What is the point of philosophy?
We are all on a philosophy forum, so it stands to reason that we feel at least a small amount of satisfaction in doing philosophy. But is there any point in doing professional philosophy? Is it just intellectual masturbation? Can philosophy ever come to a conclusion? If it can, how does it do so and why hasn't it happened often? If it cannot, then what is the purpose of philosophy? Can pure reason alone bring about true facts? How can we know if we have reached a true conclusion? What even is reason to begin with, and why is it regarded as infallible (from an evolutionary perspective)? Are these questions even worth arguing about if they will never be solved?
When I order a book on contemporary metaphysics and read it from front to end, have I gained any new knowledge? Or have I just been presented with several out of countless other theories about the nature of the universe? Is this really all philosophy is, a back and forth see-saw of arguments with no actual progress, other than negative claims?
When I order a book on contemporary metaphysics and read it from front to end, have I gained any new knowledge? Or have I just been presented with several out of countless other theories about the nature of the universe? Is this really all philosophy is, a back and forth see-saw of arguments with no actual progress, other than negative claims?
Comments (43)
Why did a metaphysician become a metaphysician? Why not a scientist?
With all due respect to you, TGW--a thoughtful philosopher, this particular statement about scientists is kind of close to hogwash. (Hogwash is not a pig's bath water; it's swill for swine.) I'm not a scientist, and was not personally insulted, but scientists really do "think"... and deeply at that.
For my part, I consider philosophy to be a field in which people study a corpus of works by writers, some of them 2500 years old, in whom nothing new is going to be discovered. (Like, "I never noticed before that Plato mentioned how much he admired brain surgeons.") Philosophy is narrowly focused on the nature of the cosmos, this world, and us--mostly us, and a bucket full of vague abstractions like "truth". As such, philosophy has at various times hatched new fields (such as psychology) which have gone on to supersede the achievements of philosophy in specific ways.
It is not the only field of study by which one can become a better thinker. Most fields of study--geology, history, biology, literature, art criticism, mathematics, music, physics, theology, sociology, chemistry, supply chain management, etc. require one to think clearly and practice systematic and disciplined thought.
If someone likes philosophy, they should study it. If they don't, they need not fear they will end up as intellectually impoverished copier repairmen, or drudges doing dreary, third-rate workmanlike tasks in the astrophysics or quantum mechanics laboratory.
A scientist could easily say that the philosopher is wasting their brainpower on fruitless ideas that will never be solved, and should be doing something more productive.
Well, the world is such that you end up a wage slave no matter what you do, probably. Professional philosophy is dehumanizing in its own way, and so is astrophysics. But philosophy itself can sometimes offer substance and relief, whereas astrophysics cannot. Or so I want to claim to you.
Erm, I like to go out with my telescope at night and look at DSOs, planets, and stars, and although this is not astrophysics, it is very substantial and relieving of my boredom.
There's no point to philosophy other than what meaning I attribute to it. Sometimes that's just relieving boredom, sometimes because I doubt ideas I have or discover they're inconsistent and want to resolve that, sometimes I just want to learn something because a particular subject interests me.
As I get older though, more and more subjects bore me as they are usually more of the same without a real resolution. Practical philosophy like ethics and political philosophy continue to interest me the most as I've grown more attached to life and how to live it properly. This is opposed to my past interest in metaphysics, where I used to have a lot of fun with metaphysics.
And mustn't forget logic. If you don't know the basics of logic you can't reach any meaningful conclusions about anything as you'll most likely made a mistake somewhere.
I'll ignore the "professional" part as it doesn't apply to many of us, including me, but I'm reminded of the scene in a Jack Nicholson movie where he says to Helen Hunt "You make me want to be a better man." At its best, doing philosophy makes us better people. Hard to ask for more than that. (And coming to conclusions would just spoil the fun for future generations, no? Besides, that's what science is for.)
Mega post.
If I see this correctly, you have a 'question' as the OP, then by a single point followed by 12 consecutive questions.
I have some time on my hands, so I'll just write some of my usual crap.
Quoting darthbarracuda
A question... well sort of a question.
What I see here is the implication in this more so than the interrogative (so to say).
The point implies a sort of definitive answer (must be). Is that at all the case with such a field investigation and accumulation of knowledge... various investigations and various knowledge, as in plural?
It would appear to me that philosophy touches on far too many investigations and is in the pursuit of too many fields of knowledge to ever settle on a single point to it all. Philosophy is set of multi use tools and applied in many a different context; thus establishing a single purpose seems a bit off.
I could very well list off a few points of applied and theoretical philosophy, but none of these would be 'the point'.
I can try to address the individual questions, but none of them address 'the point' either. Rather, these questions address specific context and specific application of philosophy.
For what it's worth, I'll give it a whirl.
Quoting darthbarracuda
If you happen to be a professor in an institute of higher education, the professional pursuit of philosophy (degrees, publications and such) are evidence accepted by such institutions of competence, as well as being a defined standard of measure with which candidates for such positions can be judged.
Provided you wish to be a professor, there is quite a point to doing professional philosophy.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I suppose it could be, but it isn't all of the time.
My take is that intellectual masturbation is less an activity, but more an accusation of those engaging in philosophy who feel either bored, disinterested or left out of the debate.
Truth is, anything can be from some perspective or another be discussed ad nauseam. Be it can we define a chair, is the cup red, baseball stats or what the Kardashians are up to (which for me occurs in less than 3 seconds). I suppose the 'intellectual' label attached does not really occur regarding the Kardashians, but doesn't that hing upon what one labels as intellectual?
Quoting darthbarracuda
To what question?
Sorry this is rather vague and I have no idea what to do with it.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Has it happened not all to often are were you personally not aware of it all too often?
It seems to me that there have been a lot of conclusions in the field of philosophy. There are a hell of a lot of 'therefores' in every debate and philosophical bit of writing. Those are conclusions.
Are you sure you mean conclusions or do you mean consensus?
Quoting darthbarracuda
Philosophy is the love of knowledge... that does not imply philosophy is the love of possession of facts/truths. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge... you don't need to possess it, but simply pursue it.
Also, an application result of philosophy is the elimination of assumptions that are themselves in error, but have been long assumed to be the fact/truth. Philosophy often serves the purpose of debunking, but not always. (see I'm back on the 'a purpose' and not 'the purpose' mantra regarding philosophy)
Quoting darthbarracuda
You mean in application of the tools of logic?
If so, then no.
Tools are used to build and construct. The problem I see here quite often is the confusion of the tools with the workers. A hammer does drive in a nail, but the hammer does not swing itself or make the focused impact upon the nail without a worker both swinging and focusing.
Even in maths...
2+2 = 4
Fine...
... but 2 of what and 2 of the other gives 4 of what?
The content and the context matters. Also, the refinement of that matters as well.
2 litres of fluid added to 2 other liters of fluid seem to logically give one 4 litres of fluid, but what if the fluids are not both water, but one being water and the other liquid nitrogen?
Anyway...
Reason, logic and maths are simply tools that can be applied to investigate and define/refine 'true' facts, but they really are no more than tools, so other than an internal logical consistency void of specific context and content they can be either correct or incorrect. Problem is that outside of this vacuum our reality has context and content, so allow the tools to be applied to such matters and not be thought of as something that grants one facts or truths in and of themselves.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I suppose one has made all the best attempts possible to included all relevant variables and exclude all non-relevant/bias and field the best possible conclusion one can... given the tools of reason, logic and maths one can apply.
Here's the fun bit...
... if you change the variables or refine and adapt the variables, you may well have a 'new truth'.
I have to clarify who I am here, as I view fact and truth to be dynamic processes of adaptation/refinement and not static absolutes void or ignoring adaptation/refinement.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I think I just addressed that, but I'm not really too clear what you are asking.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Indeed they are!
What could possible be more dangerous than someone laying claim to an absolute answer to such a question that indeed does not have a conclusive answer and pimp that absolute answer as a means to gain control or power over others... preventing them from investigating and finding even more... far more refined... question to contemplate?
Just how many megalomaniacs have been derailed via critical thought?
Quoting darthbarracuda
If you read carefully and have a decent memory, you are now aware of what was written in that book.
How you apply this is up to you.
As for it being new... what matters here is far less the time in which something originated, but the time in which you have experienced it. It is new to you. If it is new in the context of the history of philosophical writings matters little.
Beyond this, I cannot say much, as I have really no idea what you have read.
Personally I don't bother much with metaphysics, as it is far too anthropomorphic and egotistical for my taste, but one can indeed learn from anything. I learn from negative examples as much as I can from positive ones.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Again...
... I have really no idea what you have read; thus it would be hasty of me to field an answer.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I think a simply chronological evaluation of philosophy from the ancients cultures to the present might show some rather obvious progress.
There are a list of both negative and positive claims being fielded in this chronology.
Two questions...
Is the speed with which you observe or become aware of changes simply too slow for your taste?
Are you sure there are no positive claims or do you tend to focus more and more upon negative claims to the point you have the feeling that there are no positive ones out there?
----------------------------------------
Was this intellectual masturbation?
I tried to keep the answers short, but hey... you ask a hell of a lot and also seemed to have implication of a given or granted (that there is a 'the point'... a must be definitive answer) that I wish to place into question, as I tend to take nothing for granted.
Why do I take nothing for granted?
My travels in philosophy.
Anyway...
I could probably do much better than this, but hey... I'm no longer a professional. Not sure if I ever was, but hey... standards of measure vary, eh?
Meow!
GREG
Re: The Sciences vs. Philosophy
Is it the case, perhaps, that when philosophy spun off its various proto-scientific businesses, that a fair amount of philosophical practice went with them?
After all, it has been the case for quite some time that science has labored to find the truth about various things, like 'the cause of disease' or 'the motion of the planets'. True, they didn't arrive at any truths immediately, and neither did philosophy. But the search for [at least some of the] truths which philosophy embarked upon was achieved in its spin-offs--like biology and astronomy. Girolamo Fracastoro in 1546 published a work on "contagion" in which he discussed cause and effect in disease. He wasn't exactly on the mark with respect to specifics, but he did correctly theorize that disease was caused by agents, of some kind. He didn't know what those agents were, and it would take 300 more years before Pasteur, Lister, and Koch (et al) nailed down "germs" (bacteria) as the cause, and 20 years after Koch, viruses were identified as a cause of disease too.
Yes, very workmanlike labors were required. We knew what bacteria looked like (since the mid 1600s, a century after Fracastoro). Antonie van Leeuwenhoek made his own lenses (a skill he learned on his own--he was otherwise in the cloth/clothing/drapery business--which enabled him to see these "little beasties". He can't be faulted for not theorizing his way to the little beasties being the cause of the boil on his backside. That would be a leap too far. Koch (1876) published his Postulates in which he formalized how to identify the bacterial cause of a disease.
Viruses were discovered by passing the juice of diseased tobacco plants through porcelain filters and applying the resulting fluid to healthy tobacco plants. Voila! Bacteria left behind, something disease-making passed through. Tobacco phage virus discovered. Sounds simple, but some deep thought preceded the experiment (which probably didn't work the first time around). Soon after biologists discovered that a cancer of chickens could be caused by a virus too. Then they figured out how vaccinations worked, and what other diseases were caused by viruses (like chickenpox, smallpox, mumps, measles, herpes, etc.
You already all know about the WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, AND THEN-WHAT of the motion of celestial bodies.
Less happily, but nonetheless impressively, the line of thinking which led to e=mc2 and on to the big KABOOM! in the desert of New Mexico required depth of thought -- deep deep depth, not just a shovel or two sized hole.
Yes, separating U235 from U238 was tedious workmanlike stuff involving very big magnets, Milled uranium ore—U3O8 or "yellowcake"—is dissolved in nitric acid, yielding a solution of uranyl nitrate UO2(NO3)2. Pure uranyl nitrate is obtained by solvent extraction, then treated with ammonia to produce ammonium diuranate ("ADU", (NH4)2U2O7). Reduction with hydrogen gives UO2, which is converted with hydrofluoric acid (HF) to uranium tetrafluoride, UF4. Oxidation with fluorine yields UF6. During nuclear reprocessing, uranium is reacted with chlorine trifluoride to give UF6: U + 2 ClF3 ? UF6 + Cl2.
All very workmanlike.
Chemists began theorizing about how atoms and molecules fit together and interacted long, long before they would ever see anything like an electron microscope image of atoms or molecules.
Philosophers asked "what is matter?" Chemistry and physics provided the answer. Philosophers might not like it that we now know that a brick is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms and atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles like the Higgs Boson, and perhaps...
Philosophers asked "What is "mind" and where is it?" It seems like a waste of time for philosophers to now diddle around with speculation that maybe mind is somewhere else other than between the ears. We know, for a fact, that if you start scooping out bits and pieces of the soft, fatty gelatin-textured, grayish pink brain, the "mind" starts going haywire in short order. A scoop here, and the person can no longer recognize language. A scope there and the person can recognize, but not generate language. A scope back there and vision begins to dis-integrate. The unfortunate subject might start seeing horizontal lines instead of whole images. Snip a bit of the brain stem out and the person will be unable to wake up -- since that little snipped piece wakes us up in the morning and puts us to sleep at night.
Keep scooping out bits and pieces and before long the mind, and the person who was represented by it have disappeared forever.
Maybe ideas exist in the ether and maybe we get our bright ideas by intersecting with a cloud of potent abstractions floating about, but if philosophers can't come up with some sort of evidence of the truth of that idea, then they should follow the practice of their workmanlike offspring and dispense with the idea altogether.
Philosophers search for truth, and Philosophy spawned the means of finding at least a good many truths. "Truth" itself is a nonentity like "Good". Nowhere in the universe is there a pile of "truth" and "good" waiting to be discovered, so stop talking about it that way.
Some things remain open to useful discussion. What is a "good life"? There isn't any final answer to the question, because it depends on the specifics of one's situation. The richest people in the world have children. Bill and Melinda Gates' children face a different "good life" problem than someone who is born with quite average intelligence, no inheritance, and no bright opportunities spread before them. Both groups of children can live lives of extraordinary goodness, but the details of their lives will be very different.
"What should I do?" and "What is it reasonable to hope for?" are also fruitful topics. Everyone benefits from thinking about what actions are meet, right, and salutary. People are well advised to NOT hope for a lottery win. Not only is it immensely unlikely, but it often brings little happiness to the winners, who are not at all prepared to be millionaires. (I'm ready, willing and able--with plans for spending $100 million--after taxes--but I never buy tickets, so... it's not very likely I'll win.)
Professional philosophy? More often than not.
Okay, I won't be facetious. Your question is about 'philosophy' proper. It will come down to what we think 'philosophy' is, which is itself a meta-philosophical question. All of your questions themselves seem like philosophical questions of a sort, and in their posing already in some sense require philosophy, or express a desire and a need for philosophy. All this inverted-millenarianism of the 'end of philosophy' and the 'end of wahh' I think is bogus. Whatever situation we find ourselves in, there will always be a need to create concepts and debate about the virtues and vices of particular concepts. It is not intellectual masturbation because a real mastery of thought is gained, not just in terms of determining 'bad' or 'good' ways of thinking, but also in being able to be better quipped to orient oneself in the world and toward their projects in meaningful ways that demonstrate careful deliberation, and not just taking the word of others. And even if we take the word of others, wouldn't you want those beliefs to be founded on something more than just mere whim?
Philosophy is, in my mind, one of the most useful things to do. It helps us master whatever craft we're engaging in on a higher level of sophistication, and defeats the ability of others to mystify or dupe us.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Philosophers come to conclusions all the time. But I suspect you mean an eternally irrefutable conclusion. Why would I want one of those? I can't really do anything with it.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Again, all of these are philosophical questions, in that answering them requires the practice of philosophy. In my eyes, that good philosophers can reasonably disagree on how to answer them speaks to the strength of philosophy, and its usefulness in any new circumstance. We should worry about the lifespan and usefulness of philosophy if all the answers are agreed upon and over with.
There are some razors that crop up in philosophy.
Doing philosophy is an eliminable part of being human; of being, as Heidegger says (roughly), 'a being whose own being is an issue for it'.
For Heidegger, Dasein is being whose own being is an issue for it, and it is also related to the fundamental basis of being-in-the-world as conditioned by care or concern [Sorge]. This explains the fundamental comportment, as well as the underlying mood, of a philosopher (or anyone in their particular engagement 'Being-in' a world) to create new concepts in a fidelity to truth as disclosure of new worlds (an aletheic truth). But it is not enough to explain philosophy itself, or even establish the continued existence and health of philosophy. What Heidegger is looking at are much broader existential-phenomenological ('ontological') questions of what it is to be human, and whether they're 'philosophers' is no guarantee simply because their way of being involves care. Of course Heidegger was lead to some anti- or post-philosophical pronouncements in favour of 'thinking', or even later in favour of the poetic as the last hope of the use of language for this aletheiac function.
As for Deleuze, his meta-philosophical thought also informs my own considerations on it. But I wonder if phrased so (i.e. 'concept creation'), we're providing too weak and broad of a definition of philosophy, for Deleuze himself considered certain works of his to be properly 'pure' philosophy (e.g. The Logic of Sense) in contrast with his more well-known works with Guatarri (Capitalism and Schizophrenia).
Quoting Benkei
This is a very important point I was trying to get across. Philosophy for the most part seems to just revolve around and around and around the same thing until everyone gets bored and a new idea pops up. There's a reason there's a National Science Foundation and not a National Philosophy Foundation. Much of philosophy is, to the dismay of its practitioners, utterly worthless to society.
I think the issues with Dasein are fundamentally philosophical issues; how to cope, how to be, how to live, and so on. I agree with you that after his 'turn' Heidegger thought of philosophy as more akin to poetry than to systematic analysis. I think with Being and Time, Heidegger attempted to walk a path involving a systematic phenomenological analytic and synthesis; a path which he subsequently abandoned in favor of his 'Holzwege'. These 'forest paths' lead to no 'final destination', and that it is the essence of philosophy, or "thinking" for the late Heidegger.
Perhaps the reason Deleuze favored works like Logic and Sense and Difference and Repetition is that he saw them as 'pure' philosophy, as you say, rather than 'meta-philosophy'. The idea that there is philosophy (concept creation) in all areas of human life need not rule out the idea that there is "pure philosophy" ( pure concept creation or concept creation for its own sake) just as the existence of applied math does not rule out the possibility of there being pure math.
