Philosophy gone stale?

Do modern, contemporary philosophers tackle ‘the big questions’ of metaphysics and epistemology with the same verve, panache and inspiration of those who are no longer with us?

Is pioneering work in modern philosophy becoming indistinguishable from poineering work in mathematics and science?

The days of the ‘multi-competent’ philosophers are long since passed. A modern-day Aristotle will not and could not occur. Like our economy, our pioneering philosophies and philosophers have become specialised and therefore largely impenetrable to those without esoteric knowledge.

For me, this is something of a lamentable state of affairs.

Yes, the world is a better place for the developments within it.

But how can the modernday philosopher not yearn for the days of the Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Plotinus’, Augustine’s and even the Aquinas’ where the societal value of the philosopher’s omnicompetence or skills were significant and appreciated.

In today’s philosophy, great philosophers of our century- Sartre, Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein and Heidegger among them- and their philosophies- a more a matter of private entertainment than public, societal relevance.

Reaction/ opposition to this view welcome.

Am I just a pessimist with rose tinted spectacles??!

Yeah, I think you need to take off the glasses and cheer up. Philosophy has never been popular; one need look no further than the example of Socrates for that. There’s the obvious–he was executed for practicing philosophy–and in the dialogues he always deals with people who largely don’t give a shit or are even hostile to what he’s saying.

I think this view that “Once upon a time, everyone cared about philosophy” is not tenable once you really think about it. When we look back at history, we inevitably see the intellectual climate at the time, and its easy to infer from that that everyone was really into philosophizing. But really, it might have been maybe 5% of the population who cared; the rest of the world just went on not caring, doing all the things that common folk usually do, just like today.

And I especially don’t think that all that can be said, has been said. Lots of people probably thought the same thing after Kant and Hegel, and look what’s happened since then.

Well, when one thinks of philosophers, yes, yes, names like Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and Augustine come to mind. Yet, seldom does one ever hear about Henry David Thoreau, or Ralph Waldo Emerson when philosophic topics are at hand.

Even know Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and Augustine were the pioneers, Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson certainly have contributes. Just in different forms.

To be honest, I’m glad that the days of the Greeks are over. I have no wish to be told a list of emotions I feel by an Aristotle, or have an all-encompassing morality, ‘the Good’, forced upon me by a Plato. If a philosopher publishes one of his ‘private entertainments’, then it ceases to be private, and is for the good of mankind.

The purpose of philosophy, has always been, in my opinion, two-fold (ignoring moral and ethical implications): social engineering, Ã la Voltaire, and to search for transcendence. The former is now handled by the psychologists, the latter by the physicists. So we’re left with our word-games, philisophical algebrae, and other entertainments.

annihi

moral philosophy is the only branch of philosophy that really counts

gavtmcc

I entirely agree with the general sentiment of your post

I think its easy for every age, (exept maybe the Greeks) to look at the greats and long for the good old days. But the truth is because of increased education philosophy is maybe more influenctial now that it has ever been. Look at the work of Popper for instance. Every psychologist that has ever tried to write a falseifable theory has been influenced by him. You will sometimes hear physist go on about operational terms. It’s almost as if the scientist that some would say are replaceing us, are really just danceing on our strings.

I think another common mistake to the philosophy is uninfluential becuase of the way it diffuses through culture. Ideas are not copywriteable, never have been, never will be. So people have a tendancy to go about repeating the ideas of philosophers without ever giveing proper credit. Truly I think just by the numbers now attending college philosophy is more influential than ever.

I do think there is over specialization in philosophy simple because the issues are always hitting agianst one another.

Just look at the f’n matrix, how often in history do you think that that many commoners got the hear a bit of the old philosophy. Of course we don’t have political power yet, there is still work to be done!!

I’d agree with Smithigans, philosophy never was popular with the “great unwashed.” They never took it to-heart in the way they did, say, religion.

An intensely dull-witted man can ask a question that the most philosophically adept of men can’t answer. A difference between the two is that the dunce has no answer (or worse, the wrong answer), yet he barely understands his own question. The greater part of philosophy has to do with understanding our questions. I’ve remarked before that my world makes sense to the degree that my questions about it make sense.

Russell wrote of Wittgenstein:

“…he says people who like philosophy will pursue it, and others won’t, and there’s an end to it.”

I’m not sure whether I feel pity or jealously for those folks not hounded by the sort of questions that keep me awake some nights. That, in itself, is something to brood over; “Would you rather be an unhappy Socrates or a happy pig?” It doesn’t take long before I generalize to the deeper question; “Does my mother deserve my praise or my curse for having borne me into this world?” Is life, as Sartre put it, “A useless passion?” The vast number of those who could have been born never will be. Did I beat the odds and literally “hit the jackpot” with this life? Or, as others have commented, is life little more than a sexually transmitted disease? When I first came across the classic aphorism, “Count no man happy until he is dead,” I thought whoever said it must be crazy. That’s the way it is with so much of what we talk about in philosophy. It sounds so daft at first, that most normal people dismiss it out of hand. Well, I’m pleased that everyone isn’t so normal.

Weaving through the philosophy stacks of my local university library leaves me with a sense of awe. I like to run my fingers over the thousands of books as I walk; so many questions asked and asked again. These are the questions that humans ask, and they will be asked as long as there are humans.

Cheers,
Michael

Polemarchus

“When I first came across the classic aphorism, “Count no man happy until he is dead,” I thought whoever said it must be crazy.”

Who did say that?

I’d hazard a guess it was Cicero. Or, perhaps, Montaigne…?

Hello phrygianslave,

It appeared in the last lines of Sophocles’ play, Oedipus the King:

People of Thebes, my fatherland, look at Oedipus
who solved the famous riddles. He triumphed.
Nobody could look at his fortune without envying him.
But in what a whirlwind of terrible misfortune he has fallen
One ought not to estimate happy any mortal
Before having seen his last day till he has reached
the end of his life without having to undergo suffering”

Of course, Sophocles probably heard it from someone else.

web.ukonline.co.uk/adrianguthrie/oedipus.pdf

Regards,
Michael

No. You’re a realist with no glasses.

[grin]

Philosophy and its growth is directly related to two specific fields which evolve as time passes. Science/physics and Ethics keep the framework within which philosophy operates. As new knowledge regarding either of these is formulated, it is incorporated into philosophy.

For example. We couldn’t philosophize about the metaphysics of a rolling wheel until we experienced the actual physical activity of a rolling wheel first. Or, we couldn’t philosophize about “just punishment” for stealing until we experienced, or created, the idea of “owning property.”

So on and so forth.

I wouldn’t say that philosophy has become stale, though. That’s for old bread. It might slow down, but this, in turn, is pending and waiting for new empirical discoveries.

As far as great advancments, well, the next, I think, will come about through any new discoveries in quantum mechanics.

Philosophy is biding its time, so to speak.

oh god no. it just looks that way on a polemical reading of the material. philo might have began as a sci with the early ionian presocratics (thales, anaximander, anaxmanes) but it radically changed with xenophanes’ rejection of knowledge. this sent the philosophers scrambling – paramendies said his historic everything is not is so therefore everything is, and the philosophy of epistemology really drove the whole damn thing forward. the evasion of this great problem, was of course that everything in the human soul was also in the external world, allowing knowledge to be acievable. that’s really the purpose of platonic theory of forms, ultimately. and aristotle’s 4 causes not far behind. so the basis point in philosophy is really epistemology, with its foundations necessarily perceived to be in metaphysics. that this had some profound effects on natural science and ethics, i would not deny. but these effects came AFTER meta & epist were established.

Polemarchus,

found in aristotle, nicomachean ethics, book 1, chapter 10 (1100a10). aristotle identifies it as solon’s paradox, and probably preceeds sophocles’ discription in the play.

further,

polemarchus, haven’t we been caught by our balls here? you equate meaning with feeling, and while i know there is a similar thread on happiness, i just feel that your answer seems particularly eros-driven. i don’t think socrates was unhappy. but he was certainly not filled with eros – i mean come on, alciabias slept naked on top of him and nothing! couldn’t get it up then, or earlier when they wrestled naked in the hot sun. now if a young boy doesn’t get it up, then … anyway, much like diamota’s speech, my point is that your search for meaning is concentrated in the temporary and while this is fine, like heraclitus, you should not spend sleepless nights looking for permanence from which to derieve meaning. it’s silly. also silly, do not pass up a young peace of meat when it’s in your lap.

I think gavtmcc had a valid point. Philosophy, like everything, is getting more specialized. Ortega Gasset, in his revolt of the masses, talked about the dangers of specialization, about people who know a great deal about very little. Today more philosophers are specializing, concentrating on language, or science, or some other field; it is an immutable aspect of having acquired so much knowledge. No one man can know all of the knowledge in the World now.

One reason we have gotten this far though, is through philosophy. Russell talks about philosophy spinning off it’s finds to the other sciences. Whereas the sciences were once the handmaiden of philosophy, the reverse is true today.

Philosophy is the most general of studies and will find it increasingly harder to justify itself in an ever more specialist existence, but for those who have left the river of lethe it will always be foremost.

besides maybe ethical philosophers who’s writings happen to support current mundane political idealogies (such as neo-conservativism), you’re right in noticing that philosophy doesn’t have many stars these days as compared to other fields…

One major reason is that Kant’s very outdated philosophy is still used to justify modern thinking in other fields such as politics, to be otherwise is anti-status-quo, so all the rest of us get marginalized into the “lunatic fringe”…

but overall philosophers are like artists and poets, most are never famous or influential until there are dead and gone…

Micheal’s entered the HYPER SMUG zone

Don’t be so awed by the questions - the answers are more important.

You might just as well run your fingers over those books - reading them will not answer worthwhile question.

duralogic,

Do I know you? And more to the point, do you know me?

A philosophical discussion is an argumentative process. Someone makes a claim; someone else tries to counter that claim with a valid argument. But in place of the required argument you’ve merely issued a command. I hope you see why that’s not good enough. If you care to refute an assertion that I’ve made, you’ll have to produce a valid argument. I don’t take orders.

Conversely, if you mistake a philosophical assertion for an imperative, then I might understand why you’d characterize my post as being smug. Of course, I make claims expecting that others will disagree with me. What possible reason would there be for presenting an idea that’s already universally accepted? Your agreement is, for the most part, useless to me; I don’t want your agreement. A sign of agreement generally signals the end of a philosophical discussion.

I wrote:

You responded:

Where did I say anything about finding answers in books? On the contrary, I talked specifically about the questions. You might as well have said that that I won’t find baseball bats or a crates of oranges in books. My response would be the same; I never claimed as much.

A straw-man argument consists of two parts; you have to misrepresent what I’ve said and you’ve got to show why the misrepresentation is wrong. As it stands, you’re only half-way there.

Michael

“great unwashed.”, “dull-witted”, “the dunce has no answer” – indicate high levels of smugness.

Do other books at the library give the same levels of owe? What if there were a thousand copies of one book?

Perhaps, it is a good thing that the “great unwashed” don’t all come to your library and run their grubby fingers over the books – all the books would be reduced to dust within days

I think you’re being a little harsh here, duralogic.

I think Polemarchus was merely romanticising his point with no ‘smugness’ intended regardless of whether it was implied.

Aren’t HIS intentions what are most important for us to understand rather than your (obviously flawed) analyses of their (supposed) smugness?

Why waste time on this when a perfectly good debate was ongoing?!

To return to a point i (and later marshall made)…

Increasing specialisation in society (not just philosophy) is making disciplines more opaque and difficult to be familiar with than was previously the case…

Now, (as opposed to 1000 years ago) one cannot have a thorough understanding of philosophy- only a thorough understanding of a particular area…

This strikes me as problematic and seems to represent not only the fragmentation of philosophy, but that of academia…

Is this REALLY desirable?

I think- with increased fragmentation- people will feel all the more lost, and that experts on subjects must make ALL THE MORE EFFORT to make their PHILOSOPHIES, SCIENCES and areas of expertise MORE ACCESSIBLE to other intellectuals, and if possible, to the world around them.

Accessibility to the many should be possible…

It takes a great mind to come up with a groundbreaking idea or to be able to deal with compex issues…

but a truly great mind can make those ideas or issues accessible effectively to a wider audience.

Is there hope?

duralogic wrote,

If that’s all that’s bothering you, simply replace the word “dull-witted” with “intellectually challenged,” or whatever so-called, “politically correct” labels make you feel better.

But did you happen to notice the topic of this thread? Gavtmcc has asked whether or not modern philosophers have “the same verve, panache and inspiration of those who are no longer with us.” The question itself (rightly) presupposes a qualitative hierarchy of philosophical speculation. If you care to zoom-out a bit further, you’ll also notice that philosophy is built on the common acceptance of this inequality of ideas. If all of our ideas were equally valid then we’d have no need of philosophy or science. In his book, Bluebeard’s Castle: Notes Towards the Re-Definition of Culture, George Steiner asks (p.66): “Can there be value without hierarchy?” Civilization itself rests upon our perceived hierarchy of values.

Of course, you’re free to deny all this. You can deny that men come in every shape and size of intellectual curiosity and capability. You can deny the value of reading philosophy (which, btw, leads me to wonder why you’re reading this?). However, unless you’re prepared to backup your exclamations with arguments, I’m not going to be of much help to you, nor you to me.

Regards,
Michael

Polemarchus, it’s interesting that you talk about the ‘qualitative hierarchy’ of philisophical speculation. This is, in my opinion, very difficult to define, since knowledge builds itself on knowledge. Is the person who invented the wheel to be respected more than the person who invented the seats on the new mercedes? Or vice versa, since any idiot (read other-gifted blessing on society) could have come up with a circle, whereas the seat’s design required high-level calculus that would have turned Raphson into a poet?

Unfortunately, my youth is really going to show here, but in the same way, should Hume be praised more for taking a fresh look at psychology, and completely getting it wrong with his empiricalist sense-data theory (in my opinion), or should Kant be praised more for taking Hume’s theory, building it up a priori, and coming up with something better?

I welcome answers to the above, but being a moral nihilist, I would say that it is pointless to regard one discovery or hypothesis as better than another, simply because they all have to be made at some point in time, due to the infinite nature of the universe, and have to be made in sequence, due to the nature of knowledge. Then the question becomes a very petty ‘are philosophers putting as much effort into philosophy as in the old days, and are they as skilled’? I would hypothesise deductively that, unless there is something in the water which counteracts effective philosophy (or in the culture, which is more likely), philosophers are more skilled than before, since they are specifically trained in philosophy, and that they are harder-working than before, since they are professionals.

I really like the idea of a great unwashed, btw. It brings Newton to mind…

And phrygianslave, the reason why I ignore moral philosophy is that i consider morality to be a romanticised view of our ‘herd instinct’ which causes us to protect each other, and therefore it is more suited to psychology. However, since this is merely an inductive view, it is a belief, and safely ignored. Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Julian Huxley. I would appreciate it, however, if you would qualify why ‘moral philosophy is the only branch of philosophy that really counts’.