Is philosophy dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That depends. If you mean “Is philosophy culturally relevant?” then I’m not sure it was ever alive. Philosophy and academia in general have always more or less operated independently of their perceived usefulness.

So my forecast is: The philosophers will continue to philosophize, as they always have. Everyone else will be indifferent, as they always have.
 
Philosophy is nothing to anyone who does not submit himself as a student of the philosopher, believing in the philosopher, taking as True what the philosopher is teaching.
Philosophy today is “studied” from a superior position rather than from the position of student of the teacher, not understanding because they have not lived in (experienced or experimented in) the philosophy. They think they know that “Aristotle said this and that”, but they have not experimented to see “this and that” in their own self or looked in others for “this and that”. They are historians of philosophers rather than students of philosophy.
A true student of Aristotle or Aquinas has no trouble seeing their relevance in today’s culture.

John Martin
 
Philosophy also includes ethics and logic - certainly very relevant topics.
Environmental philosophy is fascinating. And without the philosophy of science, how do we distinguish between real science and pseudoscience? What is the relationship between science and religion?

Just a few examples.
 
I greatly enjoy reading Bertrand Russell (though he was not well disposed towards religion). He summarised the usefulness of philosophy very well:

“Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom.
Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect”.
 
Oreoracle said:
That depends. If you mean “Is philosophy culturally relevant?” then I’m not sure it was ever alive. Philosophy and academia in general have always more or less operated independently of their perceived usefulness.

So my forecast is: The philosophers will continue to philosophize, as they always have. Everyone else will be indifferent, as they always have.
Click to expand...
Wow! I am amazed–the more I learn of modern philosophy, the more I see it showing up as the foundational thought of so much of what people say when they talk about things like political issues, religious issues, etc.,

The problem is people don’t learn philosophy, so they don’t learn where their ideas actually come from.
 
Hans_W said:
I greatly enjoy reading Bertrand Russell (though he was not well disposed towards religion). He summarised the usefulness of philosophy very well:
Click to expand...
I agree that Russell admired philosophy as a profitable venture for everyone. But it seems, by the time you get through reading his History of Western Philosophy, that he didn’t have all that much respect for anybody’s philosophy but his own. 😉
 
St_Francis said:
Wow! I am amazed–the more I learn of modern philosophy, the more I see it showing up as the foundational thought of so much of what people say when they talk about things like political issues, religious issues, etc.,

The problem is people don’t learn philosophy, so they don’t learn where their ideas actually come from.
Click to expand...
There have no doubt been influential philosophers, but I feel they are given too much credit at times. Many times when I’m reading philosophy I will agree with what’s being said, and I’m glad that someone put my thoughts on paper and expressed them eloquently.

Clever exposition is what philosophers do best. But the fact that many people feel as I do–that someone has put their thoughts into prose–shows that the ideas didn’t “come from” the philosophers. In many cases philosophers are only elaborating on simple truths that many implicitly grasp. It’s the ability of philosophers to clarify these ideas that makes them unique.
 
I really love propositional logic and modal logic these forms of philosophy are still alive. Also aesthetic philosophy is still alive as far as I know.

I could be wrong with this part, but I think the “there is no proof for p” problem is important for the efficacy of mathematics and science. I may be misrepresenting Godel’s incompleteness theorem, but I do not think I am.

I go to this site if I do not know the basics of something. If you are interested here it is plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
 
Oreoracle said:
There have no doubt been influential philosophers, but I feel they are given too much credit at times. Many times when I’m reading philosophy I will agree with what’s being said, and I’m glad that someone put my thoughts on paper and expressed them eloquently.

Clever exposition is what philosophers do best. But the fact that many people feel as I do–that someone has put their thoughts into prose–shows that the ideas didn’t “come from” the philosophers. In many cases philosophers are only elaborating on simple truths that many implicitly grasp. It’s the ability of philosophers to clarify these ideas that makes them unique.
Click to expand...
There are times when that is the case, usually when the idea is true.

But there are other times when we do not realize that we are picking our ideas up from other people. I can’t tell you the number if times I have realized something, and then run across that idea in a book I had read, sometimes more than once!, before having that realization and not noticed it at all, or not understood it, or not been able to apply it,…

And I have seen others do the same. It’s part if the human condition.
 
An abeyance of philosophers for say, five generations, might not be altogether a bad thing.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Stephen Hawking said philosophy is dead. Etienne Gilson said philosophy buries its undertakers.

Which is true? Either? Both? Neither?

debate.org/opinions/is-philosophy-dead
Click to expand...
Given that philosophy is more or less the study of what is true, and given that seeking to answer any question whatsoever touches upon that on some level, it would appear that philosophy can’t die until all thinking beings do. The fact that many of us try to ignore the the fact that our questions touch upon truth, and brush off the deeper questions that arise from the simpler ones, just shows that (at this time and as a whole) we are philosophically stupid rather than that philosophy is dead.

Of course, stupidity tends to bury its undertakers as well, so I suppose that’s not terribly surprising.
 
I say yes, philosophy is dead. The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. The analysis it generates create a sugar-like high, deceiving the Thinker into believing he is making progress toward some end answer for our existence, only to have the football yanked out from our feet a la Lucy and Charlie Brown. The belief that God created the cosmos is logical but will never be scientific. The belief that a godless cosmos was magically born from absolutely nothing regarding all realms of time and space is both illogical and forever unscientific. The belief that a godless cosmos was never born but rather always existed in one shape or another is illogical and forever unscientific. Of the 3 possibilities, only the one involving God is logical. One one hand, if God exists, then He created all things, so He must be quite liberal, so we should love and accept everybody for being themselves. OTOH, God’s laws are quite conservative, beautiful, romantic, and create so much love and babies if followed. So, both of these extremes are paradoxical. SO, humanity is forever screwed into a non-answer because we will never have an answer until we die, and maybe not even then, so why waste so much time pondering the question if there won’t be an answer until death, and maybe not then either? The more I think about it, the more I realize how the extremes of Belief and Non-Belief are still possibilities, clearer than ever, the more I see that life is tabula rasa, and the longer I live, I think that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth, but even that statement of alleged truth is a paradox. Anyone want more wine? 😃
 
ManOnFire said:
I say yes, philosophy is dead. The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. The analysis it generates create a sugar-like high, deceiving the Thinker into believing he is making progress toward some end answer for our existence, only to have the football yanked out from our feet a la Lucy and Charlie Brown.
Click to expand...
That is a formidable analysis. What I’m wondering though is this: suppose philosophy is dead; then we stop wondering. What kind of life would Lucy and Charlie Brown be living without the football, which is at the heart of all philosophy? Is there not some satisfaction to be derived from the game and the hunt even when you lose the game or come out of the woods empty-handed?

After all, MaOnFire, what are you doing in a philosophy forum? :D;)

The ultimate truth is that ManOnFire believes in the game and the hunt. 👍
 
Charlemagne_III said:
That is a formidable analysis. What I’m wondering though is this: suppose philosophy is dead; then we stop wondering. What kind of life would Lucy and Charlie Brown be living without the football, which is at the heart of all philosophy? Is there not some satisfaction to be derived from the game and the hunt even when you lose the game or come out of the woods empty-handed?

After all, MaOnFire, what are you doing in a philosophy forum? :D;)

The ultimate truth is that ManOnFire believes in the game and the hunt. 👍
Click to expand...
LOL!

Nah, I say there’s little satisfaction in racking one’s brain, expecting some grandiose final solution, only to find that there is forever no answer. Maybe that’s what Hawking means by philosophy is dead. I was one of those “ignorant believers” until college philosophy class shamed me down this long tortuous path due to my alleged ignorance only to find that there is still no answer after all that “enlightenment.” Ignorance would have been bliss, without the distractions from faith, with a lot less effort. Although the adult wine-and-discuss-philosophy sessions have me feeling like I am flying, so I guess that is still worthwhile, if only for entertainment purposes, lol.

I sometimes think that the Philosophers feel they wasted all that time to arrive at a non-answer, so they pretend there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to prevent the rest of us from laughing at their waste of time, which we won’t ultimately realize until we reach the end. Or, they believe that if they can convince the world population that God does not exist, then we will become sexualized drugged agnostic hedonists who use foolproof birth control to party like there’s no tomorrow to slowly decrease the world population. Probably the latter. It worked perfectly in Europe until that other group moved in to repopulate. Now, I’d like to know the Philosophers’ next move. I bet it’s one world government.
 
People will always wonder what is reality, existence, knowledge and truth.
There’s no money in it because thinkers do not fit well in consumerist and totalitarian societies.
 
ManOnFire said:
I say yes, philosophy is dead. The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. The analysis it generates create a sugar-like high, deceiving the Thinker into believing he is making progress toward some end answer for our existence, only to have the football yanked out from our feet a la Lucy and Charlie Brown.
Click to expand...
I think the value of philosophy is not in the destination but in the journey.

Take a question of whether something is moral or immoral. If we just accept philosopher X because we agree with his conclusion, we’ve done nothing except joined his fan club. And some folk do seem to think that philosophy is about joining fan clubs, that their pinup has all the right answers, and all other philosophers are dross.

But if we look at opposing views, we learn how different people reasoned it out and came to other conclusions, and that can be dangerous because once we’ve learned something we can’t unlearn it, and it can change us forever.

So I think philosophy is most alive when the football is yanked out from our feet.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Stephen Hawking said philosophy is dead. Etienne Gilson said philosophy buries its undertakers.

Which is true? Either? Both? Neither?

debate.org/opinions/is-philosophy-dead
Click to expand...
There are various types of philosophy which are not really dead, but they could be characterised as somewhat dormant today. On the other hand, there are other types which are quite active, such as feminist philosophy. There is philosophy of science which has not yet given us a satisfactory explanation of quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. And there are paradoxes which arise in relativity such as the twin paradox. Ethics is a subset of philosophy which should be active today because of the proliferation of various new types of weapons. Is it ethical to drop a nuclear bomb when you know that there will be a large number of civilian casualties. Is it ethical to sit behind a computer screen, 10,000 miles from your target and using a computer operated drone, is it ethical to fire away and kill suspected people on the basis of what you see on the computer screen? Is it ethical to torture people to get them to confess. Is it ethically right to redefine what torture is, so that you can use enhanced interrogation methods and say you did not torture the person, but only used enhanced interrogation? Unfortunately, politicians do not seem to grasp some of the unintended consequences of their actions and as a result many invaded countries end up as a mess. Oftentimes, politicians seem blind to ethics or ethical considerations. The reasons for waging wars are blurred and misleading or inaccurate reasons are given without concern for the ethics of the truth. There are various unsolved problems in philosophy both of the soft and hard type. An example of the soft type would be the case of ten people in a sinking lifeboat and all will die unless one jumps overboard since the lifeboat can hold only 9 people. It will soon sink under the weight of 10 people. Under the assumptions of the problem, the captain, who has a gun, cannot jump overboard because he is the only one who can comandeer the lifeboat so if he jumps overboard all will die. The captain asks for volunteers to jump, but there are none. Now should the captain do nothing and as a result the lifeboat will sink and all 10 will die, or should the captain shoot one person, toss him overboard, and nine will live? Is this a case of the end justifying the means or choosing the lesser of two evils? For a harder problem, philosophy is often concerned with the concept of infinity, so take this mathematical problem on a question about infinity. It is known that there are a countable number of integers, and that the number of real numbers is uncountable. The question is whether or not there is an infinite set with cardinality strictly larger than that of the integers, but strictly smaller than that of the real numbers.
 
inocente said:
I think the value of philosophy is not in the destination but in the journey.

Take a question of whether something is moral or immoral. If we just accept philosopher X because we agree with his conclusion, we’ve done nothing except joined his fan club. And some folk do seem to think that philosophy is about joining fan clubs, that their pinup has all the right answers, and all other philosophers are dross.

But if we look at opposing views, we learn how different people reasoned it out and came to other conclusions, and that can be dangerous because once we’ve learned something we can’t unlearn it, and it can change us forever.

So I think philosophy is most alive when the football is yanked out from our feet.
Click to expand...
👍 A refreshing antidote to the scepticism of those who** believe** there is no ultimate truth - thereby contradicting themselves. For them the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. :ehh:
 
Is philosophy dead? Interesting philosophical question.

Be careful, if we decide ‘yes’ CA might close down the philosophy section. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top