Home - Wittgenstein's Logic of Language | History of philosophy - The historical origin of philosophy

The Origins and Branches of Philosophy

Philosophy begins by calling itself into question, because the question of what philosophy is, is itself a philosophical question. As is the question of what a philosopher is.

Outline of this page ...

Note: in contrast to the historical origin of philosophy, the origin of philosophy in the human mind is discussed elsewhere: "Philosophy begins in wonder" (Plato, Theaetetus 155c-d).

What is Philosophy?

"Philosophy is the love of wisdom"

The rather vague definition 'love of wisdom' comes from the origin and etymology of the Greek word 'philosophy': philo ("love") and sophia ("wisdom"). According to an ancient tradition Pythagoras of Croton (born on the Greek island of Samos, c. 580 B.C.) coined the Greek word 'philosopher' meaning 'lover of wisdom' to contrast with 'wise man' (sophist), saying of himself that he was only a man who loved wisdom (a wisdom-loving man), not a wise man. And the example of Socrates -- whose only wisdom was that he did not think he knew what he did not know -- i.e. that he did not think himself wise when he was not (Plato, Apology 23b) -- further suggests that it was modesty that invented the word 'philosopher' ("lover of wisdom"), a word from whence the word 'philosophy' ("the pursuit of wisdom [by the lover of wisdom]") came. The philosopher lives for the sake of wisdom.

Note that the English word 'wisdom' is not always an appropriate rendering of the Greek word 'sophia'. For example we do not call a shoemaker's knowledge of shoemaking wisdom although Socrates in Plato's Apology calls it that. By the word 'wisdom' we normally mean knowledge or understanding of something, but by the word 'philosophy' we don't mean knowledge or understanding of just anything.

What is Philosophy?

Can the word 'philosophy' only be defined as a basket of inter-related subjects, so that the only substance of the basket itself is the mere word (sound, ink marks) 'philosophy'? Or is there an essence of philosophy? Is it clear what the words 'Philosophy is the love of wisdom 'might be used to mean? Here is one possibility: "Philosophy is the love of wisdom, specifically in logic, ethics, and metaphysics", but philosophers have also thought about the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of history, and the philosophy of etc.

Note, however, that Greek wisdom is rational, and so maybe the following could serve as a definition of the specifically Greek project in thought: Philosophy is seeking to know in metaphysics, logic, and ethics by the natural light of reason alone.

In other words, Philosophy is philosophizing: seeking to rationally understand our experience of the world, namely our life (Ethics), ways of thinking (Logic), and the essence of reality (Metaphysics).

'Philosophy' might also be defined by the limits and aims of philosophy set by particular philosophers. These "and similar things" is what philosophy is, beyond a very general definition.

Query: another name for love of wisdom.

The word 'philosophy' doesn't spring to mind, does it, unless one already knows the etymology of that word.

Other possible definitions

The general definition of 'philosophy' that I myself might suggest is: A philosophy is a rational way of looking at things in logic, ethics or metaphysics ("A philosopher says: Look at things this way!"), and within that way of looking at things there is truth and falsity, although a way of looking at things is not itself true or false.

Another possibility is: Philosophy is critical thinking about first and last questions. That definition derives from Socrates' thoroughgoing use of reason (criticism), and Albert Schweitzer ("elementary and final"). But these concepts ('first' and 'last', 'fundamental' and 'final') have vague borders, making them less clear in meaning than 'logic', 'ethics' and 'metaphysics' might be in a definition of 'philosophy'.

How helpful is a definition of that kind? Not very if you are just beginning your studies, because, after all, the conclusion comes at the end of an investigation, not at its beginning. When I say "what philosophy is", I am reflecting about what I have learned, or think I have learned; but I am also saying what I judge ought to be called 'philosophy' (regardless of what others call by that name).

Query: what are the three parts of wisdom according to philosophy?

To be wise one must know what is real, what is good, and how to think. These three parts of wisdom correspond to the three parts of philosophy, namely Metaphysics, Ethics, and Logic. (What do children learn? what are they taught at primary school by their teachers? What uses has philosophy in education?)

Query: although philosophy is divided into a number of branches, all philosophical thinking is nevertheless similar.

"Philosophy is divided into parts." Who divides philosophy, and why? Do you think it must be divided? Plato does not divide it; it was Aristotle's way of thinking to divide things into categories (as the botanist classifies plants), presuming that this makes things clearer ... although dividing a whole into parts may make the whole more obscure in meaning rather than less; Plato saw philosophy all in all.

"All philosophical thinking is similar." The similarity is this: that philosophy originally was and is an effort to know or understand things by the natural light of reason alone, setting aside mythology (the notion of supernatural rather than natural causes of things). Philosophy was and is skeptical rather than credulous. That was the first philosopher Thales' project, the project we now call 'philosophy'. (Note that now that the various branches of the learning of the intellect have been divided -- i.e. now that history and natural science are no longer classified as philosophy -- inquiry by the natural light of reason alone is not enough by itself to uniquely define 'philosophical thinking'.)

One reason we might want to divide philosophy into parts would be that e.g. the Stoics' three-part-division allows the meaning of the word 'philosophy' to be more-rather-than-less clearly explained (because natural science also makes a rational effort to know and understand, but, unlike philosophy, it does that only within the empirical fields, within the limits of verifiable experience). Another reason would be to sort out which type of question we are asking, because the answer to a question may belong, for example, to logic (which defines the words of language) or it may belong to metaphysical speculation (which seeks to define objects, both tangible and intangible, and phenomena).

But those are particular, not universal, reasons for dividing philosophy up into parts. (Do you think whether philosophy essentially consists of parts is a metaphysical question "about what philosophy really is"?)

Query: all branches of philosophy, although different, are interdependent.

Neither Logic nor Metaphysics seems dependent on Ethics. Both Metaphysics and Ethics are dependent on Logic of Language, but Logic is independent of Metaphysics and Ethics. Ethics may or may not be dependent on Metaphysics.

Query: types of definitions of philosophy.

Five kinds come to mind, but there may be many kinds and many different ways to name and describe those kinds.

The categories of philosophy

Ancient and Modern divisions of philosophy, 3 KB

Many years ago, I made this drawing to illustrate a picture of Philosophy often presented at school. Most of the ancients did classify Logic as a part (or, branch) of Philosophy, although Aristotle did not. Aristotle classified logic (which he called "Analytics") instead only as a tool of philosophy (an "analysis" or breaking-down-into-parts of "the forms of thought"); and his followers (the Peripatetics, and later the Scholastics) called his works about logic the Organon ("tool" or "instrument"); thus the expression "logic is the handmaid of philosophy". In contrast to Aristotle, Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus stated the view that logic is the foundation (basis) of philosophy -- what it is built on, not merely what it is built with.

