Is philosophy dead?

[Tomdstone]

But the same could be said for anybody at a bar trying to strike up a little exchange on the Big Bang theory. People will move ever so cautiously away from you, as if you might be carrying the intellectual’s disease. So why isn’t science also “dead”?

Actually no. The number one TV show in America today is the Big Bang theory. (Or at least it is highly rated and highly popular).

 

[wittgenstein]

It is ironic that a self-professed logical positivist * ( Hawking) would claim that philosophy is dead.
Even the belief that the big questions of philosophy (What is God? What is beauty? Are the mind and brain seperate concepts? ) are meaningless is a philosophical stance.

• Logical positivism is now known as the only philosophical stance that refutes itself.
  Logical positivism= the belief that anything that is not empirical knowledge or analytical knowledge is meaningless.
  Is the proposition that " anything not empirical or analytical is meaningless " empirical? NO
  Is the proposition that "anything not empirical or analytical is meaningless " analytical? NO
  Therefore by its own defintion logical positivism is meaningless!
  Hawking not only embraces a philosophical position (logical positivism ) while claiming that philosophy is dead (does he like being married to a corpse?), he also chose a philosophical position that refutes itself!

 

[wittgenstein]

A logical positivist would say that the question, “is there a God” is a meaningless question!!!
Even someone that says there is no God, would not go that far! He would say that it is a meaningful question and the answer is no.
As a physicist Hawking is a genius. But it is obvious that as a philosopher he would never pass even philosophy 101.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A logical positivist would say that the question, “is there a God” is a meaningless question!!!
Even someone that says there is no God, would not go that far! He would say that it is a meaningful question and the answer is no.

If the atheist’s answer is no, it is a meaningless answer; because the atheist’s universe, and everything in it, is meaningless. We are just accidents in a meaningless universe.

Besides, I think most of the logical positivists were atheists.

 

[wittgenstein]

A meaningless answer is no answer. For example, if you ask,“is the cat on the mat” and I answer, “jubsokuw” that is not an answer. A logical positivist would say that any answer to the question (yes or no),“does God exist” is like saying “jubsokuw”.
I find that position to be silly and absurd.
Or better yet, a logical positivist would say that asking “does God exist” is like asking, “is the number 5 married”. Obviously, to answer YES is absurd. To say NO is also absurd because that means that the number 5 is a bachelor. A logical positivist would say that the question itself (does God exist) is meaningless and has no answer, yes or no.
I strongly disagree with that position.

 

[Tomdstone]

If the atheist’s answer is no, it is a meaningless answer; because the atheist’s universe, and everything in it, is meaningless. We are just accidents in a meaningless universe.

Besides, I think most of the logical positivists were atheists.

Atheistic human secularists might say that human aspirations and endeavors give meaning to the world, but not that there is no meaning.

 

[Tomdstone]

A meaningless answer is no answer. For example, if you ask,“is the cat on the mat” and I answer, “jubsokuw” that is not an answer. A logical positivist would say that any answer to the question (yes or no),“does God exist” is like saying “jubsokuw”.
I find that position to be silly and absurd.
Or better yet, a logical positivist would say that asking “does God exist” is like asking, “is the number 5 married”. Obviously, to answer YES is absurd. To say NO is also absurd because that means that the number 5 is a bachelor. A logical positivist would say that the question itself (does God exist) is meaningless and has no answer, yes or no.
I strongly disagree with that position.

An agnostic might say that the question has meaning but is undecidable. They point to the fact that this question has been asked for thousands of years now, and there are intelligent people on both sides. They predict that two hundred years from now, the same question will be asked and the result will be the same with intelligent people on both sides, neither side convincing the other. Notice, this is not true with Euclidean geometry and questiona such as whether the sum of the angles of a Euclidean triangle is 180 degrees.

 

[wittgenstein]

One must remember that “meaning” and "purpose " are not two words for the same concept.

 

[wittgenstein]

An agnostic might say that the question has meaning but is undecidable. They point to the fact that this question has been asked for thousands of years now, and there are intelligent people on both sides. They predict that two hundred years from now, the same question will be asked and the result will be the same with intelligent people on both sides, neither side convincing the other. Notice, this is not true with Euclidean geometry and questiona such as whether the sum of the angles of a Euclidean triangle is 180 degrees.

I was not arguing against agnosticism (that we cannot know if there is a God or not). I was arguing against logical positivism’s position that “does God exist” is a meaningless question.
See post 105
For example, the question, “is there an oxygen atom at the exact center of Pluto” may never be answered. However, that does not mean that there is no answer. Either there is an oxygen atom at the exact center of Pluto or there is not. The answer may forever be unknown but that does not mean that the question is meaningless.

 

[Tomdstone]

I was not arguing against agnosticism (that we cannot know if there is a God or not). I was arguing against logical positivism’s position that “does God exist” is a meaningless question.
See post 105

What is meaningless to a logical positivist may not be meaningful to the general population.

 

[wittgenstein]

An agnostic thinks that we do not know and probably will never know the answer to the question, “is there a God”? They think there is an answer but it is unknown.

A logical positivist thinks that the question, “is there a God” is like asking, " Does udnkews aquire dijnuyhtd? They think there is no answer because the question itself is meaningless.

 

[Tomdstone]

An agnostic thinks that we do not know and probably will never know the answer to the question, “is there a God”? They think there is an answer but it is unknown.

A logical positivist thinks that the question, “is there a God” is like asking, " Does udnkews aquire dijnuyhtd? They think there is no answer because the question itself is meaningless.

A skeptic might say that the question is undecidable. Since you say that the agnostic says that there is an answer, there would be a difference between that and saying that the question is undecidable.

 

[ManOnFire]

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

• Pascal

I meant there is no ultimate truth regarding existential philosophy. I believe in other truths.

 

[ManOnFire]

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.

I have thought these same thoughts and come to the conclusion that only the most learned and brilliant minds can process all of these complexities. The social engineers feel the need to steer society because it’s not possible to teach the entire population to think this deeply.

 

[ManOnFire]

Doestoyevsky conveniently forgot to mention that some gods promise paradise to those who sacrifice virgins and ethnically cleanse all non-believers with extreme prejudice.

Secular ethics may be influenced by religious traditions but is based first and foremost on reasoned arguments from philosophers, rather than just what various gods command.

Which is no bad thing imho, as gods which don’t base their commands on reason are definitely determining morality by power alone.

But their trump card against reason is the belief that their god commands submission by power, which is kind of the ultimate trump card.

 

[ManOnFire]

Well said - and interestingly highlights the understanding of the “Intelligent” nature of God, creating a creation that is intelligible, not only in its physical makeup but also intelligible in its moral imperatives for intelligent creatures. Thus, “natural law” is understood by (and from) sound reason, and, fittingly, the revealed Law does not conflict with it but adds the aspect of Love, making it go deeper than outward action.
It is in this nature of creation that God protected us (more or less, depending on whether we use our reason) from false gods and no God founded upon the abandonment of reason in favor of the embracing of desires and ideals. He was / is keeping us relatively safe until He is revealed to us in his Revelation.

John Martin

I agree that any god which is not founded on love and reason should not be considered a real and true God, but what’s to stop others from believing the contrary? We can’t morally kill them, but they can kill us, so they’ll ultimately eventually win by being the last man standing, because their philosophy is superior to ours regarding life and death, and they know it, and our elites know it, so it seems there’s no choice except to act like atheists and kill them before they return the favor.

So, there are a few more reasons why examining the philosophy of the End-Game might bring one to the conclusion that philosophy might be dead.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, there are a few more reasons why examining the philosophy of the End-Game might bring one to the conclusion that philosophy might be dead.

Philosophy might be dead, but it shares in the glory of Christ, rising again on the third day!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheistic human secularists might say that human aspirations and endeavors give meaning to the world, but not that there is no meaning.

What meaning could they give the world? And how do you define meaning?

The arguably most famous atheist of the 20th century, Sartre, believed that life is meaningless.

That is why his novels and plays are so grim.

And late in life before his death, seeking meaning, he gave up on atheism.

 

[wittgenstein]

A skeptic might say that the question is undecidable. Since you say that the agnostic says that there is an answer, there would be a difference between that and saying that the question is undecidable.

To say that there is an answer does not imply that you know the answer.
An agnostic can say ( and still be an agnostic) that God is intrinsically unknowable, that we will never know if God exists.
There is a difference between undecidable because there is a lack of evidence and undecidable because there is no answer.

1. For example it is undecidable, if there is an oxygen atom in the center of a particular star in the Andromeda galaxy because we will never have enough information to decide what is the truth.
2. However, the question " is the number 5 married" is undecidable because there is no answer.
   An agnostic will say that “does God exist” is undecidable because of the reason given in 1.
   A logical positivist will say that “does God exist” is undecidable because of the reason given in 2.a logical positivist would say that asking “does God exist” is like asking, “is the number 5 married”. Obviously, to answer YES is absurd. To say NO is also absurd because that means that the number 5 is a bachelor. A logical positivist would say that the question itself (does God exist) is meaningless and has no answer, yes or no.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

TA logical positivist would say that the question itself (does God exist) is meaningless and has no answer, yes or no.

The logical positivist might say the question is meaningless so far as logic is concerned.

We can still make the meaningful leap of subjective faith toward God.

The experience of God, which millions claim to have had, cannot be refuted by merely saying the proof of experiencing God is not empirical. A positivist might make the claim that religion is delusional, but he can never prove it is delusional. There might well be a transcendent God whose existence is not subject to empirical proof of the type a positivist would demand. This same God might well invite us to a personal relationship with Him.

The positivist is not against the religious impulse so much as he is against the impulse to prove God. At least this was the position of A.J. Ayer, the putative founder of logical positivism. The school of thought called “scientism” today is directly connected with Ayer as its most important founder. But scientism is getting to be old hat as it raises more difficulties than it solves.

For example, how does scientism explain the effect of sacred music on the believer?

How does a composer create sacred music without being in touch with the Sacred?

Why is there a correspondence between the musical notes and the emotions aroused by those notes?

Why do sometimes even atheists seem charmed by sacred music?

Why do some atheists avoid sacred music like the plague?

None of the questions can begin to be explained by science. But philosophy can tackle them.

Ditto questions for thousands of issues in all the other departments of philosophy.