Has every fruitful avenue of philosophy been explored/talked about already?

Outlander

(This may be a discussion more suited to the lounge, if so ok sure, but if I knew so I would have posted it there)

Has every branch of the tree of philosophy reached it's yield? Are we "done" with 99.9% of philosophical thought as far as new, original, and undiscussed ideas go?

I'm here a lot, I'll admit a good portion of it goes over my head, even when I think otherwise. Bearing this in mind I still have noticed there seems to be a lot of "touching on" and "proposing alternatives" that don't often lead too far or gain traction, again as far as new/original/undiscussed ideas and concepts go, at least from my view.

Would you agree with this assertion or no?

I think therefore I am. To be or not to be. The only thing I know is that I know nothing.

Tree falls in the woods, the object exists because we see it not because it contains matter, not great examples but you can recall quickly the root/base/elementary terms used and all their -isms and -ivities.

Relativism. Absolutism. Objectivism. Determinism. And everything in between. An old English teacher responded to me once when I brought up the concept of a "unique story". He said everything imaginable and writable has already been done so, if you know where to look. I want to say that may have been closed minded teaching but he does have a job as a professor so it definitely warranted some afterthought in my opinion.

What do you think? Give examples as to why or why not you believe in either possibility.

(just as a note, new devices, specifically their random "new" applications and realities they create are not new concepts in my view. sure they never had smartphones and machine guns, jetliners, and yachts but they did have letters, diaries, mail, primitive weapons, boats, etc. The same concepts are the same concepts just because they involve advanced platforms, in my view..)

Edit: and if "no" please cite one un discussed example you can think of that can't be Googled or is basically the same thing as a known -ism or -ivity. if you want to be a homie.

Jackson

Bearing this in mind I still have noticed there seems to be a lot of "touching on" and "proposing alternatives" that don't often lead too far or gain traction, again as far as new/original/undiscussed ideas and concepts go, at least from my view.

Would you agree with this assertion or no? — Outlander

No.

T Clark

I'm here for my own reasons - to learn things about myself. To become more self-aware. It's not the mysteries of existence that are interesting, it's how I figure them out. Just because Kant might have thought it through 300 years ago, that doesn't mean I don't have to walk the path too.

Jackson

↪Clarky

Contemporary philosophers debate whether there is progress in philosophy. My first answer is no, because there does not need to be progress. Qualified, sometimes there are vigorous debates and people accept a consensus view, which might be called progress.

Joshs

↪Jackson

Contemporary philosophers debate whether there is progress in philosophy. My first answer is no, because there does not need to be progress. Qualified, sometimes there are vigorous debates and people accept a consensus view, which might be called progress. — Jackson

↪Clarky

Do you think there is progress in science?

T Clark

Contemporary philosophers debate whether there is progress in philosophy. My first answer is no, because there does not need to be progress. — Jackson

As I've noted, philosophy for me is personal, so any "progress" is also personal. I don't know whether philosophy as a discipline progresses or should progress.

Tom Storm

What do you think? Give examples as to why or why not you believe in either possibility. — Outlander

I don't think you can demonstrate that nothing further or new is possible.

Jackson

Do you think there is progress in science? — Joshs

Yes. But philosophy is not science.

Jackson

I don't think you can demonstrate that nothing further or new is possible. — Tom Storm

The very notion seems absurd.

jgill

At first glance one might conclude that the masters of generations long past did it all due to the ongoing discussions about those philosophers. On the other hand there are areas like the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of physics that are vibrant.

Look at all the babble about quantum theory. And judicial philosophy easily reaches the common citizen with reports of deliberations by the SCOTUS and actions and inactions of the Attorney General.

How can ethics not be on a top burner with the ongoing war in Ukraine, and a philosophy of international relations.

Joshs

↪Jackson

Do you think there is progress in science?
— Joshs

Yes. But philosophy is not science. — Jackson

No, it is not science. A philosophical worldview is the basis of a science. If science progresses , then philosophy progresses. Newton=Descartes , Einstein=Kant , Freud=Nietzsche, enactive cogntive science=phenomenology. For every major innovation in science there is a parallel change in metaphysics. A scientific paradigm is nothing but a
conventionalized instantiation of a metaphysical worldview.

Jackson

No, a philosophical worldview is the basis of a science. If science progresses , then philosophy progresses. — Joshs

Science describes physical particles. Philosophy is not limited by physicality.

T Clark

A scientific paradigm is nothing but a conventionalized instantiation of a metaphysical worldview. — Joshs

I see it the other way around. Metaphysics is a tool, a set of tools, people use when they want to figure stuff out.

Joshs

↪Jackson

Science describes physical particles. Philosophy is not limited by physicality. — Jackson

In another 100 years natural science may no longer be in the business of describing physical particles. That is , it may no longer believe in the notion of the physical
particle. There is no clear definitional distinction between philosophy and science. One is simply a more or less applied and conventionalized version of the other.

Jackson

They’re is no clear definitional distinction between philosophy and science. — Joshs

I never heard that before. Please explain.

Joshs

↪Clarky

A scientific paradigm is nothing but a conventionalized instantiation of a metaphysical worldview. — Joshs

I see it the other way around. Metaphysics is a tool, a set of tools, people use when they want to figure stuff out. — Clarky

You mean, like a scientific theory?( except less
conventionalized)

T Clark

You mean, like a scientific theory?( except less conventionalized) — Joshs

I really don't want to get into a discussion about what "metaphysics" is. I'm already in one in another thread. As I see it, metaphysics is the set of underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," people use when they try to understand the world.

jgill

In science,metaphysics is an archaic word replaced by speculation in science.

Jackson

metaphysics is the set up underlying assumptions, — Clarky

Pretty much how Aristotle defines it as "first philosophy."

magritte

Do you think there is progress is science? — Joshs

Science progresses because it is based primarily (but not completely) on technological progress. Technology grows exponentially on top of all previous cultural gains in both science and technology. Also, unlike philosophers, scientists get gradually smarter via increasingly advanced math and science education, allowing them to group-think once settled in their specialties

Philosophy imitated this approach quite successfully in the 20th Century after advances in simple logic and linguistics. That has been over for a while, giving the impression to those exploring analytic philosophy that everything worthwhile has already been thoroughly investigated therefore philosophy is done. But the fundamental problems of philosophy have only been put aside and not resolved.

Jackson

In science,metaphysics is an archaic word replaced by speculation in science. — jgill

Yes, why philosophy is not science.

L'éléphant

I voted yes on both. I have a book that anthologized new ideas on metaphysics. Nah. They're not new ideas, just different emphases on how to look at reality.

L'éléphant

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. And it's not pessimism like Schopenhauer. I don't know who to credit this to. And I don't think "death" here is literal.

I think what that means is this is the last journey humans do and will perpetually be in the state of non-human related daily activities. You go to another realm where grocery lists and electric bills aren't relevant or existent. I don't know.

Jackson

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. — L'éléphant

Socrates/Plato.

L'éléphant

Socrates/Plato. — Jackson

Thank you!

Joshs

↪jgill

In science,metaphysics is an archaic word replaced by speculation in science. — jgill

In postmodern philosophy , scientific speculation is recognized as being beholden to hidden metaphysical presuppositions.

180 Proof

. A scientific paradigm is nothing but a
conventionalized instantiation of a metaphysical worldview. — Joshs

:groan:

↪Outlander

No. No.

philosophy is science — Jackson

Categorical reasoning is hypothetical reasoning? :sweat:

charles ferraro

↪Outlander

No! By definition, geniuses have the uncommon ability to "think outside the box," to "interpret things in ways never before surmised." Will there no longer be geniuses? Will there no longer be humans who have this unique ability? Persons who can look at what we all take for granted and see in it, and show us, something new, strange, and absolutely marvelous? This is really what you are asking, isn't it? Geniuses have the ability to kill the old accepted paradigms.

To Cite Just One Example: Sartre's notion of pre-reflective consciousness as nihilation. This was absolutely new. Historically, no philosopher, other than Sartre, came up with this notion.

I anticipate that there will be many other such future geniuses.

Philosophy is far from being dead.

Instead, it is we, with our limited intellects, who have learned how to die!

Tom Storm

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. — L'éléphant

As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."

I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I know what it means. It sounds romantic.

L'éléphant

As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."

I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I what it means. It sounds romantic. — Tom Storm

Is that right? I've read Michel de Montaigne a long time ago. But couldn't remember that line. But Jackson said Socrates/Plato.

Yes, I am too. Brief and to the point, but brings a lot of punch. And oh yeah, when I read that line the first time, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world.

Jackson

s I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die." — Tom Storm

He is citing Plato. There would be no need to do philosophy if we were gods.

Has every fruitful avenue of philosophy been explored/talked about already?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions