The Deadend, and the Wastelands of Philosophy and Culture
I am raising this question because many of the fundamentals of philosophy, especially basic questions and attempts to answer the metaphysical and epistemological problems are open to challenge in the thinking of our time. It leaves me wondering if it will get to the point where philosophy is seen as an appendix of knowledge, especially that which is developed in science.
My idea of a deadend is like a cul de sac, or point in a maze, where there is no way out, or no obvious way forward. It is equal to coming to stagnation, or a standstill.
I am of the view that philosophy, including the ideas of past thinkers, ranging from the Greeks, Kant, Kierkergaard, Sartre and many other writers have so much to contribute to the understanding of life and the human condition. I am also aware that everyone who is using the site is interested in philosophy in some way or another, simply because they have decided to join the forum in the first instance. But, I do think that many people, in general, see philosophy as a rather abstract and futile activity, but it would be interesting if someone were able to provide evidence of such opinion and I am not able to do so at present.
I believe that the questions and writings of philosophy are central to human existence. It is also questionable to what extent humanity will survive, especially with the environmental threats, including climate change? But, that is a separate area for questioning. I am thinking about how relevant the questions of philosophy will be for the human race. I believe that they will always be relevant, because human beings wonder about life and question the basis of their existence. But, I do think that such questions may be cast aside, especially if many see knowledge as having been reached. But, it is likely that individuals will still wonder about the issues arising in philosophy.
I am not sure if my question will be seen as relevant, because some people may think that what is important is the development of frameworks of reliable and trustworthy foundations of knowledge. I am not sure that it is that simple, and I am left thinking to what extent will philosophy, as a discipline and pursuit, survive? TS Eliot spoke of the idea of a 'wasteland' and I wonder to what extent that idea is relevant for consideration of the culture of our time? What would be the point where it is seen as redundant or superseded by other disciplines, or will it endure, with the developments of the future? How will ideas develop further and be translated into culture?
My idea of a deadend is like a cul de sac, or point in a maze, where there is no way out, or no obvious way forward. It is equal to coming to stagnation, or a standstill.
I am of the view that philosophy, including the ideas of past thinkers, ranging from the Greeks, Kant, Kierkergaard, Sartre and many other writers have so much to contribute to the understanding of life and the human condition. I am also aware that everyone who is using the site is interested in philosophy in some way or another, simply because they have decided to join the forum in the first instance. But, I do think that many people, in general, see philosophy as a rather abstract and futile activity, but it would be interesting if someone were able to provide evidence of such opinion and I am not able to do so at present.
I believe that the questions and writings of philosophy are central to human existence. It is also questionable to what extent humanity will survive, especially with the environmental threats, including climate change? But, that is a separate area for questioning. I am thinking about how relevant the questions of philosophy will be for the human race. I believe that they will always be relevant, because human beings wonder about life and question the basis of their existence. But, I do think that such questions may be cast aside, especially if many see knowledge as having been reached. But, it is likely that individuals will still wonder about the issues arising in philosophy.
I am not sure if my question will be seen as relevant, because some people may think that what is important is the development of frameworks of reliable and trustworthy foundations of knowledge. I am not sure that it is that simple, and I am left thinking to what extent will philosophy, as a discipline and pursuit, survive? TS Eliot spoke of the idea of a 'wasteland' and I wonder to what extent that idea is relevant for consideration of the culture of our time? What would be the point where it is seen as redundant or superseded by other disciplines, or will it endure, with the developments of the future? How will ideas develop further and be translated into culture?
Comments (90)
From my vantage , the opposite is the case. It is the sciences that are in a kind of stagnation relative to philosophy, especially the physical sciences that are beguile so many on this forum as the ultimate authority on questions such as the nature of time and reality. The enslavement of physics to metaphysical, or at least empirical , realism keeps it frozen in late 19th century philosophical territory. The most promising developments in the sciences are coming from scholars who are being inspired by recent philosophy ( ‘ recent’ meaning beginning more than 100 years ago ) .
That is a bit reassuring because while I am aware that there are some who view philosophy and thinking outside of science it often feels that is not the dominant way of seeing. I am not just talking about people on the forum, but include bookshops sections which I visit and a few other sources, which place such an emphasis on neuroscience.
I don't believe that the sciences have all the answers, and I also think that the arts and literature have a lot to add. The reason I wrote this today was I was reading Iris Murdock' s writings on literature, and I do think that sources such as literature provide areas for exploring meaning. When the emphasis is on the physical sciences, above all else, it seems to me that philosophy becomes so flat.
