The Egyptians didn't build the Pyramids first. They started out small and built upon their know-how and expertise over time.

It is really just that simple.

Imagine someone like Picasso but in philosophy. They start deconstructing what philosophers deeply value and build something totally different that's basically an insult to academic philosophy.

Philosophers spent years perfecting the "complex" realm of ideas and a Picasso philosoher just says "it's too complex, the value is when you go back to the basics and build something else from it".

Do you honestly think that would sit right with them?

If most philisophers build castles, Picasso would have built a castle, disambled it, and built a small odd looking house with the remaining stones.
Do you think that house would be recognised just because he made a castle as well before? He's basically saying he doesn't believe in castles.
And the worst part is that his odd looking house would look like what beginners in philosophy are able to build. Just like Picasso's art looks like a child's. So how would you tell the difference?
How would you be able to tell if he was a madman or a genius?

All I'm saying is that what's valued in philosophy nowadays is these castles, and if you produce something else that doesn't use the complex concepts used to build castles, it's considered inferior.

In the world of art, it's easier to go wild because if people (who are not experts) like your paintings a lot, that's what matters. They don't need validation from their peers, from an authority in art.

But with philosophy, you do, because most people aren't a good judge of your work: they simply don't know enough. And while in art, one person can achieve works on their own, in philosophy it can grow a lot more if more people work on it. It's usually what comes after one's work that's the real deal.

They start deconstructing what philosophers deeply value and build something totally different that's basically an insult to academic philosophy. — Skalidris

You mean like Kripke?

No, not like Kripke. From my understanding, the method he used was textbook analytic philosophy, even though his results were unconventional.

Picasso's method was far from conventional.

But if you have other names in mind, do tell, it's interesting.

Good; well-thought.

I personally hesitate to use creativity regarding philosophical innovation, instead, favoring some sufficiently explanatory methodological construction. The reason being, given the fundamental preconditions of human intelligence in general, those the negation of which is either impossible or self-contradictory, necessarily limit all that follows from them, which is just to limit how creative a new philosophical doctrine can be.

And what of rules? If it is the case human intelligence in general is predicated on some set of rules….of whatever form and origin they may be…..and the proper business of philosophy is the study of human intelligence in general, rules would seem to be anathema to, or at least in conflict with, creativity as a proper philosophical ground.

On the other hand, I gotta admit, it’s a fine line between creating a system, and constructing one. Perhaps merely another stupid language game, getting in the way of good ol’ fashioned logical thought.

I’m not saying there aren’t any new ideas in philosophy, but philosophers generally seem very reluctant to drift away from the concepts they’ve read about. They seem hesitant to create new ideas altogether because such ideas likely wouldn’t meet the academic standards. — Skalidris

Academic philosopy is such an esoteric field that I'd suspect there have been new ideas that have emerged that are considered major shifts within the discipline (of which there are many subcategories) that they generally go unnoticed by those of us not affected. I think if you were to choose a particular area of philosophy and do a deep dive into it and looked for the major contributors, you would find a significant amount of creativity.

I'd just be interested in where your assessment comes from. Do you work in a philosophy department and find the profession has stalled out and there is a resistence to change? I would defer to personal information you might have, which I would think, if the case, that would speak to political issues at play, which just means you have a dysfunctional system. I can believe that, but I otherwise woudn't think the best and brightest have run out of new ideas.

Academic philosopy is such an esoteric field that I'd suspect there have been new ideas that have emerged that are considered major shifts within the discipline — Hanover

Absolutely, it all depends on the perspective. If someone changes a detail in your bedroom, you'll likely notice it because you know all about your bedroom, but if they change something in your friend's bedroom, chances are you won't notice it.

As you've probably guessed, I don't work in philosophy, but my passion is philosophical, so I've looked into academic philosophy and was pretty disappointed. My main problem with it is the importance of authority figures, whether it's about philosophers or philosophical concepts. It seems to be the basis of philosophy, and if you don't use it, it's not valid.

It's this idea that humans have philosophized for thousands of years and we've made all of these concepts, so if you randomly reflect on your life experiences, they're going to say that there are concepts that can describe your reflections and you need to start there or else you'll reinvent the wheel.
And many people who replied here seem to agree with that.

But if everyone starts from the same points, how can you ever make something that's not a deviation from your starting point? I think there are many starting points we haven't thought about, that are the results of unique life experiences, and that can lead to useful places that would be almost impossible to reach just by studying a philosophical concept and deviating from it.

It's the same problem with many things in life, but with sciences for example, experimental results can challenge the status quo and force scientist to think out of the box to explain what they're observing.
There are theories in sciences that have been validated for centuries, yet they can get challenged too, and scientists would probably not believe it until many new experiments show them otherwise.

