Features of the philosophical

_db

My belief is that modern science, as it is expressed in popular media, has a jealousy of philosophy, and not the other way around (contrary to the popular science articles harking on and on about the imminent death of philosophy through the total assimilation into science). I believe it to be true that these pop-scientists have realized after thirty years that they picked the wrong field and wish they had as much fun as the philosophers do. Thus they go through a process of ressentiment and accuse philosophy as accomplishing nothing and being worthless, while simultaneously attempting to steal philosophy's questions. It's all very profitable, too. The fact is, however, that philosophical questions resist answering due to their high complexity. In other words, philosophy is hard and only for grown ups.

Science, for the most part, is actually quite boring and the occasional interesting discovery that bubbles to the surface does so surrounded by the mundane. In fact most of the interesting scientific discoveries are interesting because they are philosophically relevant. The theory of evolution is hugely relevant to how we perceive ourselves. The size of the universe puts our significance into doubt. But the atomic mass of a carbon atom? The structure of a liver cell in cows? The chemical composition of martian soil? A passing curiosity but hardly anything to get our dicks hard. Even quantum mechanics is more hype than substance. There are relatively few scientific discoveries/theories that are really important to people - this can be know to be true due to the fact that most people take the word of scientists at face value and without much thought. If it actually mattered, people wouldn't see science as something to be read about in a magazine while taking a shit. As it stands, most people see science as a form of entertainment and nothing more. The accumulation of knowledge of facts massages our egos - it is the property of facts and not the facts themselves that is desirable.

It is philosophy, not science, that offers us the temptation of "comprehensive understanding" (to quote Heidegger) that a single disconnected science cannot. It is philosophy, not science, that has most, if not all, of the actually cool questions, as well as the most pressing ones. Philosophy studies the important, and determines what is and what is not important. And what is important is generally not a contingent particular but rather the all-encompassing, universal and absolute. Being, rather than beings.

Philosophical issues pervade every aspect of our lives - to a certain extent we are intrinsically philosophical and find psychological nourishment in doing philosophy. In his book The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, Heidegger explains how metaphysics (philosophy) is born out of a feeling of homelessness or homesickness. Dasein is that which Being is an issue for. "Philosophy presents itself as something that concerns everyone and is understood by everyone."

Philosophy is neither science nor art. It is not solely an expression of our sentiments, nor is it an accumulation of facts and data. What it strives for is truth, not in the sense of a dry factual description of the state of affairs but rather through a disclosure and a meeting of the world and our mind. It is ambiguous and resists a definition.

Some key questions that I see of primary importance for philosophy are as follows:

1.) What is the good life? (the most important question of all questions)
2.) Is life worth living? and
3.) For what reason do I exist (and continue to exist)?
4.) What am I?
5.) How do I know what I know?
6.) What is real? and/or What exists?
7.) What happens after I die?
8.) Does God exist?
9.) How do I feel at home in the world?

I might have missed a few by mistake, but clearly these are not only obvious perennial importance in philosophy but perennial importance for every person who has the capacity to think abstractly.

Wayfarer

Science, for the most part, is actually quite boring and the occasional interesting discovery that bubbles to the surface does so surrounded by the mundane. — darthbarracuda

I think that's an excellent post and I agree with it. However I would suggest that that science occupies the role of a guiding philosophy for many in contemporary culture. More than calf livers and planetary dynamics, it is a guide to how sensible people ought to think about things in general. Furthermore the concrete results of science and the technology which it has fostered are dramatic, tangible and obvious, right down to this very forum which allows you to express yourself with such great felicity. Whereas philosophers have been debating what actually constitutes 'the good life' for centuries, millennia even, without there being many tangible signs of progress or change (although your phrase that philosophy 'is ambiguous and resists definition' allows for that).

So whilst I agree with your post, I think that a good many others would fail to see the impact philosophy can have, next to the enormous and obvious impacts of science on day to day life. I suppose that is a bit of devil's advocacy on my part, but worth stating, I think.

_db

↪Wayfarer

I have no issue with the methodology of science, and I don't deny that science has bequeathed us with many helpful things (but also many harmful things). But to demand that something like philosophy "justify" itself by providing some pragmatically useful thing puts the cart before the horse. We have to already be in the mindset of technology to formulate this demand.

Heidegger sees the origination of philosophy as a homesickness. I think it's at least also partly a feeling of helplessness, disorientation and confusion. Anxiety, which both Heidegger and Wittgenstein seemed to have picked up on. The idea of philosophy as being a noble, determined, phallic enterprise is not correct, I think. Leave that to the "hard" (pun) sciences.

Make no mistake I see a kin relationship between philosophy and religion. Or, at least, philosophy and religious orientation, even if you're an atheist. One can be, as I am, religious but in a more sad way, in that I regret the non-existence of God. I am religious without any religion.

Streetlight

I don't see the necessity of pitching philosphy and science in an antagonistic relationship, and if anything the strange animus towards science in the OP seems more like 'little discipline syndrome' than anything else. I also think what reigns in the public is not 'jealously' of philosophy so much as sheer mis- or non-understanding. Philosophy remains largely opaque as to what exactly it 'is' to alot of people, who for the most part encounter it only ever as bumper-sticker quotes to append to those Sunset-inspiration posters.

For my part I'm more and more inclined to see philosophy as something like a second-order sense-making enterprise: that is, philosophy examines how we make sense of the world - it makes sense of our sense-making (hence 'second-order'). Another important function of philosophy is to propose new ways of sense-making: we should understand the world like so, instead of like so. 'Sense', I think, being perhaps the most important question of philosophy, underlying even that of truth; thus the question of truth - 'what is truth'? - ought to be understood to ask not after this or that truth, but the very meaning and sense of truth itself.

And this approach ought to translate to the questions asked in the OP: Not What is the good life, but What is the good life? Not What is real? but What is real? That is, we can't take for granted what is even meant by 'the good life' or 'the real': it's a matter instead of making sense of the questions themselves, asking, as it were, what this question even is asking. And these questions might not be 'static'; their sense we make of them might well respond to extra-philosophical imperatives: historical, political, conceptual, psychological, etc. Hence the importance of 'archaeological' approaches to philosophical questions, which relate concepts back to history and ongoing 'real life' practices (as practiced by say, Foucault, Nietzsche, Agamben, and others).

_db

I don't see the necessity of pitching philosphy and science in an antagonistic relationship, and if anything the strange animus towards science in the OP seems more like 'little discipline syndrome' than anything else. I also think what reigns in the public is not 'jealously' of philosophy so much as sheer mis- or non-understanding. Philosophy remains largely opaque as to what exactly it 'is' to alot of people, who for the most part encounter it only ever as bumper-sticker quotes to append to those Sunset-inspiration posters. — StreetlightX

While I agree "the public" has lost its understanding of philosophy, it is informed by the pop-scientists who continue to label themselves as "rationalists" and who erect a false dichotomy and misunderstanding of science and philosophy.

My point, I think, still stands though: that the questions philosophy tackles are by and large the most interesting and difficult questions, and that many other things get their interest by being relevant to some philosophical questions. I am not antagonistic to science - I am antagonistic to the philosophically-illiterate scientists of today. They are brazenly arrogant and have little understanding about anything they're talking about.

For my part I'm more and more inclined to see philosophy as something like a second-order sense-making enterprise: that is, philosophy examines how we make sense of the world - it makes sense of our sense-making (hence 'second-order'). Another important function of philosophy is to propose new ways of sense-making: we should understand the world like so, instead of like so. 'Sense', I think, being perhaps the most important question of philosophy, underlying even that of truth; thus the question of truth - 'what is truth'? - ought to be understood to ask not after this or that truth, but the very meaning and sense of truth itself. — StreetlightX

Are you familiar with A. W. Moore, and his book The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things? Moore sees metaphysics as the broadest way of making sense of things, including making sense of sense (which we see as effectively started by Kant).

_db

One of the main things I'm concerned about is the desire to assimilate all philosophy into a "scientific" methodology, in the sense of, divide-and-conquer and make each part of philosophy into some specific field with a specific subject matter and a specific methodology in order to simply "acquire" facts.

