For me, philosophy is talking about reality in an abstracted sense. It is to devise a underlying ground on which practical decisions are to be based. It abstracts to remove distractions that exist in the practical realm of thinking.
It seeks the underlying assumptions, in metaphysics and ethics. In finding the underlying assumptions, one might find that they differ among different people and are the origin of disagreements. Knowing the origin helps discuss the disagreement, knowing assumptions uncovers ridiculous ones. Of course different reasoning can also lead to disagreements, because someone might be illogical, reason might be subjective, or there are still hidden assumptions.
This is one of the reasons that reasoning from the bible/koran/name is ridiculous, it does not treat assumptions at all, it even tries to proclaim its truth be telling the reader so.
Oh really? Can you help me understand/give your opinion about this http://socialdiscussion.com/civil-li...html#post79471 am i doing something wrong in trying to classify that way? Perhaps it is redundant, with the earlier classifications already being there and all. And perhaps trying to strip the discussion to only the purpose of the 'system of society' is somewhat unfair, because it does not deal with whether it is possible. No-one argued that, though.