Border of philosophy?

What is your answer to the question of the border of philosophy?

Lizbethrose: I'll start by asking you to define 'border' (which I know wasn't your word, but you tacitly agreed with it in your response to the op.) Do you mean 'border' or 'boundary?' I really don't like responding to a question with a question, Socratic though it may be, but I do think your answer to my question has a great deal to do with the meaning of your question.

'Border' and 'boundary' in one definition have similar meanings, both of which imply limitation of some sort. You say that Philosophy is a system of thought, limited, or 'bordered,' by reason. I understand your position, but I think it's sausage.

If thought is 'limited' by a system, (beyond the way our language 'systemizes' our thoughts) there would be no original, innovative thinking. If reason, as a border or boundary to thought, limited thought, there would be no original, innovative thinking.

You posit that A=A and start your logical train from there. To do so, you must first accept that A is true. To do that, you must first convince your readership that A is true.

See how it can become very circular--logically?

So, to finally answer your question--"whew"--(that's trying to shake off the 'sweat of my brow')--There in no 'border' to philosophy. In my opinion, of course.

Philosophy, in a lot of ways, is metacognition--thinking about how we think


http://www.thoughts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29378&page=6