(N.B. any mention in the following thread of ethics, is exempt)
I may be turning our clan in on itself, and may even be biting the hand that feeds me, but will could can Philosophy ever ‘run out’? Could there ever be no new problems to dwell upon? Where do these problems come from? Could many of their ‘problems’ merely have been created by their untouchable faith in the tools of philosophy (I suspect this may be the case with something-nothing debate)? Would a philosopher ever say that reality is a corruption of theory?
Philosophers used to grapple over how to acquire knowledge, what substance was, what knowledge there was, what words were how they are or can be used or manipulated. They even (foolshly at times) grappled over a philosophical and abstract analysis of society and politics. All of this seems now to be covered (succesfully) by natural science linguistics and the social sciences now, in terms of pursuing the truth. Does Philosophy set the questions that academia end up answering with their far more suitable tools of academic discipline? Does Philosophy merely set the agenda for the rest of academia?
Can every philosophy-knot ultimately be unravelled by everyone else, everyone, but the philosophers themselves?
I don’t forsee a day when unemployment lines will be full of philosophers because the sciences put them out of business (now being in an unemployment line because they can’t get a job, that’s a different story). New questions always arise. Pangloss, you just added another subject of study with this post. The day that mankind knows everything is the day that philosophers become extinct. Will we ever know everything there is to know? I don’t think so. If we did, we would become Gods. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d like to see what the others have to say. Interesting question.
Wrong question if you ask me. Since philosophy is based on reality, also try to remember that philosophy is the genesis of all topics, especially science. Your question would be more properly suited to asked “Will the universe ever stop changing?”, or “Will we ever come to understand the universe so well that any change that may occur will be able to be accurately predicted by us at all times?” - if your answer is yes to any of these, than I imagine philosophy to would be complete and all questions would be answered.
Possibly, but I’m not too sure about the legitimacy of your claim to MORE SUITABLE TOOLS. The tools that exist and are in use today, like logic, for deciding and running things, even computers, all come originally from the ancient greek philosophers. Don’t get me wrong, logic too has been built upon and refined, but I think it deserving to give respect where it is due, and that would be with the ancient greeks (philosophers).
Thanks for your responses. Magius, I think you ran off on many different tracks there. ‘Will the universe ever stop changing?’ or ‘Will time ever stop?’ are simply not the sort of questions I am trying to ask. My problem was, that philosophy is not always based on reality, and is too often only concerned with its own previous conclusions to form the premises for its new conclusions. It seems to take a stunning scientific find to really shake many philosophers into looking horizontally rather than vertically - like Darwin’s theory of natural selection, or quantum mechanics.
As with many areas of academic study, their proponents are too often unwilling to look beyond their own discipline to see through the contradictions and apparent trade-offs discovered in their own field. This is particularly a problem in the social sciences, economics in particular. Some economists, for example, do not look to political science and some socialist theory to overcome their confusion that neoliberal theory seems to generate political unrest and a reliance on high military expenditure, whilst continuing to base all their analysis on the particular flow of capital and a concrete set of economic goals, for business and country. In this way, philosophers often stick to using one tool to solve a problem, so the problem persists for years, sometimes centuries, as they rack their brains and abuse their wives in the marked displeasure of trying to solve the unsolveable.
You both seemed to suggest that philosophy would only stop if no more questions are asked, when mankind knows everything. This is also away from the point I’m getting at. It goes without saying that mankind will always be curious and discover and improve on whatever present knowledge it has. Philosophers seem to be no more capable or prolific askers of questions than academics from any other field. As much as that assertion may sound and look like a shot in the dark, you might ask yourself when do developments in academic research capture the headlines or profoundly affect society or infiltrate public and private policy? And when are these developments the result of the painstaking truth-finding of a philosopher. (lets not get embroiled into defining ‘philosopher’ - I’d rather lick a cheese-grater)
Magius, your dismissal of the natural and social sciences as not at-start truth pursuits is quite unfair. You mentioned that money was the incentive for these sciences to pursue the truth (possibly, in the medical field, but thank god they didn’t leave the discovery of medical cures to philosophers). My charge (especially at many analytics philosophers in Britain today) is that they have left problems unsolved and ensured that by setting the standard tools and parameters in which a philosphical investigation can take place, which are not enough to solve the problem in the first place.
