The idea of most people today of what it means to be philosophicallly ‘up to date’ is regressive with respect to the above thinkers. Most are still living in the world envisioned by, at best, certain early 19th century writers and , at worst, much older thinkers. So before we can talk about the need for creative innovations in philosophy we have to make sure we aren’t reinventing the wheel. — Joshs

If it isn’t already, this is a great idea for a thread.

Quick question on this. Who will catch up first - mainstream philosophy, or culture?

Do you think many either praising or doom-mongering about current A.I. realize that the philosophical underpinning of today’s cutting-edge computer technology can be traced back to the era of Leibnitz?
— Joshs

And if philosophy departments were doing that, then that would be attempting to solve modern day problems with older philosophy — Philosophim

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, then it is that older philosophy which defines the very meaning of the modern world, and dealing with those problems requires meeting people where they are at in terms of their worldview. That means beginning from the philosophers they already relate to and moving the needle forward at a pace they can manage. It doesnt mean trying to shove down their throats ideas so far removed from their worldview that they are prompted to respond with a mix of incomprehension and hostility. That is a recipe for political disaster, and in fact it is a large part of the reason MAGA emerged.

Liebniz would laugh at a professor wasting time on his old monad theory if he had the understanding of modern day chemistry and physics we do — Philosophim

My point is that all scientific theories are expressions of underlying philosophical worldviews, and the cutting edge of today’s physics and chemistry is based on philosophical presuppositions harking back more than 150-250 years. Heidegger wrote:

…a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. We Germans are now precisely beginning to prepare ourselves to grasp Leibniz.

Heidegger wasn’t just referring to the general public but to the scientific community as well. So the best way to move the needle forward on our ‘modern’ chemistry and physics is to introduce those chemists and physicists to the next era of philosophy they are ready to absorb relative to the philosophy they already understand. That means going back to cutting edge philosophy of at least 100 years ago. For instance, Lee Smolen is an example of a physicist who believes his field desperately needs an infusion of newer philosophical ideas. And if you examine which philosophical era he wants the field to transition from (Kantian) and which era he wants it to enter into (post-Hegelian), you’ll see what I mean.

Btw, nothing I’ve read from you suggests to me that your own philosophical perspective has moved significantly beyond Leibnitz. Can you tell me what philosophers you think have gone beyond his thinking and why?

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, then it is that older philosophy which defines the very meaning of the modern world, and dealing with those problems requires meeting people where they are at in terms of their worldview. That means beginning from the philosophers they already relate to and moving the needle forward at a pace they can manage. It doesnt mean trying to shove down their throats ideas so far removed from their worldview that they are prompted to respond with a mix of incomprehension and hostility. That is a recipe for political disaster, and in fact it is a large part of the reason MAGA emerged. — Joshs

Joshs I think you have an idea in you're head that you're not quite communicating clearly. And it may be that I lack context to understand what you're trying to say here. Can you attempt to clarify a bit with some examples?

If most people are moving in a world of ideas that are 200 years old, then aren't modern day problems really the problems of 200 years ago? And if the world is 100 years behind modern philosophy, doesn't that mean philosophy is 100 years behind where we expect it to be? That would seem to lend credence to my point. Also where did you get the idea of shoving ideas far removed from people's world view when the point is about philosophy being behind and not addressing the current world view? Finally, where did MAGA come from?

My point is that all scientific theories are expressions of underlying philosophical worldviews, and the cutting edge of today’s physics and chemistry is based on philosophical presuppositions harking back more than 150-250 years. — Joshs

Which philosophical presuppositions, and why are they presuppositions?

So the best way to move the needle forward on our ‘modern’ chemistry and physics is to introduce those chemists and physicists to the next era of philosophy they are ready to absorb relative to the philosophy they already understand. — Joshs

So taking philosophy and applying it to modern day? I'm not sure if you're responding to my point anymore or you're taking this somewhere else. My original point is that philosophy as an academic study is too focused on its past philosophies without regard to coming up with solutions to modern day problems. This was based on my personal experience as a graduate student, so it is a personal anecdote. Do you have examples of philosophy as an academic institute pushing its students to solve cutting edge problems. Is philosophy at the forefront of science, psychology, ethics, and religion, being read daily by masters of the field and laymen who follow them?

If most people are moving in a world of ideas that are 200 years old, then aren't modern day problems really the problems of 200 years ago? And if the world is 100 years behind modern philosophy, doesn't that mean philosophy is 100 years behind where we expect it to be? That would seem to lend credence to my point. Also where did you get the idea of shoving ideas far removed from people's world view when the point is about philosophy being behind and not addressing the current world view? Finally, where did MAGA come from? — Philosophim

When I refer to the ‘cutting edge’ of philosophy of 100 or 200 years ago, I have in mind a tiny handful of thinkers. When you talk about modern day problems, you have in mind the culture as a whole, whereas I’m talking about isolated thinkers. Those thinkers typically become known within the larger academic community ( and from there to the wider community) within a short time and their ideas are written about and taught. But Heidegger’s point stands (“ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. We Germans are now precisely beginning to prepare ourselves to grasp Leibniz”).