I'm not saying people shouldn't study philosophy and that it's better to be ignorant, but this focus on deviation rather than deconstruction restrains the creativity. And I'm not talking about the deconstruction of philosophical concepts, but the deconstruction of anything you experience in your life that leads to valuable insights.

Not quite. The jump from the third to fourth dynasties is utterly insane, and it immediately declines in the fifth. The previous (and following) mastabas are a world away from the Giza Pyramids (or the Saqqara/Dashur pyramids). It's really not very simple.

I still don't understand how you think I've excluded science. Even when science was part of philosophy, it was still just a part, not the whole thing. — Skalidris

Right, but you haven't included advances in science in your evaluation of the current creativity of philosophy. That was my point. You're measuring modern philosophers on different measures than you are Aristotle and Plato. This comment probably isn't worth taking any further.

Maybe the title of my post was confusing. I said decline because I do believe creativity has decreased over the past centuries as a general trend (even if we look at just 2 or 3). And I mentioned the ground breaking philosophers to show that creativity matters, not to show that at these points in time when these philosophers lived, creativity in philosophy in society as a whole was higher. — Skalidris

Yes, and that was my main point in my response - you're comparing the output of a few years against the output of 5,000 years and finding it wanting.

I have a feeling I'm not really contributing. We should probably leave it here.

You’re an engineer. I’m sure you’re also a lover of good music, movies and other forms of artistic creativity. — Joshs

I like music, movies, and other arts, but my primary interest is in written words. I read fiction, watch movies and TV, and listen to music for entertainment and read nonfiction to help clarify my own ideas and understanding of how the world works. I am not deeply emotionally affected by the works I read, watch, or listen to, although I am often moved. My primary interest is intellectual and my the primary standard I apply is the quality of the writing, film-making, or musicianship.

When I partake of an artistic product, my standards are based on memories of experiences with a song or film that shook me to the core, that changed in some small fashion the way I felt or thought about things. I remember stepping out of a theater after watching a life-changing film and everything around me seemed a little different. — Joshs

As you might guess from what I've written above, I don't think I've ever been shaken to the core by any artistic work. I have never seen a life-changing film. I have been shaken to my intellectual core by books of science and philosophy.

I’m selfish about my artistic experiences that way. I will settle for superficial entertainment, but I crave the kind of art that unsettles me, surprises the hell out of me, disturbs me. — Joshs

As I've gotten older, I've found it harder and harder to participate low-quality intellectual or artistic production of any sort. I think that has more to say about me and my advancing crotchetiness than about work being produced today.

I would say, then, that the innovative art and philosophy are out there, but they are produced and consumed by an increasing guy smaller segment of the general culture. — Joshs

As I noted, there is more high-quality intellectual and artistic work out there than anyone can ever use. One thing I really love about the internet is the ability to find guidance about where the good stuff is. I don't listen to the radio anymore, but there is no one I liked listening to more than a good DJ not just playing good music but helping us develop our own taste.

My point was people do not just create monoliths out of nothing. It was a metaphor not a history lesson, so treat it as such.

My analogy for philosophy now is that it seems to be the equivalent of prog rock fans discussing an obscure album from 1973 in minute detail when the world is listening to Taylor Swift, Chappell Roan.and other popular artists.

My analogy for philosophy now is that it seems to be the equivalent of prog rock fans discussing an obscure album from 1973 in minute detail when the world is listening to Taylor Swift, Chappell Roan.and other popular artists. — Malcolm Parry

Do you mean by this that philosophy has moved from the boring to the derivative?

Do you mean by this that philosophy has moved from the boring to the derivative? — Tom Storm

I just don't see it has very much to do with the modern world. All the major shifts in thought have been assimilated and now the proponents are irrelevant to modern way of life. The capitalists and mammon have won. The modern world and capitalism etc have brought untold riches to billions of people but the cost is massive and I don't see any major thinkers having any influence on the way the world is ordered.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy in my small niche of untold wealth and can order my life to bring me joy and happiness and I like to read philosophy as it can change how I think but I don't see any influence on the modern world from philosophy today. That may be ignorance but if I don't see it, I doubt the vast majority of punters will either.
This place may have jaundiced me because most of the discussions are over my head and I'm not stupid.

moved from the boring to the derivative? — Tom Storm

Are you implying mid 70s prog is boring?:gasp:

Not that there are no obscure prog rock albums from 1973, which makes the analogy works well enough, but it is rather coincidental that one of the 4 or 5 least obscure albums of all time, is both prog rock and came out in 1973.

