What Category of Knowledge Does Philosophy Fall Under?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

What Category of Knowledge Does Philosophy Fall Under?

Post by Red » Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm

Wikipedia has a pretty good article outlining all of the academic disciplines, which is pretty fun to read, and I suggest to friends when they say they're not sure what they want to major in in College.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_o ... isciplines

It Outlines the following as the 5 Main Categories:
Humanities
Social Sciences
Natural Sciences
Formal Sciences
Applied Sciences

It lists Philosophy under the first one, the Humanities (along with Theology, History, Arts, etc.).

Within it, it lists the philosophies of political views, the sciences, and the arts, but it also lists things like Epistemology and Logic as different fields within it which is odd but anyway...

Philosophy, literally 'Love of Wisdom,' basically encompasses all human knowledge, at least of value. If I'm not mistaken, all of these fields of knowledge, from science to history to the arts are all part of philosophy. Philosophy has its own teachings and ideas and such, but things such as humanism and the scientific method are derived from philosophy.

So, if we grant that philosophy is the top field of knowledge so to speak, with all other fields of knowledge being derived from it in one way or another, can we classify philosophy as part of the humanities, or perhaps in a category of its own? Or, perhaps it is all-encompassing?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am

Red wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm
Wikipedia has a pretty good article outlining all of the academic disciplines, which is pretty fun to read, and I suggest to friends when they say they're not sure what they want to major in in College.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_o ... isciplines

It Outlines the following as the 5 Main Categories:
Humanities
Social Sciences
Natural Sciences
Formal Sciences
Applied Sciences
The "natural science" category makes no sense to me. There’s no such thing as a “non-natural science" since it wouldn’t be science at all.

The brain and all its properties come from nature, no? How are fields like psychology and sociology not natural sciences when variables that affect human behavior/cognition are properties of the natural world?

It might be more useful to separate them into “social” and “non-social” sciences. Or divide the sciences up by rigor (hard and soft).

I’d suggest categories like:

Social sciences
Non-social sciences
Applied Sciences
Pure Sciences
Humanities
Philosophy
Mathematics


Or something along those lines. These are all pretty vague definitions so nothing can be perfectly categorized. There’s also bound to be plenty of overlapping fields.
Red wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:30 pm
So, if we grant that philosophy is the top field of knowledge so to speak, with all other fields of knowledge being derived from it in one way or another, can we classify philosophy as part of the humanities, or perhaps in a category of its own? Or, perhaps it is all-encompassing?
Modern philosophy uses pure reason and logic-based analysis to study a number of different things (ethics, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics & logic). I’d say it’s very clearly a distinct discipline. Unless someone is studying the history of philosophy, then it wouldn’t really be philosophy at all.

Historically however, any academic discipline could be considered as a branch of natural philosophy.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:10 am

Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am

The "natural science" category makes no sense to me. There’s no such thing as a “non-natural science" since it wouldn’t be science at all.
The brain and all its properties come from nature, no? How are fields like psychology and sociology not natural sciences when variables that affect human behavior/cognition are properties of the natural world? [/quote]
Well it's more about how much the variables can be accounted for. In the physical sciences, there is no human bias affecting the way the laws work, unlike in certain psychology experiments. At least, that's what brimstone told me.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am
It might be more useful to separate them into “social” and “non-social” sciences. Or divide the sciences up by rigor (hard and soft).

I’d suggest categories like:

