What is philosophy?

Philosophy of science is a discipline that examines science from a philosophical perspective. It takes scientific activities and scientific theories as the research objects, and discusses the basic issues of scientific epistemology and scientific methodology, such as the nature of science, the acquisition and inspection of scientific knowledge, and the logical structure of science.

what is philosophy? This is a problem, a simple and complicated problem. We say it is simple because it should be the most basic rule of philosophy. Anyone who studies philosophy should start with this question. If a person who studies or studies philosophy says that he doesn't know what philosophy is, it seems ridiculous, ridiculous and incredible. However, this is indeed a fact. We say it is complicated because it is still a problem so far, and it is likely to be a problem forever.

In other words, the question "What is philosophy?" has not yet got the final answer.

For beginners, the question "What is philosophy?" can be easily solved. Just look up a philosophy dictionary or encyclopedia, although they may not really understand what it says. But those of us who claim to study philosophy, or those who think we know a little about philosophy, can't do this, because it can't solve the questions in our hearts. It is unbelievable, and it also makes us feel ashamed. Although philosophy has existed for thousands of years, the question of "what is philosophy" has not yet been decided. Because this question is too big and too difficult, even a large number of books have been written with this title, so we don't want to (in fact, it is impossible) solve the question of "what is philosophy" here, but just want to take this question as a question and see what the answer will be.

From the point of view of the question itself, "What is philosophy" can be expressed in two ways: "What is philosophy" and "What is philosophy". On the surface, these two expressions say the same thing, both of which are about the basic provisions or definitions of philosophy. It seems that there is no fundamental difference whether the "what" in the question is put behind or in front. When it comes to "what is philosophy" or "what is philosophy" in western languages, it is actually a sentence, such as "what is philosophy" in English and "Was ist die Philosophie" in German. Although when we translate them into Chinese, we can either translate them into "what is philosophy" or "what is philosophy", but we usually don't want to highlight the difference between them, but in fact there is some difference between these two expressions, and this difference is not only a matter of translation mode, but also a matter of expression meaning. Don't think that we are playing with words, because different expressions can have different meanings.

What is the difference between "what is philosophy" and "what is philosophy"?

when we ask what something is, we usually ask logically about its essence or nature, that is, the definition of what it is. However, the so-called "definition" can express both the actual state that was or is now so, and the ideal state that will be or should be so in the future. The former says "how" and the latter says "how", one is "what is" and the other is "what should be". In general, there is no such difference in the basic provisions of a discipline, or the above two aspects are unified, but philosophy is not general. Philosophers have never reached a general understanding of what philosophy is, which makes us only know the different provisions of philosophy in the past, but we can't determine the general provisions of philosophy, so there is a difference between what philosophy is and what philosophy is. In a sense, "what is philosophy" asks what is philosophy in the past and now as a historical fact, while "what is philosophy" asks what kind of philosophy can be called philosophy by us, that is, what is philosophy in the universal sense.

When we ask philosophy in these two different ways, it seems a little disrespectful to philosophy, because it means that there is a difference between "what philosophy was and is" and "what philosophy should be". Asking this question in the end is likely to lead to the conclusion that no matter what philosophy was or is, it may not be what it should be.

Some people may say that there should be no such doubt about a discipline that has existed for thousands of years, and philosophy can also have general provisions, such as "world outlook" and "methodology". This is true in theory, but not in fact, because philosophy is a unique and unique knowledge. Not only that, for a subject, the length of its existence is not important, but the key depends on whether it has been finalized. The reason why we don't ask such questions to other sciences is that they have long been stereotyped. No matter what changes have taken place in their contents, methods and even the scope of objects, the definition of a science is usually unchanged. Philosophy is different. Because philosophy is different from any science, we can hardly regard it as a science.

Although it is hard for people to accept that philosophy is not a science, especially for people who take philosophy as their profession, it is a historical fact that anyone who has a little knowledge of the history of philosophy knows. For more than 2 years, philosophers have been arguing about almost all philosophical issues, even on the object of philosophy. Although we all hope that philosophy is a science and think that philosophy should be a science, it does not have the basic characteristics that a scientific knowledge should have. Therefore, even from this perspective, philosophy is not what it should be.

why is philosophy not a science in the general sense? There are many reasons, and the most obvious one is that philosophy is not a process of knowledge accumulation like science, or that philosophy leaves us with many problems instead of knowledge. For example, as far as mathematics is concerned, we usually think that there is only one mathematics, and all other kinds of mathematics are branches of mathematics or different stages of development. But we can't say that there is only one philosophy in history, and all other philosophies are branches or stages of development. Hegel once argued that there is only one philosophy in history, and other philosophies are just different stages of philosophical development. Now, few people hold this vulgar evolutionary view, because it is at least inconsistent with the facts. It is undeniable that philosophy has its own development process, but this development process is not a process of knowledge accumulation. There is indeed a certain inheritance relationship between philosophical thoughts in history, but their basic views are difficult to reconcile on most philosophical issues. Inappropriately speaking, natural science is similar to a kind of "linear movement" of knowledge accumulation. We can ignore the history of science and just use the accumulated results. Philosophy, on the other hand, is more like a "circular motion", trying to solve some eternal problems one after another in different ways. Therefore, although there is indeed a relationship between inheritance and development among philosophers, each philosopher's theory has its irreplaceable value, and this value lies not in its knowledge content, but in what unique way it provides to solve problems. Obviously, today's people are incomparable in the possession of knowledge, and the knowledge possessed by any medical school student is much more advanced than that of Hippocrates, the medical ancestor. However, even those who study philosophy rarely reach the ideological level of Plato or Aristotle, although the knowledge they express is out of date, so philosophy is difficult to be measured by "progress".

So, what is the significance of dividing the question "What is philosophy" into two different question forms: "What is philosophy" and "What is philosophy"? If this difference is meaningful, can we grasp the so-called general philosophy or the universal provisions of philosophy besides knowing the different philosophical thoughts in history?

First of all, the above differences enlighten us that the general provisions of philosophy are different from those of science, and they are more tolerant and historic. The provisions on philosophy should reflect its research field and scope (which also has its uncertainty), and at the same time, it should not attempt to replace all philosophy with a philosophical thought, unless this philosophical thought can really cover all philosophy in the past, present and even in the future (if so, it will not be a "one" philosophy). Because the problems and objects of philosophy are rooted in the highest ideal that human beings want to transcend their own finiteness and reach the infinite realm of freedom, so far as human beings are rational, he will certainly have such an ideal, but as far as human beings are finite, he can't realistically realize this ideal. Although he can't achieve this ideal, he can't fail to pursue it, and philosophy is born out of this "paradox". Because there is an insurmountable gap between finite and infinite, reality and ideal, this shore and the other shore, temporary and eternal, and we are destined to try every means to cross this boundary, the real philosophical problem is not only that there is no ultimate answer, but also that it will never be out of date. Therefore, philosophy is manifested in the different ways people take to solve the same philosophical problems in the past, present and future. It can be seen that philosophy can not exist in "one" philosophy, but only in all philosophies, because any kind of philosophy only represents a way to solve philosophical problems, but can not represent all the ways to solve philosophical problems. The reason why we insist on distinguishing between "what is philosophy" and "what is philosophy" is to explain that the so-called philosophy is the history of philosophy in the final analysis. That is to say, if anyone wants to define philosophy, he must take all possible philosophies in the past, present and future into account. We cannot define philosophy in the way of defining science, because once philosophy has such a scientific definition, philosophy will no longer be philosophy.

We haven't answered the question of "what is it" directly, and maybe we will never be able to solve it. In the eyes of some people, although philosophy has existed for more than 2 years, it is really sad that it still faces such a dilemma today. But from another point of view, this is not the luck of philosophy. Because it means philosophy and only philosophy is a truly open and never stereotyped discipline, and this may be the charm of philosophy. Of course, even if we can never solve the problem of "what is philosophy", it is still meaningful to understand the difference between "what is philosophy" and "what is philosophy" because they are two different ways of thinking. However, although they are two different problems, they are actually related. It's not that we deliberately show off "dialectics", that's the truth. No one can imagine "what is philosophy" out of thin air when there is no philosophy. Only when we are not satisfied with the actual situation of philosophy will we ask such a question.

in a sense, when we study the history of philosophy, we should solve the question of "what is philosophy" through "what is philosophy", that is, we should answer the question of what philosophy should be by studying the philosophy in history.

In this way, studying and studying the history of philosophy has never been dealing with outdated history, and it has "practical significance" in itself.

Learning the history of philosophy means learning the thoughts of philosophers in the history of philosophy, so it can be regarded as our thoughts "thoughts" of philosophers, and it can also be regarded as a "dialogue" between thoughts. Because philosophers' thoughts are preserved in their works, learning the history of philosophy is also "reading", so the dialogue with philosophers is usually realized through "reading". However, although the philosophers in history have passed away, we read their "books" instead of dead books. Although most of these books are out of date, the way philosophers solve problems is not and will never be out of date, because philosophical problems are not out of date. These problems are not only the problems they face, but also the problems we face, and even the problems that mankind will face forever. Since there is no ultimate answer to philosophical questions, it is impossible for any solution to replace other solutions, nor can it be replaced by other solutions. All solutions have their own unique significance and value, and they provide various possible ways for future generations to choose from. Therefore, for those who study the history of philosophy, learning the history of philosophy is nothing more than thinking about what the human spirit has thought, taking the ideological path that the human spirit has already taken, and then choosing or creating our own path.

It can be seen that we are not standing outside the history of philosophy when we study it. In a sense, the thoughts of our predecessors constitute an integral part of our existing existence. The reason why we say that studying and studying the history of philosophy itself has "practical significance" lies in this: when we have a "dialogue" with philosophers, their thoughts are "resurrected". This is not to say that the philosopher's thought is "dead", but our "dialogue" makes it "resurrected". In fact, the philosophical thoughts in history were originally "alive", because they constitute an indispensable part of philosophy, so their "resurrection" is not "retro". In other words, philosophers' thoughts are both historic and beyond history, and they are realistic at any time and under any circumstances. Therefore, the history of philosophy has never been the accumulation of dead materials, but a living ideological rhythm.

As philosophy is the history of philosophy, learning philosophy is a dialogue with philosophers. The ideological dialogue between us and philosophers is not a one-way passive activity, but a two-way interactive activity, which is similar to the "fusion of horizons" mentioned by modern hermeneutics.

Philosophers' thoughts are preserved in their works. Reading their books requires "understanding" and "explanation", and the process of "understanding" and "explanation" is also a process of "re-creation" to some extent. In the past, the traditional interpretation theory pursued the objectivity of knowledge, and regarded understanding and interpretation as the pure reproduction of the original work of this paper. However, modern hermeneutics tells us that it is impossible for anyone to completely reproduce the so-called objective text, because the ancients have their horizons and we have our horizons. In other words, the ancients and we are in different historical, cultural, social and personal environments, and so on. It is impossible for us to completely "copy" the horizons of the ancients to modern times, nor to completely get rid of our horizons and simply immerse ourselves in the horizons of the ancients. In this sense, understanding and interpretation are actually the collision and blending between different horizons, and it is precisely because of this that human culture can progress and develop.

Therefore, the process of learning the history of philosophy is not a passive acceptance of knowledge, but a creative "fusion of horizons", that is, a process of "dialogue" between our thoughts and previous philosophers on philosophical issues of common concern. It is in this process of ideological dialogue.