Does "philosophy" obscure the basics?

[RDKirk]

Is this thread about aesthetics, ethics, or epistemology?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is this thread about aesthetics, ethics, or epistemology?

...I think it's supposed to touch a little bit upon on all aspects of philosophy in general, or at least it could be applicable in such a way.

Peace

 

[Conscious Z]

As Krauss once famously said: you can lock the top 100 philosophers of ALL TIME in a room and have them discuss reality for millenia. But not a single one of them will come up with things like relativity theory, quantum mechanics, the higgs boson, etc. Because "logic" and argumentation by themselves can't lead to such conclusions. You need empirical science and expertise in an empirical scientific field to come up with those things.

And you can lock up the 100 greatest scientists of all time and they will never produce a robust account of morality, epistemology or metaphysics. You could lock up 100 firefighters and they will never come up with medical findings. Does that mean firefighters aren't useful? Of course not. It means they have a different job.

I believe it was Carnap who said that science is the search for truth, but philosophy is the search for meaning.

Scientists are notoriously bad philosophers. I remember in Black Holes and Baby Universes Stephen Hawking said that a being with free will is a being whose actions cannot be predicted. That is a terrible definition that would be rejected by any real philosopher.

And that's why people like Krauss are of the opinion that "philosophy is dead" when it comes to scientific progress.

Philosophers don't claim to be making scientific progress...

It seems to me that today, if you have someone who's only claim to fame or who's only credential is being a "philosopher", chances are rather big that the dude will also be a theologian or theistic apologist or something.

Then why are there hundreds of analytic philosophy departments across the world filled with philosophers, the vast majority of whom are not theists or interested in theology in any way? Open up a respected philosophy journal such as Australasian or Journal of Philosophy and tell me how many theologians or "theistic apologists" you find. The number will be quite small.

It's always funny to me when people claim that there are no more philosophers anymore. The field is literally more "professionalized" than at any point in history.

 

[Conscious Z]

Where do 'philosophy' and 'theology' converge? Theology is a subdivision of philosophy. Theology is a specific section of "knowledge, reality, and existence".

No, it is not. Despite theologians best efforts, theology is not a branch of philosophy. Auto repair also requires knowledge, but that doesn't make it a branch of epistemology.

Philosophers engage in philosophy of religion, but that is not the same as theology.

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes good points. That deduction versus induction thing is good to keep in mind.

Philosophers engage in both inductive and deductive reasoning all the time. When they say things like "We shouldn't cause needless suffering, therefore it is wrong to kill puppies for fun," they are using deductive logic.

Both are used all the time.

 

[Conscious Z]

Imo it seems some philosophies get so involved the original subject matter and basics seems to get lost in some cases.

1. Do you feel sometimes "philosophy" forms a distraction that loses touch with the basics?

2. At what point do "theology" and "philosophy" converge? (Do they converge in "metaphysical" "reality", or is philosophy merely playing theology?)

3. Is Christ a "philosopher"?

1. The purpose of philosophy is to illuminate the basics, not obscure them. The basic just may not be as simple as you wish them to be.

2. Theology and philosophy don't really converge. Philosophers do philosophy of religion, but that is not the same as studying god himself. Don't get me wrong, there are many people (typically employed by religious universities) who wear both hats, but that is not the same as saying the disciplines themselves converge.

3. No, unless you consider everyone to be a philosopher. Everyone has to make a determination of what is right and wrong, what constitutes good information and bad information, and what sorts of things exist in the world. These are philosophical functions, but I personally don't think that makes every person a philosopher any more than every mom is a doctor because she can put on a band-aid.

 

[StarTemple]

Philosophers engage in both inductive and deductive reasoning all the time. When they say things like "We shouldn't cause needless suffering, therefore it is wrong to kill puppies for fun," they are using deductive logic.

Both are used all the time.

Maybe I used the wrong word. The act of discovery, versus, cooking a philosophy to meet a preconceived notion is what I was pointing out from Archie the Preacher's post:

"The other trap in philosophy is many people start from a conclusion and work backward rather than beginning with facts and working toward a conclusion."

