Philosophy already has a grown up side to it, it’s when philosophers focus on more practical subjects, like morals and values, society and politics.
I believe metaphysics and epistemology can have a practical side as well, when they don’t stray too far from what can be verified, or multiply/consider entities beyond necessity.
Admittedly I don’t always follow my own advice.
Math, science and religion began as philosophy?
How so?
Did Homer and Hesiod not write their works before Pythagoras was born?
Did cults to Athena, Artemis and Aphrodite not already exist?
Did we not have arithmetic, and medicine?
Perhaps you could say math, science and religion became more self-conscious and sophisticated due in part to philosophy, but all these disciplines or ways of thinking have existed since time immemorial, in some form or another, however primitive.
On second thought, Gloominary, I think you’re right. Math, science, and religion don’t have to start with philosophy–in fact, I’m reminded of how the basic (though complex for the time) arithmetic system in ancient Mesopotamia came about: they needed a way to do their accounting, to balance their books. ← That’s not philosophy by a long shot. But I believe my sentiment still works the other way around: when philosophy matures, it tends to branch off and become a whole new discipline. This is philosophy finally finding an application for itself. ← It has grown to fruition.
I agree with your thoughts on metaphysics Gib, when two explanations for reality or some aspect of it are about equally probable, and we feel compelled to select one, in order to make sense of and process reality, we may select the one that brings us more happiness, or comes more naturally to us, or is more hopeful, has the most probability of maximizing the good were we to adopt and act on it.
Different personalities and cognitive styles may also adopt a metaphysics suitable to them, or even come equipped with a basic metaphysics hardwired into their brains, different cultures and races too.
So for you, philosophy is sort of like, how shall I say…a meta-intellectual discipline?
A tool for building ways of assessing/evaluating the world, ethically and epistemologically, and a stage on which they can compete on their own and each others terms?
For example, utilitarianism and duty ethics are two different meta-ethical/normative systems that can be used for evaluating the goodness and badness of consequences and actions, just as empiricism and rationalism are two different epistemological systems that can be used for assessing the truthiness of things.
So philosophy then is about creating the underlying language, the words, thought and terms for describing the world, a metaphysics, as well as the methodology for distinguishing good from bad/evil and fact from fiction/lies.
Taking for granted a metaphysics and methodology is correct, and applying it, would be when philosophy ceases being theoretical, when it becomes practical, and so not really philosophy.
So discussing the merits of utilitarianism or empiricism would be philosophy, where as applying them would be something else…I suppose science in the case of the latter, where as the former doesn’t have a name, or isn’t regarded as a separate discipline from philosophy, it would just be called applied ethics, which is normally regarded as a branch of philosophy.
While there is some truth to what you’re saying, and I myself have had very similar thoughts, I don’t think philosophy can be confined to any single simple definition.
I think of metaphysics as an exercise in programming the brain. I mean, any philosophy is an exercise in programming the brain, but metaphysics is an exercise in programming the brain for its own sake. We come to a deep understand of things, we feel satisfied. Whereas other philosophies reprogram the brain for the sake of connecting with something external to one’s self, something out in the world. The goal in the latter case is to be able to predict and control that something. In the former case, the goal is to arrive at understanding. But that understanding still has effects on one’s psychological health and behavior, both of which have practical effects in the world. That’s why I say to keep an eye for how one’s metaphysics will affect one’s self mentally and behaviorally in addition to finding understanding.
Well, let me put it this way. I have a tendency to reflect on myself a lot. It sometimes feels like I become a second self observing my first self. In this state, I can examine my own thoughts and judge them more for the merit of their internal logic. It’s not unlike watching someone else, or listening to their thoughts, and not being committed to believing them yourself, you can still judge them based on their inherent logical integrity. So in one moment, I can want to believe something, and look for all the reasons to support it, and in the next moment, I can step outside those thoughts and desires and ask myself: is this something I should believe?
That’s true, but I think we can say this: there are patterns of thought which can be corrected or affected by external experiences, and then there are patterns of thought which cannot. ← The latter are more easily guided by emotion, desire to influence people, reasoning skills, and so on. Metaphysics, and a lot of philosophy (though not all) fall within the latter camp. What we call science (or scientific thinking) tends to fall in the former camp.