I'm not very fond of debates about definitions but philosophy has always been an interesting debate subject to me.

I heard a story once of a kid who was asked what philosophy was and it concluded it was: "A study of possibilities". I think it's very accurate conclusion in my opinion.

What do you think?
EDIT: And what do you think about philosophy?

In my eyes, philosophy is the activity and the characteristic of the ones that seek understanding and knowledge for purpose of understanding and knowledge alone. A philosopher is driven by the wish to know, not to be able to use what he knows.

...which is very close to what philosophy literally translates to from Greek (philo + sophos = to love + knowledge,wisdom)

I agree. That's how I look at philosophy.

The meaning of words change over periods of time. Apparently philosophy used to be the sum total of all knowledge including science etc. Slowly all fields branched away from philosophy and got names of their own.

And now we are left with the concept of seeking "understanding and knowledge for purpose of understanding and knowledge alone... not to be able to use what he knows".

Pretty sad.

I disagree. A man can study science and all what was derived from philosophy in a philosophical way even today. Philosophy is still what it used to be. Practical knowledges are only half of science. Most people will, of course, study science in a non-philosophical way most of the time. But that isn't any different than in the time of ancient Greek or Far-Eastern or any other philosophy. Most people keep things practical, just as they did before. Only a few were enlightened, and practiced philosophy. Philosophy has always been about knowledge and not its application.

It's correct that science is a spin-off of philosophy, but it didn't take anything away from it, chemistry=philosophy + practical knowledge of chemistry, the same goes for any branch of science.

In my opinion, philosophy is richer today than before. People that are truly philosophical-minded are better philosophers than the philosophical-minded people were before. If Socrates lived today, he'd be a much better philosopher than he was in history. Philosophy can't really go backwards and diminish, because knowledge can't really disappear.

I think that could be debated too.

At any given moment of time 'knowledge' is usually a mixture of facts (some of which are not indisputable) and interpretations or deductions from those facts. As can be seen historically the discovery of more facts, or the arrival of better fit paradigms to account for the facts, means what was previously thought to be knowledge is disproved.

So clearly knowedge can change and so disappear.

If I take your meaning correctly, I think you intend to cover that by the use of the phrase 'cannot really disappear'. This implies, to me, that you believe Knowledge may grow and be changed but does not diminish. However from a philosophical viewpoint people can only study such knowedge as they have access to. There have been periods in history when this has been reduced and there are countries now where access to knowledge is restricted. There is probably classified information even in the most liberal societies.

This does not detract from your overall point but whether Socrates would be a better philosopher now is not dependent on the existence of more knowledge but whether he could access it.

On a more philosophical note (related to the topic) there seems to be a current belief that all new discoveries, development of theories, etc. etc. is a good thing. It moves forward and so in the strict definition of the term is progress. Historically it can be seen that there have been periods of time when 'progress' as it was called then has actually been regression. If the years of 'progress' that have led to pollution finally wipe out the planet would anyone who managed to escape to the moon actually call it progress? In contect of this debate what I am trying to say is that knowledge is a mix of things that is constantly changing but not of necessity always increasing.

Knowledge, intelligence, technology, wisdom...All are distinctly different things. Philosophy is a study of knowledge. Philosophers seek to gain more knowledge and find the truth. What is known or how it's applied is irrelevant. A philosopher might come to the conclusion that humans are concentrated evil inside an organic shell. This, if believed, would greatly change society for the worse. People will realise that if they're nothing but evil, why feint good? This would vastly increase crime rates, which would bode ill to everyone. The philosopher will simply move on, however, move on to find more knowledge, find the truth. People may see the philosopher as being heartless, but they are bound by the principles of 'good' and 'evil'. The philosopher has no such chains. The philosopher lives to learn.

I agree with ninja_lord666. Philosophers seek knowledge for the sake of Understanding. I also agree with his assessment that true philosophers don't see things as 'good or evil'. They simply see something(an idea, belief,faith,etc.) as being, and not as right or wrong.(my sincere apologies to you, Ninja_lord666 if i have misunderstood your views.)

I kind of disagree. Can you point out to me a single philosopher who never said something was good or evil? Or is it your opinion there has never been a true philosopher? Just a few examples:

Plato- He approved of drunkenness. It was good, in his opinion. Was he a philosopher?
Aristotle- Much of his work had to do with ethics and morality. He believed in them, and had concepts of them. Was he a philosopher?

Or how about a more recent example?

Ayn Rand- I admire her a lot, but she said money is good and not evil. Therefore, she must not be a true philosopher.


If I have misinterpreted either of your statements, please let me know.

To Freddycashmercury,
You didn't really misunderstand, i just wasn't very clear . When I said 'true philosopher' i didn't mean that not having an opinion on wether or not something was good or bad was a prerequisite, but a motivation. To clarify, most people nowadays seek knowledge to make an argued point seem more valid or to communicate their feelings,beliefs,etc. And while a philosopher might also have an opinion on wether or not something was morally acceptable or not(as the specific examples you mentioned) this is not why he seeks knowledge. He does it simply to understand and learn. Also when i said 'true philosopher' , i kinda meant that in my own personal perception of what defines a philosopher. Sorry about that and i'll try to be a bit more careful in what i post.

Philosophers aren't robots; they have emotions and opinions just like everyone else. 'Philosopher' isn't a fully defining characteristic. It's like a job. Example time:
Geoffry works as a cashier at Wal*Mart. From 8am-5pm, he's a cashier, but when he's at home, he isn't. People aren't their jobs. A cashier is still a human, a normal civilian just like everyone else. The same goes for philosophers. When they're philosophising, they're philosophers, but when they're at the tavern getting drunk, or whatever, they're just some drunk guys.
A philosopher tries to discover the truth just for the sake of knowledge, but, being human, they are still subject to opinions.

Nicely phrased ninja_lord. This is pretty much the point that i was trying to convey with my clumsy words earlier.

Well, then. I have no problem with that definition. Thank you both for clarifying, and I apologize for my misunderstanding!

This is interesting.
I think no philosopher in history has ever anwered to the question "what is philosophy" besides that, it's natural that we try to give an answer to that. And there's a point where we can start: the meaning of the word "Philosophy" itself, "love for the thought" translated in a few words.
Isn't that what the philosophers do? Try to define the world and its components through the human thought it's exactly what they did and what they will do until the end of human race. Science and religion are natural allies of philosophy, and often in history these two things were in contrast (but let's say that today are FAR more in contrast than in the past) but both are extensions of human thought.
The philosophy is also something that is deeply radicated in the historical contest in which is born, and it's in continue evolution.

An oversimplified and likely inaccurate definition:

Science asks "How?"
Philosophy asks "Why?"

Not really. Philosophy and science both ask Why? How? Where? When? What? and any other question you can think of. But, as it has been said in previous posts, it is asked for a different reason than in science.

I think philosophy is very important in the developement of our ideas and thoughts. Months ago, when I was writing an essay for my philosophy's classes, I've found an interesting sentence: "He hadn't wrote a word about philosphy, but he says that he thinks so much and a man who passes all day long thinking is a philosopher" Please, forgive this horrible translation from Spanish! In my opinion, everybody who have the feeling that he/she thinks is a little philosopher.
Big philosophers are children.