"What are the terms under an umbrella term called?" What are the items in a basket called? Well, this is it: most anything can be put in a basket without regard to its relationship to the other things in the basket, and the same is the case with under an umbrella. And therefore I no longer think that an umbrella or a basket is, in all cases, a useful picture of Philosophy, because if the items of Philosophy are parts of a whole, then a pie chart is the least misleading picture, with a tree-chart appended to that if necessary. (Maybe a Venn diagram would also be useful, although I don't know that.) Remember that there are many ways to slice a pie, and many ways to conceive a thing, not just one.

As to the expression 'umbrella concept', the point of it is this: To ask yourself if you think the parts of philosophy must have an essence, a defining common nature. Why?

The expression 'umbrella word' suggests that "umbrella words" are not the usual case, i.e. that normally the meaning of word is what all things named by that word have in common -- i.e. their essence. But for most words, rather than "general definitions" (PI § 71; cf. § 480: "general concept") what we find, if we look, are no more than various resemblances between things named by the same word. And so I would not call Wittgenstein's example, the word 'game', an umbrella word, although we could make a classification scheme using the categories {umbrella-words} and {essence-words} if that would be useful to us.

"The Two Parts of Philosophy"

Query: what are the two general modes of philosophizing?

Maybe {critical} and {speculative}, or maybe also: {destructive} and {constructive}. If so, then maybe we shouldn't try to fit the Stoic's three categories into that scheme (because they don't clearly fit), but treat the critical-speculative scheme as a distinct or independent scheme; but if we do that, then how shall we make the distinction: how shall we define those two categories? When Plato has Socrates refute Euthyphro's proposed definitions of holiness, that is critical or destructive philosophizing; but when Socrates tells Euthyphro that he is asking Euthyphro for a universal standard of measurement in ethics (Euthyphro 6d-7d), that is philosophizing (or trying to philosophize) in a speculative or constructive mode. (Plato's theories of Forms and Recollection are also examples of a speculative or constructive mode of philosophizing.)

Query: is it true that philosophy can be divided into speculative and practical?

Before you ask whether it is true, ask what its meaning is. That was Wittgenstein's method in philosophy. (Carts and horses)

Philosophy in Aristotle (A.E. Taylor, Frederick Copleston)

A Speculative versus Practical division of philosophy was made by Aristotle, but is it possible to make this distinction absolutely? "Speculative Philosophy", as defined by Aristotle, is "the organized whole of disinterested knowledge, that is, knowledge which we seek for the sake of the satisfaction which it carries with itself, and not as a mere means to utilitarian ends. The impulse which receives this satisfaction is curiosity or wonder," A.E. Taylor wrote (Aristotle, rev. ed. 1919, ii). In contrast, "Practical Philosophy" aims "not only to know but also" to use our knowledge "in devising ways to successfully interfere in the course of events" (ibid.); Aristotle classed everything to do with human conduct ("interference") under the title "Politics". Based on Taylor, then, the following tree may be made from Aristotle.

            PHILOSOPHY
                |
    _________________________
    |                       |
  SPECULATIVE            PRACTICAL
      |                     |
 FIRST PHILOSOPHY        POLITICS
 (Metaphysics),          (includes
 MATHEMATICS,             ETHICS,
 PHYSICS                  ECONOMICS)

According to Frederick Copleston, Aristotle divides Philosophy into three parts: (1) Theoretical Philosophy: (a) Physics or Natural Philosophy; (b) Mathematics; and (c) Metaphysics, including Natural Theology. (2) Practical Philosophy: Politics and Ethics. And (3) Poetical Philosophy: Aesthetics or Theory of Art.

Both (1) and (3) seek knowledge for its own sake alone, whereas (2) seeks knowledge for the sake of acting. (History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome (1947), II, xxviii, 1)

Query: what are the two broad branches philosophy is divided into?

But, again remember: There are many ways to slice a pie, i.e. to divide up philosophy and philosophers. Another way is between {dogmatic} and {skeptical} philosophy or philosophers (Diog. L. i, 16) -- i.e. between philosophers who believe that knowledge is possible and philosophers who believe that it is not possible. (That distinction is maybe clearer than {speculative} versus {practical}, or maybe it should be {speculative} versus {verifiable}: speculation is not knowledge.)

Another way is between {Speculative} and {Critical} Those categories two have a special meaning in the Philosophy of History. With respect to the Stoic's scheme, that broad division may characterize Metaphysics and Logic, but to which of those two categories would Ethics belong? (When we are "poor in categories" we force things into places they may not fit, like a child hammering all pegs into a single square-shaped hole, seeing no alternative.) It seems in this case that a classification scheme is akin to a theory that either can or cannot account for all the data of Philosophy.

A classification scheme is invented to make things clearer, although a scheme may not make philosophical activity any less obscure than it would be without one --- especially if the meaning of the class names themselves (e.g. 'speculative', 'practical') isn't clear.

One possible tree-chart might look like this. This is the Stoics' division of Philosophy into three categories.

            PHILOSOPHY
                |
   ______________________________
   |               |            |
 METAPHYSICS     ETHICS        LOGIC

And we could go on to divide Logic into Deductive Logic (which is non-empirical -- even if its premises can be empirical propositions -- logic based on form of expression, whether term or propositional) and Inductive Logic (which is a philosophical quandary: Because induction -- the results of which are general propositions (generalizations) -- is empirical it cannot exclude the possibility of future anomalies, and that means that its conclusions can be falsified. But a proposition that can be falsified is not a logically necessary proposition, and if induction's conclusions are not logically necessary, then should induction be classified as Logic? "Based on present evidence, we can deduce that ..." Isn't that inductive logic? Maybe induction should be called a method rather than a type of logic? unless by 'logic' we sometimes mean 'method' ...).

Or we could divide Logic into Formal Logic (Term, Propositional, Mathematical) and Informal Logic (Definition, Informal (non-mechanical) Fallacies).

__________________
                 |
               LOGIC
                 |
 ____________________________________________
 |                                          |
FORMAL                                   INFORMAL
 |                                          |
 _____________________________              |
 |            |              |              |
Term         Propositional  Mathematical    |
(Aristotle)   (Stoics)       (Peano,        |
                              Frege,        |
                              Russell)      |
                                            |
            _________________________________
            |                          |
          DEFINITION               FALLACIES
            |
 __________________
 |                |
Common nature    "Grammar" (logic of language)
(Socrates)        (Wittgenstein)

From the proposition 'Philosophy' may be defined as 'tools for philosophizing' it would follow that 'philosophy' = 'logic' (because 'logic' = 'tools for philosophizing'), and also that 'philosophizing' = 'the use of logic'. But that definition won't do in itself (1) because other subjects that are distinct from philosophy make use of logic, as e.g. do the sciences, and (2) because we also call the results of philosophizing, e.g. the propositions of metaphysics and ethics, philosophy, not just the tools we use to arrive at those propositions. For instance, Socratic philosophizing is "dialectic" (i.e. thesis and cross-question), the basis of which is the logic-tool contradiction; but Socratic philosophy is also Socratic ethics, and that is not merely a tool but a doctrine (if not only a way of looking at our life). But this is correct: philosophy is love of rational -- i.e. use of logic (the word 'logic' broadly defined) -- wisdom.

Metaphysics may be divided into First Philosophy and Natural Theology. And if we made Ethics a branch of Axiology, we would have the following tree-chart.

    PHILOSOPHY
        |
  __________________________
  |            |           |
 LOGIC      AXIOLOGY    METAPHYSICS
               |
      ________________________________
      |                |             |
     ETHICS         POLITICS      AESTHETICS

For the Aristotelians who followed Aristotle, a similar tree-chart for Philosophy might be made excluding Logic. Aristotle's Organon would be a separate tree with its own branches (Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, and so forth). In other words, according to Aristotle {Logic} is not a sub-class of {Philosophy}, because Logic is used in all rational thought (e.g. ballistics, navigation), not only in Philosophy, and therefore Logic is not a branch of Philosophy, nor is Aristotelian definition a sub-class of {Logic}; it is instead a sub-class of {Metaphysics}.

Tree-charts versus Pie-charts

There are instances where a tree-chart may be more useful than a pie chart, because if we wanted to display the branches of the branches of the tree of Philosophy in a single pie chart, we might have difficulty clearly showing all those branches.

"Who defined philosophy as a tree?" (That would be a comparison, not a definition.) Philosophy is now only a branch of Learning, not the entire tree. And that a tree must have branches is demanded by this metaphor (simile), but it does not demand that the tree's branches also have branches. Philosophy is a branch of Learning, but the metaphor neither demands nor prohibits Philosophy itself from being divided into branches.

The notion of "philosophy as a tree" suggests Plato's "definition by division". When Plato wants to know "what it means to be a Sophist" he speaks of "the Sophist's genealogy" or "pedigree" (Sophist 218c-226a). And the subject 'Philosophy' might be set out as a genealogical chart, with Philosophy at the top as the "mother" (and "father"), then sub-divided into whatever "children" we decide she has, and then further sub-divided into whatever children we decide Philosophy's children have, and so on through the "generations". But Philosophy will not be at the top of all the charts it could appear in, for Philosophy is a sub-division e.g. of the Liberal Arts, and of the god Apollo's (or of Prometheus') gifts to man.

Rather than simply branches of Philosophy, however, a list of philosophers grouped according to some scheme or other could complete this picture. (Again, there are many ways to slice a pie, and many ways to serve those slices. And there are many ways to divide philosophy and many ways to represent a division.)

"Genealogical charts" might be drawn as well for individual philosophers. For example, one line might begin with Socrates, followed by Antisthenes, Crates, Diogenes of Sinope, and ending with the Stoics, although this leaves out Socrates' Megarian and Cyrenaic descendants. So a philosopher may appear in more than one genealogy, as e.g. Plato has two fathers, maybe three if Parmenides is added: Heraclitus and Socrates. In a word, the criteria by which we might draw "genealogical charts" in Philosophy are limitless (and it is important to recognize this; there is no one-and-only-one correct classification scheme).

"What is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with how we know things?" To speak of branches -- i.e. that picture of things -- in this case is misleading: it would be clearer here to speak of facets of philosophy (facets or aspects) -- because the question "How do you know?" (Epistemology) cannot be separated from the questions "What do you know?" (Metaphysics) and "How can you express what you know?" (Logic) or whether seeking to know the truth is the basis of philosophy (Ethics), for some Sophists claimed, contra Socrates, that it is not, either (1) because the truth is not knowable, or (2) because the truth and its contrary are merely tools to be used towards other ends; thus their promise to "make the worse appear the better" reason.

From which "map of the areas of Philosophy" is a metaphor that might be used, and is perhaps more clearly applicable than the branches-of-a-tree metaphor, because the areas of a map may overlap (cf. Venn diagrams), as e.g. the Iberian Peninsula includes both Portugal and Spain and is itself included in the continent of Europe, although the territories of Portugal and Spain do not overlap and much of Europe is not included in the Iberian Peninsula. Another possible metaphor is "sections of Philosophy", because a pie may be divided into sections ("parts") by slicing it from top to bottom without its ceasing thereby to be a whole. Yet another metaphor is "fields of philosophy" as in the division of a parcel of land, which suggests farmland, mountains, woodlands, and seashore, quite different in topography but all belonging to the same parcel of land, e.g. Attica in Greece.

Another metaphor is the comparison of Philosophy to the faces of a baby block: each face of the block [cube face] is distinct, although they are all faces of but a single block. Yet another metaphor, especially for the Stoic dividing of Philosophy into three parts (Metaphysics, Logic, Ethic) is the clover with its three leaves. Likewise with the hand, because its fingers (parts) are distinct, and although the fingers may be looked at individually, if they are separated from the hand will they not whither and die?

As to Aesthetics, there have been many philosophers who have not spoken about it at all. Physics is nowadays, of course, further divided into the natural sciences and those hybrid disciplines called "social sciences", and not regarded by most thinkers as a part of Philosophy at all ... although some question whether the sciences aren't simply one more type of Metaphysics ("Natural Philosophy"). On the other hand, according to some philosophers there is no such thing as Metaphysics.

These are perennial questions in philosophy.

[The word 'discipline' comes to us from the Latin word meaning 'disciple' or 'pupil', suggesting, as in our context, that by 'a discipline' is meant 'a subject that is taught (and may be learned)' in contrast to 'a subject or skill that (it seems) cannot be taught (e.g. absolute pitch or, according to Plato but contrary to the Sophists' claim: moral virtue)'.]

Aristotle's strange view of logic

According to the Aristoteleans, Logic is like a toolbox that the philosopher carries about with him do his work -- namely, philosophize -- but it is not part of his work. The blacksmith makes the carpenter's tools; the carpenter only makes use of them.

The difficulty with that notion is that a philosopher must examine -- and, indeed, revise or create -- the tools he philosophizes with. What are the books of Aristotle's Organon if not just such an examination/creation? To continue the metaphor, in Philosophy the same person is both blacksmith and carpenter.

And were Logic not part of Philosophy, then there would have to be a Philosophy of Logic, like the other subjects in the "Philosophy of X" category. But we don't normally speak of a philosophy of logic. Or if we do speak of it, it is in the case of Wittgenstein's work in Philosophy, because Logic is not only its tool or method, but Logic is Philosophy itself (Logico-Philosophicus). Well, 'logic' as in "the logic of language", not as in Plato's "metaphysics of language". (The background or reason for this is that Wittgenstein sees Ethics as not a branch of Philosophy, and seeks to show, again from his point of view, that Metaphysics is also not philosophy but mere "sound without sense".)

Historical origin of the word 'philosopher'

Queries: who first used 'philosophy' as a word? | Historic origin for the word 'philosopher'?

The second seems to be the historically apt query, because the word 'philosopher' came before the word 'philosophy', as according to both Plato and Diogenes Laertius (about Pythagoras), the original point was to distinguish between a "wise man" (sophist) and "the man who, although not wise, ardently desires (as a lover desires) to become wise" (philosopher). Note the both 'sophist' and 'philosopher' have the word sophia as their root.

And giving the name 'philosophy' to the subject the philosopher seeks wisdom in came later, because it required an answer to the question "What is the specific wisdom that is being sought by the philosopher?" The Greeks called everything they knew wisdom (including the craftsman's knowledge of his craft), but the philosopher does not seek knowledge of just anything, as Plato points out in Republic 475c-d, but only knowledge of, according to the Stoics, metaphysics, logic, and ethics.

If a philosopher was one who loved wisdom, then what he sought was wisdom. Philosophy itself is not wisdom, but only the search, the desire for ("the love of") wisdom.

Query: what are the two Greek words derived from their conception of man?

I want to say 'sophist' and 'philosopher', that is, to ask: Which is man -- a being who is wise, or only a being who desires wisdom? What manner of being is man? (Is man wiser than dog? Can either answer the eternal questions? But on the other hand, a dog is "a beast wanting discourse of reason": it neither asks, understands nor seeks the answers to those questions. But, on the other hand, there is Plato's thought that only God is wise (Phaedrus 278d), and, to continue the analogy then, only God would know the answers, neither dog nor man.)

Origins of the Meaning of the word 'Philosophy'

Eduard Zeller gives as the earliest meaning of the word 'philosophy' as 'thirst for learning'. (Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. 13th ed., rev. Nestle, tr. Palmer. (London: 1931), p. 23n)

Zeller writes that the word 'philosopher' "seems first to have acquired its technical sense in the circle or Socrates and Plato and only after that to have attained general currency" (p. 23). [Plato's Phaedo 66c-d, Gorgias 484c-d, and Euthydemus 307b-c, for example, assume their reader to already be familiar with the word 'philosophy'.]

The Greek word 'philosophia' = 'thirst for education' in Plato's Protagoras 335d-e, 342a-d. "In a new meaning however, [see] Phaedrus 278d [quoted below]." Because of the latter text, Zeller thinks it cannot be correct to attribute the statement that only God is wise to Pythagoras (Diog. L. i, 12 [Pythagoras did not call himself [a wise man, or,] "one who knows" (sophist), but only "one who wants to know" (philosopher) (ibid. viii, 1)]). "Isocrates [436-338 B.C.] too ... called his general education philosophia" (Zeller, p. 23n) [meaning what we call Learning (Plato rejects this as too broad in Republic 5.475c-d: a philosopher is not someone who wants to know just anything and everything)].

Plato, Phaedrus 278c-d

SOCRATES: [The one who] has done his work with a knowledge of the truth [and] can defend his statements when challenged [ought to be designated by a name] that indicates his serious pursuit.

PHAEDRUS: Then what names would you assign him?

SOCRATES: To call him wise ["sophist" = "wise man"], Phaedrus, would, I think, be going too far; the epithet is proper only to a god. A name that would fit him better, and have more seemliness, would be "lover of wisdom" ["philosopher"], or something similar. (Phaedrus 278c-d, tr. R. Hackforth; cf. Heraclitus on man's wisdom in comparison to a god's, as quoted in Plato's Greater Hippias 289b)

At Phaedrus 230d, Socrates calls himself "a lover of learning". Phaedrus has said that Socrates is like "a stranger being shown the country by a guide", because, it seems that, Socrates never sets foot outside the walls of the city of Athens. To which Socrates replies: "I am a lover of learning, and trees and open country won't teach me anything, whereas men in the town do." But if Phaedrus will offer Socrates "volumes of speeches I don't doubt you can cart me all round Attica, and anywhere else you please". (230d-e)

Query: Philosophy ... the origin of human learning.

Now, of course, we can't really say that, because there was already agriculture, herding, sailing, practical arts (the "wisdom of the artisans" (Plato, Apology 22d-e)) before the birth of philosophy. Rather, philosophy is the birth of the effort to understand existence by the natural light of reason alone, seeking always natural rather than mythological explanations for things.

Etymology of 'philosophy'

Etymology. The Greek philia means: 'friendship' or 'fondness', from philos: 'dear' [cf. our expression 'philharmonic society': "friends of music"]. The Greek root-word-meaning of the word 'philosophy' would be "love [philo] of wisdom [sophia]"; however, in this particular case, that type of definition [meaning of the word 'meaning'] of the word 'philosophy' does not make its meaning too much clearer. Because what, after all, do we mean by the word 'wisdom'?

Although, there is also the question of whether the English word 'wisdom' is the best translation of the Greek word 'sophia'. We use the form expression "Know thyself!", not "Enwisen thyself!" (i.e. "Acquire wisdom of thyself!", "Learn what you are!"). And yet the knowledge that is sought is what we call 'wisdom' in English, because it is specifically the knowledge of how we should live our life ("We are discussing no small matter, but how to live"), and in order to know how we should live our life we need to know what manner of being we are and what our end is, that is to say: to what purpose, if any, our life exists. If anyone were wise, he would know the answers to these questions. So that the English word 'wisdom' does appear to be the best translation of the Greek word 'sophia'.

But, on the other hand, the word 'wisdom' is not always the best translation of 'sophia'. For when Socrates questions the artisans (Plato, Apology 22d-e), he says that the artisans are "wise", or possess sophia, in so far as [i.e. because] they know how to practice their art, although their "wisdom" goes no further than that particular knowledge. But we do not call the knowledge of how to practice an art 'wisdom'. Therefore, sometimes, the English word 'knowledge' will be the best translation of the Greek word 'sophia'.