Philosophical "facts" aren't like scientific "facts". Both are true but philosophical facts should be not be seen as simply another fact. "Metaphysics" shouldn't be a "discipline" in the Scholastic sense. It shouldn't be the case that philosophy is "taught", as if there's certain facts that someone can learn and be like "yup, that's what metaphysics has discovered."

Rather I think the close proximity philosophy has with our Being creates an attitude of hospitality towards subjective, personal inquiry. There is an element of flexibility in metaphysical belief. For instance I think Cartesian dualism is not tenable, but it's fine to let someone follow that path and defend Cartesian dualism. Whereas in science it's less flexible - perhaps because scientific theories are easier to formulate given the restricted subject matter.

apokrisis

I am not antagonistic to science - I am antagonistic to the philosophically-illiterate scientists of today. They are brazenly arrogant and have little understanding about anything they're talking about. — darthbarracuda

Who do you have in mind exactly? And how much is this simply just a fact about what the public wants to buy?

The best-sellers are probably those that take the triumphalist reductionist tone you may be objecting to. And the same will then apply to philosophical best-sellers, like anything Dennett writes.

Another point is that you already seem convinced that naturalism can't explain stuff like morality and aesthetics. I find that to be the unsophisticated philosophical view - left-over 1800s romanticism and theology.

apokrisis

For instance I think Cartesian dualism is not tenable, but it's fine to let someone follow that path and defend Cartesian dualism. Whereas in science it's less flexible - perhaps because scientific theories are easier to formulate given the restricted subject matter. — darthbarracuda

More horsefeathers. Science is only inflexible in demanding the constraint of measurable testing. And that allows a more "anything goes" approach when it comes to hypothesis formation.

Philosophers - at least outside PoMo - feel constrained only to advance reasoned positions. Science allows reasonless ones.

What could have been more lacking in metaphysical reasonableness than quantum mechanics? And yet a whole bunch of scientists dreamt up a revolutionary paradigm in just a decade.

When science is working at the edge of things, the spirit is "can this new idea be crazy enough?" Science can afford to speculate wildly because experiment sorts it out. It is at the other end of things that the discipline kicks in.

_db

Who do you have in mind exactly? And how much is this simply just a fact about what the public wants to buy?

The best-sellers are probably those that take the triumphalist reductionist tone you may be objecting to. And the same will then apply to philosophical best-sellers, like anything Dennett writes. — apokrisis

Yes, "triumphalist" is a good way of putting it. Reminds me of Hegel's quote from his Phenomenology:

"The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees in it simple disagreements."

Which of course has the context of Hegel's criticism of the ahistorical mode of thought in consciousness. The habit of forgetting that everyone in the past thought they had it figured out as well.

Another point is that you already seem convinced that naturalism can't explain stuff like morality and aesthetics. I find that to be the unsophisticated philosophical view - left-over 1800s romanticism and theology. — apokrisis

Aesthetics, maybe? We'd have to have a good idea of what the aesthetic even is, and I take that to be a philosophical issue.

Naturalism can explain morality, sure, as it exists as a phenomenon that can be described. But yeah I am supportive of the autonomy of ethics. Naturalism is not a substitute for moral philosophy, even if it helps inform it. This is not romanticism or theological. It's simply ethical non-naturalism, which works even better when we're anti-realists about morals and/or value.

Naturalism in meta-ethics has promised lots but delivered very little, all things considered. I think it's running on fumes.

When science is working at the edge of things, the spirit is "can this new idea be crazy enough?" Science can afford to speculate wildly because experiment sorts it out. It is at the other end of things that the discipline kicks in. — apokrisis

The problem, as I see it, is that they are given an audience to speculate, which makes their wild speculation come across as more grounded than they really are. Additionally, they get embolded by this new fame and start making stupid metaphysical claims - see Lawrence Krauss declaring the universe can come from nothing (but only if we re-define something as actually nothing). Krauss' book is hardly the "new Evolution of Species" that Dawkins made it out to be. It's laughable and insulting to both science and philosophy to call this egghead's book that.

The frustrating part is that I suspect people like Krauss or Dawkins, or even Dennett, know they aren't philosophically literate but also know the public isn't, so they can get away with selling this snake oil bullshit.

apokrisis

Yes, "triumphalist" is a good way of putting it.[/quote

But still, who are you talking about. The usual suspects like Krauss and Dawkins?

