Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Philosophy is the most grandiose intellectual game that we humans have been playing for more than five thousand years. It is the ultimate achievement of rational thinking. To answer the question: "why must we turn our capability to think rationally into a game?" we should point to the fact that it is only through this, and similar games (see Science) that we can overcome the self-centered limitations that are inherent in common-sense thinking.

Now, the ability to think common-sense thoughts also displays the propensity for rational thinking. However, this common-sense thinking, based on our Ratio, does not utilize that same Ratio to the fullest. Thus, it's a shame to stop short and not allow the full potential of rational thinking to flourish.

The body of philosophic thinking is not monolithic -- there are many different, even opposing approaches to this discipline. In general, we can divide the entire body of philosophical research into these three broad categories: ontology, epistemology, and esthetics.

Ontology

The simplest way to illustrate what an ontology is could be by stating its fundamental questions: "What is a man? Or, what is any other thing?" These questions focus on the essence of any observed phenomenon.

Likewise, the fundamental questions posed by epistemology are: "Who is it that asks 'What is this or that'? Or, can we know the knower?" These questions focus on the source of knowledge.

The fundamental question of esthetic inquiry would be: "What makes this thing beautiful?"
 

Like any other discipline of thinking, philosophy is limited by the assumptions that underlie its functioning. Typically, as is the case with any form of reasoning, philosophic reasoning is based on logic. It is ultimately the limitation of the underlying logic that will determine the limitations of the particular branch of philosophy.

In most cases (or at least in most traditional schools of philosophy), the underlying logic that permeates the mode of philosophic reasoning is founded on the ultimate postulate known as Tertium Non Datur. This is Latin for "the law of excluded third" (or, "excluded middle"). What does this postulate mean?

Simply put, this postulate (or, law of thinking) governs the patterns of our reasoning. It states that when reaching a conclusion about certain phenomenon, we cannot include the middle option. For example, upon entering a room, we can either conclude that the window in the room is open, or that it is closed. We cannot legitimately conclude that the state of the window in that room is something else (like, "barely open", or "kind of closed", "not really open, but at the same time not quite closed", etc.) To indulge in such reasoning would be to slip from the clarity of philosophical analysis into the muddled thinking of everyday mundane common-sense reasoning.

So, this basic framework exposes quite a severe limitation of philosophy in general (actually, technically speaking, this is the limitation of the underlying logic, but it directly influences the reach of the philosophical system that's been built on top of it). In a similar manner, science (which is built on top of a philosophical system of some kind), exhibits even more rigorous set of constraints; in other words, the reach of any scientific theory is much narrower than the reach of a philosophical system.

But the set of constraints is necessary, as in any other game, in order to enable the players to meaningfully participate.