If, by Adam Young, you mean the Antichrist in the novel Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, then yes. In fact everything Adam young is noted to do - fighting, philosophising, base-building to name but a few - could be considered a hobby. He has no activities in his recorded life that could not be regarded as hobbies.

If, however, you refer to Adam Young, the electronic musician, he has a fondness for Photography, and views himself as an amateur photographer.

If, by Adam Young, you mean the Antichrist in the novel Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, then yes. In fact everything Adam young is noted to do - fighting, philosophising, base-building to name but a few - could be considered a hobby. He has no activities in his recorded life that could not be regarded as hobbies.

If, however, you refer to Adam Young, the electronic musician, he has a fondness for Photography, and views himself as an amateur photographer.

No. A tragedy requires that the protagonist bring his fate on himself. Hamlet and MacBeth are tragedies because the hero's actions bring about the consequences of their fates. Job does nothing (or very little) to bring about what happens to him, even thought its a great deal that happens to him. The book of job is really just a bunch of philosophising over the question 'Why do bad things happen to good people?' and doesn't come up with much of a satisfying answer. Furthermore somebody tacted a happy ending onto the book of Job that would further remove it from being a tragedy.

philadelphus

philadelphuses

philander

philandered

philanderer

philanderers

philandering

philanders

philanthropic

philanthropical

philanthropies

philanthropist

philanthropists

philanthropoid

philanthropoids

philanthropy

philatelic

philatelically

philatelies

philatelist

philatelists

philately

philharmonic

philharmonics

philhellene

philhellenes

philhellenic

philhellenism

philhellenisms

philhellenist

philhellenists

philibeg

philibegs

philippic

philippics

philistia

philistias

philistine

philistines

philistinism

philistinisms

phillumenist

phillumenists

philodendra

philodendron

philodendrons

philogynies

philogyny

philological

philologically

philologies

philologist

philologists

philology

philomel

philomela

philomelas

philomels

philosophe

philosopher

philosophers

philosophes

philosophic

philosophical

philosophically

philosophies

philosophise

philosophised

philosophises

philosophising

philosophize

philosophized

philosophizer

philosophizers

philosophizes

philosophizing

philosophy

philter

philtered

philtering

philters

philtra

philtre

philtred

philtres

philtring

philtrum

I'm not sure logic necessarily is the key to philosophising. For starters, without meaning to be hideously pedantic, I'd really want a detailed definition of what was meant by logic and come to think of it philosphising.

Moving on from there (which otherwise could hold us up for an awfully long time) and just considering the question using my own personal undisclosed conceptions of what these words might mean I'm thinking, no not really. Certainly I think it has an important role (in what respect?) and is an essential component of philosophical argument (really?) but then also so is imagination, perception, vision, intellectual courage, the willingness to question the seemingly unquestionable, the refusal to just accept what we're told without thinking. Logic may be many things but philosophy without imagination, vision and courage would be of little worth.


Just my thoughts. Compare and contrast.