[FOM] Definition of "philosophy"

[Charles Silver]

Donald Stahl writes:
> I wonder if Professor Friedman could give us some information about  
> "those
> great intellectual structures which constitute our vehicles for  
> systematic
> knowledge" in terms which a cognitive linguist would recognize or  
> could
> understand?

	I also "challenged" Harvey--Stahl's paragraph really is a disguised  
challenge, isn't it?-- to provide a better explanation of  
philosophy.   I now think that may have been unfair!   I think it's  
very difficult to give a good definition of philosophy.  Just to trot  
out a few ideas that don't work, "philosophy" can be considered  
independent of subject matter (and, pretty much in agreement with  
Harvey, I'd like to see such a definition work), let's try: "thinking  
deeply about some subject in order to get at the truth of it."
	(Shelving the notion of "truth" in order to prevent screeds of  
Kuhnian-type objections) I'd like to ask whether *any* subject matter  
would do.   For example, does thinking deeply about the genesis of  
Sudoku puzzles count?   Supposing some would say it does--and maybe  
it does, I don't know--how about: thinking deeply about the concept  
of "layering" as it applies to cuisine?   I'd say that does *not*  
count.   So, if this is right, not *all* subject matters count.   But  
which do and why?
	I think somewhere in Plato (or was it Russell?) there's something  
about philosophy addressing the most profound issues of mankind, or  
something like that.   What are the most profound issues?

	In an effort to divide and conquer, there's always the "philosophy  
of" topics, philosophy of science, of mathematics, of history,....    
Then, areas not usually thought of as "philosophy of" topics could be  
converted into them.  For example, "ethics" would become "the  
philosophy of ethics".   If these were settled as "*the*  
philosophical issues," then perhaps one could just look at what  
constitutes "a philosophical approach" to these areas.  So, though I  
know this is inadequate, I offer something resembling the above  
(minus "truth"): thinking deeply about "the philosophical issues" in  
order to try to answer questions raised by them.

	Anyway, the above is just a shot at the problem.   I don't think  
Harvey should have to shoulder the burden of coming up with what  
"philosophy" is (though he *did* tender a sort of definition)

	I hope others are similarly motivated to offer their own views (and  
also to tear apart and fix what's written above).

	
	(Another thing I believe is that "real philosophy" is not often done  
in departments of philosophy.  So, a good definition, at least in my  
view, should reflect this.)

Charlie Silver