And isn't best sellerdom a consequence of a public taste for triumphalist science (matched by the triumphalism batting for the other side) rather than because science itself is philosophically unsophisticated?

quote="darthbarracuda;102228"]"The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees in it simple disagreements." — darthbarracuda

That's a general beat against reductionism. And one I agree with. It is the nature of all reasoning to be dialectical - to be torn between two opposite truths. The resolution of this tension is then seeing the larger frame that makes them complementary truths.

So all our institutional modes of inquiry - the sciences and humanities - do get into the game of hard either/or. There is no academic game unless the field has divided itself into maximally opposed camps. Every action must have a reaction to be legitimate.

Even in aesthetics, if you have realism, you must have idealism. Abstract art justifies photo-realism as its aesthetic antidote, and vice versa. Each must have the honourable enemy that can most sharply define its own claim to existence.

It's all standard stuff. So to complain about antagonistic divisions is missing the point. That is how dialectical contrasts are developed. It is the necessary main step of any rational institution of inquiry.

So the legitimate complaint against the institutions is that they then tend to be great at the analysis, but poor at the synthesis. Very few people get paid to do that job. Certainly in science, mostly it doesn't happen until someone is 70 and safely emeritus.

The problem, as I see it, is that they are given an audience to speculate, which makes their wild speculation come across as more grounded than they really are. Additionally, they get embolded by this new fame and start making stupid metaphysical claims - see Lawrence Krauss declaring the universe can come from nothing (but only if we re-define something as actually nothing). — darthbarracuda

Yep. Krauss is bad. But worse then Dennett? And in what way are either of them "wild" as opposed to "speculatively limited"?

And again, I don't thing that fame embolden these guys. Instead they got famous by giving the public the unsophisticated stuff that sells.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

When will people understand that science is philosophy?

As I saw one person once put it, "Science is a nicely-packaged philosophy".

Streetlight

While I agree "the public" has lost its understanding of philosophy, it is informed by the pop-scientists who continue to label themselves as "rationalists" and who erect a false dichotomy and misunderstanding of science and philosophy. — darthbarracuda

True, but if anything I think the trick is to simply ignore them when possible, and focus on the much more fulfilling and positive work of looking for opportunities of rapprochement and bridge-building. On the side of science one can look to writers like Massimo Pigliucci, Lee Smolin, and Claus Emmenche (among others) who are largely philosophically literate and don't buy into that conflictual approach. As far as public perception goes though, conflict and black-and-white line drawing are alot more fun, so it's unsurprising that Dawkins and others find such an audience. Again, just best to not play into it.

My point, I think, still stands though: that the questions philosophy tackles are by and large the most interesting and difficult questions, and that many other things get their interest by being relevant to some philosophical questions. I am not antagonistic to science - I am antagonistic to the philosophically-illiterate scientists of today. They are brazenly arrogant and have little understanding about anything they're talking about.

I think it's kinda presumptious to say what is and is not categorically 'interesting'. One imagines some hack on a science forum saying that same thing as you, only in opposite terms, to some general murmur of agreement. Again this strikes me as largely as an exercise in dick-measuring, itself uninteresting.

Are you familiar with A. W. Moore, and his book The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things? Moore sees metaphysics as the broadest way of making sense of things, including making sense of sense (which we see as effectively started by Kant)

No but thanks for the rec! My primary inspirations for this view are precisely Wittgenstein and Deleuze, so it's awesome seeing something that takes both for it's approach as well.

_db

I believe that's a projection of your own ressentiment towards unsophisticated scientists, who make money and get the attention of the public while you, deep thinker and philosopher, who answers existence's hardest puzzles with such elegance and care, the most you can do is chat with five other thorough thinkers on the -currently- greatest online philosophy forum. Oh, I'm feeling so very nietzschean this morning! — Πετροκότσυφας

>:O Perhaps it is ressentiment, but ressentiment is not always unjustified. Sometimes it's due to feeling as though something or someone hasn't been given the credit they deserve.

