How would you describe the academic pursuit of philosophy — Shawn

You study a discipline using guided thinking. The viewpoint is already prepared for you.

If you are arguing that we're returning to religious based reasoning, your concern would be of a re-enchantment, where we are devolving back into a theocratically and mythologically based epistemology for understanding basic facts of day to day existence. I really don't see mass scale movement in that regard. — Hanover

To be honest, I really can't decide. For one thing, we can't undo facts.

Because people started to long again for the unshakable truths of the Aristotelian order. — Tobias

Yes! We want to smell the earth not hide behind the theory of numbers and symbols.

Here we have the old notion of all cultural phenomena being "cyclical", as if they were resurgent beings. My opinion is that this represents a fallacy of misperception, albeit one fairly common within society...what one might call a "social legend", an example of "pop philosophy" tinged with superstition. One might say that the perception of "cycles of cultural phenomena" is no more than phenomenological! — Michael Zwingli

The cyclicists actually have a refined notion of cycles. And it has nothing to do with resurgent. A phenomenon of cycle has a beginning not yet mature as to have claws -- but rather, an awesome growth that's full of goodness. Like science. But shall we admit we prefer the linear framework of activities, humanity, or civilization? I am actually undecided.

This, based upon the notion of "cyclicality", appears a fallacious expectation. I would think that the future limitations upon scientific discovery will be the cause of technological limitation, rather than cyclical "decay". Scientific inquiry rests upon the foundation of technology; scientists can only inveestigate what advances in technology will allow. As technological advancement speeds or slows, so scientific inquiry. — Michael Zwingli

I'm beginning to feel like an apologist for the cycle theorists. But here goes. They actually predict the opposite of what you're saying. They don't foresee a limitation. And that's where the danger lies they say.

The bottom line: there's way too much money to be made as a result of scientific inquiry for us to be worrying about it's future, at least here in the west. When all is said and done, "the bottom line" is, indeed, "the bottom line". To tell the truth, society may eventually (soon?) have to "push back" against science in the area of technological innovation, particularly in order to protect our individual privacy in an age characterized by the monetization of information. — Michael Zwingli

Maybe "worry" is unfit here. I will backtrack a bit. Let's go ahead and say, no one is worried. Spengler is not worried, for sure. I think your statement above misses the point. The decline theory of science acknowledges all that! Unlimited technological advancement and financial gain. There's nothing that you can think of in a maximizing fashion that they haven't already articulated.

Spengler seems to draw an analogy between biological organisms and civilizations (cultures), treating the latter as a superorganism and, he reasons, just like biological organisms e.g. a human goes through multiple stages of development ultimately terminating in death, cultures/civilizations too undergo a similar multi-stage evolution. — TheMadFool

Yup. I think he truly thinks it is organically growing.

And of course, the academic world can easily be made extremely bureaucratic and not have the least interest to do actual science, but replace it with pseudoscience. — ssu

Hah! You're getting it too!

:chin: — 180 Proof

Be quiet, Proof!

National boundaries are suffocating science. — Shawn

This is a concern that is true, yet at least not anti-science.

Hey I got it before. :wink: — Wayfarer

Awesome! :cool:

The anti-science stuff is used as a weapon since anybody can say that a study is biased or ideological or whatever. And it's not difficult to find a graph that shows whatever correlation you like. — Manuel

I'm glad you mentioned "anti-science", because this is another issue apart from the decline theory of science. Science cannot be ruined by the anti-science movement. I can think of an analogy --fighting zombies is a lost cause. Eventually you'd get bitten. But can you make it harder for them to get you? Yes! But what is the point? Well, could be a 15-minute fame, you're an ideologist, or you like excitement.

Well if science got us into it, it's only science than can get us out of it. Plus a major change in attitude. — Wayfarer

See now you're getting it.

Just to clear up some things. The organic cyclical school of thought is what we're trying to attack here. I don't subscribe to the idea of "decay" right off the bat, at least not yet- but just humor me. After all, the dark ages really happened, and at at time when advancement in scientific knowledge was also robust -- the decline or decay does happen!

