Is philosophy dead?

[John_Martin]

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?

Philosophy is not about belief and non-belief, but about reason. Our Catholic being entails both reason and faith, having both philosophy and revelation.
Hawking discussing philosophy by considering a history of philosophy (no matter how detailed) is much like Luther thinking he understood Aquinas and Aristotle by reading later explanations of them from others. Hawking did not have a “master” whom he trusted, except the teacher of history who pointed out his own view of the flaws of every philosophy, nor did Luther, who compared and contrasted rather than taking the Church as his teacher with full commitment of trust.

I believe you may think there is no ultimate truth because of the media age, where we watch but do not think, we see alternating arguments and see philosophers disparaging other philosophers teaching without ourselves trying on each for size, to experiment with it and see in ourselves whether it is really real, whether my own life, soul, thought, actions are sufficiently or, rather, fully described in the teaching of one philosopher. Right now, I am treating myself and the world around as a living experiment in Aristotle and Aquinas, and I see everything within myself and around me being exactly as they detail (with a few minor exceptions due to the extent of the state of the physical sciences of their days, but these would be fully included and correctly by them without changing their basis if they were here today - that is for us, their students to do today, to include a corruptible universe, the understanding of the big bang, etc.). Studying a history of philosophy to see what all others did, even reading philosophy to see what others did, is like media watching to see what others are doing via FaceBook. There is no self, no “yourself”, in it, walking with the philosopher and trying our all he says, thus yourself becoming the object of others watching you on FaceBook as you live the Philosophy.

It is the same with Faith - we are onlookers rather than experimenting participants. We are like people who come out to see Jesus teaching his disciples and seeing how his disciples follow him and seeing other people being healed, but we do not join in, asking him if we can follow and learn, and then do that. Faith does not simply say “this is true”, it says, “This is true; and if it is true it would be Good to be united to it; and I Will be united to it - Lord, may I walk with you as your follower?” Suddenly you are on the FaceBook page of others as they do their media watching of Jesus and his followers.

John Martin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

LOL! Now, I’d like to know the Philosophers’ next move. I bet it’s one world government.

I think maybe we disagree about one thing in particular. You seem to condemn all philosophers equally. I’d argue for good and bad philosophers, straight thinking and confused philosophers, sinful and virtuous philosophers, sane and insane philosophers, etc. In other words, they are like any other tribe of humanity and not to be condemned in toto for that very reason.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

If philosophy and the natural sciences have for the last few centuries been playing chess against each other, then the natural sciences have the more developed position and are slowly and patiently but inexorably moving towards the final checkmate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

This is why we need philosophers … because there is a solution to every problem, but you have to think your way toward it. In the case you have offered, you’d need to think quickly to solve the problem. The most logical solution is for the captain to jump overboard and hold onto the side of the boat (it is, after all, the duty of a captain to go down with his ship, and that’s philosophy, if it means saving any of his passengers). Then he can comandeer the boat from the side of the boat. Or he can instruct everyone from the side of the boat how to comandeer the boat in the event that he should perish in the water. After all, how much do you have to teach or learn to comandeer a lifeboat?

Watch Alfred Hitchcock’s classic film Lifeboat to find out.

The principle point to remember in this instance is the ethical philosophy of the golden rule in its negative form.

Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

That is, do not shoot and throw somebody into the water if you would not have them do that to you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If philosophy and the natural sciences have for the last few centuries been playing chess against each other, then the natural sciences have the more developed position and are slowly and patiently but inexorably moving towards the final checkmate.

I don’t think this is going to happen. Science cannot address all the problem of life.

Moreover, the world of science is as mixed up as the world of philosophy and the world of religion.

Get 50 independent astronomers in a room and see how they fly at each other.

 

[ynotzap]

As long as humans ask the question “Why” philosophy is not dead! It might seem dead buried in all the distraction the secular world subjects the human mind to.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is why we need philosophers … because there is a solution to every problem, but you have to think your way toward it. In the case you have offered, you’d need to think quickly to solve the problem. The most logical solution is for the captain to jump overboard and hold onto the side of the boat (it is, after all, the duty of a captain to go down with his ship, and that’s philosophy, if it means saving any of his passengers). Then he can comandeer the boat from the side of the boat. Or he can instruct everyone from the side of the boat how to comandeer the boat in the event that he should perish in the water. After all, how much do you have to teach or learn to comandeer a lifeboat?

Watch Alfred Hitchcock’s classic film Lifeboat to find out.

The principle point to remember in this instance is the ethical philosophy of the golden rule in its negative form.

Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

That is, do not shoot and throw somebody into the water if you would not have them do that to you.

Most people try to work around this problem by coming up with solutions that are not allowed according to the groundrules of the problem. The assumptions are that if the captain goes overboard, he will surely die because of the ocean currents and all nine remaining will surely die because there is no one to commandeer the lifeboat. In other words, this problem offers two and only two choices according to the assumptions and groundrules of the problem, so it is no fair to give a third choice. There are only two choices for the captain in this case:

1. Do nothing and all will die.
2. Shoot one person and 9 will live.
   Which of the two is preferred?
   A. Because the end does not justify the means, the captain has no choice except 1 and all will die.
   B. Because we should choose the lesser of two evils, the captain must unfortunately choose 2, the lesser of 2 evils and 9 will live, although 1 must die.
   Is it better to go on priniciple and let all 10 die, or is it better to choose the lesser of 2 evils and have 9 people live, but one person die? That is the philosophical question of interest in this case.
   Also, since there has been a lifeboat movie made somewhat related to this question, it proves that philosophy is not dead. But fewer people are taking courses in Ancient Greek or medieval scholastic philosophy as the inclination now is to set a goal of having a job when you finish your college education. Philosophy may be a good major for those intending to go on to law, but already there are too many lawyers and unless you choose a hot specialisation or know someone, it is becoming difficult to find a decent job as a lawyer. Taxi drivers and barbers are often good at philosophy, at least of the practical type, but their pay is not the best.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Most people try to work around this problem by coming up with solutions that are not allowed according to the groundrules of the problem. The assumptions are that if the captain goes overboard, he will surely die because of the ocean currents and all nine remaining will surely die because there is no one to commandeer the lifeboat. In other words, this problem offers two and only two choices according to the assumptions and groundrules of the problem, so it is no fair to give a third choice. There are only two choices for the captain in this case:

1. Do nothing and all will die.
2. Shoot one person and 9 will live.
   Which of the two is preferred?
   A. Because the end does not justify the means, the captain has no choice except 1 and all will die.
   B. Because we should choose the lesser of two evils, the captain must unfortunately choose 2, the lesser of 2 evils and 9 will live, although 1 must die.
   Is it better to go on priniciple and let all 10 die, or is it better to choose the lesser of 2 evils and have 9 people live, but one person die? That is the philosophical question of interest in this case.

You are free to make all the ground rules you like, but they should reflect what goes on in a real life situation. Even the rules of commandeering a boat are guided by a maritime philosophy. A captain does not get to shoot a passenger and toss him over in order to save himself and all the other passengers. He are obliged to find another way. There is very little skill involved in commandeering a lifeboat. A captain would know that and would know that all the passengers on the boat have a right to live, and if that means going down with his ship, so be it. That’s what captains sometimes have to do … go down with the ship. There is no inevitability that the nine will perish if the captain throws himself into the sea.

What you seem to be doing here is applying a utilitarian ethic to the situation. The greatest good for the greatest number. Well, guess what. The greatest number is, by maritime law, the nine passengers. The captain is expendable.

No?

 

[abucs]

If philosophy and the natural sciences have for the last few centuries been playing chess against each other, then the natural sciences have the more developed position and are slowly and patiently but inexorably moving towards the final checkmate.

I think the logical conclusion to the natural sciences is that at some point we will either learn everything there is to know or everything it is possible to know. At this point the advancement of intellectual thought will cease in the natural sciences whereas the advancement in thought in philosophy and metaphysics will continue.

I think with discovered laws of quantum mechanics we have started to reach an understanding on the limitations of the natural sciences and philosophical and metaphysical thought have begun to take over.

 

[Tomdstone]

You are free to make all the ground rules you like, but they should reflect what goes on in a real life situation. Even the rules of commandeering a boat are guided by a maritime philosophy. A captain does not get to shoot a passenger and toss him over in order to save himself and all the other passengers. He are obliged to find another way. There is very little skill involved in commandeering a lifeboat. A captain would know that and would know that all the passengers on the boat have a right to live, and if that means going down with his ship, so be it. That’s what captains sometimes have to do … go down with the ship. There is no inevitability that the nine will perish if the captain throws himself into the sea.

