[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
So, are you saying that you consider the observations part of the philosophy, or did you have something else in mind?

Yes, but a large part of that is the nature of the observations used. For example, Aristotle routinely cited what people in general seemed to think was right for particular instances to support/refute/move along his own arguments. However, most would agree that such judgements are culturally based, and valid only inside that culture. As those are culturally based, they can't be considered pure logic anymore. Logic is greatly, thouroghly, and widely used, but the position I am arguing against is that logic is all that is used in philosophy.

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Observations can be used to support a position, but ISTM they hardly provide a reason for believing something else. It is the logic (or whatever alternative you propose) that links the ideas to observations. The observations simply anchor the argument to our reality, rather than say the starwars "universe" or the matrix "universe".

The logic or alternative would be the gist of the philosophizing that philosophers do, as far as I see.

Yes, logic is most of what philosophers do, but it isn't the entirety of philosophy.