Philosophy is dead

[Gottservant]

Philosophy can die, and still be resurrected.

If science dies - empirically - it stays dead.

I think what is missing is an understanding that the process of supposition - used to create arguments in philosophy - is a legitimately constructive method of generating motive.

Science without motive, is weak.

The balance will shift back to philosophy, once culture is dominant, no one writes a play or makes a movie saying "this demonstrates that such and such a science is meaningful", and even if it does, that is a philosophical statement.

 

[variant]

The idea that philosophy in the classical sense can die and be replaced is in itself a philosophical proposition/question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Are you suggesting that this is merely a matter of ethical taste? Some people may treat it that way, but when they do so they cease to be philosophical.

If you are suggesting that science can answer such a question, explain how. Until then, I'll just say that natural rights are more rationally persuasive to me than divine right. This isn't a matter of simply "liking" one ethic over another. Think about Plato's Euthyphro.

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

No, it can't! Philosophies can be mistaken. It doesn't matter if one philosophy regards something as true. It can be mistaken, just as anyone can be mistaken. This is why philosophers critique the reasoning of other philosophers in academia.

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

Life experience and the power of reason. Certainly not science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGG]

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.

I tend to agree with this. Philosophy is good for training intellect, and challenginh stubborn assumptions.

 

[Paradoxum]

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
​

What do you mean by how philosophy has been useful in determining how the world around us works? How the world works is mostly or completely the area of science.

Arguments about what should be law, or what is right are wrong, come under philosophy. They use reason to try to come to a better understanding or worldview.

Subjects like the philosophy of mind might also be worth considering. Should we assume that consciousness can be explained in the normal mechanical way, or does it require a new way of thinking about the physical world. Well philosophy tries to ask these questions, and propose potential solutions.

Whether we have free will comes under philosophy, and that is something worth considering, even if just for the sake of truth itself.

I find it hard to understand how someone can be against philosophy. To me it sound like saying it isn't worth examining your life or your worldview. To refuse philosophy seems like refusing to think critically.

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you mean by how philosophy has been useful in determining how the world around us works? How the world works is mostly or completely the area of science.

Arguments about what should be law, or what is right are wrong, come under philosophy. They use reason to try to come to a better understanding or worldview.

I would argue that both come from the same source, a simple type of pragmatism based on realism.

Should we assume that consciousness can be explained in the normal mechanical way, or does it require a new way of thinking about the physical world. Well philosophy tries to ask these questions, and propose potential solutions.

The evidence will determine the process by how our brains work, not philosophies, IMHO.

Whether we have free will comes under philosophy, and that is something worth considering, even if just for the sake of truth itself.

Same as above. Whether or not we have free will is a matter of fact, not philosophy.

I find it hard to understand how someone can be against philosophy. To me it sound like saying it isn't worth examining your life or your worldview. To refuse philosophy seems like refusing to think critically.

I am saying that philosophy isn't that useful for examining your life and is a poor way of teaching critical thinking.

 

[Paradoxum]

I would argue that both come from the same source, a simple type of pragmatism based on realism.

If you would argue that using reason, that is philosophy you are engaged in. You can't reason about ethics (for example) without philosophy, because ethics (and meta-ethics) are philosophy.

I'm not totally sure how you are using the words, but pragmatism and realism are philosophies.

The evidence will determine the process by how our brains work, not philosophies, IMHO.

I was talking about the mind, not the brain. They are the same thing in a sense, but it's still a useful distinction. Science will probably figure it out, but philosophy could help.

Same as above. Whether or not we have free will is a matter of fact, not philosophy.

What do you mean by that? I'm not sure if you know what philosophy is, if you think philosophy and facts are mutually exclusive.

How do you think we know this fact without philosophy?

I am saying that philosophy isn't that useful for examining your life and is a poor way of teaching critical thinking.

Philosophy basically is critical thinking. The point is to make critical arguments based on reason. I can't speak for others, but I know it taught me how to think better.

What do you think philosophy is?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that philosophy can be useful, in certain contests. As Socrates said "The unexamined life is not worth living". That may not be true at all times, but certainly pervious generations examinations have lead to knowledge which makes my life more habitable. Muhammed (saws 4 the muslims) reportedly said "Knowledge is kept in stores the keys to which are questioning."

