Do any philosophers feel slightly unhappy that they kept in the Arts and Humanit

Question:As philosophy is as much about logic and proof as maths is, isn't it?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: As philosophy is as much about logic and proof as maths is, isn't it?

Yeah, at least slightly.

I mean, we aren't a science, of course, and I'd probably be even MORE unhappy if we were in religion and spirituality, so I guess I'm ok with Arts and Humanities by default. But that doesn't mean I'm not still slightly unhappy.

I guess for me to be completely happy there would have to be a separate philosophy section from the main tab, with "ethics" "metaphysics" "epistemology" and "general" subcategory. But I can't seriously think that that would be fair.

I'd laugh pretty hard if it were under "yahoo! products" section, though, as if Yahoo invented philosophical discourse.

Which section do you think you should be in? I reckon Religion and Spirituality would be OK, or do you think they should have a separate section on philosophy?

But it is in the Arts and Humanities, and for a reason, logic would tell you that one doesn't not measure philosophers by exact scientific methodology, therefore, is has a degree of faith and reasoning to the components of logic and proofs based upon general observation of humanity as a whole.

No, definitly not. philosophy is the exloration of human thought in all its diversity. Human thought leads to imaginative creativity. Logic, proofs, insights,etc are simply extensions in human thought that allow discernment by the mind through imaginative mental creativity and leading to practical solutions to human conditions.

i think its for the humanities part..

No, I guess not. It would be nice to have a pure Philosophy Academy. The beauty of this would be that all subjects would be open for debate. However, it could not be restricted by contemporary curricula. Professors would have to be free to develop different methods to gage a students level of understanding of the material being taught. Oh... how marvelous that would be.

It can be, but it's broader than that and it is sometimes considered to be a branch of literature by people who are wrong (also known as postmodernists). I don't know where it should be. Some similar questions tend to be asked in Religion and Spirituality. Good question though.

Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Philosophy is not a science but a system of philosophical doctrine,the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
A study that attempts to discover the fundamental principles of the sciences, the arts, and the world that the sciences and arts deal with; the word philosophy is from the Greek for “love of wisdom.” Philosophy has many branches that explore principles of specific areas, such as knowledge (epistemology), reasoning (logic), being in general (metaphysics), beauty (aesthetics), and human conduct (ethics).

"Being a philosopher" is bad enough.

Belonging to the same genus which includes discussions on "dancing" is not great for my digestion.

Ever wonder if Engineering subjects belong under Mathematics and the subjects of the Humanities and Arts belong under Philosophy...?

Philosophy appears to be the exploration of applied logic, whereas Mathematics is about the relationships between objects and Science is about the the objects themselves.

Applied logic becomes much more important when the data is inherently ambiguous. Luke 17:21 for example could express, either "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" or, "the Kingdom of Heaven is among you". However, as neither the original Aramaic nor subsequent ancient Greek differentiate between the verbs, "within" & "among" either interpretation is subjective at best, and perhaps speculative given that the only applicable mission statement (Matthew 7:12) doesn't necessarily support either interpretation.

However, it appears to be the function of philosophy to explore ideas beyond the strictly evidence-based constraints of science to allow a degree of subjective discourse. This is how questions such as "Do I really exist or am I just imagining I exist?" are not simply dismissed with a quick slash of Ockham's razor. Eg., In absence of any other evidence, your existence is the simplest explanation for your sense of being.

Likewise, it is purely subjective to suggest that people who value objectivity highly enough will not consider any belief in God because the _idea_ of God (and not necessarily God Herself), is a purely subjective concept that is on occasion an obstacle to objectivity because of it's pure subjectivity. However, the exploration of the logic of this suggestion in various contexts might be interesting to others in spite of the lack of hard evidence.

To explore such ideas thoroughly enough to enjoy the irony inherent in the subjective explanation for a habit of those who reject subjectivity is one of the perks of philosophy. However, the subjective argument also proves necessary in many other topics, hence the suggestion that maybe Philosophy would make a good faculty itself offering those subjects that gain a substantial benefit from a partly subjective exploration of ideas.

I think that the unhappiness of Philosophers springs from the fact that they are trapped in a body of emotions that never let them absolutely free to fly as high as they wished into the realm of Metaphysics.