Is this Q a philosophy Q or not and why is it, or why is it not?

Question

This is the Q that I asked: "From an ethical & a logical point of view, do U think *trust should be based on Truths or on feelings of Love?" Give *reasons to support your particular Answer. I see these type of Q 's posted in the philosophy category all the time and I have well-defined thoughts on the matter. Focus on the Q asked and not the asker.

I wany you to criticize the specific Q. I am not looking for a general Answer to my Q.

My Q is not about philosophy Q 's in general though that is a worthy topic to ask Questions about. It was about the "specific Q" which I posted at the time I posted the Q in the Q -box.

The Q in the Q-box is the headline Q which rarely fits my Q's in full.

I'm asking participants *to do philosophy*!

criticize= "philosophically criticize"

You can always edit your A's. I try always to extend expiration and to pick the BA's near the end of the Answer period unless I know I won't be at the computer.

Criticizing any Q-asker is irrelevant and a digression away from the Q--which is not the headline Q but the Q I asked below it in the added details below the Q-box. Asking me to defend against *red herring comment is very poor way to conduct philosophy- it is in fact illogical to set up *strawmen arguments in response to my headline Q.

It is similarily nonphilosophical to personalize criticisms beyond the ideas expressed to attack the person who expresses those ideas.

Guys or Gals, pls delete comments of a personal nature. We all learn and improve our philosophical views if we stay focused on the ideas not the people expressing them.

One last added detail about the Q: My Q was not written in a discriminatory manner. Nor was there any such intent at the time of formulating the Q's(Both the headline Q and the Q the headline refers to). Nor do I think it is discriminatory in any way.

I consider both East and West philosophies under the general heading of the term "Philosophy." They have different methods, but address the same subjects. They are complimentary. For example: Nietzsche and Krishnamurti on thinking have alot in common as do Socrates and Confucious. All four addressed Morality/Ethics issues.

Answer 1

What is and what is not philosophy is itself a philosophical question. Given that your question notes "ethics and logic," I would place it within the frame of philsophy which includes the following subfields:
epistemology,
ontology,
metaphysics,
ethics,
logic,
phenomenology,
as well as others.

To define philosophy is to partially miss the point of philosophy or at least to force a modernistic ontology onto that which is philosophy. To claim that philosophy is an objective study is to completely buy into modernist conceptualizations; however, there are numerous other conceptualizations that are not objective and yet claim to be (or are) philosophy.

I would agree that ad hominem attacks are logically fallacious in philosophy; however, I also think the dynamics of dialogue are a place where philosophy comes to know itself better (e.g., Socratic dialectics as well as, but to a lesser degree, Hegelian dialectics).

Answer 2

Sorry, heeltap. I find these inquiries to be discriminatory. As a biracial person with two cultures, I find there is favourtism of "Western" thinking and approaches.

In fact, the bias is so significant the Western philosophers rarely include Eastern approaches. The West is not the be all and end all in the discipline of philosophy. As a specific example, Westerners focus on this god concept a fair bit. This has never been a concern for many Eastern philosophies such as Chinese philosophy.

Given the ethnic diversity of the North American continent, I am hopeful that the discrimination of the East will be reduced.

Answer 3

I think trust should be based on truth; at least that which is perceived as truth until the truth be told!

No, I mean it... trust is to be reserved for a true thing, and not based on feelings of love. These are things I learned in the school of hard knocks, and I am standing firm on my beliefs now. Trust must be based on truth both from an ethical and logical point of view.

Ethical: it's what comes out in the wash, it's a pure thing to base trust on truth instead of feelings. Logical: nearly the same; it just makes more reasonable sense to base trust on truth rather than feelings of any sort, but maybe especially of love, because those are feelings that can blind a person to truth.
That's all I know about it.

Answer 4

I define philosophy as the objective study of the meaning of things, to construct a frame of reference that defines the principles that constitutes existence.

The way you phrase your question isn't philosophical relative to the Socratic method of questioning - which doesn't question with a pre-determined limit, but allows one to muse without limit.

Update:

Keith, if you are going to critique my answer, read it carefully before thinking.

I said that the Socratic method of questioning "allows one to muse without limit."

That was clearly separate from my definition of Philosophy - which is "the objective study of the meaning of things, to construct a frame of reference that defines the principles that constitutes existence."

You confim my point when you list all of the various branches of philosophy that convolute this simple universal definition.

(or to make myself clear so as to not confuse you)

You list all of the various branches of philosophy to construct a frame of reference that defines the principles that constitutes existence.

Which is what Philosophy IS.

My definition of philosophy is not some "modernistic conceptualization" but is simple, elegant, clear, and concise.

You sir, try to present your logical rationalizations of pointless arguments that dances around in circles without coming to any conclusion that speaks clearly and concisely.

To the point:

You sound intelligent, but you reveal your ignorance because you have no original thought of your own and simply do not know what you are talking about.

Update:

Keith, you have just proven my point. You regurgitate other people's thoughts instead of coming up with anything original that you have observed on your own. You have so much book knowledge that you are blinded to and cannot communicate simple and obvious truth.

Update:

"The "you are book smart but are not street smart" is a, at best, lame critique."

How does that sound like:

"You have so much book knowledge that you are blinded to and cannot communicate simple and obvious truth."

As I said earlier, if you are going to critique my answer, read it carefully before thinking....

As for original thoughts...

At LEAST I have them from direct observation rather than from reading the thoughts of others and presenting them as an argument - which is nothing but verbal plagerism.

The FACT that you ARE unoriginal, that you take from others and have nothing that is your own, demonstrates that you are nothing but a leech.

You are not a philosopher.

You are a fraud.

Answer 5

i think you are absolutely confused, however Trust should be based on Truth and not Love for the person.