I am definitely of the view that philosophy will always be of importance because, and I feel that it is useful to think about how science draws upon the arts. I do see keeping the emphasis on the various disciplines as being essential, or else thinking becomes so lopsided.
Popularized science is PR for taxpayer-funded experiments and R&D.
Both will survive – philosophy and science will continue to thrive – because the elites automating the 'means of production' need the latter and the latter's increasing fundamental and emergent complexities require sorting out by the former. And until death becomes medically optional, religion will survive too, infantilizing the masses for whom "popularized philosophy" & "popularized science" will also continue to be commodified (e.g. YouTubed). Isn't this exactly what (e.g.) Schop & Freddy had diagnosed over a century and a half ago as 'modern nihilism'?
Most people I know think that philosophy is from the past or is rather obscure, I think that this has been due to the way it has been in the hands of the academics. In England, this is particularly centralised in Oxford and Cambridge.
However, even though I feel that friends think that I am ridiculous reading philosophy books, and even more so for writing on this site, with do feel that it is sometimes possible to get into discussions about some of the questions at times. I think that philosophy has inherited a bad image though and we live in such an image conscious society. In a way, psychology is a bit trendy in I have lost count of the amount of people I have met in the last few years with psychology degrees.
But, I do think that part of the problem is that some of the writers, especially from the twentieth century did not write books which appealed to many people. I do believe that this needs to change. I also think that many people choose not to study it because they don't think that employers will be particularly impressed.
I think that apart from the focus on science, the division between academic and popular is sometimes too absolute. When I go to shops the philosophy and science books are often grouped together under the category 'smart thinking'. These are mostly popular science books with some philosophy ones thrown in. If it is a bigger shop there are usually a few classics. I have found it much easier to get more academic books online. However, I often feel that sometimes the division between the academic and popular is still too strong because some of the philosophy ones in particular, seem to come from the perspective of imagining that readers have barely any knowledge or be written for specialised readers, and I looking for ones in between. Of course, reading the classic writers is often best, but it is useful to read others too.
I think that it is true that many turn to religious beliefs instead of philosophy. Perhaps this is because it is the easiest option. There are far more churches to go to than philosophy discussion groups. Yes, the philosophers like Nietzsche recognized this. Also, I know that in England I was not taught any philosophy at school, but was taught religious studies. It may be that some religious studies tutors go into philosophy but I went to a Catholic school and was not taught anything about any other religions at all, and had to read for myself. Also, the science I was taught did not touch the philosophy questions, or I would have probably found it interesting. But, I do think many people are left in a lot of confusion because what they have been taught is superficial.
Well that may be because much philosophy is from the past and is rather obscure.
Try getting even a well educated citizen to take an interest in Spinoza or Wittgenstein. What is in it for them? I certainly sympathize with this view. There's sometimes a flicker of interest in Nietzsche, but only because his gaudy prose is like a Marvel movie special effect.
I think there is a limited interest in philosophy because it isn't especially relevant. Sure, people like ideas and snatch them in desultory manner - like a magpie picking shiny things. But few people have an appetite for building a coherent belief system based on rigorous study. I certainly don't.
And also I see no real evidence that people are overly interested in science. It's just a word used as a synonym for 'credible' for the most part.
And sure, we can point to best selling popular accounts of science and philosophy as partial evidence that some people are interested in the subjects. But take Stephen Hawking's famous 1980's tome A Brief History of Time. What was the joke? It was the best seller nobody read.
I don't think there is a division between science and philosophy in many people's mind -they are both recondite subjects of limited appeal.
I think that part of the problem is that people are not accustomed towards philosophy, although there are probably more people interested than one would imagine. I know that if I see a book in a second hand or charity shop by some obscure writer and don't buy it at the time, if I go back a couple of days later it has usually gone. Also, when I go to libraries, often the books which I am looking for are out, so some people are interested.
But, I do think that if philosophy is to survive it will probably need a certain amount of demystifying to happen. Also, I think it would be too much for anyone to start reading writers like Spinoza and Wittgenstein without having read a certain amount of philosophy previously. It would be jumping in the deep end.
But, I guess we all try to do different things. I haven't had any lessons to drive a car whereas most people are desperate to do this.
But, yes, it does seem that Stephen Hawking was the best selling author that not many people read. I struggled my way through though. I think a lot of people wish to study science, but I guess that is partly related to career pathways.
