But I don't want to derail the thread. — Wayfarer

You are so proper. Come on... live on the edge...Do it!

its just marxism. You could do it if you had the patience, but I don't blame you

First, I am an artist who knows a lot of art history. So, I am interested in what art you do like, which seems to be 19th century art. — Jackson

I'm an artist too. Yes, 19th cent art is amazing. Mainly, I like all art that has its foundations in the classical school. The only two art sites I visit are artstation and ARC. I also really appreciate graffiti. Sorry , I'm a bit of an art snob.

And please explain what you mean by, "in the ealy 20th century, the art world fell victim to slave morality." What does any art have to do with slave morality? — Jackson

I mean that the market began determining what was good art. Now anything can be art, and all art is equal. Something like this could never happen in science, but philosophy is always at risk of this.

You mean Christianity? — Joshs

Lol. That was closer to the third century up to about the 18th.

Lol. That was closer to the third century up to about the 18th. — Merkwurdichliebe

I imagine there were people like me back in the 19th century who thought: if art does not depict Christian themes, it was inferior.

I should note I love Chalmers, even if this sounds disparaging. He's definitely one of my favorite living philosophers. — Moliere

Really, that's intriguing. I've heard of him on TPF before, but never investigated. I just read a few things about him, very interesting!

Agreement? Disagreement? Why did that matter in the first place? Not sure. — Moliere

Common reality between two parts (entities) --two persons, a person and a group, two groups etc.-- is based on agreement between the two parts. And vice versa: different reality is based on disagreement. Communication is based on agreement. Understanding is based on agreement. Knowledge is based on agreement. In fact, our whole existence is based on agreement.

So, agreement does not only apply between two entities, but to a single entity as well. This is how our knowledge is acquired, our experience formed and our consciousness developed.

Agreement supports, favors life. Disagreement is against life. Both physically and mentally. Total agreement equals "immortality". Total disagreement equals "death".

its just marxism. You could do it if you had the patience, but I don't blame you — Merkwurdichliebe

You just gave me a good reason for not being interested: Marxism. I have left it behind me and never looked back since about 50 years ago! :smile:

A good topic Alkis. I've thought on this plenty of times myself. First, I don't think the forums are a great place to judge philosophy. This is an informal place where people are often learning about philosophy. To ask whether philosophy is moving forward, I think we need to look at the current academic movement of philosophy. It has been several years since I followed academia, but when I was in it, I would say, "No".

Philosophy at a casual level does not take much to get into. All it requires is a child like approach to problems. Take X assumption and simply ask, "Why?" Watch a frustrated adult who does not have the time or inclination to atomically break down the exact reason, and the child is amused and might think they are clever. And there is nothing wrong with this. When getting into any field, it is child-like wonder and amusement that first drives us there. And as children in a field, we poke and prod topics that have long been discovered, but need to be discovered anew by taking that journey.

As you mature, you start to reach the walls in philosophy. Perhaps this is because its successes become settled or science, and there is not much left to talk about. When I was in academic philosophy, there were only a few viable topics which had mysteries that needed to be solved.

1. Epistemology - Definitely problems and issues here that need answers. In my opinion, the most important philosophical problem.
2. Morality - Currently there is no agreed upon and established secular morality.
3. Art - What is it, and why is it needed?

Some people might say "Mind", but that's honestly been taken over by neuroscience. The problem of course, is the answers to these questions have been considered for thousands of years, and are incredibly difficult to solve. Incredibly difficult problems are not very open to the public, or casual philosophers.

Epistemology is likely going to find its advances in AI where its solution will result in billions of dollars of profit. I think this is the most likely candidate for progress due to the money and demand for its solutions. Morality is what we "should" do, which is a question about the future, culture, and context; so its a difficult puzzle to find a formula that adapts to all three variables. Even if you did, morality is very personal to many people, as well as a means of power and control for others; so I would expect immense push back. Art is largely founded on the subjective, so pulling out an objective result faces its own challenges.

Good post!

question without real value or use --for me, of course-- the answer to which is more than obvious — Alkis Piskas

If the answer is obvious, you’re already wrong.

3. Art - What is it, and why is it needed? — Philosophim

Art is largely founded on the subjective, so pulling out an objective result faces its own challenges. — Philosophim

Then all of everyone's life is "subjective."

Progress toward what end?

The goal or assumption of progress in philosophy might be regressive.

Progress toward what end?

The goal or assumption of progress in philosophy might be regressive. — Fooloso4

Philosophy is very different from science. In science people do not talk about past science. In philosophy, people still talk about Plato and Aristotle as live topics.

Philosophy is very different from science. In science people do not talk about past science. In philosophy, people still talk about Plato and Aristotle as live topics. — Jackson

Some people think that the continued interest in Plato and Aristotle is regressive. I do not agree.

Some people think that the continued interest in Plato and Aristotle is regressive. I do not agree. — Fooloso4

Most philosophy departments offer classes in ancient Greek philosophy.
I think the idea of progress is an idea coming from science and does not have much relevance to philosophy.

Most philosophy departments offer classes in ancient Greek philosophy. — Jackson

And some regard it as nothing more than quaint and misguided ideas that are primitive and from which he have progressed.

I think Heidegger was on the right track when he said that in the movement of thought some things are occluded. Hence the importance of retrieval.

I think Heidegger was on the right track when he said that in the movement of thought some things are occluded. Hence the importance of retrieval. — Fooloso4

Retrieve what?

@Banno has the right read on him, I think. He's always interesting. He shares his work for the public. He definitely has a unique perspective on the world. And figuring out why he's wrong is a great pass time :D

Retrieve what? — Jackson

Short answer: the truth (alethea) disclosed at a particular time and place.

Philosophy is very different from science. In science people do not talk about past science. In philosophy, people still talk about Plato and Aristotle as live topics. — Jackson

And some regard it as nothing more than quaint and misguided ideas that are primitive and from which he have progressed.

I think Heidegger was on the right track when he said that in the movement of thought some things are occluded. Hence the importance of retrieval. — Fooloso4

I think the words of physicist Lee Smolen are relevant here.

“… fundamental physics has been in a crisis, due to the evident need for new revolutionary ideas-which becomes more evident with each failure of experiment to confirm fashionable theories, and the inability of those trained in a pragmatic, anti- philosophical style of research to free themselves from fashion and invent those new ideas. To aspire to be a revolutionary in physics, I would claim, it is helpful to make contact with the tradition of past revolutionaries. But the lessons of that tradition are maintained not in the communities of fashionable science, with their narrow education and outlook, but in the philosophical community and tradition.”

Smolen is a big fan of Leibniz. He has pointed out that it is only fairly recently that scientists have ignored or disparaged philosophy. He points out that scientists of Einstein's generation had more than a passing interest in philosophy.

Perhaps there is a connection with the influence of logical positivism and its disregard for philosophy's past.

Smolen is a big fan of Leibniz. He has pointed out that it is only fairly recently that scientists have ignored or disparaged philosophy. He points out that scientists of Einstein's generation had more than a passing interest in philosophy. — Fooloso4

Bohr and Heisenberg actually wrote legitimate philosophy. Not just reflections.

Best statement on the topic of progress in philosophy: " philosophy is its own time comprehended in thoughts." (Philosophy of Right, Hegel, preface).

https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hegel-Phil-of-Right.pdf

Best statement on the topic of progress in philosophy: " philosophy is its own time comprehended in thoughts." (Philosophy of Right, Hegel, preface). — Jackson

The idea of progress is the idea of movement towards something ever better. In the context of knowledge this means.more detailed, more comprehensive, more accurate.I think it is arguable that we see progress in this sense in science.

Hegel's conception of philosophy seems to be the expansion of comprehensive understanding via dialectic; but returning to the first basic idea of progress as the movement of betterment, is it plausible to say that the best philosophical understanding today is better than it was in the past, or is it merely more comprehensive?

Taking, for example Pierre Hadot's notion of philosophy as being. most properly, a way of life, do philosophers today generally live their philosophical understandings better than philosophers in the past did, such as to be better, more ethical people? If philosophy is, as the etymology indicates, "love of wisdom" looking from that perspective should we think that philosophers today are wiser than the ancients?

If philosophers today really do "comprehend their own time in thoughts", does that mean they also comprehend how our own time and its thoughts were arrived at? If you want to say they do, would this be all philosophers, or only some, and if only some, then which ones?

If philosophers today really do "comprehend their own time in thoughts", does that mean they also comprehend how our own time and its thoughts were arrived at? If you want to say they do, would this be all philosophers, or only some, and if only some, then which ones? — Janus

I don't know if philosophers today would agree with Hegel. Especially the science based ones.

I don't know if philosophers today would agree with Hegel. Especially the science based ones. — Jackson

Fair enough, but that wasn't really one of the questions I asked.

To answer one of my own questions I think very few philosophers today understand philosophy, as I think Hegel did, to consist in a comprehensive understanding of the whole movement of its thought, and of the dialectical logic of that movement,

Philosophy today is much more comprehensive overall than in the past, but it is fragmented into myriad schools, each of which in their main focus and central concerns seem to have little understanding of, or interest in, the others.

I do not think we disagree.

Philosophy today is much more comprehensive overall than in the past, but it is fragmented into myriad schools, each of which in their main focus and central concerns seem to have little understanding of, or interest in, the others. — Janus

There is indeed much fragmentation, but let’s see which schools of thought are capable of mutual interchange, based on successful efforts in the past. I can think of such linkages connecting hermeneutics, Wittgensteinian ordinary language philosophy, Existentialism, phenomenology, deconstruction, social constructionism, poststructuralism , critical theory , Marxism,philosophy of mind, cultural studies and philosophy of science.

quote="Janus;717114"]The idea of progress is the idea of movement towards something ever better. In the context of knowledge this means.more detailed, more comprehensive, more accurate.I think it is arguable that we see progress in this sense in science.[/quote]

It may be better to say that most scientists
today still buy into a notion of a cumulative progress in science, but that may be changing.

I don't think we disagree in this connection either.

So, would you say the Logical Positivists, and the Analytics whose main concern is with propositional and modal logic, are the odd ones out (are there others?) islands cut off from the diverse mainland of philosophy?

↪Jackson I don't think we disagree in this connection either.

↪Joshs So, would you say the Logical Positivists, and the Analytics whose main concern is with propositional and modal logic, are the odd ones out (are there others?) islands cut off from the diverse mainland of philosophy? — Janus

The positivists made everyone dumber. If you want to do science, do science.