It can take the academic community 100 years or more to effectively understand the radicality of the most important philosophers, even though they have been studying and teaching their work over that period of time. That’s why when you complain about the philosophical community being fixated on the ideas of writers from earlier times I must counter that this is as it should be be as long as the implications of those ideas have yet to be fully appreciated. And buttressing philosophical ideas with the results of the latest sciences is not going to accomplish the ‘modernization’ of philosophy when those very sciences unknowingly ground themselves in philosophical
presuppositions dating back a century or more.

That’s why when you complain about the philosophical community being fixated on the ideas of writers from earlier times I must counter that this is as it should be be as long as the implications of those ideas have yet to be fully appreciated. — Joshs

I said we should be applying those philosophers to modern day problems and trying to solve them. Not that we should be abandoning them. I'm not sure you understood my point.

But Heidegger’s point stands (“ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. — Joshs

His quote exists, it does not 'stand'. An opinion of the state of philosophy a century ago in no way necessitates that it was true then or today.

And buttressing philosophical ideas with the results of the latest sciences is not going to accomplish the ‘modernization’ of philosophy when those very sciences unknowingly ground themselves in philosophical presuppositions dating back a century or more. — Joshs

You never answered my request to provide what these presuppositions are. "Presupposition" is a pretty bold claim when we have modern day physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics with cell phone technology. Are you really claiming that the problems of today can only be answered 100 years from now when every other field is answering them much sooner? Wouldn't that indicate that philosophy needs greater emphasis on modern day problem solving and that perhaps many of its current methods are archaic and not very valuable?

I confess, I'm lending more credence to your point than I think it deserves. If you're excusing philosophy not being able to tackle modern day because its literally two generations behind modern day, that's not a counter to my point, that's an affirmation. But continue because maybe I'm missing something.

I confess, I'm lending more credence to your point than I think it deserves. — Philosophim

As you know, philosophy is divided into distinctly different communities, camps, cultures. What arguments you think deserve credence and what arguments don’t is to some extent a function of which of these communities you identify with and which ones you don’t. The question of the relation of philosophy and science has been at the center of the cultural wars which reached their peak in the 1990’s. On one side of the debate stands those writers who believe the sciences never actually separated themselves off from philosophy, and instead represent elaborations of philosophical worldviews.

On the other side are those who believe that the sciences function independently of philosophy, and that the role of philosophy is merely to clarify and organize the discoveries of scientists. The first group ( Heidegger, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Husserl, etc) has written much about the naively held philosophical presuppositions of particular sciences. The second group believes it is the job of the sciences to lead the way toward new knowledge, and the job of philosophy to try and keep up. You are apparently unfamiliarity with the arguments of the first group, but my guess is you would probably find that they don’t deserve any more credence than mine, which may factor into your negative experience in academic philosophy.

This is a particularly interesting subject.

On the other side are those who believe that the sciences function independently of philosophy, and that the role of philosophy is merely to clarify and organize the discoveries of scientists. The first group ( Heidegger, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Husserl, etc) has written much about the naively held philosophical presuppositions of particular sciences. The second group believes it is the job of the sciences to lead the way toward new knowledge, and the job of philosophy to try and keep up. You are apparently unfamiliarity with the arguments of the first group, but my guess is you would probably find that they don’t deserve any more credence than mine, which may factor into your negative experience in academic philosophy. — Joshs

True. I also don't agree with the second point. Modern day issues are not only about science, nor does philosophy have to merely follow in sciences footsteps. But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. At least I can now understand your viewpoint. Hopefully you understand mine.

But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. — Philosophim

Beautifully put. That said. You may be surprised just how many modern day problems are self-inflicted. People don't want to listen. They want to do things their way. Higher forms of thinking and logic be damned. Until they get into trouble (or what mostly happens is a less discernible, more insidious misfortune: they simply end up living lives that are a shell of what they could have been, and per the nature of the hedonic treadmill, their mind just adapts to the unfortunate circumstance as if it were the only outcome that could have occurred, living lesser lives and often producing more lives that will likely only follow suit).

In short, you can lead a horse to water but... well, you know the rest. :smile:

Unless it's carefully woven into an action movie with explosions and brutality, even the most pointed and crucial piece of wisdom meticulously crafted for one's situation will likely fall on deaf ears. Not always. But more so than not.

I've found the most effective method to improve the lives of the layperson and get them to make better decisions and ultimately avoid grave misfortune is unfortunately to scare them. The government knows it. That's why they force young drivers to look at gruesome traffic accident photos in traffic school. Why dentists show kids and teens and even adults pictures of rotted mouths. Why they have pretty extreme anti-smoking commercials. Why people warn others they care about (or even any young person around) about the prevalence and lifelong burden of STDs. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.