Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
It seems like for anything (not literally, of course) 'philosophy name of this anything' exists. Philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, philosophy of logic, etc.; but... philosophy of philosophy is nowhere to be found? Why is that?
I don't see a contradiction, and googling doesn't seem to help. In fact, Google only returns two results with 'philosophy of philosophy' in them, and they are both irrelevant.
Question: why doesn't philosophy of philosophy exist?
It exists. It is called meta-philosophy. It includes topics such as the definition and scope of philosophy, the methods of philosophy, and the role of philosophers.
Eh. That is still not a common word or theory. I think it is contrived.
A lot of modern philosophies are already self-referential metatheories. So the label for philosophy-of-philosophy may just be unproductive.
Historically, we tend to split the self-reference the other direction: vertically instead of horizontally.
So people are already doing meta-analysis, meta-ethics, meta-semiotics, meta-psychology... and they don't seem to feel that takes them out of their own branch of philosophy, much less into some separate place named meta-philosophy. It is awkward to snip out just the recursive parts of a given vertical, so we would have a hard time populating meta-philosophy that way. The result would not be a discipline, just a filter.
What is left would we whole philosophies, in the systematic sense of Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza etc. that are themselves recursive, and include other philosophies in their model of the world in an explicit way. That would be an insane demand, as it would require an ethics that applies to semiotics as well as ontology, a psychology that applies epistemology and ethics...
Labeling something does not make it happen, and choosing for your perspective to have a specific intention does not make it work. This is a term destined for the dustbin, for while it identifies a phenomenon, as a field of inquiry the result is either artificial, disconnected and disjointed; or it is empty.
not an answer. I'm not sure why, but I'm passing that along. Maybe it could be slightly clearer on the non-productive point, but it doesn't seem problematic as written to me.
The 'philosophy of philosophy' is to seek the truth within every sub-genre in the religio-philosophical realm.
The 'philosophy of meta-philosophy' is to seek the truth within the meta-philosophical issue arrayed before an individual for their analysis and review.
The 'infinite philosophy' is to seek the truth within this one life which you know is yours to live.
Therefore there is only one philosophy to pursue.
Seek Truth, assiduously, within every issue, of any kind, arrayed before you for your analysis and review.
In consequence, all Truth will become accessible to you.
That is the answer which you seek.