As far as public perception goes though, conflict and black-and-white line drawing are alot more fun, so it's unsurprising that Dawkins and others find such an audience. Again, just best to not play into it. — StreetlightX

Although I agree that the black and white conflict is not really there, I would say that nowadays it seems like scientists are less knowledgeable about philosophy (and perhaps vice versa). The impression I have is that people think science is where you go to get all the answers and philosophy is some weird mystical shit, an anachronism or something.

No but thanks for the rec! My primary inspirations for this view are precisely Wittgenstein and Deleuze, so it's awesome seeing something that takes both for it's approach as well. — StreetlightX

It's a good read. A few of the chapters are a little rough but overall it's enjoyable.

Streetlight

The impression I have is that people think science is where you go to get all the answers and philosophy is some weird mystical shit, an anachronism or something. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, this is unfortunately true. I'd suggest that a large part of the problem is social and political rather than merely intellectual however: the humanities as a whole - which include literature, history, linguistics, sociology and anthropology - have been largely devalued because they don't directly contribute to the accumulation of capital. Not merely philosophy but a classical education more generally is seen as a matter for hobbyists. If many so readily agree with the views of mono-sighted scientists, it's because they are in some sense ready and primed to agree with them to begin with. The bright-light proper names of 'scientism' are less causes than symptoms.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Science, for the most part, is actually quite boring and the occasional interesting discovery that bubbles to the surface does so surrounded by the mundane. In fact most of the interesting scientific discoveries are interesting because they are philosophically relevant. The theory of evolution is hugely relevant to how we perceive ourselves. The size of the universe puts our significance into doubt. But the atomic mass of a carbon atom? The structure of a liver cell in cows? The chemical composition of martian soil? — darthbarracuda

I suppose if a person is looking for entertainment, comfort, a distraction, an escape, etc. science is not one of the better options available. Pop music is light years ahead of pop-science in entertainment value.

But the notion that science, philosophy and religion are only as valuable as their ability to ask and answer certain big questions is hogwash.

Science--even "the atomic mass of a carbon atom"--can be as beautiful as any work of poetry, fiction, art, architecture, historical narrative, etc.

Just the other day I was having a conversation with someone about what I took from a college physical geography class about how the Great Lakes were formed. Water filled crevices in the Earth's surface. That water then froze and expanded, froze and expanded, and froze and expanded. Gradually large chunks of the Earth's surface were loosened. Then glaciers passed over and ripped out of place a bunch of those loosened chunks. Then rain and snow filled the big holes that were left. Now we have the Great Lakes. It's not "pop-science" written to be on best-seller lists--it is what I learned in the geography department of a public research university. And thinking and talking about it is as enjoyable and satisfying as reading good poetry, reading a well-crafted argument in metaphysics, taking in an impressive work of architecture, etc.

The human population is full of many different personalities, learning styles, thinking styles, communication styles, etc. Just like how musical palates vary from one person to the next, people's spiritual and intellectual palates vary.

Philosophy, as it is usually presented, may not be for everybody.

Philosophy presented with a diverse audience in mind might appeal to more people--even the scientists who dismiss it as useless.

If something has value and that value could be appreciated by many people, it is up to the people who already appreciate that value to show that value.

If people want to say that scientists are horrible at public relations and fail to show the value of their ideas to diverse audiences, fine.

But let's not conflate a lack of appreciation with a lack of value.

More importantly, if appreciation is lacking, like when Neil deGrasse Tyson says that philosophy is useless, vocalizing further lack of appreciation (firing back with "Science is boring") is not a prudent, diplomatic response. We've all heard "Kill them with kindness". Well, kill the non-appreciators with appreciation.

Maybe I am alone, but I see no reason not to appreciate and enjoy all of it as much as I can.

And the people who are able to appreciate things like "the structure of a liver cell in cows" would probably be a joy to listen to.

If science is "boring" it is because the person who is presenting it does not appreciate it or is not good at conveying appreciation.

If nobody appreciated it--if everybody really thought it is "boring"--the work would end.

Wosret

Science has all of the answers, and philosophy has none. It's about asking questions. Even the biggest novice knows that it's about asking "deep" and "profound" questions.

The problem with just getting answers to our questions is that it takes far too much for granted. I think that philosophy is a journey that dissolves our questions into mirrors.

