Topics Philosophy

Question How are branches ("or fashions") of philosophy created or are they created without consensus? For example, I see on Wikipedia, a philosophy a mind, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of pain, and so on. But why not a philosophy of the fashion industry, why not a philsophy of simple living and so on?

Accepted:
January 7, 2014

Comments

This is a terrific question and I look forward to seeing some of my colleagues' answers to this one ... no doubt many different factors are in play, from those designing courses and curricula, to those editing journals and anthologies and reference sites (such as wikipedia or Stanford Encyclopedia of PHilosophy), to marketers/publishers trying to sell books etc ... also as research progresses, things may begin to branch off in semi-'natural' ways ... there's 'philosophy of science' which historically was quite broad -- but now with hyper-specialization it's common to see philosophy of x, where x is some particular science (chemistry, biology, etc) ... I have a colleague who is working with just a few others to develop a whole new sub-discipline called 'philosophy of paleontology' (check out the book by Derek Turner of that name if it interests you) ... and of course one other factor is simply personalities: if someone became interested in 'philosophy of the fashion industry' and put his/her mind to it, then there would be some work in that area ... and if the person were charismatic enough, and/or the work interesting enough, there'd be a few people doing it ... then someone would set up a panel of that name at an APA conference, which might attract others -- and then they'd set up their own independent conference on the subject -- and then before long there would be a journal etc.... (or -- NOT -- if nobody cares ...!)

interesting question!

ap

I agree with Andrew Pessin. If you agree with Plato that

The one who feels no distaste in sampling every study,

and who attacks the task of learning gladly and cannot

get enough of it, we shall justly pronounce the lover

of wisdom, the philosopher.

then, for any x, there can be a philosophy of x, which would be the philosophical investigation of the fundamental assumptions, methods, and goals of x (including metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical issues).

As Richard Bradley has said, "Philosophy is 99 per cent about critical reflection on anything you care to be interested in".

As to which values of x succeed in becoming an established part of philosophy, I think Pessin has it right: It's a question of how many other philosophers also want to study x philosophically; it's not a question of whether x is somehow antecedently "worthy" of being discussed philosophically. Anything has that worth potentially.