But, it may be that philosophy will remain a minority interest but I do think that the issue is to what extent will it survive at all. I think that it partly depends if it can be a bit less abstract and obscure in some ways. But, even if a lot of people don't read it much I think that the questions will still remain as long as human beings survive.
Certainly in the foreseeable future it will survive, other posters have pointed to the role it plays alongside and in edifying scientific progress... but even more concrete and urgent is the ethical, value, and socio-political questions that will arise in the wake of developments in artificial intelligence and bio-technology.
In a way philosophy has never been this concrete and 'timely' as now because of technological advancement. As an example I'd point to the thread of guest philosopher David Pearce, if gene-editing becomes a thing (which is an ethical question in itself), then philosophy seems very relevant in trying to formulate answers to the question of what directions we should take. Another very concrete example is the question of moral and legal responsibility and AI etc...
On the contrary, for the most part it's more practical than science. Okay, philosophy outside of science isn't going to produce agriculture, bridges, boats or space rockets, but neither do most people. These are beyond the day-to-day, whereas a philosophy is something everyone can wear.
Sartre (whom you cited) is hugely important in how I understand something that science can barely approximate at present. My philosophy has moved on somewhat... perhaps Sartre is no longer an overcoat, but he's still a perfectly serviceable vest. Quantum theory (my field) is interesting and creates interesting technologies, but it doesn't have quite the same mundane practicality.
I never get why so many philosophers put science outside of philosophy -- perhaps a reaction to the scant philosophical education of scientists. An anti-scientific philosophy is about as tenable as a geocentric modern astronomy: it is obliged to ignore too many things that are in our world to be feasible. Likewise a fruitful, useful philosophy is going to have to deal with science just as a robust science has to deal with philosophy. Divide and conquer doesn't apply.
Is the same not true of literature, music, poetry, dance, science and the arts and crafts in general; in fact is it not true of any and all human activities?
It seems plausible to think that philosophy will continue to evolve as long as it is possible to come up with new ideas, with new ways of modeling and understanding life, no?
I take it you are not imagining any final answer?
Yes, philosophy, just like the other arts and sciences must be of its time; it cannot be of its time if it ignores the current knowledge, the current science and the current state of the other arts and culture generally.
I am glad to see you back on the site because I had missed your presence in the last few months. I have to go out for an appointment this afternoon, but I am hoping to reply to you and the other people who have made comments later today.
I do agree with your likening of philosophy to painting but that is partly because I enjoy painting. But, about a week ago, in some thread or another, I said that philosophy without clear use of concepts and language is like trying to paint a picture with brushes which have been left soaking in dirty water. I do see it as being like painting pictures because it is a bit like creating new, unique pictures which are often just a little bit different from other ones from the past.
However, the whole way past and present come together is not just about seeing the newer ones as more accurate, but just about the picture in the present. I think that it is organic, and you speak of it with reference to thread creation. I am sure that each person would like to think that theirs is the best possible way of seeing. It is most likely about taking things apart and recreating them, or reframing questions and thoughts.
I am definitely not asking for any final answers because we don't know the future, but can think of it as a speculative area. I do think it applies to other areas of thought including the arts and humanities.
One obvious example to me although it may be remote from the topic of philosophy is about music. I know so many people who barely listen to music beyond the 80s, or beyond the time of Oasis and Blur. I know people who are in their teens who come from that perspective. It is based on the idea that most of what can be created has already been done before.
I am sure that philosophy is far more complex than rock and pop music, but we have had the rise of postmodernism and beyond, so I am interested in what comes next and, what can the future bring? Will it be novelty, or more synthetic forms of understanding?
I see your point about the hollow men as being those who have been through trauma, but I see it as being more metaphorical, in ways which apply to us all in some ways.
The question of practical really and philosophy is an interesting slant. I have to admit that I am so much more philosophical than practical, relying on microwave meals and watching my piles of washing accumulate, because I am so busy reading my books and writing on this site. That may seem a bit trite but I do think that the way in which we juggle the practical and the philosophical is an important aspect of life.
It comes down to the way we live our lives. I do believe that many push the questions of life out to the picture, or settle for the easiest answers, while focusing on the practical realities of life. I think that Western culture is going in the direction of focusing on practical tasks, but I wonder if there will some kind of resurgence. It may even be happening now, because the pandemic has turned so many lives upside down. I am really saying that people may think that they don't need to think about the big questions, but I am not convinced that we have reached that deadend completely.