Thus, based on its etymology, the word 'philosophy' might be translated into English as 'thirst for knowledge of how we should live our life'. But that is Ethics, and Ethics is only one branch of Philosophy.

Query: compare the etymological definition of 'philosophy' with 'ignorance'.

In Italian, as in Latin, 'ignorare' translates as "not to know" or "not knowing" [cf. Spanish 'lo ignoro' = 'I don't know [such-and-such]'], and the Greek word 'philosophía' can be translated as "desire to know". The philosopher (philosophos) is one who desires to know, who wants not to be ignorant (who "wants not to not-know").

Query: compare and contrast ignorance (the absence of knowledge) and philosophy (the love of wisdom).

This is important: 'ignorance' defined as (1) 'absence of knowledge' versus 'ignorance' defined as (2) 'thinking you know what you don't know'. Plato's statement that "philosophy begins in wonder" = "begins in ignorance", in the first sense of the word 'ignorance' (No one seeks to know what he thinks he already knows (Meno 84c), which is 'ignorance' in the second sense of 'ignorance', namely conceited ignorance.).

An Ancient View of Philosophy

In the Prologue to his Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers (tr. from the Greek by R.D. Hicks; title abbreviated thus: Diog. L.) Diogenes Laertius [fl. c. 3rd century A.D.], says of philosophy that "its very name refuses to be translated into foreign speech" (i, 4), and that "the first to use the term, and to call himself a philosopher or lover of wisdom, was Pythagoras; for, said he, no man is wise, but God alone" (i, 12).

Philosophy, defined as "the pursuit of wisdom" (i, 13), "has three parts, physics, ethics, and dialectic or logic. Physics is the part concerned with the universe and all that it contains; ethics that concerned with life and all that has to do with us; while the processes of reasoning employed by both form the province of dialectic." (i, 18) Philosophers may be divided into dogmatics ['dogma' = 'opinion'] and skeptics: all those who make assertions about things assuming that they can be know are dogmatists; while all who suspend their judgment on the ground that things are unknowable are sceptics." (i, 16)

The early Greek Stoics divided philosophy into three parts: physics (which we now call 'metaphysics'), ethics, and logic. (vii, 39)

Among the dogmatics belong the Eclectics or "Selectors"; these were "philosophers who were attached to no particular school, but made a selection of favorite dogmas from the tenets of the different sects". (Oskar Seyffert, Classical Dictionary)

Query: can philosophy also be called study of life in Greek words?

No, according to etymology 'study of life' = 'biology' not 'philosophy', but yes according to common usage if Diog. L.'s definition of 'ethics', namely the study of life and everything to do with us [i, 18] is correct and if ethics ["we are discussing no small matter, but how to live" (Plato)] is part of philosophy. -- I.e. what are you calling 'the meaning of a word' and what are you calling 'life'?

The Two Schools and their Orders of Succession

Philosophy, according to Diog. L. i, 13-15, "had a twofold origin; it started with Anaximander on the one hand, with Pythagoras on the other. The former was a pupil of Thales, Pythagoras was taught by Pherecydes. The one school was called Ionian, because Thales, a Milesian and therefore an Ionian, instructed Anaximander; the other school was called Italian from Pythagoras, who worked for the most part in Italy [in the area called Magna Graecia by the early Romans]."

The order of succession of the school of Ionia "terminates with Clitomachus and Chrysippus and Theophrastus, that of Italy with Epicurus. The succession passes from Thales through Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, to Socrates, who introduced ethics or moral philosophy [i, 14]; from Socrates to his pupils the Socratics, and especially to Plato, the founder of the Old Academy.... This line brings us to Clitomachus.

"There is another which ends with Chrysippus, that is to say by passing from Socrates to Antisthenes, then to Diogenes the Cynic [Diogenes of Sinope], Crates of Thebes, Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, Chrysippus. And yet again another ends with Theophrastus; thus from Plato it passes to Aristotle, and from Aristotle to Theophrastus. In this manner the school of Ionia comes to an end.

"In the Italian school [i.e. the Greek colonies in the Italian peninsula and the island of Sicily] the order of succession is as follows: first Pherecydes, next Pythagoras, next his son Telauges, then Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Leucippus, Democritus, who had many pupils, in particular Nausiphanes (and Naucydes), who were teachers of Epicurus."

Note by R.D. Hicks: "The arrangement followed in i, 12-15 treats the Italian school as a true succession, whereas in Book IX, many of them are regarded as sporadic thinkers, according to the view expressed in viii, 91" (p. 16-17) which is: "Having now dealt with the famous Pythagoreans, let us next discuss the so-called "sporadic" philosophers. And first we must speak of Heraclitus."

Query: which philosopher stated that man should know thyself?

The answer is certainly Socrates, because the foundation of Socratic ethics is "Know thyself" -- i.e. seek to know the specific moral excellence that is proper to man, because to live in accord with that excellence is the good [life] for man. (Although others had earlier made proverbs about how man should live his life, proverbs are not in themselves philosophy, but are instead theses to be tested in Socratic dialectic. It was by subjecting ethical propositions to dialectic, to be defended or refuted in discussion/dialog, that Socrates made ethics part of philosophy. Socratic ethics, like its parent Philosophy, is a thoroughgoing use of reason.)

The Historical Branches or Traditional Parts of Philosophy

Again, the question of what philosophy is -- is itself a philosophical question maybe. But from an historical point of view, we may divide philosophy into apparently inter-related subjects or questions. Looking under the umbrella or into the basket, we find:

The History of Philosophy

Philosophical historiography began with Aristotle (the First Book of his Metaphysics [980a21-993a]), if by 'historiography' we mean 'a written account [description or explanation] of events' (in this case, the thought of the philosophers who proceeded Aristotle), in contrast to 'history' meaning 'the events themselves', about which many different accounts might be written.

Aristotle's history of philosophy is "philosophical", not only because it is a history of philosophy, but also because it is criticism of his predecessors' thought.

Query: explain what is meant by the term "history of philosophy".

Aristotle's critical review of the philosophers who came before him is one thing we call that. But, on the other hand, a non-critical review -- i.e. one that just tries to describe the what (doctrine) and how (method) of earlier philosophers -- might also be given that name.

Ask philosophy what philosophy is --

Query: explain how philosophy is itself a philosophical problem.

