Philosophy is dead

[discipulus]

The below article was taken from the Evolving Atheist's Blog:

“Philosophy is dead” | The Evolving Atheist's Blog



Philosophy is not a quest for knowledge. Philosophy is on a quest for its own relevance. “Philosophy is dead.”- Stephen Hawking.


Try as I might to explain the irrelevance of philosophy in today’s world, these people continue to waste their time studying it. Philosophy asks questions like “what is the purpose of the universe?” among countless others. Questions like this are meaningless and there is no grounds to answer the question sufficiently. Philosophy is not science, otherwise it would have outgrown itself, instead of being the anachronism that it is.


Comments?

 

[fishing]

If philosophy is dead, so is poetry, theology, art - anything that makes us tick.

If the atheists really are arrogant enough to suggest that every aspect of human experience can be contained and quantified within the rational confines of science and empiricism, then I fear we may revert to a stage of existence that is inferior to that of an amoeba.

 

[Loudmouth]

The below article was taken from the Evolving Atheist's Blog:

“Philosophy is dead” | The Evolving Atheist's Blog



Philosophy is not a quest for knowledge. Philosophy is on a quest for its own relevance. “Philosophy is dead.”- Stephen Hawking.


Try as I might to explain the irrelevance of philosophy in today’s world, these people continue to waste their time studying it. Philosophy asks questions like “what is the purpose of the universe?” among countless others. Questions like this are meaningless and there is no grounds to answer the question sufficiently. Philosophy is not science, otherwise it would have outgrown itself, instead of being the anachronism that it is.


Comments?

I tend to agree with Steven Weinberg who seems to find that they only thing useful about philosophy is protecting us from bad philosophies. It's a bit lengthy, but the first few pages are well worth reading:

http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

If philosophy is dead, so is poetry, theology, art - anything that makes us tick.

If the atheists really are arrogant enough to suggest that every aspect of human experience can be contained and quantified within the rational confines of science and empiricism, then I fear we may revert to a stage of existence that is inferior to that of an amoeba.

Poetry, theology, and art still have the benefit of evoking enjoyable emotional reactions. However, philosophy was meant to be a way of finding truth, but in our discovery of truth and knowledge we have found philosophy to be useless, at best, and even counterproductive in some instances.

 

[Davian]

The below article was taken from the Evolving Atheist's Blog:

“Philosophy is dead” | The Evolving Atheist's Blog



Philosophy is not a quest for knowledge. Philosophy is on a quest for its own relevance. “Philosophy is dead.”- Stephen Hawking.


Try as I might to explain the irrelevance of philosophy in today’s world, these people continue to waste their time studying it. Philosophy asks questions like “what is the purpose of the universe?” among countless others. Questions like this are meaningless and there is no grounds to answer the question sufficiently. Philosophy is not science, otherwise it would have outgrown itself, instead of being the anachronism that it is.


Comments?

If I change the word "philosophy" for "theology", your post makes a lot more sense. It would appear that some think the word is interchangeable.

As a theist, does that not more accurately describe your concerns?

 

[discipulus]

If I change the word "philosophy" for "theology", your post makes a lot more sense. It would appear that some think the word is interchangeable.

As a theist, does that not more accurately describe your concerns?

Nope. I have no concern that theology is dead.

This is not the theology section by the way so please stick to the topic. We are discussing philosophy not theology.

 

[super animator]

I tend to agree with Steven Weinberg who seems to find that they only thing useful about philosophy is protecting us from bad philosophies. It's a bit lengthy, but the first few pages are well worth reading:

http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

That's a negative way to looks at things. The way I see it, philosophy is thinking differently viewing things differently, to promote critical thinking and think in ways you never thought of before, to promote creativity and problem solving.

 

[super animator]

Poetry, theology, and art still have the benefit of evoking enjoyable emotional reactions. However, philosophy was meant to be a way of finding truth, but in our discovery of truth and knowledge we have found philosophy to be useless, at best, and even counterproductive in some instances.

Even if that is the originally intention when it first created, (Which I skeptical of that claim, since I never heard/read from someone who made that claim before) that doesn't mean we can't re-purpose it into something that we can all benefit from.

 

[Crandaddy]

As Etienne Gilson once remarked, "Philosophy always buries its undertakers."

Philosophy is not dead, nor will it ever die, so long as there are minds that think. There can only be good philosophizing and bad philosophizing, and I'll give you one guess as to which one Hawking is doing...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As Crandaddy aptly said, philosophy will continue to live so long as there are minds that think, though the role of philosophy may change as the frontiers of knowledge expand outward.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the problem with philophy is not that its a junk subject, but that its not commercially useful in a mainstream sense. The product of philosophising is more abstract than a chocolate bar, but nutritious in its own way. Anyway Hawkins is a scientist and there is philosophy of science. And if we ought to prefer science to philosophy, can you reason about that claim without implicitally accepting a (modern, non-standard) deontic logic?

 

[Eudaimonist]

For me personally, philosophy is alive and well. It has relevance to my life, and I see it as a quest for wisdom, not relevance.

I'll agree that there may be a problem with philosophy's vitality in academia and in the broader culture. I see this as at least partly a result of Christianity's destructive influence on philosophy, as described in Pierre Hadot's writings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

The below article was taken from the Evolving Atheist's Blog:

“Philosophy is dead” | The Evolving Atheist's Blog

Philosophy is not a quest for knowledge. Philosophy is on a quest for its own relevance. “Philosophy is dead.”- Stephen Hawking.

Try as I might to explain the irrelevance of philosophy in today’s world, these people continue to waste their time studying it. Philosophy asks questions like “what is the purpose of the universe?” among countless others. Questions like this are meaningless and there is no grounds to answer the question sufficiently. Philosophy is not science, otherwise it would have outgrown itself, instead of being the anachronism that it is.


Comments?

The writer of the blog could benefit from a bit of philosophy, considering their argument (if it could be called that) is rather shaky.

Philosophy isn't a science, but it can see help us move away from falsity, inconsistency, and unjustified claims. It can also help us move towards truth, though it doesn't the high probability of truth that science has.

I agree, “What is the purpose of the universe?”, does sound like a pointless question. In fact I have little idea what the question means without a God. I did a philosophy degree, and the 'meaning of life' was discussed in just one part of one module in the first year. It is hardly defining of the whole of philosophy.

Nevertheless, asking what the meaning of life is can be useful, even if the answer is that there is no objective meaning. To say that you make your own meaning can be a useful thing to know.

There are subjects in philosophy with arguably more practical importance, such as philosophy of politics and law (how should a nation be run and with what laws). The philosophical study of ethics is also worthwhile. In fact I would say that having well reasoned laws and ethics are perhaps such as important as science.

Poetry, theology, and art still have the benefit of evoking enjoyable emotional reactions. However, philosophy was meant to be a way of finding truth, but in our discovery of truth and knowledge we have found philosophy to be useless, at best, and even counterproductive in some instances.

Why do you think philosophy is useless? I'd saying having well reasoned arguments about what should and shouldn't be law, what is right and wrong, etc, are worthwhile.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you think philosophy is useless? I'd saying having well reasoned arguments about what should and shouldn't be law, what is right and wrong, etc, are worthwhile.

But how are those the product of philosophy? Where has philosophy ever been useful in determining how the world around us works?

It may seem to the reader (especially if the reader is a professional philosopher) that a scientist who is as out of tune with the philosophy of science as I am should tiptoe gracefully past the subject and leave it to experts. I know how philosophers feel about attempts by scientists at amateur philosophy. But I do not aim here to play the role of a philosopher, but rather that of a specimen, an unregenerate working scientist who finds no help in professional philosophy. I am not alone in this; I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers. --Steven Weinberg
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf
​

 

[Eudaimonist]

Where has philosophy ever been useful in determining how the world around us works?

That isn't the purpose of philosophy, unless you are talking about natural philosophy, which is today what we call "science".

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. Science is terrible at dealing with prescriptive ethics, but that is a branch of philosophy. Science also depends on philosophy for epistemology and simple metaphysical concepts.

Philosophy may help one through a dialectical process to think logically and get one's ideas in order. It may not make "scientific discoveries" all on its own (unless it is natural philosophy!), but it nevertheless can remove error from one's thoughts and is indispensable for coming to realizations about how to live in the world based on our knowledge of how it "works".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

I find the work being done by philosophers Daniel Dennett, Thomas Metzinger, and Massimo Pigliucci to be very interesting, not at all as alluded to in your OP.

Nope. I have no concern that theology is dead.

Philosophy on the topic of theology then.

To paraphrase the OP, theology asks questions like “what is the purpose of the universe?” among countless others. Questions like this are meaningless and there is no grounds to answer the question sufficiently. Theology is not science, otherwise it would have outgrown itself, instead of being the anachronism that it is.

That does have a ring of truth to it.

This is not the theology section by the way so please stick to the topic. We are discussing philosophy not theology.

On the subject of theology sections, I am still waiting for a response to this post.

Also: have you ever posted here under the username "Elioenai26"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom.

I disagree. The pursuit of wisdom is the pursuit of wisdom. Philosophy has led us astray many a time in our quest for wisdom.

Science is terrible at dealing with prescriptive ethics, but that is a branch of philosophy. Science also depends on philosophy for epistemology and simple metaphysical concepts.

We toss or keep philosophies dependent on whether we like the ethics they proscribe. Ultimately, we judge the ethics ourselves and adopt the philosophy that comes with it as a sort of tag-along.

Philosophy may help one through a dialectical process to think logically and get one's ideas in order. It may not make "scientific discoveries" all on its own (unless it is natural philosophy!), but it nevertheless can remove error from one's thoughts and is indispensable for coming to realizations about how to live in the world based on our knowledge of how it "works".

An error in one philosophy is a truth in another. That's the problem in my estimation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I disagree. The pursuit of wisdom is the pursuit of wisdom. Philosophy has led us astray many a time in our quest for wisdom.

If it ever has, it had ceased to be philosophy, or was simply honest error.

Philosophy is precisely the "love of wisdom". Phil- (love) and sophy (wisdom). Love implies pursuit.

We toss or keep philosophies dependent on whether we like the ethics they proscribe.

Speak for yourself.

An error in one philosophy is a truth in another.

No, error is error, no matter which philosophy it exists in. Philosophy does not imply some sort of epistemological subjectivism.

And that is one good reason why you need philosophy -- to recognize such issues when they arise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Speak for yourself.

On what grounds do we judge the philosophy of divine right over that of natural rights?

No, error is error, no matter which philosophy it exists in.

Except that error in one philosophy can be truth in another.

Philosophy does not imply some sort of epistemological subjectivism.

Then how do we judge which epistemology that we will work with? How do we judge which philosophy we will adopt?

 

[Crandaddy]

I'll agree that there may be a problem with philosophy's vitality in academia and in the broader culture. I see this as at least partly a result of Christianity's destructive influence on philosophy, as described in Pierre Hadot's writings.

Hmmm... Seems to me that it has more to do with the materialistic, results-oriented mindset that we moderns tend to have. We unfortunately have allowed the phenomenal success of the natural sciences to go to our heads, so that we tend to see scientific progress as being of paramount importance, and thus whatever philosophical pursuits not conducive thereto as no more significant than hobbies of trivial importance (at best).

And lest I be misunderstood, I'm not knocking science. Science is great, but Truth is valuable just by itself and for its own sake, not merely because it's an instrument for scientific progress. Our modern society has largely lost sight of this, and it seems to me that this has more to do with the demise of philosophy than anything else.

And far from having a destructive influence on philosophy, I see philosophy and Christianity as going together hand-in-glove. Christianity borrowed heavily from Classical philosophy (especially Platonism) during its early, formative years, and Aristotelian philosophy thrived in the medieval European West. And what's more, Christianity (in its better forms, anyway) also shared in common with those ancient philosophers the ethos that philosophy should be practiced as a way of life, and that man should seek to conform himself to Truth. Christianity, in its essence at least, never dispensed with any of this.