The Philosophic Method

[scameter]

The Philosophic Method
Inquire: ask a (philosophical) question about life or something in it
Summarize: consider one's own personal experience of life in regards to one's inquiry
Analyze: analyze and examine one's experiences summarized in the previous step
Compare: share one's experiences with others and compare/contrast the information
Theorize: accumulate information gathered from previous steps into one theory, after organizing it.

There you go Trevor and anyone else interested. :)

[Flux]

Although I think that your "philosophic method" provides a well thought out list of some of the qualities necessary to make any level of sense out of the world, I think that it fails to mention one of the most important elements of philosophical inquiry; the step of considering whether or not the question is well posed in the first place. For instance, to ask "is stealing good or evil" is to rely on the assumptions that there are such things as good and evil, that there is such a thing as stealing, and that all acts of stealing can be lumped together in one or another category. Personally, I do believe in good and evil, but that isn't the point--the point is that philosophical questions are often dispelled rather than answered, or to be more accurate, are replaced with another question of a different nature, but pertaining to the same subject matter.

Many, if not most, problems in philosophy have been approached by elucidating exactly what we would consider an acceptable answer, and whether such an answer even exists. For instance, Greek philosophy often tried to answer questions about what characteristics made a thing what it is--what makes a chair a chair, a human a human, the act of running the act of running, etc. These questions were never answered in a concrete way. Instead, we "shifted focus" so to speak, thinking about the same subject matter from new angles. Modern trends include the questions of how concepts function as descriptive constructs and the relation between language and the world. Even modern philosophical questions may not be answered in a concrete manner, instead morphing and giving away to different angles and perspectives.

Take the common question "What is the meaning of life?" It's never been answered, and most likely never will be, due to the fact that it's near impossible for no two people to agree what it's asking. It could be interpreted as "Does life have an objective purpose, and if so, what?" or "What elements constitute a happy life?" in addition to other ways. Although I'm not trying to critique your argument in a logical positivist sense, I think an example given by Wittgenstein makes a good point--the question "Is the beautiful more or less identical than the good?" can't be answered regardless of the philosophical method used, because the question itself is ill-posed.

I certainly agree that questions need to be asked, analyzed, and that comparison with the experiences of others is necessary to avoid ITS (Ivy Tower Syndrome). But as philosophy is and has been practiced, questions themselves and the very methods used for questioning are themselves always subject to skepticism and questioning. As such, I'm disinclined to believe that a "philosophic method" can be stated in precise terms, since that would put the method of inquiry itself beyond the reach of philosophical inquiry.

[scameter]

My entire point was to qualify the questions based purely on experience. Thus, if one asked, "what is good and evil?", one would examine their experience of people, like, their self, etc., and based their theory on that experience, as well as comparing it with the examined experiences of others. And, if no good and evil is seen, or if good and evil are a specific way based on experience, it is theorized that they are that way. And, btw, the method is not a mere list. It is a specific, formulaic method that is meant to be followed sequentially.