Certainly practical material knowledge has answered exigent needs, stuff like agriculture and shelter construction help us on the path. But the thought tools that man has developed (math, logic, empiricism etc) have roots in philosophy in part at least.

I'd say that knowing what and knowing how are interlinked, and the philosophical aspect of knowledge is like the trunk on the proverbial elephant: not all people feel it, but its certainly there and it does a job. Although on its own its maybe just a piece of dead meat...

So... maybe philosophy is a cognitive adaptation which is like an organelle in a cell (like a nucleus[sup]1[/sup], or a lysosome[sup]2[/sup], or a vacoule[sup]3[/sup] or like a cytoskeleton[sup]4[/sup] - or all viewed in different analogical contexts) rather than a complete independent life form. Yet a lot of life has an explicit or implicit philosophical aspect to it.



1 - generating meterial to be considered.


2 - break down garbage with logical analysis.


3 - encircle junk as falsehood to be rejected, and recognise truth as valuable to be accepted.


4 - provide a metaphysical, moral, logical, political, and epistemic structure through which to organise our relationship to the world via abstract cognitive comportment concretised in resultant action.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wilfrid Sellars argued that the point of philosophy was to see the countryside as a whole, while the point of each specialist discipline was, as the name implies, to investigate its own special topics against the backdrop of a wider intellectual landscape. This view imparts to philosophy an integrative function. It works in tandem with the knowledge generated by other disciplines to produce an overall picture.

The "death of philosophy" seems to stem from a misguided comparison of philosophy and the sciences. People see the progress of science made tangible when they send an email or receive a vaccine. They don't see the fruits of philosophy because they aren't as tangible as holding a tablet computer in your hand. The fruits of philosophy are ideas, many of which people accept or benefit from without having done any formal philosophising or without an awareness of the origins of those ideas. Yet ideas can, and indeed do, change the world.

 

[discipulus]

I am waiting for this cough syrup to come down....

 

[Gottservant]

I think the mistake philosophy made (in past centuries) is that it developed motive, or reason, but it didn't do more than that.

It is like the child who is told not to touch the cookie jar. He reasons in himself one day when he is alone that no one will notice and he opens the cookie jar, but he can't help himself and he takes too many. Then he gets in trouble and learns a valuable lesson: don't just assume you can get away with it. Then one day he sees his younger brother reaching for the cookie jar, but he doesn't say anything.

That to me was the philosophy of past times. In the effort to be politically correct, it shyed away from being proactive. Now science has developed a modern information age and people are all excited about the latest technology, but philosophy still isn't saying anything. That will change once science becomes the backbone to a more grounded culture, that embraces technology but does so culturally instead of blindly, because it is the latest thing.

To get there, philosophy will start having to create a contrast. Thinking critically should create a different character, in someone. It should show that you are influencing outcomes in a particular way, because you have the intellectual strength to know the difference between a critical interpretation and a mere assumption. Once it is clear that there is a path to a more qualified way of thinking, people can begin to make conjectures about where their life is headed, before it is too late to change anything.

We all come to junctures in our life where the lessons we have learned can be applied more broadly than before. If we do this in a detached way, the greater the gain that can be had by being methodical and applied. The next story we write, can be informed. The next person we meet, can be inspired. The next leader we vote in, can be motivated.

If all we do is work for the system that science fuels, it will crush even the best of us.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think the mistake philosophy made (in past centuries) is that it developed motive, or reason, but it didn't do more than that.

It is like the child who is told not to touch the cookie jar. He reasons in himself one day when he is alone that no one will notice and he opens the cookie jar, but he can't help himself and he takes too many. Then he gets in trouble and learns a valuable lesson: don't just assume you can get away with it. Then one day he sees his younger brother reaching for the cookie jar, but he doesn't say anything.

That to me was the philosophy of past times. In the effort to be politically correct, it shyed away from being proactive. Now science has developed a modern information age and people are all excited about the latest technology, but philosophy still isn't saying anything. That will change once science becomes the backbone to a more grounded culture, that embraces technology but does so culturally instead of blindly, because it is the latest thing.

To get there, philosophy will start having to create a contrast. Thinking critically should create a different character, in someone. It should show that you are influencing outcomes in a particular way, because you have the intellectual strength to know the difference between a critical interpretation and a mere assumption. Once it is clear that there is a path to a more qualified way of thinking, people can begin to make conjectures about where their life is headed, before it is too late to change anything.

