Philosophy at a Glance

Here is my thumbnail sketch of the subject of philosophy. The division I've chosen for the subject is a mixture of the conventions of Antony Flew's "A Dictionary of Philosophy" and Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Each branch seems to me to be summarizable in terms of one basic question. I list other questions to give more of a feel for what issues belong in that branch. I include my own views, opinions, and observations in my comments on each branch. Hopefully these questions and comments may stimulate you to inquire, to ponder, and to appreciate the issues of that study of the fundamental issues of humanity: philosophy.

The questions of philosophy are the "difficult" questions, the ones still left hanging so far, unanswered, as of yet, by science. Most of these can be addressed (in my view) through scientific inquiry, but some of the hardest questions may remain stubbornly outside the power of observation to answer, validate, or disprove.

Metaphysics (Ontology)

Primary Question:

What exists; what is real?

Comments:

Why we should care: Generally, knowledge of what is real (and what is an illusion or conjecture) leads to being better able to survive in the world, and also to having more realistic expectations about how the world works, so that one can better control outcomes.
The questions of metaphysics are the most fundamental in philosophy.
My stance is that reality is objective. The universe is what it is with or without our awareness of it. (Our effects on reality are a consequence of our actions, not (in some magically direct manner) our awareness.)
In my view, the whole debate of determinism vs. "free-will" is outmoded. Biological acts of choice are not incompatible with a rigidly causal universe; choice is merely a ill-understood neurological process.
As an empiricist, I cannot wholly rule out the possibility of "divine" controlling entities in the universe, but the lack (in my view) of plausible observable evidence for them inclines me to an atheist position.

Epistemology

Primary Question:

What is knowledge?

Comments:

Why we should care: If you understand what it really means to know something, what the best means of acquiring knowledge are, and what the limitations are of knowledge, you can make more realistic predictions and make wiser choices. Understanding the basis of error can both serve as a warning and enable you to better understand and tolerate error in others.
Epistemology can be thought of as the bridge between our knowledge and reality (metaphysics).
Sometimes, epistemology is considered a part of metaphysics, but considering it a separate branch seems appropriate, in my view, because what we count as "knowledge" is not necessarily the complete, accurate picture of metaphysical reality, but merely our current model of it.
My own stance is basically that of an empiricist: all conceptualization (insight and imagination included) is, at base, the product of our senses. [It is the capacity for generalization and the "noisiness" of our cognitive machinery that lead to the generation of novel concepts.]

Logic

Primary Question:

What are the structure and principles of reason?

Comments:

Why we should care: Logic is a tool providing a "sanity check" on ideas. The ability to recognize fallacious arguments makes one less likely to be deceived, and more likely to reach sound conclusions to prove to be true. Understanding the limits of the tool of logic can be important because blind use of logic does not always lead to conclusions that are true.
Logic seems to me to be a part of epistemology, but it often is considered a separate branch of philosophy [Flew lists it as separate]. Logic is often used to establish criteria of validity of knowledge.
Typically, by "logic," what is meant is deductive logic, the logic of which proceeds from assumed premises to conclusions, and seeks to avoid non-contradiction. Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. There has been far less success in formalizing inductive logic, the logic of generalization from examples, and induction is often considered a less "air-tight" methodology of reasoning. How unfortunate because induction seems to me to the chief mechanism of human cognition. Example of inductive logic: Every time I've ever eaten fish, I've gotten sick. Therefore, if I eat fish again, I will probably get sick.

Ethics

Primary Question:

What is the nature of values?

Comments:

Why we should care: It is probably ethics we most care about in philosophy because it tries to answer the questions of what we should or shouldn't do in our lives.
Some values are wired into our biology: survival, sex, food, etc. Others are the product of our cognitive and cultural development: knowledge, love, achievement, wealth, power, recognition, acceptance, etc. The former values might be considered objective, and the latter, to a large extent, subjective, since they may depend on a particular person's upbringing.
The establishment of an "ideal" mode of human behavior is certainly laudable effort, but maybe chimerical, since the value systems of individuals vary so much. One might argue, however, that there are certain values which hold for a statistical majority of people in existence. Morality is often very consistent across cultures.
The historical methods chosen to establish ideal morality include: appeals to "the will of God" or "harmony with nature," amorality ("do what thou wilt"), and following your "rational self-interest" (the Objectivist route which, incidentally, is not the same thing as doing whatever you feel like doing at the expense of others). I happen to view morality as a set of "harmony constraints" on the dynamics of human social systems. The principles of morality—the Golden Rule, sanctity of contract, etc.—hold because without them, civilization would not exist and our species would not be evolutionarily viable.

Aesthethics

Primary Question:

What is the nature of beauty?

Comments:

Why we should care: Art and beauty influence us as individuals and as a society. Artists who better understand aesthetics may create their art even more intelligently. Art is sometimes a tool of manipulation and influence, so understanding its role in that capacity can make one more wary of being manipulated.
Questions of beauty and art seem to me to be inherently subjective. We may analyze inductively the psychological phenomena of beauty and (appreciation of) art and develop theories about them, however. (Subjectivity is ruled by objective laws: the laws of psychology, social dynamics, and brain function!)
I would define art loosely as a perceptual experience conveyed to an audience which has been calculated by an artist or artists.
Generally, beauty is the promise of good (including physical pleasure), or sometimes truth. Promises may be true or false, or intermittently or conditionally true.

Politics

Primary Question:

What is the proper social organization of humans?

Comments:

Why we should care: This is one of the reasons wars are fought. Bad social organization leads to misery, conflict, and violence.
There is much overlap here with ethics. Consideration of politics as a separate branch makes sense, though, if you consider ethics as dealing with what is proper for the individual, and politics as dealing with what is right for individuals en masse.
There is a hard tradeoff in politics: between autonomy of the individual and collective good of the tribe or the species. Most political systems sacrifice the individual to the collective (the state). Individual criminals, on the other hand, sacrifice the surrounding society to their own selves: the individual at the expense of the collective. Excessive collectivism leads to economic and intellectual stagnation and dampens human initiative. Unbridled individual whim leads to breakdown in society which leads to many individuals suffering. The fundamental problem of politics is bringing the individual and the collective into a harmonious relationship, where needs of both are met (the needs of the collective being those conditions that allow massive numbers of individuals to live better lives than if the collective fell apart).
My political views: All forms of government have their drawbacks, but a republic or democracy is more responsive to the needs of citizens, and less subject to the whims and idiosynchrasies of individual rulers. As far as economics, capitalism better harnesses productive efforts than socialism because it takes advantage of individuals' desire to live in comfort and to be rewarded for their productive efforts. Under most circumstances, government interference in the economy siphons resources away from the most productive producers into the less productive ones. I agree with Objectivism that the indisputable functions of government are: to protect citizens from criminals and foreign invaders, and to settle contractual disputes between its citizens. I believe social engineering should operate on a voluntary consent basis and not forced on individauls through coercion or deception. On the other hand, there is the real possibility of individual acts that could disrupt or destroy society and, thus, the benefits of the society for masses of individuals. There is a fine line between protecting individual rights and the beneficent order of society, and I'm not sure there is a hard and fast algorithm for making wise decisions on that issue.

Philosophy at a Glance

Metaphysics (Ontology)

Primary Question:

Other Questions:

Comments:

Epistemology

Primary Question:

Other Questions:

Comments:

Logic

Primary Question:

Other Questions:

Comments:

Ethics

Primary Question:

Other Questions:

Comments:

Aesthethics

Primary Question:

Other Questions:

Comments:

Politics

Primary Question:

Other Questions:

Comments: