Hawking: "Philosophy is Dead"

[Touchstone]

I’ve been working my way through Hawking’s new book on my iPad (Kindle Reader, no iBook!) over the last few days, and while Hawking’s comments on God not being necessary to explain the origin of our universe have garnered all the media attention, I think a rather more provocative claim, in terms of practical effects, occurs on the first page of the book. “philosophy is dead”, claims Hawking.

I had someone here message me and ask about that, and thought as I responded that I might type up the first couple paragraphs of the book, containing this claim. Admittedly, it’s a passing assertion, but I think it speaks to a growing sense not just in science, but in philosophy as well, that science is “muscling in”. Say what you will on the merits of M-Theory and universe generation, one of the striking points of this book is that Hawking thinks he can just breezily brush past (traditional) philosophy in taking on the issues he does. Even if he’s wrong, it says something about the role of philosophy in academic circles as well as the wider culture.

Anyway, if you are interested, here are the opening two paragraphs of the book:
Hawking:

We each exist but for a a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worry about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. HTe purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different than the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago. Still, the first sketches of the new concept can be traced back almost a century.

If it’s not clear here, Hawking does make clear that he understands that there is philosophy in just this opening. So, the “hah! Hawking uses philosophy to say philosophy is dead” gotcha I think is a bit pedestrian, here – he’s referring to ‘non-scientific philosophy’.

Overall, as I have said elsewhere, here, the book is disappointing. But I find this part interesting, and misunderstood, from visiting a few of the blogs that have taken up this claim by Hawking, even the ones who aim higher than “Haha, Hawkings uses philosophy to diss philosophy”.

The question that arises from this for me? What do we make of the problem that modern physics is largely beyond the textured grip of so many modern philosophers? It used to be that philosophers sat “above”, critiquing and analyzing various disciplines (math, biology, psychology, etc.) and synthesizing them into, well, something or other. But now, it appears that philosophers who aren’t thoroughly trained in the Jedi arts of physics may have a hard time of even being relevant on these questions, let alone authorities, or leaders. What say you?

-TS

 

[Soulewolf]

I’ve been working my way through Hawking’s new book on my iPad (Kindle Reader, no iBook!) over the last few days, and while Hawking’s comments on God not being necessary to explain the origin of our universe have garnered all the media attention, I think a rather more provocative claim, in terms of practical effects, occurs on the first page of the book. “philosophy is dead”, claims Hawking.

I had someone here message me and ask about that, and thought as I responded that I might type up the first couple paragraphs of the book, containing this claim. Admittedly, it’s a passing assertion, but I think it speaks to a growing sense not just in science, but in philosophy as well, that science is “muscling in”. Say what you will on the merits of M-Theory and universe generation, one of the striking points of this book is that Hawking thinks he can just breezily brush past (traditional) philosophy in taking on the issues he does. Even if he’s wrong, it says something about the role of philosophy in academic circles as well as the wider culture.

Anyway, if you are interested, here are the opening two paragraphs of the book:

If it’s not clear here, Hawking does make clear that he understands that there is philosophy in just this opening. So, the “hah! Hawking uses philosophy to say philosophy is dead” gotcha I think is a bit pedestrian, here – he’s referring to ‘non-scientific philosophy’.

Overall, as I have said elsewhere, here, the book is disappointing. But I find this part interesting, and misunderstood, from visiting a few of the blogs that have taken up this claim by Hawking, even the ones who aim higher than “Haha, Hawkings uses philosophy to diss philosophy”.

The question that arises from this for me? What do we make of the problem that modern physics is largely beyond the textured grip of so many modern philosophers? It used to be that philosophers sat “above”, critiquing and analyzing various disciplines (math, biology, psychology, etc.) and synthesizing them into, well, something or other. But now, it appears that philosophers who aren’t thoroughly trained in the Jedi arts of physics may have a hard time of even being relevant on these questions, let alone authorities, or leaders. What say you?

-TS

Knowing hawking’s sense of humor, i believe he is just jokingly paying tribute to Nietzsche who said “god is dead” which would make sense in the context of his book.

Knowing what Nietzsche meant by this statement though, could further the understanding of “philosophy is dead”. If you dont know what Nietzsche meant, i believe it was a statement about religion becoming less and less a part of society.

I dont think anyone can deny that philosophy is becoming less and less a part of society.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I dont think anyone can deny that philosophy is becoming less and less a part of society.

Hmm… in which case philosophical questions like what is the life lived good, justice, morality, human duties and rights, the limits of knowledge, political philosophy, etc. are also becoming less and less a part of society.

 

[Soulewolf]

Hmm… in which case philosophical questions like what is the life lived good, justice, morality, human duties and rights, the limits of knowledge, political philosophy, etc. are also becoming less and less a part of society.

i would say so unfortunately. its kinda sad really that people no longer look to find truth as much anymore.

 

[The_Exodus]

This is rememiscent of the Enlightenment when it appeared Science had killed God and philosophy. Indeed, Hawking’s point was put forward much more poetically by Nietzsche:

---

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!”—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

---

In truth, philosophy can never die, so long as there are human minds which think, because what philosophy really is is just that: thought. It is the “thinking man.” It is a fundamental drive in the human soul; and, as Aristotle said, it is man’s nature to know what is. It is indeed the case that physics has revealed unto us new truths, but, how else are these truths to be pondered, if not philosophically?

Nietzsche was, in my mind, not a particularly good philosopher, but he was a *brilliant *poet. In the end, Hawking’s claim is nothing more than poetry and sophistry. For what can a man mean, and what truth can there be in the thought that thinking itself is dead?

Also, I will add that Hawking is not steeped enough in philosophy to understand the ramifications of philosophy being “dead.” Nietzsche saw clearly the connection to God, truth, philosophy and meaning all bound together. If God is dead, as he said, why not live a lie? Why not think a sneer is infinitely more noble than a syllogism?

It is a dangerous - indeed utterly abyssmal - consequence to follow. Yet it is a true logical conclusion. Nietzsche thought himself up to the task. Become the “superman” he said. He ended his life in insanity, however, and claimed he was Jesus Christ, signing all his letters “the crucified one.”

Hawking doesn’t understand philosophy enough to dismiss it. If he did, he would see the consequences of such a claim.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I’ve been working my way through Hawking’s new book on my iPad (Kindle Reader, no iBook!) over the last few days, and while Hawking’s comments on God not being necessary to explain the origin of our universe have garnered all the media attention, I think a rather more provocative claim, in terms of practical effects, occurs on the first page of the book. “philosophy is dead”, claims Hawking.

I had someone here message me and ask about that, and thought as I responded that I might type up the first couple paragraphs of the book, containing this claim. Admittedly, it’s a passing assertion, but I think it speaks to a growing sense not just in science, but in philosophy as well, that science is “muscling in”. Say what you will on the merits of M-Theory and universe generation, one of the striking points of this book is that Hawking thinks he can just breezily brush past (traditional) philosophy in taking on the issues he does. Even if he’s wrong, it says something about the role of philosophy in academic circles as well as the wider culture.

Anyway, if you are interested, here are the opening two paragraphs of the book:

If it’s not clear here, Hawking does make clear that he understands that there is philosophy in just this opening. So, the “hah! Hawking uses philosophy to say philosophy is dead” gotcha I think is a bit pedestrian, here – he’s referring to ‘non-scientific philosophy’.

Overall, as I have said elsewhere, here, the book is disappointing. But I find this part interesting, and misunderstood, from visiting a few of the blogs that have taken up this claim by Hawking, even the ones who aim higher than “Haha, Hawkings uses philosophy to diss philosophy”.