So like cooking data to meet a preconceived theory, even if by falsification, some philosophies have an agenda before they begin, or at least some philosophies can be overridden later to meet an agenda that usually relates to control, profit or concealment of reality imo. Or they are just accidental errors too, it seems. If we've learned anything here, money is always involved somewhere in the chain.

Now on Archie's other comment:

"Where do 'philosophy' and 'theology' converge? Theology is a subdivision of philosophy. Theology is a specific section of "knowledge, reality, and existence"."

This is true in a way, imo. You can visit the theology and philosophy section of a well stocked library and you can actually watch the Plato and "philosophy" section physically "converge" into the "theology" section from left to right, like a gradient, literally, on the bookshelf as one end "philosophy" merges into the other end "theology", and in between is some wild hybridization writings. So the convergence is literal, you can see it with your own eyes, one "shuffles", one "blends", into the other amidst the books merging across the shelf in a convergence of time as well.

(In that middle gradient, you find things that dip into "magical" kinds of philosophic ideas. The Dewey Decimal system provides and interesting graph of inter-relationship, in some cases, imo)

When you get to the "theology" end of the shelf, Plato somehow makes it all the way through the transformation into "theology", like in "logos" and "godhead" philosophy-to-theology areas. Imo without Plato I do not know if we would have orthodox "theology" as we know it today without it being as well founded as it is in the Greek Platonic ideas, now the foundation of the seminary "school of thought". Plato should be given more open credit in Christian philosophical development than he receives today, imo.

It was rather amazing when I actually saw that physically at a university library I was perusing. I think the Chaldean Oracles even pop up in that mix, so more than the Greeks come into play in the theological subset and mix we have today; I mean the Greeks were based on something older. A family member was at the Princeton Theological Seminary at the time, so we openly spoke about these roots in the Greeks. He is quite the bamboozler in those kinds of topics, and it paid off well as well for him, but they were glad to see him go, lol.

I agree with Archie in that regard. To me, "theology" is newer and is a subset of Greek Philosophy in many regards, the Greek is far older, modern "theology" sprung up later and upon the Greek base logic already well established.

Seems natural, they were trying to explain divine revelation by use of the mundane speculations of their time, and the Greeks were known for endless speculation, famous in that day and thus it was natural to attempt to explain Christ by use of the Plato microscope of the day. (1Cor1)

In time the synthesis was far more sustainable and profitable in the Christian emergent system, imo. So profit and sustainability played a role in this metamorphosis, imo. Now its a multi-billion dollar seminary and printing industry globally.

The well obscured philosophy of money seems to be the driving force, but of course it is required to be sustained to this degree. Unfortunately, I feel, in time philosophical differences is why Christianity is a house divided to the state it is today, in its first main fissures, and from there it just rippled to more and more chaotic sects and divisions all trying for their own piece of the same market pie. (Matt12:25-26) Yet they refer to the main philosophy as the uniformity and that "unifies" it all. I'm not so sure really.

Imo over development in the philosophic realm (Isa10) is what allowed this "divide and conquer" dynamic, and this may be why the Catholic Church put up such an effort to keep it "unified" under their philosophic model. Imo had the Catholic Church not enforced its philosophic model by pains of death so well for quiet a while, it may have diverged even more so by now and faster.

This is not saying there is no Jesus Christ, just the longer they play with the idea the more over analyzed it has become imo. To me Christianity is a good case study in this metamorphosis, because its development is well documented and in reality it is a divided house by virtue of these over analysis, imo.

I think they were trying to find Plato's already familiar "forms" in the Bible, rather than examining the Bible to form its own uniqueness, thus relating to Archie's original insight of what it means to "work backwards" from a preconceived notion of Plato and "making it fit" a completely independent account of reality.

That's my philosophy on the matter, lol.

 

[StarTemple]

My favorite insights on this thread so far:

Originally Posted by bhsmte

To me at least, it seems philosophy often reaches; paralysis from analysis levels quite often.

Originally Posted by Roonwit

I would also argue that, rather than saying that a philosopher is someone who studies philosophy, rather philosophy is that which is done by philosophers (at least, when they are behaving philosophically). That may seem a trite distinction, but I think it is important.