Second of all, I'd also like some science philosophers here to come out and say something to the criticisms I mentioned in my first post. Please tell me the merit of the Decline Theory of Science, for lack of a better word. I know you guys are out there -- I owned a book dedicated to the writings of scientist philosophers.

I don't see this at all. Imo science has been on the rise for 8000 years now. It has to repeatedly reinvent itself. At times it may have become stagnant, sometimes there were rapid breakthroughs - but that's just in the nature of science. — Hermeticus

Reinvent. Saying this is on par with saying it's cyclical. Because the nature of narrative is the same. Does science really reinvent itself?

What do you mean by that? Science is a concept. A framework for building knowledge. You can "defeat" scientists, people who advocate science - but the concept itself is untouchable. — Hermeticus

Again, saying science is a concept is similar to saying it is organic. The narrative -- pay attention to the narrative. Since you cannot go to a lab and actually experiment on "concept", just like Spengler cannot experiment on organic cycles of activity, your narrative is just as good as Spenglers.

Is that what you understand as decay then? Again, I don't see that at all. Worship, belief without justification and blind indoctrination existed before science and have been declining as the scientific method evolved. — Hermeticus

Oh I have a better understanding of decay -- but that's how cyclical thought thinks of what happens when science decayed -- what replaces it? You don't think other beliefs can become dominant? Look, think again. Just because we have computers and wireless technology it doesn't mean we've solved that issue. Funny thing is, we as believers of science don't have to worry about outside forces. The argument goes that the power and authority of scientific knowledge will eventually cause its own demise. Science cannot be attacked from the outside. It can only be ruined from within.

Caveat -- violence can defeat science, but in another sense -- violence can ruin anything, @ssu is correct. So while I mentioned it in my OP, that is one worry that is of a different nature. Point #1 is the sinister idea. I mean, like, violence is like duct tape -- it can severely constrict anything.

God my brain is toast. Tired from work. :sad:

Where were we?

May I suggest, for those interested, to peruse Oswald Spengler.

By what measure could there be a ‘maximum achievement’? Would could the ‘maximum achievement’ of science be? — Wayfarer

I can refer you to @I love Chom-choms post as this is a good suggestion.

While there may be a limit to the knowledge in the world that someday we might learn everything in the cosmos, which I would say is the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge. I am sure that we are nowhere near close to that ceiling. — I love Chom-choms

Although we don't need to get there. Science will declare its best achievements.

'going to bed. Tomorrow.

Science’ is not an ideology nor a belief system. It’s a method of exploration, testing and validation of ideas and also a framework within which discoveries are shared and progressed inter-generationally. The OP situates science as a kind of ideology or belief system, which it isn’t. — Wayfarer

Our good science before its maximum achievement. I agree. My first post addresses the time way after your description.

Furthermore as Bertrand Russell noted way back in History of Western Philosophy, scientific method has no inherent moral compass. One could have, and some do have, ambitious scientific research programs to produce superbly efficient killing machines, machines which could kill enormous numbers of people, or even rid the world of people altogether. There’s no scientific reason that such programs ought not to be pursued. There are plenty of reasons not to pursue them, but science doesn’t necessarily provide them. — Wayfarer

Yes!

Another thing is that the scientific enterprise does not exist independently of "other phenomen[a] in the history of histories of human civilizations". — SophistiCat

And indeed, it doesn't. So where does it start or what will cause the eventual demise? From within the authority of science. That's where. Now, this is where, you philosophy members, should be able to explain the phenomenon of power, authority, and far-reaching.

Yes!! Indeed!

Hey guys, a lot to address. I am impressed at the quick but sharp replies from you. More than I expected.

Where is the evidence of science moving into the down phase of a cycle? — apokrisis

This is a very important question pertaining to point #1. The alarm sounded a long time ago, in the classical Greek. The decay will be in the form of implosion from within the scientific community. How?

Your point - that science is cyclical - is just postulated out of nowhere. "[J]ust like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations" - that's too broad and vague to even discuss. — SophistiCat

As a matter of fact, this is not my original idea or postulate. There are philosophers who wrote about this. I think we should examine why they say what they say.

While there may be a limit to the knowledge in the world that someday we might learn everything in the cosmos, which I would say is the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge. I am sure that we are nowhere near close to that ceiling. — I love Chom-choms

Fair point. My first post addressed the idea that length of time is not an indication of success.

I am not sure who but there was some guy who said that we know less that 1% of everything. So if there was a decay then it is far away. — I love Chom-choms

And indeed, we shall reach the glorious era when our science is the most fruitful. And precisely because of this, the root of self-destruction begins, according to cyclical thought.

On the contrary, by "descending into decay" you could mean that all the knowledge that we have will be lost, like a return to stone age, — I love Chom-choms

Not at all. That is not the decay we are talking about here. Worship, belief without justification, and blind indoctrination?

So yes, science will after some point gradually decay but how is that an anti-scientific statement. Its not like by saying that all civilizations die, you become anti-civilizationist. — I love Chom-choms

Good point, but you missed my first point again. I said "or".

Are in favor of science and afraid it will succomb to "dark pressure"? — VincePee

'Succumb' sounds like science has a good fight to make here. Point #1 says it doesn't. It 'will' happen according to cyclical thinking. I think at this point, VincePee, we should start asking why there is even a thinking that describes science as cyclical, don't you think?

I can provide a good reading, if it can help.

So there are various kinds of shit flying around. And maybe science isn’t in decline at all. Maybe it is the ability of politics to keep up with the pace of technological and social change that is the issue, — apokrisis

Okay, good. Can you please address my first point then? Your point might help with my point #3.

What do you mean by the darker reality than we are used to? — VincePee

Again, please see my first post -- I shall add that it's loaded when I say "darker" reality. We are used to hearing anti-vaccines, creationism, superstition, even conspiracy theories. These do not threaten science into oblivion.

The decay of science? Science never has been more advanced than in these days! — VincePee

I think this goes without saying. Please see my first point.

The cyclical-development thinking has already taken into consideration the maximum advancement in science in their formulation of this phenomenon. Cyclical in this regard means that it has a beginning, progressing into the more advanced stages, culminating in the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge, then gradually descending into decay.

For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is. — TheMadFool

Haha! You and me both. :smile:

Take care... — Banno

Soothing words.

I'm sorry that life is treating you this way. You are in good company here my friend :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I know it, Tiff. Thank you. Feeling better every half day, lol! :)

The person in love: Does fae need me?

... the person who's in love doubts (does fae need me?) — TheMadFool

I think this way.

I remember how to write your nickname -- Tobi. Correct?

The degree of goodwill for the other person. An infatuated person has little or no goodwill for the person they are infatuated with (down to lacking the most basic empathy for them). Whereas loving someone also includes having goodwill for them, wishing them well. — baker

Commitment. — Banno

Thank you both. It's what I'm going through. This is what I truly believe in. I cried about the reality of it all. Then I cried some more.

And it's fucking....
Can you finish this sentence, or is it just too painful?
Either way, I am here for you even if it is just to sit beside you, having your back for awhile. :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's fucking unfair, Tiff. And thank you.

women are always monkey branching to their next hypergamy — MikeListeral

Not true. And this hurts somehow.

Someone has put my insides on fire and I can't put it out. It hurts, especially because I know I won't be going out with this person. And I had been, in the past, able to not think of anything like this so much. Because I care about my work, my plans, and the fun I've had interacting with the philosophy community. Now I feel nothing else. And it's fucking...

Suppose that science have achieve immortality for humans (whatever the mean for this).

What would be philosophical consequence? — John Pingo

It depends on what immortality is. If it means continuing to live without the requisite necessities - basic needs, ambition, relationships, and curiosity which what drive humans to make the effort and time to get -- then philosophy is not the one to turn to. These humans are as good as dead without curiosity and the will to know.