But, to be sure, this tidbit of philosophizing could be conceived as trivially boring.

I just don't see it has very much to do with the modern world. All the major shifts in thought have been assimilated and now the proponents are irrelevant to modern way of life. — Malcolm Parry

I think a lot of people hold a similar view.

I've rarely met anyone who reads or takes interest in philosophy: it's a boutique interest, one that attracts more than its fair share of authoritarian monomaniacs, fanatics, bores, autodidacts, fetishists, and gimps. But that doesn't mean it isn't important.

but I don't see any influence on the modern world from philosophy today. — Malcolm Parry

But the modern world is a product of philosophy: secularism, naturalism, scientism, and neoliberalism all of these have built the fabric of our culture and how we see reality. And yet it all remains in flux. The world today is very different from how it was when I was a teenager, and it's changing as we speak. Don't expect it to look like this in 50 years.

This place may have jaundiced me because most of the discussions are over my head and I'm not stupid. — Malcolm Parry

I've learned a lot just by participating (often badly) in discussions. I find I'm most interested in views different from my own. If you resist or mistrust something, chances are you need to understand it better. Philosophy is very difficult and its complexity is spread across centuries, it's an impossible subject to fully master, but one from which we can all snatch an occasional insight. I understand very little myself and don't have the time understand it much better.

Are you implying mid 70s prog is boring? — Malcolm Parry

I wouldn't know prog rock from a coffee grinder.

But the modern world is a product of philosophy: secularism, naturalism, scientism, and neoliberalism all of these have built the fabric of our culture and how we see reality. And yet it all remains in flux. The world today is very different from how it was when I was a teenager, and it's changing as we speak. Don't expect it to look like this in 50 years. — Tom Storm

I agree 100%. The changes are brought about by changes in science and innovation. There are seismic shifts in social settings too. I don't see much of current philosophy being relevant to what is happening.
It is fascinating though.

've learned a lot just by participating (often badly) in discussions. I find I'm most interested in views different from my own. If you resist or mistrust something, chances are you need to understand it better. Philosophy is very difficult and its complexity is spread across centuries, it's an impossible subject to fully master, but one from which we can all snatch an occasional insight. I understand very little myself and don't have the time understand it much better. — Tom Storm

That is why I joined but I find most of the exchanges esoteric and stilted. Snatching insights is all I want from the subject. I have my own world view more or less sorted but the odd bit of the stoics or Nietzsche etc give me further insight. Most of the esoteric stuff is (for me) pointless or I have absorbed it as part of being born in second half of 20th Century in Europe (UK)

Yes, and that was my main point in my response - you're comparing the output of a few years against the output of 5,000 years and finding it wanting.

I have a feeling I'm not really contributing. We should probably leave it here. — T Clark

It’s fine, I just think you misunderstand and think I used this to prove my point, which I did not.
If we let this method run for another 5000 thousands years, I’m sure we’ll have major breakthroughs as well, but it wouldn't be as efficient as if we valued creativity more in the first place. And I'm not trying to prove this, I just believe creativity was involved in the major philosophical breakthroughs, and the current method is very restrictive in that aspect. I didn't try to prove any of these premises, they're just my observations. Creativity is very subjective.

I agree 100%. The changes are brought about by changes in science and innovation. There are seismic shifts in social settings too. I don't see much of current philosophy being relevant to what is happening.
It is fascinating though. — Malcolm Parry

I agree as well. I've pointed out before that many people on this forum like to discuss what dead philosophers have said, but what they said is a product of their time and is only useful to seeing where we've come from, not where we are at.

The changes that are brought about by science and technology, take AI for instance, provides a new way at looking at existing problems - like the mind-body problem - not to mention the various interpretations of QM.

I don't have a background in philosophy. I have a background in science and in IT and software development so I'm bringing that to the table when trying to solve existing philosophical problems, not what some dead philosopher said.

I’ve read the Greeks and I’m fascinated how we got where we are today. How we think and what knowledge we have amassed, especially in science. It is mind blowing. But I don’t see any significant contribution to how we live and order society from modern philosophy. It may be my ignorance but I’m aware of quantum mechanics and relativity.

But they sort of do, was my point. The leap is so large, it amounts to receiving a fully-formed building tech from nowhere. Gobekli tepe and Karahan Tepe in Turkey speak to the same. This is a different area of enquiry obviously, but i wanted examples to be clear.

I’ve read the Greeks and I’m fascinated how we got where we are today. How we think and what knowledge we have amassed, especially in science. It is mind blowing. But I don’t see any significant contribution to how we live and order society from modern philosophy. It may be my ignorance but I’m aware of quantum mechanics and relativity. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, we seem to be struggling with the same moral dilemmas we've been struggling with for 1000s of years. Religion and politics stem from ethics and ethics are subjective, which is why my default attitude is "live and let live".

