Analytic philosophy which is the dominant Anglo-Saxon worldview, states that traditional philosophy has to a large extent been superseded by mathematical logic. Ontology has developed into systems theory and cybernetics.
Accepting this premise, could not computer science be considered the highest stage of philosophy. It is the realization of the dialectical relations between contradictions, expressed through binary code.
It is also the materialization of the dialectical unity between the concrete and abstract. Computer science can be considered the last stage in the scientification of philosophy.
What are the computers saying about free will and determinism?
Do they agree with Wittgenstein that there are no private languages?
Have any computers realized that there is a semantic dimension or can we refer to them as solely syntactical devices?
I’m not sure I accept your definition of Analytic Philosophy, at least as it’s practiced today. Further, the fact that it is in vogue in a certain region of the world is not enough to say that it is the correct philosophy. For your argument to be valid you must assume that. And there’s a lot of people in France, Germany, and Italy who won’t let you get away with that.
Of course, you could argue that computer science is the realization of Analytic Philosophy as opposed to philosophy in general. And yes, a lot of people who once studied philosophy now work in some computer science field (such as myself). But if you still believe that philosophy is about challenging the assumption and challenging the axiom (which is what I think is a more appropriate view of today’s Analytic Philosophy as opposed to what you learn in college about Analytic Philosophy at its founding 80 years ago), mathematics and computer science becomes nothing more than that which follows from what is assumed to be true. That’s not to say that math, Artificial Intelligence, and the like can’t inform philosophy and vice versa - that feedback has been going on since philosophy’s inception. But it doesn’t mean that philosophy will be entirely supplanted by it. I think that is a naive notion that went out with the earliest Analytics (that philosophy can be swept under the rug). The Analytics were not the first to attempt this. Many have tried to explain away the need for philosophy for thousands of years and failed (including medieval theologians who preferred that faith be the real driver). The motivation for this is largely psychological. Philosophy troubles the soul of those who want certainty and order in existence. The response to this is either to try to tackle it head on and admit the foe is real, or to try to say that there really is no enemy and that it can be waved away like a puff of smoke. I think the former view is the more realistic.