We wouldn't say that "what physics is", is a physic's problem. No, the nature of physics -- of its projects and limits -- is a philosophical question, just as the nature of philosophy -- and of any other subject -- is a philosophical question (cf. Philosophy of Maths). Philosophy is both descriptive and speculative, e.g. asking about the relationship between physics and reality, theory and truth.

Query: What is philosophy? is not a philosophical question.

There is (1) history of philosophy, and there is (2) philosophy, and they are not the same thing. We can say that "historically the name 'philosophy' has been the title given to such-and-such things or activities", and that account of philosophy would not be philosophy (just as a History of Physics would not itself be physics). And so you can look at the phenomenon of philosophy from various points of view, as e.g. a librarian who classifies books for shelving, or a chronologer of Scottish history, or a rather uninterested professor of philosophy in an introductory course may do.

But is that how philosophers themselves see philosophy? No, for them -- beginning with Plato's "the name 'one who knows' [sophist] would be worthy only of a god" (Phaedrus 278c-d), and ending with Wittgenstein's "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language" (Philosophical Investigations § 109) -- the question of "What philosophy is?" (Friedrich Waismann's essay "How I see Philosophy") is a philosophical question.

"It's possible to be interested in a phenomenon in a variety of ways" (PI § 108), and that interest will determine whether "What is philosophy?" is or is not a philosophical question.

Like an uncharted island?

Query: who discovered philosophy?

Who discovered that it is possible to give an account of things by the natural light of reason alone? that is, to give an explanation of reality by non-mythological means? Thales of Miletus, who lived in the 7th century B.C., is the first such "discoverer" we know of. (We take this possibility for granted now, but it may not always have been so. Primitive man does not ask what caused an event, but who caused it; a valley created by a rift in the mountain would be attributed to the act of a god; that is an example of explanation by mythological means, in contrast to the method of Thales.)

Query: who discovered the branches of philosophy?

We can assign a meaning to any combination of words -- but is the normal meaning of 'discover' at work here? The word 'discover' does turn your attention in another direction, suggests a different way of thinking about [looking at] this. But what exactly is that way? What is the relationship between the concepts 'invent' and 'discover'?

You can't discover what isn't there to be discovered, but can you invent what isn't there? You can invent concepts, pictures, ideas, e.g. elves, that aren't there ("maps without territories"). But inventing a classification system ... e.g. there are no blue-colored giraffes, but you can have empty categories, for example {the class of blue-colored giraffes}. But if you want there not to be empty categories, then you can't invent categories for what isn't there (real versus mere logical possibility) -- but then why not say that you discovered the categories of what is there? e.g. {the class blue birds}.

Was the printing press invented or discovered? You could say that a technique was discovered, but that the idea was invented? Did the logician Henry Sheffer invent or discover the relationship displayed by the Sheffer stroke's truth table? Years ago I wrote "inventor of the "Sheffer stroke"", but didn't Sheffer discover the relationship the truth table of his "stroke" displays? Isn't seeing what was not previously seen, although it was there for all to see, a discovery ('discovery')?

The Stoics invented categories for philosophical questions, but would we use their classification scheme if there were nothing to place in those categories? Invention versus discovery: "There are many ways to slice a pie", where there is an existent pie to slice.

When Wittgenstein compared using language to playing games (where what defines a game are its rules), did that comparison already exist before he made it? Did he discover that the comparison could be made in such-and-such a way?

"Plato discussed philosophical questions, but it was Aristotle who discovered that philosophical questions can be divided into categories. No one before Aristotle had noticed this." I don't think we would say that. (Aristotle versus Plato)

Query: what does it mean to say the history of philosophy started with the pre-Socratics while historiography started with Aristotle?

Again, this is the distinction between 'history' (the events that have occurred) and 'historiography' (writings about the events that have occurred); thus the first philosophers in history (an event that occurred) were the pre-Socratics, but the first to write about that history (i.e. the events that occurred) was Aristotle.

How shall we organize our thinking about philosophy?

Query: what are the different branches of philosophy?

This is a question about how our thinking about the subject of Philosophy should be organized. It is similar to asking what the significance of historical events is. That is, just as "there are many ways to slice a pie" -- there are many systems of classification possible, many ways to organize human learning; their number is limited only by our imaginations.

(The Greeks divided learning into two branches: "Music" and "Gymnastic", the first was concerned with the gifts of all the Muses of the intellect, the second with the training of the body. When Juvenal said the only thing worthwhile to pray for was mens sana in corpore sano [Satires, x], I think he expressed the Greek ideal, namely to be sound in both mind and body.)

What we can ask, as an objective question -- i.e. one that doesn't require us to invent or conjecture so much about history or ideas -- is how different thinkers have organized the subject of Philosophy. Of these I have mentioned the Stoics, and Wittgenstein, Aristotle being extreme for excluding Logic, and Wittgenstein for excluding Ethics (and declaring Metaphysics to be nothing more than conceptual muddles).

But to speak of the "branches of philosophy" ... but the branches of a tree spring from a trunk, and so now tell me: what is the trunk of philosophy? Can a tree consist of nothing but branches -- i.e. what is the application of this metaphor, if it is a metaphor? (Leibniz may have thought that the roots of the tree of philosophy is metaphysics, the roots from which what is vital in philosophy flows ... which adds another aspect to this picture.)

By 'metaphor' we normally mean: a comparison of the type: A is like B in such-and-such a way or ways. -- But when we speak of "the branches of philosophy", apparently using the metaphor "Philosophy is a tree" -- is that a metaphor? The tree-charts of philosophy do not have a trunk labeled 'Philosophy'. An actual metaphor [i.e. comparison] would be "Philosophy is a pie" (which may be cut in many different ways to suit many different purposes).

Query: what are the types of philosophy?

What are the kinds -- e.g. Rationalism and Empiricism, Realism and Idealism, Essentialism and Existentialism, Cartesianism and Positivism, Platonism and Materialism? (I have included a few of these categories in the List of Philosophers.)

Clarification: the Earliest Meaning of 'Philosophy'

Query: did philosophy come before psychology?

No, "psychology" [the study of the mind or "soul" (psyche)] was part of "philosophy", but that was millennia before what we call 'clinical psychology' was invented and long before what we now call 'philosophy' had been defined (i.e. had limits set to its boundaries, as in "The subject-matter of Philosophy is now confined to ...").

Originally [i.e. by the time of Socrates] the word 'Philosophy' meant 'Learning' (the noun) and a 'philosopher' was 'a lover of learning' or 'one who thirsts for learning'. In this sense, see Herodotus, History i, 29-30, wherein is found the expressions "the teachers of learning" (sophistai) and Solon's "pursuit of knowledge" (tr. Grene) or "love of knowledge" (tr. Rawlinson). Learning is our language's highest and broadest [i.e. inclusive] category -- it subsumes [includes] all the subject-matters of education [or culture].