Some people might think this talk about living longer is now cliche and serves nothing but personal selfish desire. However, if you think in terms of the length of time it takes for an invention, a phenomenon, or a breakthrough to come to fruition, you'd wish there's much more time. Some discoverer or inventor actually die without seeing the result of their genius.

People living a lot longer. There's a scientist who's betting there is already a person living among us who is going to reach 150 years old for sure. Currently, that person is in their 50s. Then, I'm thinking could we possibly also have a brain and health in proportion to that length of time? So that at 50 years of age, that person is literally only 25 physically.

You can get walking from legs but not legs from walking. Wtf. "Why is it a one-way street?" — 180 Proof

:starstruck: lol

Or, third option: would you decide that you preferred your old life. That you enjoyed the challenges and dynamic that it had and that now everything comes too easily. You are bored with your new capacity And want to revert back to what you used to have? — Benj96

As some philosophers have always said in more ways than one, if everything looks good, then nothing is good.
Boredom is not the issue here. People get bored even in not having anything. It is that, we tend to lose perspective on the goods that we currently have if we could take them for granted. That said, we don't need to think in terms of threat of losing everything in order to appreciate the life we have. (If you live in a stable society where rights are respected and ownership is uphold, you really don't have to worry daily whether you're going to lose what you have). We just need to remember the struggle to get to the point. If you climbed a mountain and you got to the top, there's no need to think of falling back down in order for you to see what you've accomplished. (You know you're at a very stable place). You just need to remember the struggle of getting there. If you forget this struggle -- then "everything looks good". And you know the rest.

But this conversation is out of control, because there are no statistics about who will convince whom of what, or what novel idea will perhaps be born of our interaction. — unenlightened

No statistics needed. These are observations by the scholars who made it their business to analyze what's happening. I may or may not agree. And again, you are exhibiting the perfect subject syndrome. You are acting exactly how the structures are designed. You are providing your own observation, your own analysis, going against the idea of machinations.

But if one lives in a machine and according to the machine, one lives a mechanical life - an oxymoronic non-life. But for all its potent impotence, it remains an anological construction and human relations are not mechanical relations except by performance. The scientific urge is to understand and control the world in mechanical terms, but there is nothing mechanical about understanding. The mechanical analogy is so pervasive, it sounds rather 'woo' to question it. But there is no evidence - gotta love the science-speak - that the world operates mechanically; on the contrary, there is much evidence that even machines do not: they breakdown precisely because they lack the caring relation to the world, as does thought. — unenlightened

The analogy to a physical machine is apt, though. As you noted, machines breakdown, and so do political structures. Machines can function like well-oiled, and so can societal systems. After a while, it is self-regulated.

You might think that it is only an analogical construction and human relations are not mechanical. In this regard, the apparatus is working well. It is achieving what it purports to maintain. Because that is what the structures want you to think and behave. That you are not encumbered by rules, and laws, and orders. That there are personal and private lives -- and you can separate the two.

But to someone who is a scholar of social and political systems, the shape of the system reveals itself as something that can literally be explained in a formula. So, human interactions can be designed, controlled, and maintained such that the apparatus is not felt, or known.

Im talking about the existence of a single person who knows everything about everything, everyone and everywhere (correctly) — Benj96

Yes, I would cherish that person. Mainly because many of us, if not all, have questions that cannot be answered by buying material things, or making it big in the stock market, or even being a great innovator. I'm thinking of emotional pains of losing someone, for example. One does want to talk about the loss and the meaning of life, or the meaning of happiness. If one person can answer these questions, such as it is the truth, then I would cherish that person.

Meanwhile, the rest of use not knowing what the future holds still have a life to finish living -- and the roads and inroads we have to travel to complete that journey should be a mystery to us. In this case, we would avoid going to that all-knowing person for the answers, because we do want that element of surprise, that innocence, that thinking about the universe and the infinite.

Actually, now exploring this -- no, we would be tempted to always go seek answers from that person. There are give and take here. Would our not knowing what the future holds be undermined, and that we would just live according to facts given by that person?

It depends on how benevolent that person is, and if that person is corruptible, god help us all.