What you seem to be doing here is applying a utilitarian ethic to the situation. The greatest good for the greatest number. Well, guess what. The greatest number is, by maritime law, the nine passengers. The captain is expendable.

No?

Right. I think you have proven conclusively my assertion that most people try to find various ways to work around the groundrules of this uncomfortable hypothetical problem.

 

[tonyrey]

If philosophy and the natural sciences have for the last few centuries been playing chess against each other, then the natural sciences have the more developed position and are slowly and patiently but inexorably moving towards the final checkmate.

The natural sciences cannot have a more developed position because they are based on logical, metaphysical and metascientific principles…

 

[tonyrey]

Right. I think you have proven conclusively my assertion that most people try to find various ways to work around the groundrules of this uncomfortable hypothetical problem.

It is not a defect but a virtue to accept the fact that we have to reflect and choose the lesser evil. In an extremely complex universe such problems are inevitable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think the logical conclusion to the natural sciences is that at some point we will either learn everything there is to know or everything it is possible to know. At this point the advancement of intellectual thought will cease in the natural sciences whereas the advancement in thought in philosophy and metaphysics will continue.

I don’t know. The frontiers of science may have just been reached in the last three hundred years.

Science may advance exponentially from this point on. It’s hard to predict with certainty or even probability. Either we are near the end of a stupendous scientific era, or we are entering a world of science far beyond our ability to envision at present.

In either case, philosophy will not die unless science invents a means to cause the death of us all. But even if that happens, it will have been a bad philosophy that caused the invention of such a means. That is why it is so important to enlist ourselves in the service of good philosophy, rather than bad philosophy or no philosophy at all.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right. I think you have proven conclusively my assertion that most people try to find various ways to work around the groundrules of this uncomfortable hypothetical problem.

If we are going to invent uncomfortable hypothetical problems, let’s not make the groundrules and their solutions impossibly difficult.

 

[ManOnFire]

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.

But all questions of morality are ultimately determined by Power. As Doestoyevsky aptly stated, “If God doesn’t exist, then all acts are permissible.” If you convince enough people to vote to protect mother earth, there will be population controls. Just look at the atrocities by history’s worst dictators.

 

[ManOnFire]

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:

I think most would agree that there’s no objective scientific truth, there is only Faith and Belief. That’s why I harumpf at agnostics who believe that their position is superior when the thought of the cosmos magically popping into existence without God is illogical and unscientific also.

 

[ManOnFire]

Philosophy is not about belief and non-belief, but about reason. Our Catholic being entails both reason and faith, having both philosophy and revelation.
Hawking discussing philosophy by considering a history of philosophy (no matter how detailed) is much like Luther thinking he understood Aquinas and Aristotle by reading later explanations of them from others. Hawking did not have a “master” whom he trusted, except the teacher of history who pointed out his own view of the flaws of every philosophy, nor did Luther, who compared and contrasted rather than taking the Church as his teacher with full commitment of trust.

I believe you may think there is no ultimate truth because of the media age, where we watch but do not think, we see alternating arguments and see philosophers disparaging other philosophers teaching without ourselves trying on each for size, to experiment with it and see in ourselves whether it is really real, whether my own life, soul, thought, actions are sufficiently or, rather, fully described in the teaching of one philosopher. Right now, I am treating myself and the world around as a living experiment in Aristotle and Aquinas, and I see everything within myself and around me being exactly as they detail (with a few minor exceptions due to the extent of the state of the physical sciences of their days, but these would be fully included and correctly by them without changing their basis if they were here today - that is for us, their students to do today, to include a corruptible universe, the understanding of the big bang, etc.). Studying a history of philosophy to see what all others did, even reading philosophy to see what others did, is like media watching to see what others are doing via FaceBook. There is no self, no “yourself”, in it, walking with the philosopher and trying our all he says, thus yourself becoming the object of others watching you on FaceBook as you live the Philosophy.

It is the same with Faith - we are onlookers rather than experimenting participants. We are like people who come out to see Jesus teaching his disciples and seeing how his disciples follow him and seeing other people being healed, but we do not join in, asking him if we can follow and learn, and then do that. Faith does not simply say “this is true”, it says, “This is true; and if it is true it would be Good to be united to it; and I Will be united to it - Lord, may I walk with you as your follower?” Suddenly you are on the FaceBook page of others as they do their media watching of Jesus and his followers.

John Martin

Thank you for the eloquent post. I will amend my post to claim that existential philosophy is dead. The rest if very alive.

My personal ultimate philosophical conclusion is that kids need religion in order to respect a higher power, i.e. that religion is good for us, so they don’t become selfish narcissists. But my philosophy profs claimed one cannot use religion as a means to achieve the ends (to create more humble and respectful humans). This is where I disagree with the profs: if we are forever stuck with dead end existential philosophy, then we should use the means to produce better people even if there’s no scientific proof of it.

I’ve noticed that the debate gets more interesting when I observe the personality types of various religious people. The Demanding types who want to believe there’s an objective answer are the most passionate and orthodox in thinking they are Correct, and intolerant of non-believers. The laid-back types just want to keep the peace and are more likely to be liberal regarding faith. It’s just funny to think that no matter how much the Demanding types Demand, they still don’t get any objective answer, only faith or non-faith.

 

[Tomdstone]

If we are going to invent uncomfortable hypothetical problems, let’s not make the groundrules and their solutions impossibly difficult.

Oh, so philosophers only want problems and questions that can be easily solved? Let us not forget that solutions to many problems in real life are also impossibly difficult. Or at least philosophers cannot agree on what is the correct answer in many cases. Perhaps that is why many people avoid philosophy. If after years of intensive study, philosophers cannot agree among themselves about what is right and what is wrong, then is it a waste of time to think about some of these philosophical issues.
Take for example, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. There are those who say that it was immoral since it harmed so many innocent civilians and set a bad precedent. The good goal of ending the war was brought about by an evil mens involving the killing of many innocent people. Yet there are others who say it was justified as the lesser of two evils, the larger evil being the continuation of the war and the killing of millions of people. Who is right and who is wrong? One person’s opinion is as good as another’s. This is a big difference from the situation in mathematics, where regardless of the method used to solve the mathematical problem in question, if you proceed without error, everyone will arrive at one and only one and the same answer.

 

[tonyrey]

I think most would agree that there’s no objective scientific truth, there is only Faith and Belief. That’s why I harumpf at agnostics who believe that their position is superior when the thought of the cosmos magically popping into existence without God is illogical and unscientific also.

The ultimate truth is that truth is not an illusion but the source of the power we have been given:

Thought constitutes the greatness of man.

• Pascal

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’ve noticed that the debate gets more interesting when I observe the personality types of various religious people. The Demanding types who want to believe there’s an objective answer are the most passionate and orthodox in thinking they are Correct, and intolerant of non-believers. The laid-back types just want to keep the peace and are more likely to be liberal regarding faith. It’s just funny to think that no matter how much the Demanding types Demand, they still don’t get any objective answer, only faith or non-faith.

This got me thinking (I’m actually trying hard to keep it short.):

Are these personality types actually out there as an objective truth? What is it that informs such opinions? Are personality types more correct. more real than what the people are actually saying?

The views quoted arise out of relationships. There is also a component, which has to do with the internal dialogue of one’s own conflicting points of view.

Reading a post, one understands, interprets and emotionally reacts to words as they are organized contextually on the screen.
We may have different opinions, but we can also misunderstand what is being said, misinterpret the motivations and totally not get what the person is saying because we don’t have sufficient background.

This leads me to consider how it is that we can know others.
Just as we know we ourselves exist, we naturally know others do.
This sort of knowledge/awareness has great depth and ends in mystery.
Ultimately, we come to know the other through love.
To truly know them, we must give ourselves to that person:

• Our understanding is surrendered that they might present us with who they are and what they think. We try not to impose our views, our judgements, but hear them out.
• We give our trust to the person. We have faith that they will not lie or betray us.

You may have guessed where I am going with this.
Science is all about a relationship with the physical universe.
Philosophy let’s say involves the relationship with the metaphysical.
Worship involves the relationship with the ultimate Reality - the Truth Itself.

That Truth, I am going to assert, transcends personhood, being the Real of the real.
He is Love; so, we relate to the Ground of our being as we would a person we love.
We surrender ourselves, our thoughts our will. In servitude to Him, we have ultimate freedom.
I will further assert that He has revealed Himself through His Church - literally He has done so in scripture.

In the pursuit of truth one may wish to categorize me as a personality type.
While this may have some value in studying people, if it detracts from the message, such an approach will lead one away from truth.
It can be used to justify a lack of trust that denies what is being said.
Keeping it at the level of discerning a personality type can leave one comfortably in the security of one’s own beliefs.