Higher learning was, according to Diogenes Laertius, originally divided into two categories: dialectic (logic) and physics (Later Socrates added ethics): physics umbrella-ed all study of what we call the natural world (including mankind as a natural (rather than as a cultural) phenomenon, and, I think, therefore what we now call 'clinical psychology').

Much later "physics" came to be called "natural philosophy" and then "science" and divided into the natural or physical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) and the social sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics).

So that, the query above must be rejected as ahistorical: Psychology was a sub-branch of Learning ("Philosophy"): it did not contrast with a separate sub-branch or subject-matter called 'Philosophy'. What may be correct is that clinical psychology was eventually separated off from what was (and still is) called the "Philosophy of Mind", although about the origins of the medical science of psychology, I don't know its history.

Of course if by the word 'psychology' is meant 'the search for insight into human feelings and behavior, both that of other people and of one's own', then the study of psychology is maybe as old as humanity, and indeed characteristic of human nature -- that is, of any nature we would recognize as fully human. [M. O'C. Drury talks about two types of psychology and whether psychology is a new or an ancient science in his essay "Science and Psychology", in The Danger of Words (1973), Chapter 2.]

Does psychology -- in 'the search for insight' sense of the word 'psychology' -- belong to Socrates' ethics, i.e. does it belong to "Know thyself"? And is that study what Plato's Socrates is talking about when he says "I study myself to know what manner of being I am" in Phaedrus 230a? But Socrates' study of "the soul" (psyche) is a thoroughgoing use of reason (Indeed, by the word 'soul' Socrates means 'the reasoning part of man', which is also the ethical part of man, for moral virtue is knowledge arrived at by reasoning), not irrational conjecture about what would later be called "the unconscious".

Query: what is origin of the word 'psychology'?

The Greek word psyche is usually translated into English as 'soul', and thus 'psycho-logy' would be 'the study of the soul'. But that is not how we use the word 'psychology' -- or indeed, the word 'soul' -- in English. In Plato's picture of man "the soul" is distinct from the body (which is really its prison [Cratylus 400b, Gorgias 492e-493a; cf. Phaedo 64c]), but Socrates did not think about man that way. For Socrates, W.K.C. Guthrie says, 'mind' or 'intelligence' (or even that word's common meaning among the Greeks, 'life') is a better translation. -- However, not as if the words 'mind' and 'intelligence' were the names of an object (a ghost or spirit, say) of some kind. For Socrates, I think the best translation of psyche, as when he talks about "care of the soul" (Xenophon, Memorabilia i, 2, 4), is: 'man as an ethical being'.

Dialectic (logic) is "the study of the art of reasoning" and therefore [also] of the methods used to acquire "learning" in all the branches of Learning. Dialectic is the method of philosophy, although some are willing to apply the word 'philosopher' to those who "reject logic". (Note.--The word 'dialectic' is also used to mean 'the method of question and answer', as in Socratic dialectic.)

That would be history according to Diogenes Laertius. Note that his "physics" does not include "theology" (the study of [or "talk about"] the gods).

'Philosophy' = 'Learning' was the Medieval origin of the title "Doctor of Philosophy" (PhD); it originally meant a most learned person (or teacher) -- i.e. one who had mastered all the branches of learning, at a time when it was regarded by many as still possible to do that.

Query: what is the opposite meaning of 'philosophy'? What is the opposite of 'philosopher'?

According to Plato (Phaedo 89c ff.), the opposite of philosophy is "misology", or, "the hatred of argument", born of a belief -- itself due to ignorance of "the art of logic" -- that there is no truth in argument. The opposite of a 'philosopher' is a 'misologist', that is, someone who hates argument (discussion, dialectic). The philosopher's tool is reason, and the misologist does not trust reasoning. (In Republic 3.411d, trans. Shorey, Plato uses the expression "a misologist and a stranger to the Muses".)

The expression 'opposite meaning' is an synonym for 'antonym', I think. What would be the opposite of 'philosophy' -- "misosophy"? But there is no such word. Is there a "hatred of wisdom" to contrast with "love of wisdom"? Does it makes sense to say that anyone hates wisdom and loves folly (other than girls enjoying being silly, in small things: they do not, or most may not, extend love of foolishness to what is serious in their lives)?

Other possibilities might be: "philosophy" vs. "dogma" (in the sense of critical vs. uncritical acceptance of belief); or "philosophy" vs. "hedonism" (temperance [self-restraint] vs. self-indulgence or pleasure-seeking); or "philosophy" vs. "the unexamined life" (Apology 38a). The best I can think of so far, however, is: "philosophy" versus "unreason" (rationality vs. irrationality).

Note also that the word 'philosophical' is often used as a synonym for the word 'stoical'. What is an antonym of 'calm and at peace within, regardless of one's fate'? Would it be "emotional" rather than "impassive"?

Query: opposite of misologist.

This might be 'logician' or 'reasoner' (i.e. 'one who trusts in and is guided by reason'), as Socrates was ... The opposite of Plato's a "misologist and stranger to the muses" is a 'philosopher'.

Query: is love of ignorance the opposite of philosophy.

But if philosophy were the love of knowledge, then wouldn't its opposite be the hatred of knowledge; -- but does 'hatred of knowledge' = 'love of ignorance'? But no one loves ignorance; for although there are many things we may wish to be ignorant of (e.g. gossip), there is nothing we wish to know that we wish to be ignorant of. Thus, the opposite of philosophy (the love of reason) is hatred of reasoning (misology). And I cannot think of an opposite for 'love of wisdom'.

Query: the word 'rational' is a synonym for which branch of philosophy?

There is logic [reasoning, rationality] in all philosophy (or it would not be philosophy), but not all philosophy is logic; it seems therefore that the answer sought is: Logic. On the other hand, a case can be made for each: metaphysics = Rationalism (reason alone, i.e. independent of experience); logic = rules for reasoning; ethics = thoroughgoing application of reason to how to live our life. [Often in philosophy it may seem that the difficulty is not that there are no answers but that there are too many possible answers, but this is because there are limitless distinctions and points of view to be considered. Much of philosophy is clarification (Indeed, 'definition' and 'clarification' are interconnected concepts that belong to logic, if 'logic' is defined as 'the study of sound thinking').]

Classifying philosophers by their "Projects in philosophy"

Query: Idealism branch of philosophy.

Maybe this is "branches" in the sense of projects in philosophy. A philosopher sets the aims and limits of philosophical investigation. That sense appears to apply to Descartes [Find what cannot be doubted, to found philosophy on that certainty] and Socrates [Find a wiser man than Socrates (Apology 21b-c), and "Know thyself" as Apollo knows one; find what the ethical life (the good) for man is] and Aristotle [Find and classify all knowledge] and Newton [Find knowledge in natural philosophy by excluding non-verifiable hypotheses] and Plato, the pre-Socratics and indeed Kant [Find what there is in reality that is unchanging] and Wittgenstein [(and this applies both to the TLP and Philosophical Investigations) Find the true logic of our language, because so long as the "the logic of our language is misunderstood" philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of man's intellect by language; as with Kant the aim is "to heal the wounded understanding"].

But about Fichte (the originator of idealism), are we going to say that he has an insight [namely, that it is not necessary for Kant's "thing-in-itself" to exist] or that he has a project in philosophy? Well, the project to demonstrate his insight's truth follows from that insight -- but is the demonstration or the insight itself the more important thing to philosophy? Prior to Fichte for both the Rationalists (Descartes ff.) and the Empiricists (Locke ff.) it had been axiomatic that "The direct object of perception is an idea in the mind" but with Fichte that proposition becomes "The entire object of perception is an idea in the mind (i.e. there is no reality outside the mind)" -- [Never mind that "the new way of ideas" (Descartes to Hegel) is not how we use the word 'perception' and that the word 'mind' is not the name of a place].

Why do we study philosophy, not as students of history, but as students of philosophy itself? Wittgenstein wrote that his aim was "to stimulate you to have thoughts of your own", because he said of philosophy that it is really "a working on oneself, on one's own interpretation" or understanding of our existence rather than about discovering the truth about reality in itself, if there is such a thing. But, on the other hand, maybe Wittgenstein was mistaken and philosophy really is about discovering the essence of reality (das Wesen der Welt).

The Historical Periods of Philosophy

The question of who is a philosopher -- and possibly who major, who minor -- is itself a philosophical question, as well as an historical question. The following is only one of many possible lists, depending on the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion. The list below is based on things I was told at school, books I have studied over the years, and my own judgment.

Map: Origins of the Greek Philosophers, 9 KB

The Relation between Logic and Philosophy

Query: philosophers and rejection of logic.

Would the work of someone who rejected logic be called philosophy? or by 'philosophy' do we mean essentially a critical use of reason? There are, however, philosophers, e.g. Wittgenstein, who reject the traditional account of logic, e.g. that contradiction is sure proof that a proposition is false or that a combination of words is nonsense. Because some contradictions are not nonsense and some non-contradictions-in-form are nonetheless self-contradictory. As Wittgenstein's examples show, contradiction in form is not the touchstone of sound reasoning that philosophers have treated it as being, because meaning is not solely a matter of form but of use in the language.

On the other hand, Wittgenstein not only stated that only part of reality is reasonable but even that the non-reasonable part is the more important. Suppose someone agreed with that and decided to call his investigation of that non-reasonable half by the name 'philosophy'? Then we might say: this is the philosophy of a man who rejects logic as the tool for investigating reality. I do not know what such a philosopher's work would look like. Because if it were put into words [language], then it would be subject to logic [logic of language].

"There are many ways to slice a pie"

"A pie chart shows the parts of a whole." But this pie chart only shows the way the Stoics sliced the pie of Philosophy. But there are many other possible ways to slice that pie, given that there are many possible ways to divide Philosophy into parts.

Philosophy is broken up into what subjects? A whole is analyzed (broken down) into parts. Into how many parts is philosophy divided?  As many as you like ... Even more.  Imagination is the only limit to how many ways a pie may be sliced: whatever can be described in logic can also be done in logic.

Pie chart showing the Three Parts of Philosophy, according to the Stoics, 3 KB

For Socrates, Ethics (the question of how we should live our life) is the most important part of Philosophy. For Plato, maybe earlier Ethics is most important, while later Metaphysics (the question of what is real, what illusion) is. For Wittgenstein, on the other hand, since Metaphysics is only self-mystification rooted in our failing to understand the logic of our language, Logic is all that is important. And so on with other philosophers.

In my chart, the three parts of philosophy are shown of equal size, meaning of equal importance to the philosopher, but Socrates and Plato might draw them of different sizes, as you yourself might.

As I myself see it, everything in Philosophy rests on Logic -- on the question of what is sense, what nonsense, in our use of language and on how we should think or reason (dialectic). But if nothing of vital importance rests on Logic -- i.e. if the thoroughgoing use of reason, for that is the only thing I am calling 'Philosophy', is not a guide to what is real and to how we should live our life -- for note that Religion claims to be just such a guide without any need for reason -- then --.

Query: logic the tool of philosophy.

Logic, wrench. Ethics, arrow. Metaphysics, sky. Making a picture of philosophy. (The arrow is a guide, and the sky symbolizes the immensity of the puzzle of reality.)

Philosophy could be pictured this way as well: as two engines, sc. ethics and metaphysics, running on the railroad-like track of logic, either both running independently of one another, or ethics might be pictured as a boxcar pulled by the engine of metaphysics along the track of logic, if, that is, ethics is derived from metaphysics (which e.g. Socratic ethics is not, although the Stoics' ethics is). In either case, if either ethics or metaphysics jumps [i.e. runs off] the track, then it is no longer philosophy. That is another possible "picture" of philosophy.

But the trouble with that picture is its picture of logic, namely of language as a game fixed once and for all and played according to strict rules, whereas if 'logic' = 'rules of sense and nonsense', then the only limit to the creation of new concepts (i.e. rules for the use of language or tracks) is human imagination. Nevertheless, there is neither metaphysics nor ethics if there is no distinction made between sense and nonsense (i.e. logic), only babble of words.

Query: why branches of philosophy are different.

Why are human faces different? Where does the difference lie, in philosophy or in our way of looking at it, in the interest we take in it? Do you think we have to see differences? (Compare the look of mathematics to the mathematician in contrast to maths in the eyes of the outsider.)

Philosophy is questioning. Were there absolute answers to philosophy's questions, the Greeks would have found them millennia ago, but philosophical questions and answers are not that way.

Site copyright © September 1998. Please send corrections and criticism of this page to Robert Wesley Angelo. Last revised: 1 January 2018 : 2018-01-01 (Original revision 22 May 2008)

The URL of this Web page:
https://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html

Back to top of page

Home - Wittgenstein's Logic of Language | Bibliography | Site Search | Site Map