Flibble Flobble.

Yes, we seem to be struggling with the same moral dilemmas we've been struggling with for 1000s of years. Religion and politics stem from ethics and ethics are subjective, which is why my default attitude is "live and let live". — Harry Hindu

It is fascinating how the Greeks infiltrate everything we do and value and how things changed when scientists worked stuff out and knowledge accumulated.
I’m happy to live the life I have and enjoy it as it is. I’m not looking for why and superior reason for existence.
I don’t think it exists and everyone trying to force some higher power or reason is just guessing. Which is fine as a pastime but not for me.
I’m grateful for the great thinkers in the past who have allowed a framework for my life to be built. However, the permissive aspect of modern world, combined with ultra safety consciousness , has made it less free in my opinion.
The modern world needs a very strict framework of what is acceptable and freedom within that framework for self expression. The Japanese were very good at building such a framework but I doubt the world could ever be ordered like that until there was some extreme disaster and there was a survival issue for mankind.

I think there is probably too much noise atm. Advances are often made in small conclaves not within the thronging masses.

Creativity is not subjective in my view. Some have it and some do not. We are living in a period where what matters is easily drowned out by what does not.

I'm not as familiar with academic philosophy from the last 25 years, but if you look at the late 20th century, there are lots of examples of very creative philosophical work. Here are some thinkers who I personally think are extremely creative philosophers.

Graham Priest – He is known for defending dialetheism, which is the view that contradictions can be true. But more importantly, in numerous books, he uses his logical views to defend a huge variety of very interesting new philosophical theories to explain everything from intentionality to mereology in a framework of paraconsistent logic.

Charles Taylor – Canadian philosopher who did very creative work about the rise of authenticity as a core moral value in the West.

Edward Zalta – Another logician, who puts forward an extraordinarily novel and interesting logical framework for solving the longstanding Fregean problems in philosophy of language by proposing a split in the meaning of the word "is."

Derek Parfit – I saved the best for last. In my view, one of the most creative philosophers ever. He raised the level of discussion of the metaphysical and moral questions surrounding personal identity into an entirely new intellectual register. Reasons and Persons is like a smorgasbord of creative new ideas.

As others posters have mentioned, there are other philosophers from earlier in the 20th century or late 19th century who are very creative and have not yet been entirely digested by even the academic philosophical community, let alone by the general public.

My personal favorite is Maurice Merleau-Ponty. I think a lot about how different the intellectual history of continental philosophy might have been if he hadn't died young before completing his third major book. Many people missed the fact that Merleau-Ponty isn't just a philosopher of the body or perception, but rather a truly general philosopher who gives innovative answers to classic philosophical questions by attempting to ground philosophy in pre-reflective perception.

Philosophers that people have told me are extremely creative but whom I have not personally had a chance to read are Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Peirce, and Henri Bergson. I do think that something happened around the beginning of the 20th century, roughly the 1920s, possibly as a result of disillusionment from World War I, possibly because we hit a cognitive bottleneck. But it does seem that even though creative new philosophical ideas were still being invented, the academic and wider social community stopped digesting them. This, in turn, may have led most academic philosophers to stop trying to create "big theories" and focus instead on micro-analysis. After all, what's the point of putting forward a big new theory if so few people are going to read or understand it?

 

I do think that something happened around the beginning of the 20th century, roughly the 1920s, possibly as a result of disillusionment from World War I, possibly because we hit a cognitive bottleneck. But it does seem that even though creative new philosophical ideas were still being invented, the academic and wider social community stopped digesting them. This, in turn, may have led most academic philosophers to stop trying to create "big theories" and focus instead on micro-analysis. After all, what's the point of putting forward a big new theory if so few people are going to read or understand it? — FirecrystalScribe

Big new philosophical theories came pouring out of Germany for 200 years, until they destroyed their intellectual infrastructure through world wars I and II. The torch of post-war European philosophy was passed to French thinkers , beginning with Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Lacan, Levi-Strauss and Levinas and culminating in the Parisian scene in the 1960’s and 70’s ( Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Nancy, Badiou, Ricouer). Paris in the 1960’s was a very fertile intellectual environment, comparable to Germany in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and nothing comparable to either of these milieus exists for philosophy anywhere in the world in the 21st century.The digestion of these French ideas by the general public has been slow, to say the least, with liberals and conservatives alike in hysterics over the ‘wokist’ and ‘postmodernist scourge’ they beleive is to blame for everything rotten in society.