Originally Posted by Archie the Preacher

The other trap in philosophy is many people start from a conclusion and work backward rather than beginning with facts and working toward a conclusion.

Originally Posted by DogmaHunter

The further you go back in time, the harder it becomes to differentiate science from philosophy. While today, the trend seems the go the other way... it becomes increasingly harder to differentiate philosophy from theology.

 

[StarTemple]

3. No, unless you consider everyone to be a philosopher. Everyone has to make a determination of what is right and wrong, what constitutes good information and bad information, and what sorts of things exist in the world. These are philosophical functions, but I personally don't think that makes every person a philosopher any more than every mom is a doctor because she can put on a band-aid.

LOL, yep, my mom was doctor, lawyer, psychiatrist, admiral, accountant and philosopher.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Do you feel sometimes "philosophy" forms a distraction that loses touch with the basics?

Sometimes, perhaps. But not because it is philosophy.

2. At what point do "theology" and "philosophy" converge? (Do they converge in "metaphysical" "reality", or is philosophy merely playing theology?)

They are similar, but not really the same thing.

Philosophy (done correctly) goes wherever reasoning leads. It can generate real surprises, because it doesn't start with any particular conclusion in mind.

Theology starts with a fixed conclusion (the existence of whichever god), and then attempts to defend that single conclusion or examine the implications of that conclusion.

3. Is Christ a "philosopher"?

Not in the slightest. Jesus Christ in the New Testament makes no effort to defend his views in the manner of philosophers. He tends to resort to arguments from authority.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dms1972]

Imo it seems some philosophies get so involved the original subject matter and basics seems to get lost in some cases.

1. Do you feel sometimes "philosophy" forms a distraction that loses touch with the basics?

2. At what point do "theology" and "philosophy" converge? (Do they converge in "metaphysical" "reality", or is philosophy merely playing theology?)

3. Is Christ a "philosopher"?

Good questions.

Much contemporary philosophy can be a distraction.

Philosophy and theology converge it seems to me in some writers - such as Josef Pieper who was a contemporary expositor of Thomas Aquinas.

Most theologians have a philosophy - for instance Johnathan Edwards was influenced by idealism.

CS Lewis drew nearer (or more likely the other way) to God through taking the philosophy he held more seriously (though he didn't actually intend this) and admittance of the metaphysical and obedience to conscience combined in his case to lead to his convertion to Theism.

Philosophy isn't Theology. Philosophy may be playing Theology when it denies the importance of revelation. Both Philosophy and Theology are important.

If you mean is Christ merely a "philosopher"? I would answer no. As with Peter's recognition of this in the New Testament this is something we come to understand through revelation.

There are a couple of books one called God and the Knowledge of Reality by Thomas Molnar, and one called On Jesus by Douglas Groothius that might be helpful. I only have the first and have only had a quick read of the first few pages.

 

[Tree of Life]

1. Do you feel sometimes "philosophy" forms a distraction that loses touch with the basics?

In my opinion, modern philosophy has totally lost touch with its original purpose. "Philosophy" literally means "love of wisdom". And "wisdom" has to do with living successfully. You do the math on that one.

2. At what point do "theology" and "philosophy" converge? (Do they converge in "metaphysical" "reality", or is philosophy merely playing theology?)

Philosophy and theology converge on every level and meet at every place. Indeed knowledge of anything at all is theology in some way.

3. Is Christ a "philosopher"?

Depends on what you mean.

 

[Davian]

In my opinion, modern philosophy has totally lost touch with its original purpose. "Philosophy" literally means "love of wisdom". And "wisdom" has to do with living successfully. You do the math on that one.


Philosophy and theology converge on every level and meet at every place. Indeed knowledge of anything at all is theology in some way.
...

Does the bible praise wisdom and knowledge, as we use those words in the common vernacular?

 

[Tree of Life]

Does the bible praise wisdom and knowledge, as we use those words in the common vernacular?

All the time.

 

[Davian]

All the time.

<looks for substantiation of this statement - sees none>

 

[variant]

All the time.

The Bible has it's own definition (read assertion) of what is wisdom.