the fact that this Forum tends to be more censorious, my language would be quite rich on the topic.
But it is not just this thread. On another thread about determinism and option my questions have been ignored and answered in terms of morality, when the thread ought to be more about the metaphysics between freewill and determinism.
Maybe there is something in the air?

[Stoppelmann]

Yes, if it were not for the fact that this Forum tends to be more censorious, my language would be quite rich on the topic.
But it is not just this thread. On another thread about determinism and option my questions have been ignored and answered in terms of morality, when the thread ought to be more about the metaphysics between freewill and determinism.
Maybe there is something in the air?

Somehow many people get ignored, it must be that people have their directions of thought that can't be interrupted by other perspectives ...

[AgentSmith]

When was the last time you read philosophy and have you ever been to an art exhibition? I saw a painter in his studio and he was completely absorbed in his work - he was drawing a mythical creature he said and he'd chosen to start with the eyes. God knows why? I then scrolled through the videos, I was on youtube, and clicked on a philosophy video, the man wad in a T-shirt, if memory serves that is, and he began talking about St. Anselm and I began to feel very uncomfortable because there was him and there was me and no one else.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, if it were not for the fact that this Forum tends to be more censorious, my language would be quite rich on the topic.
But it is not just this thread. On another thread about determinism and option my questions have been ignored and answered in terms of morality, when the thread ought to be more about the metaphysics between freewill and determinism.
Maybe there is something in the air?

Somehow many people get ignored, it must be that people have their directions of thought that can't be interrupted by other perspectives ...

In the end, our posts are answered only if someone feels moved to do so. No-one is forced to post here. So I expect there's an element of entertainment involved? If no-one is entertained — if that's the right word? — by my posts, they probably won't answer them.

But what causes people to post is off-topic here, so I'll...

[Sculptor1]

Yes, if it were not for the fact that this Forum tends to be more censorious, my language would be quite rich on the topic.
But it is not just this thread. On another thread about determinism and option my questions have been ignored and answered in terms of morality, when the thread ought to be more about the metaphysics between freewill and determinism.
Maybe there is something in the air?

Somehow many people get ignored, it must be that people have their directions of thought that can't be interrupted by other perspectives ...

Yes, I suppose so. Makes me wonder why they do not just do a blog rather than "contribute" to a Forum where dialogue ought to be the minimum requirement.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, if it were not for the fact that this Forum tends to be more censorious, my language would be quite rich on the topic.
But it is not just this thread. On another thread about determinism and option my questions have been ignored and answered in terms of morality, when the thread ought to be more about the metaphysics between freewill and determinism.
Maybe there is something in the air?

Somehow many people get ignored, it must be that people have their directions of thought that can't be interrupted by other perspectives ...

In the end, our posts are answered only if someone feels moved to do so. No-one is forced to post here. So I expect there's an element of entertainment involved? If no-one is entertained — if that's the right word? — by my posts, they probably won't answer them.

But what causes people to post is off-topic here, so I'll...

Yes, the irony is that in discussing this we are now digressing.

[Mikespice Mike]

Our lecturer told us philosophy is what we are, i didn't understand why he said so

[Sculptor1]

Our lecturer told us philosophy is what we are, i didn't understand why he said so

Here's another daft definition.

Philosophy is the ambiguity of definition.

Philosophy is the emrabce of the obscurantism of the dialcetic of enlightenment.

Philosophy is love.

I can keep this up all day.