Is Philosophy Only a Method?

Oh, thank you for answering.

Surely, there gotta be extra options, or alternative way.

First of all, that addition to the History of Philosophy is helpful. Just one thing – usually, there are two disciplines in different universities, or colleges: Philosophy (or kinda), and The History of Ideas (or kinda). And the second is this. So, by this I just wonder should the History of Ideas be Philosophy?

"Technicians" – that sounds fantastic. It truly is. I guess we cannot skip works of theirs. Sometimes, honestly, I am not sure of Hegel's or Husserl's way – especially when a method is confusing or messy – because reading them or sorta don't give me that answers.

There was a Poland philosopher K. Tvardovsky (he was a Husserl's apprentice) who said that philosophers who don't care about the readers comfort do not perform their job well. I agree with him. By the way, I adore many Poland philosophers from Lvov-Warszaw school because of the readable style. They tried to write as much as possible readable. Be the same reason I also do like Italian-American philosopher Ernest Tugenghard (I might be wrong with the last name, I read him in translations) how he explained phenomenology analytically. He's also that type of philosopher you like to read. Almost by the same I like Umberto Eco, because he wants his readers be his friends. When I read his "How to Write Diploma?" I was so encouraged and inspired. Amazing. So, this is also a something has to be add, but in a humanity way. I mean a philosopher doesn't = a good person always. For instance, I wouldn't be mercy for Kant or Hegel, or Nietzsche. While, Skovoroda (a Ukrainian philosopher) Hume, Shlick (Moritz – from Austria), and surely Eco – would be called real humans.

I do agree on that Postmodernism has brought many evil onto us.

Primarily philosophy is 3 things,

1) sophistry is its most prolific but not its worst face

2) heredity positions in academia with little real purpose except territorial, much of it subconscious racism

3) a system of thinking that can only attain clarity so long as the idea of method is understood.
Philosophy is a collection of methods. I have been trying to identify them
like this:

logical and empirical method (natural philosophy or philosophy of science)
hermeneutical method (reading words written by people, mostly historical)
statistical methods
phenomenology (which is itself akin to hermeneutics, but not limited to text)

The problem is that most so-called scientists simply read the text of others,
verify almost nothing by experiment, nor genuine calculation, let alone algorithm,
and still believe themselves to be scientists, even though they never dabble in
anything more than the echo chamber of peer-review mindless egotism and outright
embezzlement of public money.

Its a process of anti-philosophy that seeks to degenerate society into a medieval shit-show.
But its the philosophers that are to blame; mesmerized by technology based on the real
science of the 1800's; they are easily subdued by raw economic interests; which have
over-powered real ethics. And its philosophy that is supposed to be the bulwark
that defends against such degeneration into what is typically pseudo-science of the gaps.

Science can not know everything. But that gap of knowledge is a void abhored by nature.
And filled with the 21st century quackologists and the neo-marxist anti-ethic
which is little more than neo-Darwinist kill-or-be-killed banality.

Or we could get back to basics and try fix this.
Fundamentally.

Eugene 2.0

Well I did hermeneutics in formal philosophy decades ago,
and its going to be difficult for me to find those sources.
As it is, I have my own refined version of the method anyway.

Hermeneutics is a fairly weak, but very flexible method.
Its really just about inter-subjectivity; and its based on the
shaky assumption that if several quite different people give
textual accounts of an event; then one would be able to ascertain
the facts of the matter by examining such varied accounts.

So its very easy to get away with lying; its not a rigorous
method at all; but its the only way to examine history.
After all, not every writer is lying all the time.

So when scientists do "copy-paste science" all they are

So its easy to see why you became fed up with hermeneutics.
For me though ; I started in physics and got fed up with
its inability to even begin to offer answers to the really
big questions about spirituality.

So the real process is to involve yourself in all methods.
And its not that one is intrinsically better than the others;
its that they have a variety of contexts that favour any of
them; and plenty of studies require all methods.

But at core ; its all about logic.
Its about separating the contradictions from the paradoxes.
And our language is terribly ambiguous; which is why we
all struggle so much.

But we are so far down the road that I am starting to reckon
that corruption is just so entrenched that only a real
shake-down can improve the situation.

Example:

www.bitchute.com/video/rdaBERlW17ed/

Armstrong refuses to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon.

Now we look at the permutations:

Is he a Christian? Then he just admitted to lying about the moon.
If he is not a Christian, then he has no reason not to swear on
the bible; as he was offered $5000 to do it.

So once more he admits to faking the moon landings.
This is why logic is our most vital tool.

We do not need to even go to the moon ourselves
to see his so-called 'footprints'. We can see that
he is lying outright.

But also look at the psychology of how he tries
to walk away from the bible; how he is terrified of it.
Look at his body language.

What if he is agnostic?
Well; he does not want to risk taking the lords name in vain
even if he is unsure about its value.

Same answer.

But why did he not just swear on it?
He redeems himself slightly by refusing to lie under oath.

He could have condemned himself by lying, and protecting
his narrative for the sake of the lie.

He may even have been genuinely threatened into the lie;
but he saves us by refusing the oath.
He lets honesty breath just a little bit.