How is philosophy different since the late 18th century, the 19 and 20th. Does Kant incorporate the BC and AD of modern philosophy. Has science - and I would especially emphasize its uncertainties - become the ultimate umpire in the 21st century? In short, does it not seem that philosophy has become more “historical” than pertinent to modern speculation or is philosophy itself more in the control of science?
There is no end for philosophy till humanity finds the absolute invariants.
more at: wwf.edula.com
I think that Kant represents a mark of departure for complete philosophical systems, I think of the great systems, Hegel represents the very last figure of this sort.
Much of 20th and 21st century philosophy is critical. I think this is the big difference. I think the Nietzschean critiques of absolutes and his taste for perspectives is one of the central themes of contemporary philosophy. Ever since there become good doubts about the existence of absolutes, it has been a retreating concern to create systems of absolutes.
Not at all. I think that capitalism and contemporary orders of power have become the ultimate umpire, science often a partner in the project to increase that power and maintain that order.
I think in some ways, the great metaphysical projects have been disrupted but this doesn’t mean abandoned. I think philosophy is increasingly set its focus towards language and critique of truth rather than some metaphysical quest for absolute truth. I think many would like philosophy to be kept in control by science (and religion) but it will not happen. This is where critical theory comes along and provides fruitful critiques of science itself.
I think that for a lot of people this is the case, whether they realise it or not. Philosophy seems to be generally an academic exercise rather than a way of thinking, seeking truth, seeking understanding, or any of those more ‘noble’ sounding definitions.
As a teenager I think people such as Jostein Gaarder have made a good contribution to philosophy for the 21st century (and I apologise for the cliche nature of that phrase). Easy-to-read texts that encourage the reader to think about their world and what they believe, rather than simply memorise and compare the views of past philosophers, are valuable. They teach people to think, and this is the first step to philosophy that I am sad to say seems to be becoming less and less common.