The broad range of modern-day 'philosophical' topics seems to encompass nearly everything imaginable. There are branches of philosophy that include science, mathematics, language, theology et. al. I believe this is part of the problem. I prefer the question: How should we define philosophical discussions? Broadly speaking, philosophy is the love of wisdom" and the study of general, fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, and mind. Wikipedia includes language on this list. I disagree. Language wasn't introduced into the conversation until the 1930s. Note too, that theology, as well as science, are not included in this definition but they have been front-and-center in many discussions since the beginning.


As I have written elsewhere, most modern 'philosophy' is a mess. Descartes started the disaster by separating reason from the senses; Spinoza & Leibniz rejected that the senses contribute to knowledge; Locke & Hume denied reason and believed all knowledge was due to the senses; Kant, who attempted a synthesis of both, ended up believing that existence cannot be known in itself. Nietzsche's "will to power" as the ruling principle of all life and his idea that life on earth has an absolute value is only one absurd 'conclusion" that stems from the forgoing philosophies. They all took philosophy on a roller coaster ride that set philosophy back centuries. Aristotelianism is the only philosophy to withstand the ages (with some minor modification).


Religion matters. But religion demands that we reject reason altogether and accept on faith, all that we 'believe.' All aspects of theology, therefore, should be off-limits as topics of true philosophical discussion, IMO.


Science matters. The rules and findings of science reinforce philosophy. Science affirms Aristotelian philosophy specifically - that the natural world is knowable and that man has the ability to understand and know it. In fact, Aristotle introduced empiricism and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via observation and induction, thereby laying the foundations of the scientific method (Wikipedia). But science is not a subset of philosophy. It is a consequence of philosophy. Science as a stand-alone discipline naturally separated from philosophical discussion after Copernicus. As such, all fields of science should now be off-limits as topics of philosophical discussion. The process of discovery is quite different for science. This includes the psychological views of Freud and others, as well as the views of Sam Harris (based in neuroscience) whose premise is - "human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and states of the human brain.


I am less certain that the study of language should be excluded from philosophical conversations but it seems very odd to me that during late classical and medieval times, people were able to have serious, in-depth conversations and arguments about true philosophical issues, without language becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Languages in common use during those times included Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. Does it matter if the word, the 'symbol' for an object is different if we all understand that the definition of each word has the same meaning? (The Moral Landscape).


For me, the fundamental question of philosophy [still] centers around the Plato-Aristotle dichotomy - the conflict between philosophies that have as their basis spiritualism vs. reality [the primary conflict between Aristotle and Plato], as well as the resulting tension with religion.


Ideas are the means by which we understand reality - ideas are not some type of physical reality; they are not superior to physical reality (Plato) - the idea of an elephant, for example, does not mean (obviously) that the elephant exists in our mind. Curiously, there are ‘philosophers' who have argued for this conclusion. The idea of "soul" (as something separate from the body; and/or living outside the body; and/or existing after the death of the body) for another example, is nothing more than an [absurd] idea of the mind. More than 2,000 years of discussion about "soul" and no one has been able to provide any evidence that it is real, that it is anything more than a way to characterize the essence of what it means to be a human. But 'philosophers' have jumped through hoops to try to explain it; to find a way to rationalize its existence, and have caused much-confused thinking.


Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that our senses lead to our perceptions, which provide us with evidence that leads to knowledge and permits us to reason with each other based on common experience. "Common sense" experience is what makes consensual understanding possible... true knowledge... and connects us with the realities that exist objectively as well as in our minds."


Many of the errors in Philosophy are the result of "an attitude of antagonism toward or even contempt for the past - for the achievements of those who have come before." Contemporary philosophers are, for the most part, vastly ignorant of the great works of philosophical tradition before the 17th century." Going back to the "distinctions, insights, and formulations explicitly achieved in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas" [and others who have followed in this tradition], and identifying and correcting those errors has finally given us an objective philosophy based in reality that offers real-world" value.


If we remove theology and spirituality from the conversation; remove science from the conversation; acknowledge that objective reality exists, and recognize that perhaps we should look back to the classical philosophers to identify and correct the errors made - then perhaps we can have useful, productive philosophical discussions.

Sources: Most of the quotes are from (1) Ten Philosophical Mistakes and "Six Great Ideas" (mostly derived from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and what is now classified as Philosophical (or Classical) Realism. (see also: Philosophical realism)). Also, to truly appreciate Aristotle's contribution and influence [until the 17th century], I also recommend Aristotle's Children, by Richard E. Rubenstein.

Just my two cents, but attempting a debate based on critical thinking with those who have the opinions based in faith, is speaking two different languages. Faith does not require proof, logic or even reality.

@Allamanda students might buy that lie but philosophers are inseparable from religious faculty and their books sell right next to bibles

@Allamanda I don't disagree with the point, only the manner in which it is conveyed.

Why do I constantly run into the same contankerous old man? LOL you have been a great mentor!
I totally agree Philosophy is not a good subjest to discuss with any theist as they ALWAYS conflate it with theology and can not seperate the two.
Which brings me to theology, a bunch of religious dogma that is not worth debating.

@Allamanda yes and if that is the case it is not a discussion, true discussion is open, if your reputation means more to you than truth then you are an intellectual coward without the courage of your own convictions or you already know your ideas are unfounded.

@Allamanda true if you have no integrity, then you can't lose it

Glad I read your comment before I made mine. I essentially was going to say the same.
But yes, I agree.

I'm in agreement.

Philosophy is rarely if at all a subject in high school. When it is, it's just touched on. Perhaps educators don't believe teenagers can handle rational inquiry as a science. Even so-called debate classes only offer certain elements of argument theory - just a slice off the top. Yet we're perfectly happy teaching them moderately complex math.

I think if we started early with philosophy kids would be better prepared to deal with the world they encounter upon reaching adulthood. Relegating philosophy to college or self-study practically ensures a whole class of people never learn how to spot irrational arguments. Of course, with that kind of education they'd be a lot more likely to abandon their religious faiths after putting them through some critical thinking exercises, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised it's not on the school menu.