Ok. So it's a cryptic reference to Plato?

Ok. So it's a cryptic reference to Plato? — Tom Storm

Seems to be verbatim from Plato.

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. — magritte

Only analytic philosophy imitated this approach.
Technology does not represent the leading edge of thought. On the contrary, it is the last step in the process of dissemination of ideas though the culture, which begins with a small handful of philosophers. For example, the most advanced digital technologies available today are the final products of philosophical underpinnings contributed by Leibnitz , Hume and others in the 1700’s. These insights were then ‘applied’ by figures like Frege, Turing and Weiner. By the time inventors like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates turned them into popular products, the leading edge of philosophy had long since moved on.

This cycle is now repeating itself.
The underpinnings for the next great revolution in technology were set in motion more than 100 years ago with the work of philosophers like Nietzsche. More recently, they have been ‘applied’ by philosophers of mind like Dan Dennett. Eventually , you will see the final instantiation of these ideas in a new generation of technological products that you can claim to be the cutting edge of ideas.

And oh yeah, when I read that, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world. — L'éléphant

Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful.

There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy?

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. — Clarky

Good definition. So as these presuppositions evolve , so does scientific theory. There would be no scientific progress otherwise.

the most advanced digital technologies available today are the final products of philosophical underpinnings contributed by Leibnitz — Joshs

Russell credits Leibniz with inventing mathematical logic.
Leibniz talked about the universe itself being a computer.

Go back to Charles Ferraro's comments and respond. All responses are welcome.

Go back to Charles Ferraro's comments and resopond. — charles ferraro

huh?

So as these presuppositions evolve , so does scientific theory. — Joshs

Maybe the other way around or maybe they evolve together.

Maybe the other way around or maybe they evolve together. — Clarky

They are ways people think about the world.

Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful. — Tom Storm

Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc.

So, I was attracted first to the cynics -- because they're the zero-fucks-given philosophers. I mean this. I thought, wow, okay, those were the ancients who didn't give a fuck! lol. How cool is that?

Then there's Schopenhauer and the hell-is-other-people Sartre. I said no to those. I couldn't subscribe to that kind of thinking when I myself was trying to want to love life.

There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm

Where is thread? What's the title?

Where is thread? What's the title? — L'éléphant

under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm

I'm saying it would make a good thread.

Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc. — L'éléphant

Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How?

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 — charles ferraro

Perhaps you could summarize this idea of Sartre's briefly.

Oh yeah, I am interested already. So, I guess your future thread then? hehe.

Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How? — Tom Storm

Yes. In my dealings with people and (ethics and epistemology). For example, I now know that people would cling to their belief in the face of evidence and proof to the contrary. Also, the way I view life in general. If we stop caring about material things, we could relax and be more accepting.

My two cents...

Philosophy will (probably) go extinct from the world of formal education conducted in universities and colleges in the coming 50-100 years or so. I read a news report a few years ago that some universities are downscaling their philosophy departments; the reason is quite obvious - unlike STEM, philosophy doesn't yield any tangible benefits to the university or the community at large.

The question of whether philosophy has explored all of the territory avaiable to it is moot then, oui?

That said philosophy might survive within religious universities and colleges, but only as a sidekick to theology.

There are things far worse than death[...] — R. Alan Woods

:up:

Let us get all our spiritual sustenance from STEM then.

Because of course, during the pandemic, we all made it through because the humanities did nothing to help any of us.

I know this is not your view. But it is a sad state of affairs when such things are said to contribute no value to society. Reflects our cultural poverty or, if not, then highlights our admiration for the superficial (how much it contributes to the economy as opposed to how it enriches us as human beings).

This is a really interesting thread. Very good question which I have wondered thousand of times myself.
What more can you say(or even think) about philosophy that hasn't already been said??

At the end it's fucking 2022.Your teacher was damn right.
Count the years,count the humans, count the minds, count the words that appeared in this planet all that time in humanitarian history.
I m really kind of jealous of previous philosophers. They had a vast sea of human nature to explore. Is there actually something really new to be expected?

I even found myself many times all these years to think things and say to myself "oh that's a really good idea/thought", only to find out later that has been expressed already.
Same even with whole phrases! Sometimes I have Googled some of them and they are even the same. Or at least very very similar.
Even a poster somewhere/somewhen over the Internet could have said/wrote it. It is damn frustrating sometimes.

My opinion is that as something really new and breakthrough in philosophy to exist, a really great scientific discovery has to be revealed.
Or a huge significance incident to occur in humanity (asteroid or aliens or whatever).As really basic Human aspects-values-attitudes-everything to be shaken till the ground!
Then philosophy would have again her vast sea back.

Till then, of course something new-ish can always be said but it is extremely difficult imo, to be something actually authentic.Well you never can say never of course but I don't know.
Philosophy has to wait for science or universe/nature as to get a huge boost towards new theories.

But in what at least personal I hope, is that there is always a new way of saying even the same things.
A way that might be able to inspire-touch humans in a way that never been achieved again. Well and that leads us to

Just because Kant might have thought it through 300 years ago, that doesn't mean I don't have to walk the path too. — Clarky

Again really nice thread.

My opinion is that as something really new and breakthrough in philosophy to exist, a really great scientific discovery has to been revealed. — dimosthenis9

Why? Leibniz conceived the relativity of space and time about 200 years before Einstein showed the math.

Why? Leibniz conceived the relativity of space and time about 200 years before Einstein showed the math. — Jackson

Was that idea a breakthrough in philosophy back then?? Don't really think so. Not till Einstein(science) prove it at least. No one would believe a philosopher in a scientific field. Leibniz made a prediction indeed but back then didn't actually proved anything.

But anyway already mentioned "you can never say never"

Was that idea a breakthrough in philosophy back then? — dimosthenis9

Yes. Leibniz saw the incoherence of the idea of absolute time and space in Newton.

No one would believe a philosopher in a scientific field. Leibniz made a prediction indeed but back then didn't actually proved anything. — dimosthenis9

No one would believe a philosopher in a scientific field. Leibniz made a prediction indeed but back then didn't actually proved anything. — dimosthenis9

Not a prediction. He gave arguments. And he was correct.

And he was correct — Jackson

He didn't know it back then though.




Quantum philosophers might be correct also, that doesn't mean that we have to treat them as such till science actually prove them right.
If and when someone's prediction proves right, then he gets credited for it. That's the point till then it is just predictions. Or just arguments as you said. Nothing else.

If and when someone's prediction proves right, then he gets credited for it. That's the point till then it is just predictions. Nothing else. — dimosthenis9

I don't know what you mean by "prediction." Leibniz said nothing in the form of a prediction.

I don't know what you mean by "prediction." Leibniz said nothing in the form of a prediction. — Jackson

Also didn't prove anything either. It was just arguments since you stuck with the word "predictions" ."theory", "idea", "thought" whatever you prefer to call it! You choose. You are missing the point here.

You are missing the point here. — dimosthenis9

Please state it.

Already did. Nothing to add further.

:smirk: