[Lenka Macků]

Hi,
I have quite common question. Still trying to do philosophy with childen I often ask myself about the meanig of doing it.

Ok, there are many reasons to say, why philosophy is usefull for us. But today I would like to think of the guestion from another point of view.

If you want please give me examples and tell me which are the LIMITS of philosphy?

(Because I belive being aware of theese limits I could understand to the meaning of philosophy little bit better).

Thank you Lenka
(I`m not so sure about my english, but I hope you understand )

[Petr Bauman]

Don't worry, I do understand I suggest that you first specify what you mean by philosophy. I believe that only when we agree on at least a working concept of philosophy it will be possible to look for its limits.

[Lenka Macků]

Peter, of course you understand, cause you can check it in the czech part of the forum But thank you

I`m aware I wont`t be able to make the deffinition by myself but I have some suggestions and you`re supposed to complete my idea.

Ok, philosophy: Seems to me it starts with wondering about the world. (Where do we come from? Who we are? What`s the meaning of our life?...) And man tries to answer the guestions most of all by his reason. (To distinguish philosophy from religion, because I think religion also asks theese guestions but maybe it has another tools for answering them.) And probably the wondering needs to be shared with another people, that`s why we create communities of inquiry or why we read such a thick books.

And maybe there could be difference (or another relationship) between philosophy as a science and philosophy as an attitude to life.

I don`t know. I will be pleased if anyone complete or rebuilt theese ideas.

[Ríša Macků]

In my opinion, philosphy should think out only the most general questions – humaness, friendship etc. In the other questions (more particular), it meets results of another sciences – and it could cause problems. First it could be a problem for everybody who try P4C (we are not so good in philosophy and we don´t have a lot of knowledge from other sciences). I can try to give an example: what about „love“ – it is a great philosophical topic, but: Philospohy should look at the result from e.g. biology which says something about chemical processes in conjunction with love, shouldn´t it? Universal answer can be: Philosophy should „critically check up“ these results of another sciences – but what does it mean?

Prof. Nakonecny (CZ) writes: „Philosphy should think out to the end and not to make up independently of the facts, that had been founded (but it doesn´t mean that Philosophy can´t infirm)…“ and next he writes more about „princip of falsification“ in science (research of possibilites of incorrectness of the results and hypothesis..). I don´t understand this – infirm is the legal way for the science which give the results or is it legal also for the other sciences? If it is the second occurrence, why philosophy couldn´t infirm results from e.g. biology?

I don´t know if these words are exactly in the meaning of prof. Nakonecny czech equivalent.

[Alena Brepta Skuhrovcová]

I think, that science is not great term. I like more name: Love to wisdom(philo- sophie).. Maybe every Philosoph will kill me for that sentence..

That you work with train of thought, learn to think critize and so on.. That could be science. But that, what happend then isnt science about life, but life ownself.
Can you be objectiv in philosophy? (ofcourse pure objectivity cannot be reach, but something is close) In philosophy i always gather from myself or from something what is saved in myself. And almost always is it about me..

Couldnt it be one of limits for which Lenka asked?Limit: subjectivity?

But in other hand, why so much philosophers, tryed to find univerzal truth?

[Ríša Macků]

Alena, "Love to wisdom"? It will be very complicated finding limits and borders...

You have written "what happend then isnt science about life, it is life ownself..." Can you describe, what do you mean with the word "then"? And what is the relationship to the "objectivity"? I can´t understand this part of your message..

In point of "subjectivity" - I think it protect us to find universal limit..., but this makes it limit ownself... Is this problem that you mentioned? If not, plese try an exemaple...

[Alena Brepta Skuhrovcová]

Ok..
I try start so: What is objective
If I do some research, I shoud have a distance from object, I can not put my feeling or meaning in this research.
For example: When I look at cellule in microscope, and i should draw it, then I draw only what i see. I can not draw more or less then I see. In a case, that i know- something is missing, I can not draw what missing...Negative could be this: The distance give me a total wiew, but I can not see some specialities, parts. Sometimes I see only extern side and I can not go inside..
And so,i dont know if is it true, what I search out..

Subjective: is filtreted by my opinions, ideas.. I am a part of events, I havent distance. I am inside.
In this case i can explain so: Now I am not scientifist, but visitors of cellule. I see, I hear, I have life experience. I know how it works in really life. But I can not get out and see it in complex.
And so,the same situation:I dont know if is it true, what I see..

How is relation btw. Science and objectivity? Science want to be objective, have a distance from object, be exact.. In a sense of pozitivism.
And in philosophy I am subject. Arround me are subject (other people). So I am not objective ( maybe i will not to be objective). I solve my questions, I live it myself.

Yes, subjectivity like limit of philosophy, I thought how you wrote.. It limites searching of objectivity.. But is, "to find objectivity" our aim?


Chooo chooo, once again I was so clever.. Like some prophet( but prophet with horrible english- please remit to me)...

[Michel Sasseville]

Thanks to you to have taken the time to write in english.! It is a pleasure!

On that, maybe doing philosophy is a way to try to make sure that we understand a little bit better what others have to say. And in order to do so, we try to speak the same language. So maybe doing philosophy is an effort to speak a language that most of all could understand... maybe it is an effort to make sense of the world in which we are, knowing or thinking that we know that we will never be able to do much more than this: making sense, which is already something, but has nothing to do with thruth, objectivity or the like...

[Petr Bauman]

So, coming back to Lenka's original question on the limits of philosophy, would you say that from this concept of philosophy (doing p.) as trying to understand our world (i.e. things and people "around us" and maybe us ourselves) follows (maybe besides other things) that philosophy may be limited BY:
- our willingness (dispositions) to inquire,
- our willingness (dispositions) to communicate,
- our inquiry and communication skills,
- language (concepts we are able to grasp),
and limited TO:
- areas that may be communicated (as some people say that some things are impossible to be communicated)?

By the way, "an effort to make sense of the world", is quite tricky to translate into Czech. Would you say that "en effort to understand the world" is a good equivalent to it? Because a literal Czech translation could be (again translated back to English): "an effort to give the world a meaning". The translation then depends on whether you think there is a meaning/sense in the world itself (just waiting to be discovered/understood by means of inquiry) or whether you suppose that meaning is "implanted" in the world by people "trying to make sense of it".
So, depending on how we translate/interpret the phrase, I could add that:
philosophy may be limited BY:
- one's disposition to identify/see/believe in the meaning/sense of the world
- lack of meaning/sense in the world
and philosophy may be limited TO:
- meaningful areas of the world (if there are some pointless/meaningless ones: some people say that the whole world is meaningful/purposeful which would mean no limits in this respect)

(P.S. in Czech, meaning and sense are interchangeable in some contexts so I hope what I wrote is not too confusing. Anyway, feel free to ask for clarification - if you feel it might make sense )

[Ríša Macků]

I have translated Michel`s "make sense of the world" as "give the world a meaning". But I don´t think that it depends on whether I suppose that meaning is "implanted" in the world by people "trying to make sense of it". Because I suppose there is "a meaning of the world itself".

May be it is because of my poor English