We all come to junctures in our life where the lessons we have learned can be applied more broadly than before. If we do this in a detached way, the greater the gain that can be had by being methodical and applied. The next story we write, can be informed. The next person we meet, can be inspired. The next leader we vote in, can be motivated.

If all we do is work for the system that science fuels, it will crush even the best of us.

I'm not sure I understand your comparison between a cookie jar and past philosophy. What do you mean by being pro-active? Trying to change society with it's ideas?

Also, what do you mean by a more grounded culture, or accepting technology based on culture?

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not sure I understand your comparison between a cookie jar and past philosophy. What do you mean by being pro-active? Trying to change society with it's ideas?

Philosophy should be methodically applying itself to subjects society deals with. We do it with politics, but not with philosophy. I should be able to go to the movies and see "The utilitarian dream", "the utopian nightmare III" and "Zeno's paradox, the art movie". I should be able to turn on the tv and see a debate about "consequentialism vs means". I should be able to go to a "pacifist doctor". I guess that's why we have the internet, because society is just not interested in this stuff.

Also, what do you mean by a more grounded culture, or accepting technology based on culture?

At the moment culture has only barely encountered the peace brought about by an industrialised society. People have focussed on advances in technology and the accelerating pace of work, which is a very narrow limited focus. Science has ruled the day saying "we give the answers", but this is naive. Philosophers of past days were not pursuing intellectual pursuits because they were bored or because technology hadn't advanced far enough, they pursued philosophy because there is something fundamental about having a motive and knowing how you function believing in that motive - that is human technology.

As society realizes that it still has tvs and it still has movies and it still has special effects, it is going to grow bored with technology that doesn't make it think. People itch, its not enough to just put on a show for them, you have to engage their reasoning. There's a gap there, things should better the human soul or eventually people are going to realize that they would have been better off just sitting at home, doing nothing. You don't sit through a movie thinking, "I hope the next special effect goes off well" or if you do you walk out of the theatre a very stupified person.

The problem is that there is a breach between people who show off their politics, instead of their philosophy and society as a whole, that condenses philosophical argument to sophism in the courtroom. Philosophers are able to master this situation, but only if they can demonstrate that different persuasions work, and they do, but only if you think them out. I'm not saying its necessary to publish masses of work that explains every possible philosophical angle, but philosophers should be able to work strategically enough that there is room for debate of what they do.

That's when philosophy comes alive, with debate. When I say society needs to embrace technology based on culture, I am saying we need to stop saying "We have the truth now" when really all we have is a bunch of stuff and no real way to make a difference using it. If people were philosophers or they listened to philosophers, they would know that just having the stuff isn't going to do more for you than give you a temporary glimpse of peace, that would make a lot more sense if you reasoned in yourself what you were actually going to do with it and why doing it was going to make a difference.

The reality is that philosophy is out there already, people are thinking. People are sitting down and deciding what they are going to do with their lives, trying to work out how soon they are going to end and what they are going to be left with when they do. The philosophers are out there, the trouble is society is not recognizing them, instead we have the young and care free popularity of tv and movies that do nothing to address the real problems these everyday philosophers face. The thing is, it won't last. Sooner or later, these people, these everyday people are going to say "You know what, I'm going to sit and think about something meaningful instead of going to see Die Hard 9, because you know what I am a moral thinking person and life is better when I try to make sense of it for myself".

That's when people say "Sure I have this technology, but you know what I don't care, I'm going to use it to express myself in a way that no one else can, a way that you can't unless you actually give time and think about what you are trying to do"

 

[poolerboy0077]

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?

Clearly the person in that blog doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

I love two things about that statement. One is the caricature of philosophy of old irrelevant men asking aimless questions like "what is the purpose to life or the cosmos." LOL

The second is the juxtaposition of science and philosophy. Does this ignoramus not realize that the only reason scientists are able to conduct experients is because of philsophy? Its research methodology was not a product of science; it is merely the tools used to explore natural phenomena. Contributors like Karl Popper and the philosophy of science as well as Immanel Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason made it possible for the beauty of science to become established and flourish in the way that it did.