Social sciences
Non-social sciences
Applied Sciences
Pure Sciences
Humanities
Philosophy
Mathematics
That may be an interesting take. Where would you place each discipline though? What would fall under the non-social sciences that's not under the pure sciences?
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am
Is this a cup of coffee (for Java) or a pirate ship?
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am
Or something along those lines. These are all pretty vague definitions so nothing can be perfectly categorized. There’s also bound to be plenty of overlapping fields.
True, some fields are pretty ambiguous on where they fall (like archaeology).
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am
Modern philosophy uses pure reason and logic-based analysis to study a number of different things (ethics, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics & logic). I’d say it’s very clearly a distinct discipline.
Well right now, many people, including the most educated, don't take philosophy seriously because (as I said in another thread) it just seems to be this institution where anything goes. There are no verifiable truths, etc.
I mean, a lot of our social sciences like psychology and politics were once part of philosophy until they were established as their own disciplines. SO you know I don't know.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am
Unless someone is studying the history of philosophy, then it wouldn’t really be philosophy at all.
Now that would fall under the humanities (maybe that's why Wikipedia lists it under the humanities? Academic Philosophy is kinda in the tank in that respect). The history of something isn't particularly important anyway. You can know everything there is to know about Physics without ever knowing the name of the scientists who built the discipline.

My friend told me that he wants to major in business and philosophy, and I told him not to major in philosophy because of the aforementioned reasons, and he didn't believe me. Eh, what're you gonna do?
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:31 am
Historically however, any academic discipline could be considered as a branch of natural philosophy.
Back in the day, science was considered philosophy. I mean, it still is, but now that science has established itself as its own branch of knowledge and is irrelevant to philosophy (it's not, but whatevs).
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm

Red wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:10 am
Well it's more about how much the variables can be accounted for. In the physical sciences, there is no human bias affecting the way the laws work, unlike in certain psychology experiments. At least, that's what brimstone told me.
I know that these variables cannot be as tightly controlled for as other fields (like physics or astronomy) but all sciences function in much the same way. Social scientists observe human behavior/cognition and develop laws, then use the scientific method to rigorously test those laws and key theories. That’s no different from what chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists and all other scientists do. The difficulty to produce tightly controlled experiments does not negate psychology (or sociology) as a legitimate science. It is a science because it adheres to the empirical method, regardless of the subject of its focus.
Red wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:10 am
That may be an interesting take. Where would you place each discipline though? What would fall under the non-social sciences that's not under the pure sciences?
I’d make pure and applied sciences a subcategory of “non-social” sciences.
Red wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:10 am
Academic Philosophy is kinda in the tank in that respect). The history of something isn't particularly important anyway. You can know everything there is to know about Physics without ever knowing the name of the scientists who built the discipline.
That’s very true. I know very little about the life of Isaac Newton (his religious beliefs, his city of birth, what kind of underwear he wore etc.) but I do understand the 3 basic laws of motion he helped to develop.

When you compare the required courses for a standard Philosophy major to the required courses for a standard Physics major at any particular institution, the former definitely places emphasis on the history of its discipline (as well as the lives of its historical figures). I do think this hampers progress within the field.


https://philpapers.org/archive/DIETIN.pdf
Eric Dietrich, PhD wrote: Imagine that Aristotle, as he's walking around the Lyceum, encounters a time-warp and pops forward to today, on a well-known campus somewhere in some English-speaking country, with the ability to speak English, dressed in modern garb, and that he doesn't become deranged as a result of all of this. Curious about the state of knowledge, he finds a physics lecture and sits in. What he hears shocks him. A feather and iron ball fall at the same rate in a vacuum; being heavier doesn't mean falling faster, something he doesn't understand. Aristotle along with the rest of the class is shown the experimental verification of this from the moon (from the moon?!?!?) performed by Commander David Scott of Apollo 15. The very same equations (equations?!?!?) that explain why an apple falls to the ground explain how the moon stays in orbit around Earth and how Earth stays in orbit around the sun (orbits?!?!?). He learns of quantum mechanics strangnesses. The more he hears, the more shocked he gets. Finally, he just faints away. He faints away again in cosmology class where he learns, for starters, that comets and meteors, and the Milky Way are not atmospheric phenomena, as he concluded. The Big Bang, relativity, the size of the universe, the number of galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy . . . are all too much for him. In biology class, he learns that a living thing's potential, its matter, is not at all explanatory, as he thought, but instead learns of genetics and developmental biology. He also learns that his idea of spontaneous generation is just plain wrong -- not even close to being correct. He learns of evolution and the discovery that all of life on Earth is related. As the class continues, he again faints dead away.