0af

↪darthbarracuda

Hi. For what it's worth, I largely agree with you. We share a bias or taste, let's say. The philosopher (as I conceive him) moves in a larger space, behind or above more respectable disciplines. Those disciplines are perhaps more respectable exactly because they limit themselves. Working within a fixed framework of which statements deserve being taken seriously obviously has advantages. But working in the void outside all given frameworks (debating and creating them) is incomparable.

I like that you mention envy. Maybe you exaggerate or oversimplify a little, but I think you are shrewd to stress the personal element. A person goes to school and has to decide which fork in the road to take. It's a question of value and virtue. Who shall I become? That's seems like a central philosophical question. Am I an "objective" man? Is philosophy about the "higher" objectivity or is it essentially creative? (For what it's worth, I think it lives on the line. It's the sort of thinking that makes the subjective/objective distinction problematic.)

0af

↪darthbarracuda

What if philosophy is both a response to anxiety and terror and a noble, phallic enterprise? What if it's a brave pose in the face of terror? The philosopher "braves" the "void" beyond the platitudes. To be fair, I think of the philosopher largely as a personality type. I usually imagine an atheist, a contrarian. This is the irreligious philosopher or anti-theologian who is nevertheless a theologian of the critical mind itself as "God."

szardosszemagad

Most people think philosophy is science without numbers. That garners a lot of sympathy right there.

Most people who are religious think all philosophy proves the existence of god.
Most people who are atheist think all philosophy proves the non-existence of god.
Whereas all science proves the falsehood of the bible.
Therefore philosophy can be popular with the entire population, while science can never be 100% popular with the population.

Similarly to the five-line display above this, philosophy can be used to prove or disprove the pertinence and allowability of abortions; of sinning; of a virtuous life; of smoking and debauchery; of running and asceticism; of singing the blues (in fact, it is encouraged to sing and dance; Plato was a the number 3 ranked tango instructor in all of Athens, and Kant invented the Waltz. Einstein almost left physics in his early days to play the violin, and Heidegger pledged to never again publish if he only could sing "Lohengrin" at the Scala di Milano in front of a full audience.)

So little wonder philosophy is the darling of the crowd.

But give them a little taste of Heidegger, Heimverkaufenstassubersollkraftkrankenheitwagen, Zoll, or even Kant, and they will run with the tail between their legs back to their mother's aprons.

REAL philosophy is for lions and giants.

0af

REAL philosophy is for lions and giants. — szardosszemagad

I agree. Of course calling the philosophy I like "REAL" is to take a position. I might say that "real" philosophy is a lion's consciousness of himself (or herself) as such. "Philosophy" is the kind of thinking that transforms us into lions and giants. This desire to be a giant seems to be at the center. The guys who think philosophy is science^2 are giants of the supreme kind of knowledge, the scientists of science itself, cardinals or even popes among mere footman (priests) of objectivity. The guys like me who think of philosophy in terms of liberation (becoming conscious of terrible freedom and one's own priest and kind) don't even lean on "alienated essence." A knowledge of freedom re-contextualizes other forms of knowledge. Maybe I don't give a damn about the structure of black holes or even about parading as Mr. Scientifically-Up-To-Date. Of course there's also the more righteous type, those scientists of What We Ought To Do, All of Us, Because Philosophy (Goodness or Duty Science) Said So. Call me cynical, but I see the "power drive" contaminating if not dominating all of it. 'Course this "power drive" is only sinful or dirty or an actual contaminant if one's philosophy (one's "spiritual" self) decides that it is. We might just take it as one more feature of the world (specifically human nature) to reckon with the pursuit of our desires. If this sounds evil, then "real" philosophy might ask why the desire of the other is always assumed to be evil. Are we annoyed because our vanity isn't coddled ? Because our own "evil" desire isn't taken into account first?

szardosszemagad

↪0af

I see philosophy, when I talk of giants and lions, as pure, unforgiving, cruel logic applied. People are scared to think that there is a real world of ideals out there. They are scared to thing that there is no real world out there at all. They are scared to think that there is or there is not a categorical imperative of morality. They are scared to think that there is a real possiblity that there is a god out there or that there isn't. People are scared of their ordinary thoughts that they have taken for granted for years or for decades proven to be fallacies and/or self-contradictory statements. People are scared to ponder whether they are merely atuomatons, or that they actually don't have a free will at all. They are scared to realize that the world does not operate on a {good deed -- reward} basis at all times.

Those who are not scared of, and furthermore propagate and discover how logic applied to life can turn our entire weltaschauung upside-down, are the giants and the lions.

Harry Hindu

I believe it to be true that these pop-scientists have realized after thirty years that they picked the wrong field and wish they had as much fun as the philosophers do. Thus they go through a process of ressentiment and accuse philosophy as accomplishing nothing and being worthless, while simultaneously attempting to steal philosophy's questions. It's all very profitable, too. The fact is, however, that philosophical questions resist answering due to their high complexity. In other words, philosophy is hard and only for grown ups. — darthbarracuda

People remember famous scientists more than famous philosophers because the famous scientists are the ones that changed our lives and how we think about ourselves more than any philosopher.

The key to understanding the relationship between philosophy and science is to realize that philosophy is a science. And the conclusions of one branch of the investigation of reality must not contradict those of another. All knowledge must be integrated.

You cannot have a philosophical belief that contradicts a scientific one. If your philosophical belief isn't falsifiable and the scientific theory that contradicts it is falsifiable and hasn't been falsified, then it looks like your philosophical belief is worthless, or at least no better than any other idea that isn't falsifiable, which can be any crazy idea that any human being can come up with as an explanation to anything.

Once a belief (religious or philosophical) becomes falsifiable, it becomes scientific.

philosophy examines how we make sense of the world - it makes sense of our sense-making (hence 'second-order'). Another important function of philosophy is to propose new ways of sense-making: we should understand the world like so, instead of like so. 'Sense', I think, being perhaps the most important question of philosophy, underlying even that of truth; thus the question of truth - 'what is truth'? - ought to be understood to ask not after this or that truth, but the very meaning and sense of truth itself. — StreetlightX

This sounds like you are describing science. Making sense of our sense-making is cognition - a scientific discipline. There is also evolutionary psychology. Science has been encroaching on philosophical questions, just as it has encroached on religious questions, and is addressing these problems better than philosophy or religion ever could.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private.

szardosszemagad

↪Harry Hindu

Is the name of Buddha less recognizable than that of Einstein? Are the names of Marx, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, less recognizable than those of Newton, Mendeleyev, Anyos Jedlik or Janos von Neumann?

What about Reubens, Rembrandt, Michelangeo; Dante, Shakespeare, Bronte; Austen, Chaucer (*), Rodin, Henry Moore, Raquel Welsh, Brigitte Bardot, Sir Thomas Moore, Henry the eighth, Ivan the Terrible, pharao Cheops Gilgamesh?

Name recognition, the magnitude of it, does not depend on a given person's area of expertise; it depends on how high above the rest he or she is standing out in a particular field of endeavour.

(*) This one only as an age-old and renewable torture device for young students.

0af

I see philosophy, when I talk of giants and lions, as pure, unforgiving, cruel logic applied. People are scared to think that there is a real world of ideals out there. They are scared to thing that there is no real world out there at all. They are scared to think that there is or there is not a categorical imperative of morality. They are scared to think that there is a real possiblity that there is a god out there or that there isn't. People are scared of their ordinary thoughts that they have taken for granted for years or for decades proven to be fallacies and/or self-contradictory statements. People are scared to ponder whether they are merely atuomatons, or that they actually don't have a free will at all. They are scared to realize that the world does not operate on a {good deed -- reward} basis at all times.

Those who are not scared of, and furthermore propagate and discover how logic applied to life can turn our entire weltaschauung upside-down, are the giants and the lions. — szardosszemagad

I think we are largely in agreement. Philosophers are brave. They face and analyze terrible possibilities.

As you say, they consider the possibility that the world isn't just (a system for rewarding good deeds and punishing bad deeds.) To me this is what's great in the book of Job.

As you say, they are afraid to discover that their decade's old "common sense" is maybe just confusion or fallacy. They are terrified of discovering that they have built their self (or self image) on the sand.

