Philosophy of philosophy

[MultipleTentacles]

There are three tenets to a good philosophy. It must be interesting and sincere, coherent, and consistent.

To be interesting and sincere, the philosophy must stem from personal experience. One must have a deep insight into what one philosophizes over, and one must have the ability to put the insight into words to some degree. Of course, regarding high, philosophical concepts, words often fail. Nevertheless, one must try to make the philosophy meaningful.

A philosophy being coherent stems from it being interesting and sincere. The words have to make some measure of logical sense. The sentences must relate to experiences that we can recognize. In short, the philosophy must be grounded in reality. Really, this is simply a check on the sincerity of the philosophy. If the philosophy stems from empirical observation, it is naturally coherent, because nature itself is coherency in the flesh.

There is only one way for a philosophy to be consistent: the philosophy cannot make unwarranted postulations. This requirement is intimately tied up with the other requirements, because if the philosophy is sincere and coherent, it must be consistent. If one sees a red ball on a table, one can use the fact, "I see a red ball on a table" to improve their philosophy; this would be a sincere, coherent, and consistent statement. (An interesting side-note: I do not, at this moment, see a red ball on a table. Did I have the right to write that sentence? Is it a legitimate observation? This would make a great debate. I hold that I do have the right to make counterfactual observations, because one way to define reality is by what it is not. Anyone care to take this on? You don't necessarily have to disagree either -- you could just expound upon the idea. But, I digress.) But one cannot take the extra step and say "life is like a red ball on a table" with no evidence, because that is an unwarranted postulation.

A great philosophy, I believe, is humble. It states the facts, humbly, with no extra stuff that you just made up. It gives insight because of its simplicity. It is full of meaning, yet devoid of postulations. That is my philosophy of philosophy.

[Flux]

Interesting topic. I'm a little bit confused about the distinction your making between consistance and coherence. I definitely agree that a good philosophy must be consistant though. I'm less convinced that a good philosopy need be interesting, however. This is simply because I feel that it's really a matter of opinion whether or not a given theory is interesting or not. This facet of your criteria isn't a problem in and of itself, but poses a problem if you don't want it to be a matter of oppinion what counts as a "good philosophy." I suppose in practice though, it will always be a bit unclear about whethe a given philosophy is good or not, and your criterion do a good job for accounting for that fact.

Here's an interesting point though--I noticed that you didn't put "true" on the list of qualities that makes a given philosophy a good one. Are you saying that a philosophical theory can be good and false at the same time? Does being true add some special merit to a philosophies "goodness"? However, I suppose a possible problem with demanding that good philosophical theories be true is that the "goodness" of a philosophy will always be just as uncertain as it's truthfulness.

I think I'd agree that it is often possible to describe reality by what it is not, or by what can and cannot occur in a possible world. I don't think you'd call this process a "counter-factual observation" though. Observations arn't true or false; they just are. Only our judgments and interpretations of observations can be true or false.

[MultipleTentacles]

Sorry for the long period of no reply... I had a killer paper due this morning.

I'm a little bit confused about the distinction your making between consistance and coherence.

They are closely related. Consistent means that the philosophy remains unchanged over time. Coherent means the philosophy cannot be debunked based on current factual analysis. Consistent means coherent in a diachronic sense, coherent means consistent in a synchronic sense.

I'm less convinced that a good philosopy need be interesting, however. This is simply because I feel that it's really a matter of opinion whether or not a given theory is interesting or not.

Yes, it is a matter of opinion. But opinions matter. Philosophers never come up with a philosophy in a vacuum, and it would be a pointless waste of time for all involved to come up with a philosophy of blue unicorns, or something that has no factual existence or social significance. I think, in order for a philosophy to be good, it has to do some work. Descartes' philosophy did some work because it validated personal experience to a degree. Hume's philosophy did some work because it too validated personal experience, while invalidating things that were not experienced. Buddha's philosophy did a great deal of work because it ended suffering for millions.

This facet of your criteria isn't a problem in and of itself, but poses a problem if you don't want it to be a matter of oppinion what counts as a "good philosophy."

Here I'm running into American individualism. American individualism contains the idea that social things have only a modicum of importance compared to private, individual things. I think this idea is based on the fact that we have practically no access to the experiences of others. Therefore it is important to consider a philosophy only on the grounds that it makes sense to you. This is fine. However, logically, a philosophy cannot have made sense to you unless it has affected you somehow. Therefore, it is important that philosophies affect people somehow, or they only help one person, if they even help him.

Here's an interesting point though--I noticed that you didn't put "true" on the list of qualities that makes a given philosophy a good one. Are you saying that a philosophical theory can be good and false at the same time? Does being true add some special merit to a philosophies "goodness"?

True is important. But the idea is that if the philosophy is coherent and consistent, it is automatically true. By the law of probability, if a philosophy conflicts with reality even in the slightest, eventually some fact will come along and show the philosophy to be false.

Observations arn't true or false; they just are. Only our judgments and interpretations of observations can be true or false.

I think observations reflect truth, and contain some measure of truth. This is the thing about Descartes I value (although I've come to not value much else about Descartes' philosophy): he taught that if you observe something directly, the thing you observe must exist. I take "true" to mean actually existing. It is true that things exist, although it is also true that their existence cannot be gotten at, or proved. So if you take truth to mean provable, then I agree, observations aren't provable. But then again, neither are judgments or interpretations.

So I don't think one can take comfort in the idea that observations are not provable, because reality requires some measure of interaction, and interaction requires that something at least exist in a sense. I think existence takes precedence. You can understand that something doesn't truly exist--this is wisdom. But you have to interact with it anyway.

Those are my thoughts anyway.