I am not sure to what extent science stands out or is the dominant paradigm. There is a whole thread devoted to the praise of science, but apart from whether we praise science or not, it does seem to come down to how this is viewed and evaluated within knowledge and its practical applications in life.
Need for what though, to what end? If that has an answer, that's practical enough. How you think about the world either has an effect on how you interact with it, in which case it's practical in the sense I meant, or it does not, in which case it's merely diversionary. Not to diss the diversionary, but it's harder to argue for the importance of something with no real world impact.
I do agree that the way in which philosophy survives in the technology of our times opens up questions and many more questions. Sometimes, I think that many look to Wikipedia as if it is a living philosopher. I do believe that almost anyone can go into it and edit. Of course, this site gives us the scope for expressing our views. Otherwise, I would probably just be reading alone in my room. So, it is hard to see directions, for better or worse, and the whole spectrum of artificial intelligence and how all this will lead to results in the world of ideas. I think it such an unknown realm, daunting and exciting, which is why I raise it, as a way of thinking beyond deadends.
Ultimately, I think that the purpose of such questions probably comes down to survival, individually and for humanity. Personally, I am just about surviving, but I have found the examination of self and life to be the important aspects of this quest.
I think that the interest in philosophy, including debates in science, includes the whole spectrum of the layperson and the academic. I am not sure which has the most power in the current system, let alone the cultural and political aspects of the future.
Society debates philosophy now more than ever, and people think philosophically now more than ever. It's just that philosophy as a standalone subject, especially as in reading books written in difficult to read language, is so woefully outclassed as a product by alternative means to discuss "philosophy". Aren't you just asking why centuries-old books are being outclassed as products by podcasts, videos, television, news media, politics, economics, movies, music and any other field which discuss with varying degrees of complexity and depth philosophical subjects? Have I misinterpreted OP or is this a valid response?
It does apply to all of us. I didn't mean it only related to those who experience war directly. There is the alienation between those who do and don't. And there are people who are missing.
You may be right, that with podcasts, videos and so much information we are far from being at a deadend at the present, at least. It may be that this is part of a process of making philosophy far less obscure. This site in itself is so much more about live debate 24 hrs a day, so it may be an exciting time really, and perhaps philosophy and the future of ideas depends on us to some extent, as parts in the chain in the process.
I know this is to Jack, but I wanted to make a comment too. I agree largely with this. But for me the issue is more about the rigorous understanding of some philosophy, as opposed to simply promiscuous consumption of videos, etc, that lead no where in particular. The result may be more sophisticated small talk, but not much else. People know a smattering about a lot, but not a lot about anything.
I sometime think that consuming ideas is a bit like the way people approach travel. They go see the famous places - to take a picture and have something to brag about, 'been thereism'. But the experience is swift, shallow and involves looking without really seeing. In the same way with thinkers people can name some philosophers and a produce quote or two, but is this substantive? It seems to be more like namedropping.
Information is a product, rigorously studying a single topic doesn't sell as well as a neat, interesting presentation. In-depth philosophy and what you're talking about likely appeal to different demographics, hard to imagine that these products are in competition with each other. I agree that a podcast or video will never outdo a book in terms of complexity or how rigorously it approaches a topic. A book has more words, which are more carefully arranged, it is the product of potentially years of work. I think your characterisations are broad and unfair, perhaps we need to manage our expectations for the average lay person's interest in philosophy. Their involvement has never and will never resemble that of a dedicated academic.
I've been involved in marketing so that's a given. But I think everyone already knows this.
Quoting Judaka
A no brainer, surely. How books work is pretty well known. :smile:
Quoting Judaka
There was a time when lay people read quite closely the primary texts of philosophy. My own mother, who did not attend university, read Spinoza and Erasmus and read much of the good commentary too. People I knew used to read primary texts and study them quite deeply outside of academia. I'm sure people like this still exist.
I think the videos, etc, are more about having a tourist romp around the topics, rather than settling in, that's all. I think there used to be more people who did the latter precisely because the former, the fast food philosophy on YouTube wasn't available.
And don't get me wrong, I like a good video myself and I have not priviledged deep reading of philosophy in my own life. I also think there are issues in reading book after book and not getting to adequately know a thinker too. I'm not saying it is wrong, it just seems unlikely to profit the promiscuous reader. And our subsequent discussions of philosophy are often displays of Dunning-Kruger despite and perhaps because of an increased awareness of terms and names.
I'm sure you know these things, but I bring them up as premises in my argument and to help you to understand my process. It's not the case that I think everything I write is news to you.
I'm just not sure that this new demographic of people who are only really interested in these new formats for discussing and learning about philosophy are taking consumers away from traditional philosophy. I imagine that it's the opposite, people are introduced to traditional philosophy through these new mediums. I don't deny that some people are only getting their feet wet, I'm just saying that the majority of these consumers are probably not a realistic demographic for more serious and complex forms of philosophy. Philosophy can be stimulating and enjoyable, a recreational activity that doesn't have to result in great wisdom or expertise. Expertise, wisdom or whatever in philosophy, if it were measurable, will resemble a pyramid, with the bottom being filled with people who dabble. That's how it is with most things, I don't disagree with your comment I'm just... I'm just saying that this is the way of things, for every subject, politics, economics, geography, sport - everything. 100-200 years ago, the bottom rungs of the pyramid consisted of 99.9% of the population, they were substantially less advanced in comparison to today. So if OP is asking, how is the trend of philosophy looking? Are we reaching a doom and gloom scenario? Then I would say that it's the opposite. I say that philosophy is adapting and has somehow left the term "philosophy" behind.
I struggle to characterise the spirit of what you say, do you think my optimism is misplaced? Or did you perhaps just want to gripe about a practice, somewhat relevant to my comment, that you disapprove of?
He only said that because he couldn't paint like Sargent.
I almost forgot what my point was - it was simply a response to your notion about how more people are interested in philosophy today than in the past. My response was perhaps but at what level of quality? We simply differ on this.
Well, even if we forget about the laypeople, different areas of philosophy are discussed in relation to how the government or businesses should handle various legal, economic, ethical, cultural issues. Perhaps "philosophy" has become a study of history for many and we shouldn't forget that the same kinds of problems are still being discussed today even if it's being categorised differently. Every area of life and thought has been developing at breakneck speed and much is changed. Has our understanding of what philosophy is failed to keep up with the changes in society?
I think that you are correct to bring in the role of government as this with the whole underlying power structures are likely to affect the course of philosophy and ideas in general. We have moved into the information age, but I think that it is hard to predict the future of humanity. We don't want where science and economics will lead us and to what extent religions will play a part. It is, however, most certain that political factors will play a large role as throughout history knowledge and politics are interconnected in such a deep and complex way.
Excellent topic.
It's a bit hard to answer. I mean besides saying "love of wisdom", defining what philosophy is, can be quite difficult. I think we ought to be mindful that during Classical Greece, there really wasn't much distinction between philosophy and anything else.
The difference between science and philosophy only got articulated in the mid-19th century, so the word we are using now, is rather new given its history. I mean existentialism is very different from empiricism as exemplified by Locke and Hume, for example.
Bearing all this is mind, when I use the word "philosophy" in a broad sense, outside the forum or outside technical discussions, I talk about "deep questions" on "important topics" which do not need, necessarily, much by the way of technical knowledge. Given this "constraint", then novels, movies, music and everything else can contain very good philosophy. And on this view, philosophy is more important then ever, whatever else the person whom you're talking with may say about it.
Not that technical questions in philosophy as often discussed here aren't important, I think they are, but the satisfaction gained from them is from the mere pleasure of contemplating and discussing these ideas than they are about "practicality". On this later term, much can be said. But if taken to the extreme then all that matters is money and work.
That's not a life at all.
At least that's how I view this.
Personally, I see philosophy and science as going hand in hand. It's the very questions of metaphysical and epistemological importance that then drive us to search for quantifiable or understandable answers through science right? In which case, philosophy will always be relevant.
In our culture though, I suppose it depends on which culture you speak of. If it is the current, modern Western cultural climate, it can easily be perceived that science and philosophy have taken a backseat. Right now it seems that the West is in some sort of depraved political cultural war of ideas. Many feel lost. Many feel anger and resentment. Some are too jaded to care. This cultural war is not driven by science and philosophy, but rather by anger, resentment, and in many ways, a nihilism. In my opinion at least.
Thought, this doesn't mean we are without hope. As Nietzsche stated:
There is something like decay in everything modern, but alongside the prevailing sickness there are signs of an inner strength yet to be tested. The very things that diminish us the most drive the stronger and more exceptional to greatness. As a matter of fact, great growth is always accompanied by tremendous fragmentation and destruction; suffering and the symptoms of decline are a part of every period of tremendous progress. Every fruitful and powerful development of humankind has at the same time helped to create a corresponding nihilistic development. It might be a sign of the most essential and decisive growth, of the transition to new conditions of existence, where the most extreme form of pessimism, genuine nihilism, to come into the world.