But where do philosopher's find this uncommon courage? Why do philosophizer's value the terrible truth more than the comfortable lie? What allows them to put their prejudices on the altar or give them to the flames of critical thinking?

I think they love the image of themselves as (potential) fearless heroes that they expose all of their other attachments to danger in order to live-up-to or become this image. Their bravery is measured by their sacrifice. That's why I think in terms of dis-identification. There is a self-loving nothingness at the heart of the white flame of critical thinking.

They are "unforgiving" and "cruel" to everything within them that is not this white flame. Crucially, that involves examining the holy words of "logic" and "truth" themselves.

Dominic Osborn

↪darthbarracuda

As regards Philosophy vs. Science, I’m on your side, but lunatic fringe hawkish.

It’s a love triangle to be sure. It hadn’t occurred to me that Science might be jealous of Philosophy, and doubtless it’s true. But it’s the jealousy that runs the other way—which is surely also real—that I want to talk about. I think the public did run off with Science, and I think Philosophy is jealous. But the public rejected Philosophy for good reason: Philosophy—analytical philosophy—ran up the white flag a hundred years ago—when it conceded the fundamental propositions behind Science. Just look at a couple of examples from this thread:

The theory of evolution is hugely relevant to how we perceive ourselves. — darthbarracuda

It’s true. We think of ourselves as fancy chimpanzees. What’s behind the theory of evolution is the assertion: Man is Ape. I.e. mind is matter.

The size of the universe puts our significance into doubt. — darthbarracuda

So we—are spatial things. We are the earth, or the humans living on the earth, or the brains living on the earth. I.e.: mind is matter.

philosophy examines how we make sense of the world — StreetlightX

So there’s a “we” and there’s a “world”—and we are “making sense” of it. That’s saying: we are scientists finding out about a world. You’ve conceded the fundamental proposition of science right there. Philosophy’s left with just making sense of it.

Science is only inflexible in demanding the constraint of measurable testing. — apokrisis

“Only”. So there is something that is proposed (a model or a picture), something against which it is measured (Reality), and a proposing, measuring and judging thing (us). —You’ve already decided what Reality is. Philosophy’s just left with crumbs.

It's about asking questions. — Wosret

You’ve decided in advance of doing any philosophy that Philosophy is questioning. This apotheosis of Questioning: that’s Science speaking again. Why isn’t Philosophy just as much—accepting that there are no answers. Or just as much—stopping questioning? Or coming up with conclusive answers? Why isn’t there a religious element in philosophy? (see OP).

Analytical philosophy doesn’t really itself believe it has much to add to the truth that has already been established: there is a world, of Substances, moving around and bumping into each other. We are some of those Substances. We have inside us pictures of those Substances moving around. —Also: we paint better and better pictures of the physical world as time moves forward. That is: not only are we picturing things, Time too is real, and Progress (upward movement) too.

What’s left for Philosophy? Details. And puzzles that are completely insoluble. Several million papers and still these questions utterly unresolved:

1. How is Mind identified with Brain. 2 How is Brain about the (rest of the) world 3. What is Knowledge? 4. How is there Consciousness. Etc.. —It’s a fly against a window-pane.

I think the public know more about analytical philosophy than is realised. No they don’t follow the arguments. But somehow they’ve got a feeling about what’s going on. It seeps out; they smell it—and they don’t want to get any closer.

The public have drifted away from Philosophy because Philosophy capitulated to Science (and subsequently became its amanuensis). You told them Science had the answers. So either they accepted your recommendation or they went off elsewhere, into religion, eastern religion, literature, continental philosophy, “spirituality”—or quackeries of one kind or another…

(If you tu quoque me, all I say is “touché”. I pander to the illusion too: I think there is a me putting out this post, and a few (a very few) others “out there”, looking at it. I am fighting the physicalist and the dualist (who stubbornly resist enlightenment) in me.

mcdoodle

(*) [referencing Chaucer] This one only as an age-old and renewable torture device for young students. — szardosszemagad

Shame on you :)

Experience, though noon auctoritee
Were in this world, is right ynogh for me — Wife of Bath

Features of the philosophical

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions