Philosophy is dead

[poolerboy0077]

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.

A word like "opinion" includes a range of different meanings which might explain why very often these nuances are so frequently conflated. Sure, opinions can describe a person's tastes or preferences, but it can also include questions on prudence or politics, technical expertise, or legal and scientific points of view. Biases and points of view are inevitable because of the limited knowledge we harbor which forces us to examine the world through boundaries. Nonetheless, there are degrees of opinions and guesses scaling with the evidence. (This is why the colloquial use of "hypothesis" is understood as an "educated guess.") Opinions are not facts and no one expects them to be treated as such; however, when expressing opinions of the variety that lie outside of expressing one's mere subjective desires, valid and sound support is a good way to get people to consider said opinions more seriously—and that is where philosophy comes in.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you would argue that using reason, that is philosophy you are engaged in.

A person who has never opened a book of philosophy or taken a class on philosophy is able to use reason. Hence, philosophy is redundant at best.

You can't reason about ethics (for example) without philosophy, because ethics (and meta-ethics) are philosophy.

Those philosophies just tag along with our preference for a given set of ethical rules. They are used as a rationale for beliefs that are already held.

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

And yet no one needs to take philosophy classes in order to use them.

I was talking about the mind, not the brain. They are the same thing in a sense, but it's still a useful distinction.

How is it useful?

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.

Either we have free will or we don't. Staring at our belly buttons wondering about it will not change that fact.

How do you think we know this fact without philosophy?

The same way everyone discovers facts without referencing philosophy.

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.

The problem is that you can invent any philosophical system you want that will give different answers, and consider different things to be facts. You can get any answer you want with philosophy. That is what makes it useless.

 

[discipulus]

A word like "opinion" includes a range of different meanings which might explain why very often these nuances are so frequently conflated. Sure, opinions can describe a person's tastes or preferences, but it can also include questions on prudence or politics, technical expertise, or legal and scientific points of view. Biases and points of view are inevitable because of the limited knowledge we harbor which forces us to examine the world through boundaries. Nonetheless, there are degrees of opinions and guesses scaling with the evidence. (This is why the colloquial use of "hypothesis" is understood as an "educated guess.") Opinions are not facts and no one expects them to be treated as such; however, when expressing opinions of the variety that lie outside of expressing one's mere subjective desires, valid and sound support is a good way to get people to consider said opinions more seriously—and that is where philosophy comes in.

But what is considered "evidence" for something is still subject to the individual interpreting the evidence.

I may think there is good evidence for God and list some reasons why i think so.

You may look at the same evidence and say its lousy.

It is still all opinion.....

if the point of reference is each individual then what is up or down or good or bad or bad evidence or good evidence is subject to each individual and their individual psychological makeup given to them by nature.

Even your post and my post now are simply our opinions.

 

[Loudmouth]

But what is considered "evidence" for something is still subject to the individual interpreting the evidence.

However, we are able to distinguish between objective and subjective evidence. When people ask for evidence, they are most likely asking for objective evidence.

I may think there is good evidence for God and list some reasons why i think so.

You may look at the same evidence and say its lousy.

Or we may point out that it is not objective evidence.

if the point of reference is each individual then what is up or down or good or bad or bad evidence or good evidence is subject to each individual and their individual psychological makeup given to them by nature.

That really isn't true. If you were on a jury in a murder trial would you give more weight to objective forensic evidence or to a man claiming to have had a vision from God indicating that the defendant was innocent?

I would say that every single person would opt for the factualy, objective forensic evidence as better evidence than a claimed vision from a deity.

 

[Paradoxum]

A person who has never opened a book of philosophy or taken a class on philosophy is able to use reason. Hence, philosophy is redundant at best.

Most people don't seem to be able to use reason very well though. Many people also don't question the things that you have to think about when doing a philosophy course. It opens you up to the questions.

My mum has said that my taking philosophy and talking about it has gotten her to think about issues more and in a different way than she did before. So clearly you can get to middle age without using critical reasoning, but the slight exposure to philosophy can change that somewhat.

You may be able to gain better reasoning without learning about past or current philosophies (which could be considered philosophy anyway), but you wont be opened up to the context of various issues and ways of thinking about an issue.

Those philosophies just tag along with our preference for a given set of ethical rules. They are used as a rationale for beliefs that are already held.

Though having certain principles can change your individual moral values. It happens. I'm pretty sure it has with me.

And yet no one needs to take philosophy classes in order to use them.

But then you are arguing against philosophy classes, not philosophy. Also, if you don't read other peoples reasons for or against a position, you're less likely to have a good foundation for accepting that position. You might have missed a reason for or against that position being right or wrong.

How is it useful?

Because the brain refers to the brain, but the mind means the conscious experience. Saying "the brain changed in X way" isn't the same as saying "I see blue". They mean different things.

Either we have free will or we don't. Staring at our belly buttons wondering about it will not change that fact.

How do you find out if you have free will? Especially before modern science? You can make a good argument against free will without reference to science.

The same way everyone discovers facts without referencing philosophy.

Which is? The brain is physical, the physical is determined, the mind is the brain (in some sense), therefore the mind can't be free?

There are still non-physical arguments for there being no free will, and they would work better on someone who believes in a soul, or a mind which isn't the brain.

The problem is that you can invent any philosophical system you want that will give different answers, and consider different things to be facts. You can get any answer you want with philosophy. That is what makes it useless.

It may not be conclusive, but it's still worth thinking than not thinking. Not thinking deeply is the only other option, it seems. I think it does move people towards more reasonable answers, and reveal false opinions.

It's worth asking what we can 'know', how best to reason, what is moral or ethical, what the law should be, etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A person who has never opened a book of philosophy or taken a class on philosophy is able to use reason. Hence, philosophy is redundant at best.



Those philosophies just tag along with our preference for a given set of ethical rules. They are used as a rationale for beliefs that are already held.



And yet no one needs to take philosophy classes in order to use them.



How is it useful?



Either we have free will or we don't. Staring at our belly buttons wondering about it will not change that fact.



The same way everyone discovers facts without referencing philosophy.

Yes, people are able to reason without ever having taken a class on philosophy. But to the extent that they are able to reason well they have come into contact with philosophy, sometimes without even being aware of it. Spotting logical fallacies is one example.

The problem is that you can invent any philosophical system you want that will give different answers, and consider different things to be facts. You can get any answer you want with philosophy. That is what makes it useless.

Some philosophers would agree with you! Of course, that isn't a critique of philosophy per se, but of certain types or methods of philosophy. I don't think "You can get any answer you want" with a logical fallacy.

 

[poolerboy0077]

But what is considered "evidence" for something is still subject to the individual interpreting the evidence.

I may think there is good evidence for God and list some reasons why i think so.

You may look at the same evidence and say its lousy.

It is still all opinion.....

if the point of reference is each individual then what is up or down or good or bad or bad evidence or good evidence is subject to each individual and their individual psychological makeup given to them by nature.

Even your post and my post now are simply our opinions.

Truth is ascertainable. Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it cannot be evaluated on the evidence. And simply because people are stubborn and unwilling to sometimes agree even on basic fact itself doesn't make reality "relative" or unknowable. Consider the fact that you are (seemingly) attempting to rebute my earlier post. Why the need? After all, opinions and the things they point to are relative—even your own relativist position! You have to concede that your relativist position (an opinion) is not better, according to your own line of reasoning, than someone who holds the opposite view. You are now lost in a sea of your own relativity. To date there is not one relativist who behaves as if no opinion could be assessed, ranked, verified or relied upon. The position is just nonsense.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, people are able to reason without ever having taken a class on philosophy. But to the extent that they are able to reason well they have come into contact with philosophy, sometimes without even being aware of it. Spotting logical fallacies is one example.

I think this is a reasonable idea. Philosophy as a field doesn't produce knowledge or truth, and most of the stuff it does generate is really only of interest to other philosophers. But the main benefit of it is generating people who can use logic, reason and critical thinking skills. Now these skills alone don't generate much of value (think garbage in, garbage out no matter how reasonable the intermediate steps), but combine this with some pragmatism, realism and belief in using evidence and you get good results.

Not to say that people can't pick these skills up elsewhere (and many do), but it's one of many reasonable places to go to learn them.

 

[A New Dawn]

Admin Hat

Thread has been reopened.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well for me the alternative "science or religion" lead to nihilism. It is only the discovery of philosophy that really got me out of that dilemma.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well for me the alternative "science or religion" lead to nihilism. It is only the discovery of philosophy that really got me out of that dilemma.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AlexBP]

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

I agree. Well said. Look at the entirety of human existence. In the vast majority of societies that have ever existed, there has never been anything that could be recognized as a scientific experiment. Only a handful of civilizations ever independently produced even the beginnings of scientific thought. And among those, only one civilization ever brought science to flourish and produce major positive changes for all its people. That would be western civilization, and the most significant ideas of modern science all began in that civilization and spread outwards to other civilizations. They were not devised independently in many different civilizations. The reason is that people in other civilizations thought differently, in a way not conducive to the growth of science.

Some folks in the hard sciences--not all--live on an intellectual island, cut off from all the other disciplines and not aware of how ideas have developed through history. This leads to statements such as the one quoted in the OP.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Are you saying Christian heritage in particular was a historical condition of science?

 

[AlexBP]

I didn't say that. Nonetheless it would be interesting to discuss why, historically, so many original scientific discoveries originated in Judeo-Christian civilization and so few elsewhere.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say that. Nonetheless it would be interesting to discuss why, historically, so many original scientific discoveries originated in Judeo-Christian civilization and so few elsewhere.

Do you have some sort of metric that would quantify these discoveries, and when they happened? And, to GS's point, that they can be attributed more to them being a product of a "Judeo-Christian civilization" rather than, say, people that wore pants?

 

[AlexBP]

Do you have some sort of metric that would quantify these discoveries, and when they happened?

Obviously there is no "metric" that would "quantify" scientific discoveries, since exactly what constitutes a scientific discovery cannot be nailed down precisely. Nonetheless Nicole d'Orisme, Jean Buriden, Nico de Cusa, Copernicus, Galileo Galilee, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Antoine Lavoisier, Michael Faraday, Dmitri Mendelev, Hans Oersted, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck, and scores of others were all residents of Western civilization, which was until recently general called Christian civilization. If you wish to seriously argue that there is some other civilization which produced a list of scientists whose achievements are, in total, equal to the total of the scientists I just listed, you're welcome to make that case.

And, to GS's point, that they can be attributed more to them being a product of a "Judeo-Christian civilization" rather than, say, people that wore pants?

The claim that the level of scientific discoveries in a civilization depends on type of clothing rather than what and how people think is inherently silly.

 

[Davian]

Obviously there is no "metric" that would "quantify" scientific discoveries, since exactly what constitutes a scientific discovery cannot be nailed down precisely. Nonetheless Nicole d'Orisme, Jean Buriden, Nico de Cusa, Copernicus, Galileo Galilee, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Antoine Lavoisier, Michael Faraday, Dmitri Mendelev, Hans Oersted, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck, and scores of others were all residents of Western civilization, which was until recently general called Christian civilization.

So that would be "no", then.

If you wish to seriously argue that there is some other civilization which produced a list of scientists whose achievements are, in total, equal to the total of the scientists I just listed, you're welcome to make that case.

Why would one do that, without proper metrics?

The claim that the level of scientific discoveries in a civilization depends on type of clothing rather than what and how people think is inherently silly.

What then? Scientific discovery is driven by personal superstitions?

 

[AlexBP]

In this topic, "metrics" do no exist. To demand metrics and then claim victory when the other guy can't provide them is therefore silly. If you want to continue being silly, you may do so with my blessing, but without my participation. Good night.

 

[KCfromNC]

In this topic, "metrics" do no exist.

So if I could produce a longer list of names of scientists from a time when these societies switched to secular governments, does that disprove your point? Heck, without ways to measure what you're claiming, would anything possibly disprove your claim?

 

[Davian]

So that would be "no", then.

Why would one do that, without proper metrics?

What then? Scientific discovery is driven by personal superstitions?

In this topic, "metrics" do no exist.

Agreed.

To demand metrics and then claim victory when the other guy can't provide them is therefore silly.

No, to make statements that demand metrics where there are, by your own admission, none to be had, is silly. The intent of my post was only to bring that to light.

Do you think that anyone is fooled by your misrepresentation of others' posts?

If you want to continue being silly, you may do so with my blessing, but without my participation. Good night.

We will miss your silliness.

Adios.