Maybe it could be said that metaphysics or ontology are the most "pure problems" that demand the most pure concepts and concept-making. Poetry is image and sense-making, so would it not also qualify as 'concept-making' or philosophy?
But then, what about ethics? Is it pure philosophy or applied philosophy?
Would you agree that philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being? To think philosophically, to use reason, it is inevitable and unavoidable?
I can see how it may make us more patient or better thinkers but an overall better person, nah. If anything philosophy makes someone arrogant and reclusive.
Absolutely not. In some trivial sense, everyone does philosophy in that they, perhaps sometimes on a lonely night, 'wonder what it's all about', or have disagreements with other people about certain things. But I think that to do philosophy as a craft requires the taking up of certain commitments regarding the long-term refinement of one's own thinking, a willingness to open up all belief and values to revision, as well as a worldly-engagement of praxis in dialectical relation with one's philosophy. All of this is by no means guaranteed, and in fact rare because it's hard work.
Actually I'd even argue that one has to engage with the actual discourse and philosophical texts before one can 'do it', or otherwise a community where you can engage dialectically so that specific discursive features and a shared language are developed that can be recognized as 'philosophical'. I'm not sure if it makes any sense for philosophy to be done by a solitary individual with no context of a community: concepts and language are socialized. It isn't something totally innate and guaranteed...what would we need to refer to to make such an argument?
Quoting darthbarracuda
There's two questions here (unless you equate thinking philosophically with using reason, which I wouldn't, although they're intimately related). Again, these two things are used in certain manners--everyday practical reason, for example--but how one interprets and thinks of what reasonable or philosophical thinking entails will depend on social, historical, and cultural contexts.
Science touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields. The point of science is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world.
So what about philosophy?
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
True. I don't find the philosophy of language to be very interesting at the current moment, for example. In fact I find it boring as hell.
Astronomy could be seen as intellectual masturbation, and yet most people including myself find it at least curiously interesting. So I guess one person's sleeping pill is another person's caffeine.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Yes, that is what I meant. Last time I checked, the scientific consensus for global warming was 97+%. The philosophical consensus for the nature of time, for example,...mixed and it always will be.
Do philosophers gain any new knowledge? Does a philosophical theory count as knowledge? Or is it just unprovable speculation? This is the biggest point I'm getting at here. If there is no way of verifying something, then why assert it? Why even try if it is futile? Has philosophy given us any knowledge? Is there any consensus on anything?
It doesn't make any sense, to me, to formulate complex arguments, debate and critique and assert and attempt to get to the "truth" if it is impossible to get to it. It's completely worthless.
Yes, ethics and political philosophy can help us in the real world, I will give you that. But metaphysics? How the hell do we verify if a theory in metaphysics is correct? We can't! It's absurd!
All it can give us is a warm little feeling of "I think this is the way the universe is" but nothing more. The only confirmation we are going to get from a normative ethical position is "well, this makes sense to me..." There's never going to be an E=MC^2 of philosophy. There's not even going to be an agreement on what the definition of a word is.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I used to think this of philosophy as well. I used to think philosophy was an underrated thing that held countless intellectual secrets. I thought by reading philosophy I would gain knowledge about the world and be wise, know the fundamentals of the universe and become like a guru almost.
And this doesn't make any sense now. From my perspective, philosophy is just a mis-mash of disagreements and confusion.
Why isn't science part of the "love of knowledge"? Surely science has given far more than philosophy has.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm bitter after getting pissed on by other people on a separate forum.
Thanks for the reply.
EDIT: To add one more thing: what are you expecting to get out of philosophy?
Philosophy makes us arrogant? I wouldn't have thought so. If anything, I'd say doing philosophy is a good way to teach ourselves humility. As for reclusiveness, it may make us fussier about our choice of friends, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I guess it is arguable that philosophy makes us better people overall, but I did say "at its best" and I'd have no truck with it if I didn't believe it was somehow - to borrow @The Great Whatever's term - edifying.
He does not serve kings and princes,
Sets himself higher goals.
Not every man has an obligation to mingle in the affairs of the world. There are some who are developed to such a degree that they are justified in letting the world go its own way and refusing to enter public life with a view to reforming it. But this does not imply a right to remain idle or to sit back and merely criticize. Such withdrawal is justified only when we strive to realize in ourselves the higher aims of mankind. For although the sage remains distant from the turmoil of daily life, he creates incomparable human values for the future.[/i]"
-"I Ching", Wilhelm translation.
I pretty much agree with this, but I think there's another way of looking at it. Kant regarded metaphysics as a natural disposition, and if this is the perennial originary seed of philosophy as a "science" (in Kant's terms, meaning a rigorous and productive discipline) it is far from trivial. To say that the ability or inclination to do philosophy--by which you mean to do it right--is something rare, and not characteristic of human beings, is not to deny darth's comment that "philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being". It almost looks like a professional philosopher's apologia, the demand that he is taken seriously as a professional alongside scientists, doctors and lawyers ("not just anyone can do this job!"). This idea of philosophy as a job or craft, more than the thought that philosophy is innate, might itself be seen as a trivialization of philosophy. To philosophize is not a success verb, and it can be done well or badly, rigorously or lazily.
Anyway, this is nitpicking by way of looking at things differently. Your criticism of the picture of the solitary philosopher, perhaps sitting in a chair pondering, is well put.
"... is to settle our curiosities"
No... not really.
Science creates and exposes more curiosities than it settles. Science makes a great deal of explorations; thus makes a great deal of discoveries. Subsequently, these discoveries are things/events/actions that are introduced as 'data ex post facto' and changes the question being asked, but not necessarily understood; thus more questions are created... so exactly what is settled?
What is settled are less refined questions, as with each an every advance in explorations in science the questions are newly refined; thus the generalizations are slowly filtered out. (often with the answer that 'settles' is that the question is not really refined enough, so we need to re-ask the question in the light of our new discoveries)
We can make somewhat more accurate predictions via the accumulation of data, the collected set of correlations, the eliminates of 'magical thinking'...
... philosophy does the very same thing.
The reason why it appears that questioned are not settled in philosophy is that the questions are in a constant state of being refined, but this works in the 'world of thought and language' (rather than the 'world of laboratory and hands on exploration/experimentation') it just seems like petty bickering and mental masturbation.
Why can't we simply not say that science is in the business of exploratory masturbation?
To be fair, science in all it's explorations/experiments does not more 'settling' of things than philosophy achieves.
Science really only settles old and outdated questions, as more than not... the questions were simply not refined enough to answer; thus the explorations has changed the perspective of the questions.
How's this?
Philosophy touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields (ethics, epistemologies, value theories...). The 'point' of philosophy is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world, by filtering out less refined questions and hasty generalization; thus building more and more questions to investigate and contemplate.
Meow!
GREG
This is a fair observation and one that I wouldn't object to. But I think there's something worth pointing out about philosophy as a craft. As per my earlier comments regarding Heidegger's observation that a human being is a kind of being (Dasein) for which its own being is a concern, I don't think this is enough in my eyes when we're talking about philosophy. I would agree with H's observations that it's a fundamental aspect of the kinds of beings we are (qua being-in-the-world) to take issue with, and care and concern, with the world in which we're engaged. So for example, it's an aspect of being human to consider the natural world as 'mine', i.e. make sense of it as an extension of utility or how it relates to humanity, and thereby transform natural resources to shape one's surroundings in a world, this does not necessarily mean that we are all carpenters. The 'natural disposition' is there behind the activity, motivating it and shaping its form, but how this modality is expressed is not guaranteed. We must be embedded in a community of carpenters (a 'world') for the craft to make any sense to us as a craft, with examples of how its done, and we won't really know until we jump in and engage in it.
So philosophy isn't comparable to something so specific as carpentry, you might say, but gets at something more broad and fundamental about being human. I suppose this is right, but I think the metaphor is useful for the sake of toying out the point I'm trying to make. We all have metaphysical systems in some sense that inform us of the coordinates of the world and structure our orientation toward it, and we all yearn to 'ontologize', make sense of, and fit the world into a network of meaning. But to me, doing philosophy (and not just 'doing it well'), involves taking up certain commitments to engage in concept creation, and a development of (self)-understanding, and the systematic incorporation of this cognitive work into one's basic reflexive orientation toward the world and others. It's one thing to yearn for meaning, it's another to take a certain disposition toward this search for meaning that is philosophical.
Sure, most, if not all, human lives are full of imagination and a need for meaning in the form of passive day-dreaming, or passively accepting the concepts and worldviews of others, which need not be acted on. But to do philosophy and to learn to think well involves putting these imaginings and concepts to the test, a transformation of this cognitive activity into reality that isn't passive; putting it on paper or engaging in a dialectic, and to live one's philosophy in the world. There needs to be a free-thinking disposition and the willingness to transcend and challenge immediate experience and accepted ways of thinking/worldviews. None of this is guaranteed by being human. This transformation of the imaginative into reality is the meaning of philosophy as a craft.
Quoting jamalrob
Well I don't think this 'artformist view', if we can call it that, of philosophy requires a professionalization. Actually I think more often than not, the pressures and demands of professional institutions get in the way.
Well...
... how many consensus ideas held within science were just dead wrong?
I can sort of remember stuff about flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe and stuff like that.
Take care not to confuse consensus with conclusions.
Remember, science does not have all the answers and science is 'fully aware' of this (sorry the personification of science... it's a metaphor).
If science had all the answers it would simply stop.
------------------------------------------
As far as metaphysics is concerned, I personally consider that, as well as theology, to be to philosophy what the vermiform appendix is to biology. It was a once useful organ that, due to evolutionary processes, has been rendered a redundant organ. For the most part it exists in a benign state, but can become inflamed with the potential of causing harm to the body to the point of endangering it's continued existence.
At this point in time, the best know procedure to remedy this harm or endangerment of removal of this redundant organ.
-------------------------------------------
Also...
... apropos unprovable speculation:
Exactly how much 'proof' can we come up with regarding the 'origin' (previous state) of the known universe of time and space, that is the universe that includes the advent of time and space, where we have a language founded upon time and space, and we somehow have to speak (coherently) about a time before time and a space before space?
Sorry I cannot describe this better, as there is not language in our lungs to express things prior to space and time, but science seems to be making efforts to establish theories that have ONLY an internal logical consistency, but NO PROOF.
It is also amazing how people simply freak out about criticism of 'pet theories' of completely unproven and probably unprovable notions.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Have you considered that in spite of philosophy being the love of knowledge that this love is not extended to love of criticism?
Same goes for science...
... the problems you have sited here are not problems of philosophy or science, but of people.
btw...
Since when does philosophy include gurus?
Since when does philosophy somehow create a 'plug and play' connection with being 'wise'?
Indeed... the vast majority of those who have studies philosophy and science would agree they have the feeling that they really don't know all that much, but instead have endless questions that will more than likely go without answer, but that does not stop one from investigation.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Actually science is the same mis-mash of disagreements and confusion, regardless of the ease with which on can achieve somewhat of a consensus... especially when one looks at the history of scientific consensus and where science simply got it dead wrong, but look on the bright side... getting ti dead wrong is all part of the process of filtering out hasty assumptions.
I feel science has no more to offer us than philosophy. Science is a bit more accessible and entertaining as it tends to put on a nice show. Working with semiconductors is a lot more entertaining to the eye than discussing a thought game, but the truth is depending upon the context in which one finds themselves the value of both varies, thus in one case philosophy might trump science and in the other science might trump philosophy, but neither trumps the other in all cases.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Probably that I have the good sense to stop expecting things to come out of things for me.
I find that expectations lends itself to a tunnel vision. Indeed I'll focus on things now and then, but if I begin to expect things to be the certain results, I'll probably get just that... and only just that.
Science does indeed look for things that are expected results, but not exclusively, as this would be a bias of observation.
For what it's worth this might be the only thing I've ever said that was worth anything:
"Pointlessness allows a great freedom to actual live rather than just be alive; to experience rather than just fulfill; to investigate rather than just to be told to know; to adapt rather than just stagnate" - MoS
Take it with a grain of salt...
... salt is a flavor enhancer. ;)
Meow!
GREG
Science:
from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’
and
Philosophy:
from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia ‘love of wisdom.’
There is clearly a difference between "know" and knowing-finding out-discovering, on the one hand and loving wisdom on the other. They are not opposed to each other, but they may not be complementary either.
There is a difference between "How are millipedes getting into my basement" and "Millipedes are welcome beasts at the feast of life." (Millipedes are vegetarians; centipedes are carnivorous. Apparently the centipedes are not eating the millipedes Why not? What are they eating, then? Clearly, the feast of life needs better management.)
Messing around with uranium to see if one can get a critical mass going is clearly a scientia, scire kind of thing. Something that guys do in the garage. Wondering whether one exists, and how one can tell, is not something guys do in the garage. That happens when the guy is alone, drinking beer, and cogitating with the help of cigarette smoke. (Cigarettes are peculiarly conducive to philosophical thinking. Exhaling smoke is existentially suggestive.)
Not all philosophers require beer and cigarettes of course. I have a feeling that Kant was the type that did without both, what with his Pietist upbringing. Sartre without cigarettes is unthinkable. Café au lait and cigarettes for Camus.
I think I agree with you on this. Metaphysics, to me, seems like hogwash and can do more harm than good. I am extremely skeptical about metaphysical claims.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Not necessarily "guru" in the sense of an ascetic living on a mountaintop, but in the sense of having a heightened sense of intuition, general wisdom, knowing how to live the good life, etc.
I suppose I have noticed that I have been assigning a quasi-apotheosis to many philosophers, making them out to just know everything there is to know.
Thanks for the patient replies thus far MoS.
I think, like many people as well, I don't really understand what exactly philosophy is. I can recognize philosophy when I see it, but if asked to define what philosophy is or what it attempts to do, I would be stumped.
One of the reasons I believe I have been so confused lately is because I think I have misunderstood the goals of science and philosophy. Science is a philosophy, but philosophy is not a science. I was expecting philosophy to be as productive as science has been. Philosophy doesn't do that. Philosophy clarifies concepts, eliminates irrationality, explores new ideas, etc. I don't think there really is a point to philosophy, but unfortunately academic philosophers seem to treat it like it's extraordinarily important. It really is just a recreational activity, for the most part.
I have to agree with you here, as in science there is a degree of tangible things/abilities that are far more obvious than there are in philosophy.
A scientist needs to know how specific apparatuses (or apparati) function and how to use them, as well as possess advanced skills in maths (as in knowing what the 'maths hieroglyphics' mean when dealing with relativity and have the ability to speak that maths language - beyond just simple everyday maths skills) or understand more advanced chemistry or biology or physics... you get the point...
A philosopher needs to apply logic and language skills to actual/theoretical experiences and then (possibly) voice a statement or field a question... often sounding like an opinion.
Perhaps the problem is that science is very highly specialized; thus highly specialized skill sets are required, whereas philosophy can bee both very specialized and very generalized at the same time; thus the applications of these specialized skills is overlooked by the generalized skills employed... so philosophy looks like a bunch of 'mere' opinions.
-------------------------------------
Anyway... (here's a joke)
I can recognize a chair when I see on, but if asked to define what a chair is or what it does, I would be stumped.
I Kant do that either! :D
-------------------------------------
Anyway again...
As for the productive aspect:
Are you sure you mean productive or do you mean obvious?
Science has a tendency to produce things, specific things, things you can hold and use, things that are indeed used in events/actions, whereas philosophy is more the concepts/notions/statements behind events/actions.
Philosophers don't require special 'philosophical laboratories' or 'special philosophical equipment' to do what it is they do.
Philosophy is just not as obvious as science; thus we (tend to) attribute more production from that with is more obviously apparent.
-------------------------------------
Here's the deal...
... imagine (If it is at all possible) having any tangible things/events/action obviously scientific that is void of philosophical content?
OK... I can't do that at all.
Why?
The moment a thing/event/action has a value associated/attributed/assumed to or about it... philosophy is unavoidable.
Now imagine that no regard whatsoever is placed upon this value associated with any thing/event/action that is scientific and such a consideration of value was ignored...
... uhh, how horrific that would be, eh?
I feel that this is a very good case for philosophy.
The love of knowledge is the dislove of ignorance... ignorance come from the word ignore.
No matter how dry or boring such philosophical matters might seem, they do indeed have some degree of merit in that they are the disloving of ignorance.
OK... we are still talking about people here, in both philosophy and science. People do tend on occasion to become very self-important and try at all costs to hold onto their positions as being correct. This is why we have 'peer review' in both science and philosophy.
------------------------------------
One more thought about consensus.
Indeed we have a rather strong consensus among scientists that evolution makes sense and is accepted as to be as close to being a fact as is probably possible for something being a fact.
In addition to this, we have a rather strong consensus among philosophers that theistic god/deities are a false notion and that such a being indeed does not exist is a fact as is probably possible for something to be a fact.
Now let's look at the general population...
How much consensus do we have on these two points?
Problem here might well be that the general population can distinguish who is a scientist from a non-scientist with an opinion about science far easier that the general population can distinguish a philosopher from a non-philosopher with an opinion about philosophy.
-----------------------------------
These are just random ranting from off the top of my head (so to say), but I'd be a bit more cautious in tossing such a broad based field as philosophy into a small box.
Both science and philosophy touches every aspect of our lives, but the difference is that science is simply more obvious... but not necessarily more productive or more important. It's a cooperation and not a competition.
My take is that don't allow yourself to be put off of philosophy just because it isn't as obvious or appealing to the public eye.
As for points to things...
... points only exist when we have established them. Nothing in philosophy has a point until we establish one, but to be honestly... nothing in science has a point until we establish one as well... uhh... and isn't the establishment of a point... the establishment of a value... philosophy? So if science has a point at all, it owes that point to the philosophy behind the science, eh? ;)
Just have fun.
Meow!
GREG
In the debate about science, for me it's mainly through the arts that the world becomes less shadowy and more clearly formed for me personally. Science, perhaps because I'm not a practitioner, seems like a marvellous spectacle which has, as an earlier poster put it, embedded into it many of the fruits of past philosophising. See that! The amazing sight of the double helix! (with all those Mendels and Darwins and geologists and Poppers built into its very shape)