Interesting! I think to answer your question one would need to distinguish philosophy as an institution (recognized professors and associations designated as philosophical) and the practice of philosophy at large. In terms of the latter, I suggest "philosophy" is inescapable, so even those who think "philosophy" is foolish only do so because what they think of as philosophy is pointless from the standpoint of their own philosophy. In this sense, having a philosophy is simply to have a view of the world and values. But in terms of the institutional life of what is considered philosophy, there have been some able critics. Marx complained that philosophers only talk about the world, whereas he (and other activists) try to change the world. The poet William Blake thought that much of philosophy involves vanity and some of those who are considered great philosophers like Wittgenstein have condemned much of the history of philosophy as a matter of self-inflicted be-whichment. In all this, however, you...

Thank you for this request for connections or routes into philosophy as a practice! The first thing I suggest is engaging in philosophy with a friend --whether this is someone who is just starting out or someone who has been practicing philosophy for many years (either on their own or professionally or in connection with others, whether this involves a formal institution like a university or not). If you do connect with another person on this entryway you may only shift in your question or request from "I have tried..." and "I get..." and "I'm missing..." to "We have tried..." and "We get.." and "We're missing..." but the practice of philosophy is (I suggest) enhanced when it involves more than one person (unless the other person is immensely arrogant and closed minded!). Dialogue, after all, was the format of the majority of Plato's work, and today most philosophers (professional or otherwise) see themselves as part of a community of inquiry. Perhaps a "community" that includes both the living...

Great question. The logical positivists (A.J. Ayer is the most well known in this camp or movement) advanced a principle of meaning according to which for a statement to be meaningful it had to be (in principle) verifiable. There were a number of variations of this principle, including the thesis that a statement is meaningful if and only if it was falsifiable. They also allowed that analytic statements (squares are rectangles) statements are meaningful. The verification or falsification was presumed to involve empirical experience and, for many logical positivists like Moritz Schlick, this meant essentially scientific observations and inference. Logical positivists claimed that theistic religious language (God created and sustains the cosmos in being) do not meet this test of meaningfulness. Several problems arose: first it seems that some apparently meaningful scientific statements about cosmology and unobservable particles would not meet this test of meaningfulness. Second, it was not clear that...

Great question. Some philosophers seem to have deliberately sought to secularize the story of philosophy. I think this is probably true in the case of John Dewey (even though he did praise a naturalistic piety or "religious sensibility"). A classic, intro history to philosophy, Will Durran't The Story of Philosophy glides over the whole medieval era, Many philosophers both during his life time and today, seem (in my mind) to utterly miss or underestimate the deep sense of mystery that runs through the work of Wittgenstein. There is a wonderful overview of Wittgenstein's spirituality in the opening chapters of Kai-man Kwan's The Rainbow of Experiences, Critical Trust and God. In terms of histories: Copleston wrote a multi-volume history of philosophy that is fair minded, and (as himself a Roman Catholic thinker) he is keen to explore matters of the divine, deep questions of values and their role in the universe. Anthony Kenny is probably the greatest living historian of philosophy, and he, too,...

Terrific question(s). You may indeed begin studying philosophy with questions. Kant once observed that there were three foundational questions: what can I know? What should I do? What may I hope for? But you can expand these to include: who or what am I? What is the meaning of life? What is the best form of government? Do I have duties of gratitude to my parents? When (if ever) is it justified to go to war? and so on. And if we follow the practice of Aristotle, one good way to begin reflecting on these questions is first to consider how others have tried to answer such questions, and then begin working out which answer you are drawn to and why. Probably the best historian of philosophy by a living philosopher is Anthony Kenney. You can do a search on Amazon for either his single volume history of philosophy or his multi-volume undertaking. If you would prefer not to undertake an historical approach, an easy introduction to the practice of philosophy is T.V. Morris's Philosophy for Dummies. ...

I really appreciate your recognition of the significance of philosophical questions! As I was the panelist that responded to the earlier posting, I thought I might take a shot at replying to your question and observations. There are a few issues in play: there is first the question of what it means to solve or successfully answer a philosophical question; then there is a question about consensus. On the first point, I think that if we take your question, 'Is morality objective?' many philosophers, but not all, would say yes, and appeal to many considerations to bolster their response (they may, like me, appeal to experience, as in a phenomenological approach to ethics, or they may argue that those who deny the objectivity of morality are, if consistent, must deny the objective normativity of reason, and are thus in danger of undermining the authority of reason itself, etc). I am inclined to think that success does not require the consensus of all reasonable people. So, while I fully grant that...

Before replying directly to your question, I suggest that what you are expressing is itself a philosophy. It seems to me that you are probably a sceptic (which is a philosophy, in fact there are several schools or types of skeptics) about the ability of persons to engage in the traditional topics of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, and so on), and you will find some resonance (I suspect) with some of the ancient philosophers like Pyrrho. Sextus Empiricus or Protagoras might also be of interest. But on second thought, your comments about sticking with "what is real" versus "mostly specious rationalized imagination and raw speculation" sounds as though you are NOT a skeptic about what might be called "common sense" and so while Pyrrho may be good in terms of being skeptical about what philosophers try to inquire about the concept of infinity (your example), he may be too overly skeptical for your taste (too much danger of "smoke and mirrors"). There is a school of what is sometimes called "common...

Great question! For years, I have worked with the following ideas. Simply to have some view of the world (its nature and values) is to have a philosophy. So, in a way, everyone who has some understanding of themselves and values has a philosophy. Beyond that, I suggest the practice of philosophy involves in critical exploration of one's worldview, taking into account the reasons behind it, comparing it with other views of reality, and the like. Leaving matters there, however, do not seem to go far enough because (as your question hints at) historically philosophers are supposed to be lovers of wisdom (the literal meaning of 'philo' and 'sophia'), and so what I think we need to add is that insofar as one's world view and investigation is colored by deceit, vanity, envy, merely the desire to impress others, one is failing to live up to the practice of philosophy which (I suggest) should involve humility, a commitment to think fairly (not mis-represent those you are arguing against, for example), to...

Great question! The journal Teaching Philosophy has been publishing for decades on different ways to best teach philosophy, and that journal might be a gold mine for you in terms of creative ideas. One of the latest developments is that a great deal of philosophers have been bringing philosophy into play with popular culture. William Irwin had done a great deal on this with Blackwell (now Wiley-Blackwell publishers) and he has an edited volume that brings together some of the best work on all this. I am not sure whether specific exercises are employed, but the major series he edits, and similar series with Open Court Publishers and the University Press of Kentucky might be excellent resources. OneWord Press (UK) has one, probably two books that offer philosophical puzzles to ponder: approximate title, Why is it wrong to eat people? Ted Honderich has a textbook on thought experiments with great questions for students. And you might even check out Gareth Matthews work on philosophy for children. I...

As for the first question, I do (as it happens) work on a college campus in which my office is in an ivory covered building with a tower, and there are some Greek sculpture here and there on my floor, though the most common things (except for other professors, students, books, furniture) in our department are dozens and dozens of owls (symbol or wisdom), owl statues or as dolls, etc. But speaking to the ivory tower as a metaphor, I think philosophers today and certainly at many points historically, very much engage the world and culture at large. Socrates did philosophy at the market place, and now there are many philosophers who seek to engage others through popular culture, their courses that involve very practical moral concerns (e.g. bio-medical ethics, environmental ethics, courses on just war theory and so on), and in publications that have a wide, educated readership (e.g. New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, and so on). On the second point, I think it is rare to find a...