When prospective law students take the LSAT, what are they cramming for? Law? No. They study cold, raw logic--an important part not only of epistemology but really of the whole field. This is why philosophy means love of wisdom. To ask what is the use of philosophy is akin to asking of what use is understanding. To even understand how to possibly go about uncovering reality (epistemology), understanding human values (ethics) or how we can get clear about what and how things exist, one inevitably makes a point of contact with philosophy--like it or not--and it is vitally important in every domain of our lives: from the law (jurisprudence), to science, to religion, to politics, to economics, and so on.

 

[Gottservant]

I reckon you nailed it...

To ask what is the use of philosophy is akin to asking of what use is understanding.

right about there.

To even understand how to possibly go about uncovering reality (epistemology), understanding human values (ethics) or how we can get clear about what and how things exist, one inevitably makes a point of contact with philosophy--like it or not--and it is vitally important in every domain of our lives: from the law (jurisprudence), to science, to religion, to politics, to economics, and so on.

Right on!

 

[KCfromNC]

The second is the juxtaposition of science and philosophy. Does this ignoramus not realize that the only reason scientists are able to conduct experients is because of philsophy?

Hopefully not, since it's not true. Scientists are able to conduct experiments because reality is amendable to testing, not because some philosopher wrote a book.

Sure, some philosophy types came along after the fact and described science working, but that's far different than informing scientists how to do their job. The philosophy of science really doesn't have much effect on actual scientists doing science, no matter how influential it might have been on other philosophers.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Hopefully not, since it's not true. Scientists are able to conduct experiments because reality is amendable to testing, not because some philosopher wrote a book.

Sure, some philosophy types came along after the fact and described science working, but that's far different than informing scientists how to do their job. The philosophy of science really doesn't have much effect on actual scientists doing science, no matter how influential it might have been on other philosophers.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. The testing itself was courtesy philosophy. I never said philosophers are involved in the testing and implementation itself. Take for instance falsifiability. The philosopher Karl Popper set this criteria as an invaluable one for the sciences. It is that any explanation must be able to be refuted if the facts were any different. You can take almost any methodology in science and it traces its roots to philosophy, such as empiricism as a whole. Science is an empirical study of data. Scientists make observations and attempt to determine causation mechanisms in nature. The means by which to go about this did not come from studying natural phenomena but thinking about ways in which research itself can be done.

 

[Davian]

From Philosophical Society.com

"Why should anyone bother to study at least a little logic? To sharpen the mind in a world saturated by streams of propaganda and advertising. To know when a pitchman is conning you, when some "expert" or pundit is propounding a dubious doctrine, when someone is making an apocryphal claim about miracles or divinity or the afterlife. To chasten one's own thinking, to develop an appreciation for tenable arguments and a respect for good reasoning. To become more adept at solving problems, whether they're encountered in business, science, politics, or the law."

logic

 

[discipulus]

From Philosophical Society.com

"Why should anyone bother to study at least a little logic? To sharpen the mind in a world saturated by streams of propaganda and advertising. To know when a pitchman is conning you, when some "expert" or pundit is propounding a dubious doctrine, when someone is making an apocryphal claim about miracles or divinity or the afterlife. To chasten one's own thinking, to develop an appreciation for tenable arguments and a respect for good reasoning. To become more adept at solving problems, whether they're encountered in business, science, politics, or the law."

logic

Speaking as one who for the moment sees all men as gods....

The above is just somebody's opinion though. Just as what I am typing right now is my opinion. And while I of course respect it, I can completely disagree. Many could care less about sharpening their mind. Many could care less about discerning who a conman is and who is not. Many love having an undisciplined, unchastened mind which mirrors their undisciplined life. Some could care less at solving problems.

Some may even say philosophers are the biggest group of useless individuals at a university.

Opinions are opinions, we may agree, we may disagree, but in the end, they have this in common.....both determine what is meaningful to them.

 

[Davian]

Speaking as one who for the moment sees all men as gods....

The above is just somebody's opinion though. Just as what I am typing right now is my opinion. And while I of course respect it, I can completely disagree. Many could care less about sharpening their mind. Many could care less about discerning who a conman is and who is not. Many love having an undisciplined, unchastened mind which mirrors their undisciplined life. Some could care less at solving problems.

Some may even say philosophers are the biggest group of useless individuals at a university.

Opinions are opinions, we may agree, we may disagree, but in the end, they have this in common.....both determine what is meaningful to them.

Broken record is broken.