Philosophy's Current Position:

:laughing:

And you wonder why philosophy has no career paths… =D> :laughing:

That guy’s a retard.

Does anyone know of any large scale philosophical academic surveys?

Philosophy’s current position I would say is that it is a handmaiden of whole governments and institutions where only the most conforming philosophies are preached in order to create a new generation of civil servants along with buyers and sellers of the future market place not to mention it is used to defend the absurd religious faith in economical futurism.

Philosophy’s current position is to defame and criticize anyone outside of the mainstream.

It seems that over the years the quest for personal enlightenment is no longer a issue where in the present philosophy is bastardized into being used as a gestapo force for political crusades.

PS- I like solipsism. :stuck_out_tongue: :slight_smile:

Not everything is to do with politics.

Try telling that to politicians. :stuck_out_tongue:

Thats as may be, but a lot of modern philosophy has as much to do with controlling how people think and behave as theoretical physics, that is, none.

In my opinion, modern philosophy, like a lot of disciplines has become incredibly specialised and rather impenetrable to those who don’t know a bit about it. Whereas any reasonably intelligent person could sit down and read Plato, Hume or maybe even Kant and understand whats going on, could the same be said for most modern philosophy? Of course, philosophy is hardly special, the same goes for most other fields, and even moreso for the mathematical sciences which can only be explained to non-mathematicians by translating maths into words (hence, in many ways, badly). Its not like anybody can really understand QM without understanding the maths, and its not like anybody can really understand modern philosophy without some specialist background knowledge. I suppose though, what other direction can it go in?

This is correct, and to think that we are getting closer to a “theory of everything” is sort of silly when we realize that we are not getting closer to the trunk of the tree but branching further away from it.

One who grows in knowledge should become more and more convinced of how small our capacity is to truly “know”.

That sounds correct. I suppose, if we actually want truth, then we have to accept that what is true is liable to be hideously complex and therefore not likely to be much help in discovering other truths. Of course, in discovering little truths we can make connections, but I think the idea that we can grasp the fundamental nature of reality as a whole is utterly misguided. So different disciplines can work away, getting more and more complex as older theories are rejected, and maybe we’ll get something we can call knowledge out of it. But it won’t give as a grand system of everything, as you say. The idea of a grand system covering everything ala Aristotle or Plato is, sadly, a delusion. Why are there no grand philosophical systems these days? Because any such system would be utterly and completely wrong. Why would anybody with a good intellectual conscience even try and construct one? This is a point that Nietzsche, for one, makes superbly and one that makes his own attempts at creating a system a bit hard to take (I mean, the eternal recurrence is a nice idea and all…).