The tools of philosophy have been used in the past, in my view, to start a ball rolling towards the truth. Yet do philosophers have any right to continue teaching their students the traps of the trade and the rusty oneness of their approach of knowledge and truth, when so many academic disciplines are already in place with the right tools and the right falsification to pursue the real-world truth with an accuracy to make the present-day phob-osopher I speak of look vegetably stupid?
I suggest you deal with my argument as a whole, rather than the particular assertions made on their own.
Okay, well atleast we are going to get clearer on what it is you are asking. Do remember though that I can only go on the words you use, my telepathic powers aren’t what they use to be , if you are trying not to ask the questions you asked, asking clearer one’s always helps.
I agree that philosophy is not always based on reality, but then again what is? We still have yet to answer what reality is. The point of this is that philosophers try to base their philosophy on reality, no matter how twisted it is. It’s about differing perspectives on the reality we live. Yes I too dislike that most philosophers are concerned greatly with previous conclusions of prior philosophers, but we must try to see it from their perspective and notice that they are trying to build upon others view. As I may read Descartes, I may disagree with a few of his postulates, but agree mostly in the overarching point he is making. And so I may write a book asserting my amendment to his few views in order to make his overall view a little better, according to me. We all do this, just as Einstein built upon Newtonian phyisics, math, geometry, etc.
I disagree. I haven’t heard philosophers have any qualms with science in their time. I would say just the opposite, that it takes a stunning philosophical find to really shake scientists into looking horizontally rather than vertically. It’s ironic that many times we make scientific discoveries, we find ourselves perusing philosophical texts only to find that someone thousands of years ago thought of the same thing, generally speaking ofcourse. I don’t see how Darwin’s theory of natural selection (preservation) shook philosophical thinking. Elaborate?
Also, philosophers not having qualms with science isn’t all true to my point. What I meant was that if for example science proves that people are innately self-destructive, philosophers will take this and ponder the ‘why?’ we are self-destructive, ‘why?’ is it innate, etc.
Maybe you should clarify for me which philosophers you are speaking about. Most philosophers I have heard about were usually polymaths. They excelled in many fields. I’m personally finding this to be true of philosophy majors I meet in my university. Either they are double majoring in philosophy/physics, or philosophy/law, or philosophy/business, or philosophy/sociology…etc. Furthermore, most philosophers I read about make reference to many different scholars they debate with all over the world, from differing fields with whom they debate. Ie. If I was rich and wanted to find out as much about determinism in order to form my philosophy on that, I would go to physicist, logicians, etc. And ofcourse, when I wrote my philosophy I would reference them as sources as philosophers do. Moreover, philosophers go straight to the most popular beliefs of their time, the most influential people of their field. They go straight after the strongest source for their study, analysis, and possibly to argue against their view, but wanting to hear it from the source in order to understand exactly what it is their postulate is.
I completely agree, since you stated ‘economists’. But I don’t agree in reference to philosophers.
No true at all, and where are you getting this “abuse their wives” absurdity?
Again, if someone doesn’t understand you, and they take your words as they are, it is YOUR fault they do not understand not theirs. You must explain yourself properly if you wish others to understand. Your question was very general, and so it was answered in a broad context view.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But that opinion carries no weight as it stands now.
I don’t know enough about analytic philosophers in Britain today (I do live in Canada as you know) to have that discussion with you. Philosophy is nothing if a philosopher doesn’t enforce it, just as science is nothing if a scientist doesn’t enforce, just as law is nothing if the police do not enforce it. If the philosophy you are reading in your area sucks, write to them, give them your ideas, share their allegedly maladapted tools with me. Philosophy as it stands in general has got all the right tools and parameters for intellectual investigation that may or may not be enough to solve a problem. The same claim can be made against any other field. Since no field is complete, and mistakes are found and theories refined all the time.
Great! Which tools, in your view, are those? What exact direction did they roll the ball? Meaning, not literally, but conceptually what direction, in your view, did they begin towards?
I’m not sure what you mean by rusty oneness, but teaching the traps of the trade ensure the philosopher doesn’t fall into them. Life is too short to make all the mistakes yourself. Exactly why history is so good and interesting.
Well, your argument as a whole appears to be aimed against contemporary analytic british philosophers. I can’t deal with that, cause I don’t know enough about it. If you wish to edify me of contemporary british philosophy, I would be happy to hear it and give you my take on it. Then maybe we will have a discussion.
No and Yes. It will reach a point where there’s no more proof, so real philosophy must cease, but guided speculation begins. Assertions that will never be proven or unproven, as there are no facts to guide our judgement, but only what our fancy and intuition finds agreeable.
Without logic nothing can make sense. All becomes random, disjointed, inharmonious, in a word Chaos. Logic is the link that binds the world together, without logic it becomes unglued. As the world is derived from cause and effect, we see these as A + B infers C, never equals, only infers. But I do agree with you, that if we believe that logic is sacrosanct, then we have forgotten the most important rule of philosophy, “The only think I can assume is that there will always be uncertainty.†Also the variables that make up the logical equations can’t always be fully known. And once you have more then one unknown in any maths equation it becomes impossible to truly know or derive the correct values.
No, they would say that theory is a corruption of reality! Theory is derived from reality, so when something is wrong it must always be the theory.
To me philosophy has always been just a think-tank, an ideas shop that has fuelled other ventures into the academia. So to answer your questions directly, yes. Philosophy can never prove anything, but it can make a strong argument for a certain case being true. Kind of like an attorney pleading his case before the Judge (of empirical sciences, or academia). The philosopher makes statements, but academia must judge them true or false.
No, we will reach a limit of knowledge, unless an “external†source gives us answers, we will always be confined to what can be inferred from the universe, as we perceive it through our five senses. There is more to the world then what can be made manifested through our senses. You only have to read Kant and Schopenhauer to see this.
Not to sound argumentative: But what is reality? Is it the world as we see it, or is it something complete that can’t be fully comprehended through our limited five senses. As a large part of the real world goes unnoticed to these senses. What goes unobserved can never be examined or contemplated. So humanity is limited by what tools it uses to view the world. Science has given us new eyes and new ears to see a new world, which has long remained but a shadow to our five senses. But even science will reach its limits.
I don’t believe we can know everything. We will reach a point were the investment of time will not be worth the return. Like turning a bottle of water upside down, and when the water is finished spewing out there still remains some small beads of water. Slowly trickling down the inside of the bottle towards the opening, trickling ever so, so slowly.
To most people the questions philosophy asks are so specialised that they are not worth knowing, as to really understand, appreciate the question or the discovery a lot of other philosophies must first be digested. While a quick headline like, “Hawkins find’s new theory on Black Holes†can be taken at face value. But for philosophy to have value one has to study it.
Philosophers are like managers, they ask all the questions, but get others to actually do the work. Yet any philosopher who wants to think about real modern problems must invest time into studying the arts, humanities and sciences. Without these forms of stimuli the philosopher will remain, (I don’t really want to use this word, but,) unenlightened, or I could say left in the dark.
The university philosophy course I was on was more like a history lesson, and here are some really cool questions to think about. We learn from the past and its traditions, but we should not let them limit us. People don’t like to see what they’ve given their lives to be washed away and called a mistake; it removes their meaning and purpose. As that person would look back and say, “I’ve examined this problem for thirty years and it was all in vein.†That would be a bummer! A true philosopher must always live with the reality that their lifelong pursuit of knowledge will ultimately be a waste of time, if they believe they will have an answer at the end.
If we all agree that questioning will go on indefinitely, despite all inventions and discoveries, then if there remains a confusion over the need for philosophers, I think we have to be clear about what this act of questioning really is. It is not child’s play. And it is not essentially scientific. Nor literature. It seems rather obvious to me that while everybody and their mother questions, it is the philospher who knows the art of questioning. True, some people are excellent in the act of questioning. These are then natural philosphers. Just like there are natural scientists (who are implicitly good questioners), or natural economists (who are implicitely good at ?), there are natural philosphers.
But this naturalness in questioning doesn’t take away from the specialisation required of philosophical questioning. What are the subjects of the questions? Who does the questioning? What methods are used? What are the relationships between the various answers? What are the generalities, the specifics? What of consistencies and contradictions? The questioning go on ad nauseum for non-philospers and ad-infinitum for philosophers. Philosophers never give up asking the same questions over and over. Wittgenstein spent his whole life denying that we can talk about metaphysics! That’s a lifetime about a nonsense subject! He’s a real philosopher.
My point is that the complexity of questioning becomes too much, its generality becomes too complex. Questioning needs a specialist.
When Einstein does science, he is very capable of asking scientific questions and coming up with scientific answers. But when he is philosophizing he is going beyond his specialty. Is he a good philosopher?
Pangloss, have I answered the “argument as a whole, rather than the particular assertions”?
, if you are trying not to ask the questions you asked, asking clearer one’s always helps.