After he comes too, he soberly concludes that this modern world, this advanced time, has utterly surpassed his knowledge and the knowledge of his time. He feels dwarfed by our epistemic sophistication. Sadly, he trundles off to a philosophy class -- a metaphysics class, as it turns out. Here he hears the professor lecturing about essences, about being qua being, about the most general structures of our thinking about the world. He knows exactly what the professor is talking about. Aristotle raises his hand to discuss some errors the professor seems to have made, and some important distinctions that he has not drawn. As the discussion proceeds, the metaphysics professor is a bit taken aback but also delighted at this (older) student's acumen and insight. Then Aristotle goes to an ethics class, where he learns of the current importance of what is apparently called "virtue ethics." He recognizes it immediately, but again, the professor seems to have left out some crucial details and failed to see some deeper aspects of the view. Aristotle raises his hand. . . .

From our twenty-first century perspective, we see that Aristotle was not even in the ball park with most of his scientific ideas, theories, and conclusions. His works in science are only of historical interest. But he is a giant to this day in philosophy. We can learn by reading his philosophical works. This pattern of ignoring old science but rereading over and over again old philosophy repeats throughout the histories of science and philosophy.
Unlike scientists, who occasionally give up arguing and develop a consensus due to weight of consistent evidence, philosophers do not seem to be able to agree on the most basic of things. Not sure how progress is supposed to be made if they're still arguing over the basics, and touting the silly ideas of people who lived over 3,000 years ago.

Imagine asking Immanuel Kant "Is slavery unjust?" You'd probably get an answer that is very similar to a modern philosopher. That kind of says it all. :?
Red wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:10 am
My friend told me that he wants to major in business and philosophy, and I told him not to major in philosophy because of the aforementioned reasons, and he didn't believe me. Eh, what're you gonna do?
That's very similar to what I'm doing (business major, philosophy minor). You could always recommend philosophy as a minor, or direct them into a more applicable field (mathematics, computer science, ethics).

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9169
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:03 am

A branching tree would make a lot more sense than these rigid categories.

Philosophy, under which is many branches including epistemology, under that mathematics, formal logic, empirical science, then that broken up into various branching fields. I think I've seen some illustrations of that in the past.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:19 pm

Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm
I know that these variables cannot be as tightly controlled for as other fields (like physics or astronomy) but all sciences function in much the same way. Social scientists observe human behavior/cognition and develop laws, then use the scientific method to rigorously test those laws and key theories. That’s no different from what chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists and all other scientists do. The difficulty to produce tightly controlled experiments does not negate psychology (or sociology) as a legitimate science. It is a science because it adheres to the empirical method, regardless of the subject of its focus.
Well that's definitely how they should be.
A lot of people get salty when you describe sociology or psychology as a 'soft science.'
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm
That’s very true. I know very little about the life of Isaac Newton (his religious beliefs, his city of birth, what kind of underwear he wore etc.) but I do understand the 3 basic laws of motion he helped to develop.
I mean in Philosophy, it might, might, be a little useful to describe a philosopher's backstory if it helped develop their ideas, but that's not what philosophy class should be about; it should just be about philosophical teachings.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm
When you compare the required courses for a standard Philosophy major to the required courses for a standard Physics major at any particular institution, the former definitely places emphasis on the history of its discipline (as well as the lives of its historical figures). I do think this hampers progress within the field.
Is that the case with a lot of courses or just philosophy (aside from History Courses, obviously. Unless they talk about the history of history).
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm
Unlike scientists, who occasionally give up arguing and develop a consensus due to weight of consistent evidence, philosophers do not seem to be able to agree on the most basic of things. Not sure how progress is supposed to be made if they're still arguing over the basics, and touting the silly ideas of people who lived over 3,000 years ago.
Of course, since this has to do with the false notion of philosophy being subjective or theoretical. Some of these people aren't philosophers of course, but pseudophilosophers, much like pseudoscientists.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm
Imagine asking Immanuel Kant "Is slavery unjust?" You'd probably get an answer that is very similar to a modern philosopher. That kind of says it all. :?
So an incredibly shitty and useless one?
Lay Vegan wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm
That's very similar to what I'm doing (business major, philosophy minor). You could always recommend philosophy as a minor, or direct them into a more applicable field (mathematics, computer science, ethics).
I'll tell him about it on Thursday when I get back. We're both taking Discrete Math as an elective, and he's pretty good at it. He definitely seems like someone who would fare well in computer science (I personally have no interest in it, outside of some coding for my Minecraft Server I had. And that website I made in Coding Club in 9th Grade. It came out pretty damn good, too bad it's gone).
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:33 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:03 am
A branching tree would make a lot more sense than these rigid categories.

Philosophy, under which is many branches including epistemology, under that mathematics, formal logic, empirical science, then that broken up into various branching fields. I think I've seen some illustrations of that in the past.
Then how come the blokes behind the page decided on this format? I'm serious about that coalition. Maybe I can go to the talk section and tell them our grievances.

I also have a crazy idea for their page but I think it'd be an interesting add; What if they add a section that outlines all the types of pseudoscience? Like, they'd have Flood Geology, Baraminology, Graphology, Astrology, Parapsychology, etc. I think it's fine to put it in as long as they are listed as pseudosciences, and explain how and why they are pseudosciences. It might also help along what we were talking about in the other science thread about letting people see both real and pseudoscience. I haven't spotted any pseudosciences on the page (yet) thankfully, so it's not like it'd be contested for something like Astrology to be put in a section like that.

Speaking of which, my school has an option for taking 'Religion and Science' (which I assume they called since Creation Science has a bad connotation), and I'm gonna see if I can change my religion class to that. It'd be interesting.

None of the teachers, even religious teachers, at my school are Creationists (at least from the ones I know), and they openly have mocked and ridiculed them in the past. But I wonder if this class will try to reconcile the flood narrative...
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9169
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:12 pm

Red wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:33 pm
Then how come the blokes behind the page decided on this format? I'm serious about that coalition. Maybe I can go to the talk section and tell them our grievances.
I think trying to edit Wikipedia is typically a waste of time, too much politics.
Red wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:33 pm
Speaking of which, my school has an option for taking 'Religion and Science' (which I assume they called since Creation Science has a bad connotation), and I'm gonna see if I can change my religion class to that. It'd be interesting.
Wait, why do you have to take a religion class?

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:55 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:12 pm
I think trying to edit Wikipedia is typically a waste of time, too much politics.
That sucks, even for the science articles?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:12 pm
Wait, why do you have to take a religion class?
Don't you remember I go to a Catholic School?
It's only once every other day, and it isn't really them shoving religion down your throat, more just some theology, history of religion, Bible Stories, and teachings of Jesus Christ (it's pretty fun, and an easy A. It's also interesting to see the atheist in the class do much better than some of the Catholics). Now I do agree there should be an opt-out option if you're not religious or if you're a Muslim or Protestant or something, but I guess they figure a lot of people would choose that option even if they are religious.

Now don't worry, my school is not a Bob Jones University-esque institution. I don't live in a very religious state, so science is accepted by the teachers. I didn't take Biology in Freshman year (I took it in 8th Grade) but my friends who did said that they were taught evolution (I mean the Catholic Church does accept evolution as 'God's Chosen Method'), we learned that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old, and overall, in the Science classes I've been in, no religion or ideas of God thrown in. And in History class we learn of all the fucked up and egregious things the Catholic Church did, and my history teacher even said, when we were doing the Scientific Revolution, that Science decimates one's faith in God (or something along those lines).

This semester I took a philosophy course (which is my favorite class) and I think I'll make a forum post talking about it. It was pretty fun, and I also learned the crazy things some classmates believed.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests