PHILOSOPHY
what is philosophy
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
A categorial system is, not surprisingly, a system of categories. A category is a basic concept, primitive in the sense that it is not analyzable in terms of other concepts. The categories of a full-blown philosophical system will be concepts of things or entities (in the broadest sense of thing or entity), thoughts, or values.3 Philosophy is the enterprise of constructing and assessing categorial systems. Much of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern philosophy was deliberately pursued systematically. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant all constructed complex systems of philosophy. Their intent was, as a later philosopher put it, “to see things, and see them whole” – to develop an integrated account of things, of knowledge, and of ethics. Much of contemporary philosophy has been suspicious of any such large-scale endeavors and has tended to stick to particular problems. Nonetheless, in dealing with particular problems, these philosophers too accepted general claims that placed constraints on what they could consistently accept elsewhere; even philosophy in the particularist mode is implicitly general
Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge and a practitioner was known as a philosopher. From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine, and physics.
Philosophy derived from two greek word philos(love) and sophia(wisdom) that means love wisdom.
Philosophy’s task is the construction and assessment of worldviews. A worldview contains an account of the basic kinds of things there are and how they are related. These are the concern of metaphysics. It also contains an account of what knowledge is, what reasonable belief is, and how one identifies knowledge and reasonable belief. These are the concern of epistemology. It also gives an account of value, especially moral value. This is the concern of ethics.1 There is no need for philosophy to construct such accounts from scratch. The common sense and cultural beliefs one encounters from one’s youth contain theses and themes that, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, make commitments regarding what there is, what is known, and what is good.2 Philosophers of course are free to offer their own accounts of these matters. It is an essential feature of philosophy that views offered on philosophical issues are also assessed. There is no such thing as philosophy without argument. Assertion without assessment is not philosophy.
philosophy defination
The term philosophy referred to any body of Knowledge. Philosophy is closely related to religion, mathematics, natural science, education, and politics.
The oldest surving history of philosophy 3rd century, Diogenes Laertus presents a three-part division of ancient Greek philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy of religion
A religion offers a diagnosis of what it tells us is our deep and paralyzing problem. It also offers a solution. This combination of diagnosis-and-cure itself makes assumptions about what there is, what can be known, and what has positive worth. It inherently contains the seeds of a full-grown worldview. At the very least, it contains commitments as to what there is, what must be known, and what has worth that can be consistently developed into some worldviews but not into others
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam agree that our deep problem is that we are sinners in need of divine forgiveness and renewal. Advaita Vedanta, a variety of Hinduism, holds that our deep problem lies in our ignorance of our identity to Brahman, a qualityless ultimate reality. Theravada Buddhism claims that our deep problem is that we mistakenly think of ourselves as enduring selfconscious beings and the cure is seeing that we are composed of only momentary states. Jainism maintains that our deep problem is that we regard ourselves as inherently dependent on something else and having limited knowledge, whereas in fact we are enduring self-conscious beings that are inherently independent and capable of unlimited knowledge. These diagnoses and cures involve commitments as to what there is, what is known, and what has ultimate worth. These commitments differ from one diagnosis-and-cure to another in such a way that the correctness of one diagnosis-and-cure entails the incorrectness of the others. A central part of the philosophy of religion involves understanding these competing diagnoses-and-cures and examining what can be said for and against the views to which they are committed. This investigation involves getting the data about competing religious traditions straight. This, in turn, involves offering an accurate account of the kinds of religious experience these traditions include. It includes providing a fair, clear description of the doctrines that are an essential part of these traditions.
A definition of religion
definitions of “religion” tend to fall into one of two classes. One sort of definition is substantial or doctrinal; a given religion is defined in terms of the beliefs its adherents accept that make them adherents of that religion, and religion generally is characterized in terms of beliefs that all religions are alleged to share. Another sort of definition is functional or pragmatic; “religion” is defined in terms of what it is alleged that all religions do or what the social function of religion is alleged to be. Some definitions, of course, are somewhat less than objective. Marx’s claim that religion is the opiate of the people is not proposed as a scholarly and neutral definition of religion – or, even if it is presented as neutral, it isn’t. It is a functional definition rather than a substantial definition. “Religion is the superstitious acceptance of the belief that God exists” is a non-neutral substantial definition. “Religion is the act of getting right before God” is a non-neutral definition that is partly substantial and partly functional.>
As a basis for answering our question, we need a neutral definition. A neutral definition will not presuppose some particular answer to any of our substantial philosophical questions. It will not presuppose that some particular religious tradition is true (or false) or that no religious traditions are true (or false). For reasons that will become clear shortly, it will be nice if the definition can be both functional and also recognize the important point made by attempts to give a substantial definition. I offer this definition: a religion is a conceptual system that provides an interpretation of the world and the place of human beings in it, bases an account of how life should be lived given that interpretation, and expresses this interpretation and lifestyle in a set of rituals, institutions, and practices. This is a functional definition.
philosophy of Christianity
Christianity, of course, is a variety of monotheism. It shares with Judaism the exhortation to “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one God.” Like Judaism and Islam, it holds that an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God created the world and is providential over it.4 God depends for existence on nothing else, and everything else that exists5 depends on God for its existence. The created world is real, not illusory, and that it exists is a good, not an evil, state of affairs. Human beings are created in God’s image, and thus have some degree of knowledge, power, and (potential) goodness. This has two consequences. One is that every person, as a person, has (in Immanuel Kant’s terms) dignity and not price – if you like, has irreplaceable worth by virtue of being in God’s image. Persons having inherent worth as creatures made in God’s image is different from their being inherently morally good; whether a person becomes morally good or not depends on his or her choices. We might put the point this way: being created in God’s image comprises a metaphysical goodness that is a gift provided in the very circumstance of being created; being morally virtuous constitutes moral goodness and it is not involved in the very act of being created. The other consequence is that the basis of morality lies in realizing one’s nature by imitating the behavior biblically ascribed to God, insofar as this is humanly possible. God is holy, so we are to be holy. God unselfishly
loves, so we ought to love unselfishly. Human individuality is real, not illusory, and it is good not evil, that individuals exist. God loves all persons in the sense of willing their ultimate good and acting for it. Central to being made in God’s image is having the capacity for loving others and oneself in the sense of willing their and our ultimate good and acting for it. Love in this sense is primarily volitional, not primarily emotional. God is providential in the sense of governing the course of history and moving it toward the Kingdom of God, so that time is real and the historical process is real and one-directional (not cyclical).6 It is a good, not an evil, that there are temporal and historical events. God is holy both in the sense of being unique, alone worthy of being worshipped, and of being morally pure or righteous. Thus worship is not a preliminary religious experience to be later transcended; its appropriateness is built into the nature of the distinction between Creator and creature, which is not a dissolvable distinction. As God is righteous, God judges sin. Sin is freely performed action that violates God’s moral law; sin also is a defect of our nature due to our living in a world in which sinful actions proliferate. Sin prevents one’s realizing his or her nature as made in God’s image. Since God loves all persons, God hates what harms persons, and hence hates sin. Intolerance of sin is not opposed to, but follows from, the nature of divine love. Thus human sin and guilt are real, not illusory, and it is better that persons act freely and exercise moral agency than that they be made unable to sin. The basic religious problem is sin, and the deepest religious need is for forgiveness. Forgiveness is provided by God’s grace or unmerited favor; it is not earned by human effort. God has acted in history at real times and in real places to reveal information that otherwise we would not have had and to act on our behalf. Central religious doctrines make essential reference to certain persons and events. Religious knowledge, at least in part, is gained through revelation rather than through reflection, meditation, selfabasement, or the like.
philosophy of Jainism
Jainism is a particularly interesting religion in that it holds to the immortality of the soul without being monotheistic. It holds that the self or person or jiva is an enduring mental substance that is inherently immortal. Human persons appear to be enduring mental substances because they are enduring mental substances, just as physical objects appear to be enduring physical substances because they are. A Jaina text says straightforwardly that “modifications cannot exist without an abiding or eternal something – a permanent substance.”14 But persons seem to have limitations that they do not have, and by attaining an esoteric state of enlightenment – kevala – one can see that these limitations are illusory. Thus in the Jaina Sutras15 one reads that when the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had become enlightened, he was omniscient and comprehending all objects; he knew and saw all conditions of the world, of gods, men, and demons: whence they come, whither they go, whether they are born as men or animals . . . or become gods or hell-beings . . . the ideas, the thoughts of their minds, the food, doings, desires, the open and secret deeds of all living beings in the whole world; he the Arhat, for whom there is no secret, knew and saw all conditions of all living beings in the world, what they thought, spoke, or did at any moment. Occasionally it is claimed that one who reaches kevala even learns that he or she is omnipotent; at any rate, one learns that one is omniscient and dependent for one’s existence on nothing external to oneself. The same Sutras say of the soul that “since it possesses no corporeal form, it is eternal.” This is not a variety of monotheism; there is no reference to God or (as in monotheistic Hinduism) to Brahman with qualities. Nor does it posit an identity between the soul and qualityless Brahman. Another Jaina text says that Liberation is the freedom from all karmic matter, owing to the non-existence of the cause of bondage and to the shedding of the karmas. After the soul is released, there remain perfect right-belief, perfect right-knowledge, and the state of having accomplished all. Thus personal identity is retained in enlightenment; a mental substance that once existed under severe epistemic and other constraints is freed from those constraints.
Philosophy of Buddhism
From the standpoint of every Buddhist tradition, the central event in the history of Buddhism was the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, achieving awakening at Bodh Gaya, India. According to these traditions, his awakening under the bodhi tree consisted in his attainment of profound insight into the nature of reality, which in turn enabled the solution of the central problem toward which Buddhism is oriented—the universality and pervasiveness of suffering. The Buddha argued that this suffering is caused most immediately by attraction and aversion, and that the root cause of attraction and aversion is confusion regarding the fundamental nature of reality. As a consequence, the Buddha taught that his liberating insight into the nature of reality is the antidote to the confusion, and hence to the attraction and aversion it causes, and therefore, in the end, to suffering itself. This is the core content of the four noble truths expounded in his fi rst discourse at Sarnath, the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta (Discourse that Sets in Motion the Wheel of Doctrine) and is the foundation of all Buddhist philosophy. The Buddhist world, however, is vast, and generated numerous schools of thought and philosophical systems elaborating these fundamental insights, with a substantial and internally diverse philosophical canon comparable to that of Western philosophy.
Indian Philosophy
In the Land of Bharath (India), there are different traditions of religion and philosophy handed down in regular succession. Although the exposition and interpretations of all the Darshanâs are different from one another, they have a common goal which is to acquire knowledge of the highest truth and to attain supreme bliss. All the Darshanas have their own separate codes of conduct and propriety. Consider a tree which has many different branches and although they are not all alike, some being small and some being big, the flavour of all the fruits of that tree is the same. This is because all the branches have the same roots. In the same way, the roots of all the different Darshanâs are the Vedâs. Whereas if some Darshanâ contains the direct testimony of the Vedâs, in some other Darshanâ, we will find the testimony of the Vedâs in an indirect way through the traditional teachings handed down in regular succession of Âchâryâs of that order. However, in all the Darshanâs, we find an elaboration of the Vedâs alone.
According to the Indian System of Philosophy, 12 Darshanâs or Visions are considered the most important. These 12 Darshanâs are divided into two categories. The first category is the one which has faith in and reverence for the Vedâs and considers the Vedâs as being beyond the need for proof or verification. The other category is the one which has no belief in the Vedâs and does not consider the Vedâs as infallible or authoritative and seeks independent proof. On this basis, the Darshan Shâstra or Scriptures of Indian Philosophical Vision are divided into two main groups namely Âstik or Theist (Believers) and Nâstik or Atheist (Non-Believers). It is generally accepted that the Darshanâs which repose absolute faith in the authority of the Vedâs and who draw conclusions based on the heard scriptures i.e. the Vedâs are the Âstik Branches of Indian Philosophy. The other category; in which the respective founder Âchâryas, not accepting the Vedâs as the authority, have drawn conclusions based on their own intellect and reasoning; constitutes the Nâstik Branches of the Darshanâs.
In the Âstik Branches there are six Darshanâs as follows:
1. Nyâya.
2. Vaisheshik.
3. Sânkhya.
4. Yoga.
5. Purvamimâmsa.
6. Uttaramimâmsa.
The Nâstik Branches consist of six Darshanâs as follows:
1. Chârvak. Baodh or Buddhist Darshana which is sub-divided into four schools as under: 2. Mâdhyamik.
3. Yogâchâr.
4. Sautrântik.
5. Vaibhâshik.
and lastly,
6. Jain
Nature of philosophy
1.Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the univrse, which are often held uncritically.
We refer to this meaning as the informal sense of philosophy or "having" a philosophy. Usually when a person says "my philosophy is," he or she is referring to an informal personal attitude to whatever topic is being discussed.
2.philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions and beliefs.
These two senses of philosophy - "having" and "doing" - cannot be treated entirely independent of each other, for it we did not have a philosophy in the formal, personal sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the critical, reflective sense.
Having a philosophy, however is not sufficient for doing philosophy. A genuine philosophical attitude is searching and critical: it is open-minded and tolerant-willing to look at all sides of an issue without prejudice. To philosophize is not merely to read and know philosophy; there are skills of argumentation to be mastered, techniques of analysis to be employed, and a body of material to be appropriated such that we became able to think philosophically, Philosophers are reflective and critical.
3.Philosophy is a rational attemt to look at the world as a whole.
Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences and human experience into some kind of consistent philosophers wish to see life, not with the specilalized slant of the scientist or the businessperson or the artist, but with the overall view of someone understanding of life as a totality.
4.Philosophy is the logical analysis of languages and the clarification of the meaning of words and concepts.
Certainly this is one function of philosophy. In fact, nearly all philosophers have used methods of analysis and have sought to clarify the meaning of terms and the use of language. some philosophers see this as the main task of philosopher.
5.Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest peaple and for which philosophers always have sought answers.
Philosophy presses its inquiry into the deepest problems of human existence. Some of the philosophical questions satisfactory to the majority of philosophers. Many questions, however, have been answered only tentatively, and many problems remains unsolved.
"What is truth?"
"What is the distinction between right and wrong?"
What is life and why am i here?
Why is there anything at all?
Branches of philosophy
Aesthetics
Aesthetics is an area of philosophy concerned with art and beuty.Some separate that the former is the study of beauty while the latter is the study of works of art. However, most commonly Aesthetics encompasses both question around beauty as well as question about art. It examines such topics as aesthetics experience. Sinse Aesthetics often incorporates some element of judgement it is generally considered to fail under the general heading of value Theory.
epistemology
Epistemology The mission of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is to clarify what the conception of knowledge involves,how it is applied,and to explain why it has the features it does.And the idea of knowledge at issue here must,in the first instance at least,be construed in its modest sense to include also belief,conjecture, and the like.For it is misleading to call cognitive theory at large “epistemology” or “the theory of knowledge.”Its range of concern includes not only knowledge proper but also rational belief,probability,plausibility,evidentiation and—additionally but not least—erotetics,the business of raising and resolving questions. It is this last area—the theory of rational inquiry with its local concern for questions and their management—that constitutes the focus of the present book.Its aim is to maintain and substantiate the utility of approaching epistemological issues from the angle of questions.As Aristotle already indicated,human inquiry is grounded in wonder.When matters are running along in their accustomed way, we generally do not puzzle about it and stop to ask questions. But when things are in any way out of the ordinary we puzzle over the reason why and seek for an explanation.And gradually our horizons expand.With increasing sophistication,we learn to be surprised by virtually all of it.We increasingly want to know what makes things tick—the ordinary as well as the extraordinary,so that questions gain an increasing prominence within epistemology in general. Any profitable discussion of knowledge does well to begin by recognizing some basic linguistic facts about how the verb to know and its cognates actually function in the usual range of relevant discourse.For if one neglects these facts one is well en route to “changing the subject”to talk about something different from that very conception that must remain at the center of our concern.It would clearly be self-defeating to turn away from knowledge as we in fact conceive and discuss it and deal with some sort of so-called knowledge different from that whose elucidation is the very reason for being so such a theory.If a philosophical analysis is to elucidate a conception that is in actual use,it has no choice but to address itself to that usage and conform to its actual characteristics.
Comments
Post a Comment