The question that arises from this for me? What do we make of the problem that modern physics is largely beyond the textured grip of so many modern philosophers? It used to be that philosophers sat “above”, critiquing and analyzing various disciplines (math, biology, psychology, etc.) and synthesizing them into, well, something or other. But now, it appears that philosophers who aren’t thoroughly trained in the Jedi arts of physics may have a hard time of even being relevant on these questions, let alone authorities, or leaders. What say you?

-TS

I like that term—“Jedi Arts Of Physics.”

“Use the Force, Albert, use the Force…”

As to your question--------we still have Moral Philosophy.

Our old friends Aristotle and Socrates and Epictetus, Diogenes and Epicurus.
Scientific Philosophy is so dry and technical at times. Some can do without Science, but EVERYBODY wants to know HOW TO LIVE.

I’m not sure I agree that Philosophers have always “stood above” the Sciences, either.

The Pre-Socratics give the lie to that. Basically Scientists who were also Philosophers. Had no problems mixing the two.

It was Socrates whom we thank for separating the two and saying Man should only concern himself with the Study Of Man.
Some regret that decision. Some don’t.

Philosophers have also been great Mathematicians from time immemorial. Pascal, Russell, Wittgenstein, anyone??? Mathematics is itself a type of Philosophy.
Plato had the famous sign above the entrance to The Academy: Let no Man enter here who is ignorant of Mathematics."

So I disagree with you that Philosophy has always “stood above.”

 

[Adeodatus]

Just another dried up positivist talking about things he does not understand. Hawking is turning himself into a bad joke.

 

[Soulewolf]

Just another dried up positivist talking about things he does not understand. Hawking is turning himself into a bad joke.

 

[stephe1987]

It’s amazing how silly some people look, even to the average person, when they speak outside their area of expertise. In their respective fields, they are some of the most brilliant minds in the world, some would even say genius, But outside their field they just seem like a joke.

Maybe Hawking should take a course or series of courses in philosophy before opening his mouth again?

It’s really kind of a curse in a way. You are well respected and get all this media attention, but then you shoot yourself in the foot by overreaching ideas and talking about things outside your field.

 

[GEddie]

…hard time of even being relevant on these questions, let alone authorities, or leaders. What say you?

-TS

IMNAAHO. Just one more instance of an intellectual celebrity using his name to pitch his opinions about life as timeless wisdom. Which is, AIUI, exactly what modern philosophers do.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well… That’s an intriguing claim.

I presume here he is speaking of Metaphysics rather than Ethics, Political Philosophy, Aesthetics etc.

Of course the role of Metaphysics has changed as physics expands;-- metaphysics is the study of what is beyond physics;- if physics expands; metaphysics has to move on to consider the new questions that both itself; and physics have to answer;-- particularily those which are beyond the understanding of physics.

 

[tonyrey]

The question that arises from this for me? What do we make of the problem that modern physics is largely beyond the textured grip of so many modern philosophers? It used to be that philosophers sat “above”, critiquing and analyzing various disciplines (math, biology, psychology, etc.) and synthesizing them into, well, something or other. But now, it appears that philosophers who aren’t thoroughly trained in the Jedi arts of physics may have a hard time of even being relevant on these questions, let alone authorities, or leaders. What say you?

The belief that physics can explain everything is a metaphysical assumption which requires justification…

 

[Moonstruck888]

The belief that physics can explain everything is a metaphysical assumption which requires justification…

The idea that everything can be explained is an absurd fantasy, and the fact that anyone might entertain the idea that everything can be explained is indicative of why philosophy is dead.

Science is what drives discovery. It is results based. It needs no justification. Your hypothesis either achieves results and becomes self justifying or it is proven false and becomes just as dead as philosophy and metaphysics.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a longer essay on this point by Steven Weinberg.

 

[Touchstone]

It’s amazing how silly some people look, even to the average person, when they speak outside their area of expertise. In their respective fields, they are some of the most brilliant minds in the world, some would even say genius, But outside their field they just seem like a joke.

Maybe Hawking should take a course or series of courses in philosophy before opening his mouth again?

It’s really kind of a curse in a way. You are well respected and get all this media attention, but then you shoot yourself in the foot by overreaching ideas and talking about things outside your field.

Hmmm. If you had to point to the progress that philosophy has made in the last 100 years, what would you point to? What are the achievements you would stand up against the achievements of physics in the same time frame?

Part of the argument from Hawking, I think (and some of this comes right from later pages of the book, which perhaps are worth quoting in support at some point), is that you use what you got. Thales and Aristarchus were brilliant men, but the tools and infrastructure at their disposal were very humble compared to what’s available to brilliant thinkers bent on discovery today. In some ways, chunks of modern philosophy are still very “bronze age” in that they don’t avail themselves of the science available. The Ionians just didn’t have that resource available to them, so they were “cutting edge discoverers” for their time. But the tools of discovery have grown and changed, and big chunks of philosophy don’t seem even aware, let alone up to speed on it

(Here I’m thinking about Plantinga’s clumsiness regarding science in the EAAN – he’s obviously aware of evolutionary science, but quite content in the amateurish rendering he gives it. Science, from that argument anyway, seems to have run right over him and past him, such that his philosophy can’t do anything with that that holds scientifically as well. William Lane Craig has the same problem in cosmology, although Craig’s a special case – intellectual dishonesty is a problem there, whereas Plantinga is a straight shooter, from what I can tell.)

In any case, the success of philosophy doesn’t rest just (or at all) with Plantinga and Craig. But what in your view would be the triumphs of philosophy in the last 100 years that you suppose might discredit Hawking’s assertion?

-TS

 

[traillius]

sounds to me the same thing as trying to show human beings don’t exist anymore, because of changes during the last 10K years, by pointing to a human. This doesn’t fly. For the record, Hawking is no more authoritative on these matters than any other scientist or philosopher.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The idea that everything can be explained is an absurd fantasy, and the fact that anyone might entertain the idea that everything can be explained is indicative of why philosophy is dead.

Science is what drives discovery. It is results based. It needs no justification. Your hypothesis either achieves results and becomes self justifying or it is proven false and becomes just as dead as philosophy and metaphysics.

Do YOU think then that Science can then explain everything, then???

Because that is what our old friends Dawkins, Dennett and folks like Sam Harris posit as a FACT.

This materialistic, mechanistic view of reality should have died out a long time ago. Now it is given “intellectual veneer” by folks like the above.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Do YOU think then that Science can then explain everything, then???

Because that is what our old friends Dawkins, Dennett and folks like Sam Harris posit as a FACT.

This materialistic, mechanistic view of reality should have died out a long time ago. Now it is given “intellectual veneer” by folks like the above.

No. I don’t believe anyone or anything can or ever will be able to explain everything and that only an utter fool would even try.

 

[JohnDamian]

No. I don’t believe anyone or anything can or ever will be able to explain everything and that only an utter fool would even try.

So you believe some things to be beyond our understanding.

Care to elaborate on what those things would be; or are we talking empty speculation here?

I have yet to see a thing I could not see as either understandable now; or possibly understandable in the future; nor have I any reason to believe that there are things that are essentially unexplainable.

 

[Adeodatus]

So you believe some things to be beyond our understanding.

Care to elaborate on what those things would be; or are we talking empty speculation here?

I have yet to see a thing I could not see as either understandable now; or possibly understandable in the future; nor have I any reason to believe that there are things that are essentially unexplainable.

Ah, but to attempt to justify naive materialism and atheism would require the use of philosophy in the justification, which Buddha Hawking says we cannot discuss.

“Master, what is the justification for the epistemology of Logical Positivism?”
“Philosophy is dead.”
“Master, what is your justification for this claim?”
“Mu.”

Obviously to one who does not understand philosophy, who has probably never even read a question by Aquinas, who probably thinks that Ockham’s Razon was invented by William of Ockham… obviously to that person philosophy is dead, inasmuch as it was never alive in him in the first place.