We are in the salad phase my friend. All of the deviations and crossroads have yet to converge.
Your interpretation of my thread question is interesting. Going back to the time of Nietzsche and Sartre we were looking at two philosophers who depicted angst and despair about the human condition. This was in the context of the collapse of Christianity, and, of course, Nietzsche was a romantic.
A couple of weeks ago, I was in a discussion of Nietzsche's ideas in the context of the idea of my idea of stepping into philosophical danger, which was then called 'the red zone of philosophy' by
@TheMadFool. This led into a discussion of the nature of nihilism and whether it was a red zone of being a dangerous territory within philosophy.
In itself, the philosophy of Nietzsche is part of romanticism and some philosophy of despair can be seen in that context, but also with a view to being a part of potential nihilism. I wrote this particular thread based on my own thoughts about where we are going in philosophy. Part of my own thinking was about a potential end to philosophy in the context as philosophy becomes more reductive and many people see the answers to philosophy as having been solved. Some of the responses I have received do suggest that philosophy is possibly opening up to new horizons beyond science.
My words deadend and wasteland were based on ideas of potential cultural collapse, and the term 'wasteland' was based on T S Eliot's poem. Also, recently I wrote a thread based on Gaugin's idea in his painting title, 'Where are we from? What are we? Where are we going ?', which he in a state of suicidal despair, painted. The whole question of where we are going can open up feelings of despair individually, and I think that this can also open up a cultural sense of despair. In some ways, this despair may be evident as much in entertainment which has no inherent meaning, just as much as in that which is outrightly expressing nihilism. We have had postmodernism and even post truth, so what is next?
There is also the idea of the end of history. Also, there are fears of the future of humanity too, and whether human beings will destroy themselves. Many feared the end of the world at the end of the twentieth century. While this did not happen, we still have the big environmental issues unsolved and the question of whether humanity will be able to draw upon science in a positive way.
I don't think there is any particular peak in despair or loss of meaning - but it's something the media like to create and whip up anxiety about. It helps sell things. Jordan Peterson has certainly found a good earn in pandering to and massaging this dystopic view and offering a conservative restoration or perhaps even a kind of counter reformation lubricated by cartoon Jungianism. The reality is there is no 'post truth' and postmodern has almost no influence on anything important. There are just events and politics.
But, I do wonder if you are looking at it more from the perspective of events and politics. Where does mental illness fit into this framework? Based on my experience of working in the mental health care system, so much of depression is bound up with feelings of despair, and apart from those who come into direct contact with the mental health system, so many more are being prescribed antidepressants and related drugs. In addition, even the experience of psychosis arises in the context of cultural breakdown of meaning.
People have always found reasons to despair even in alleged times of cultural meaning (not that there ever was such an era). Mental illness is a separate matter.
As I said, the various platforms of media have been selling us conspiracies and stories of woe for a long time now - of course it has impact on some people.
I am replying to your original topic.
I think you have just right now invented a new area or branch of philosophy, "the philosophy of interest in philosophy".
I don't think philosophy will go extinct. Even with the knowledge attained.
There will always be differences in opinion, even if not in the philosophical questions we struggle with. There might be a debate whether Mary used too much red in her painting of the sunset, or else Peter put too much green in the grass. These differences are not philosophical, but to decide what the answer is, you need to use tools of philosophy, that is, argumentation.
I think philosophy branched out of religion. Man suspected there has to be a rational explanation to everything. If the explanation was not biting him in the leg, that is, if it wasn't in his face, he invented explanations without much evidence. Thunder? God's angry reindeer thumping wiht their hoofs. Lightning? God's wrath, express'd.
Religion was first and foremost a survival tool: to explain the unexplained, and to use its predictive value. Rain dance, blessing of the troops, prayers, sacrifices. When those did not work out, it was easy to explain that the gods were not sufficiently pleased.
Then came the famous Greek guy, whose name I forgot, and he gave explanations to those things, that had been neglected by religion. He said the wind is created by the leaves' trembling on trees; and he made a whole bunch of other EXPLANATIONS that today make laughably no sense, but the damage was done: this guy picked up the slack left by religion.
Then there was not stop to this. Superstitions, sciences, religions, theories, social theories, and legal theories were starting to be based on philosophy. The Christian church declared Plato's writing had the seed of Christian wisdom in the mysticism; scientists questioned the religious teachings; people had a surer way of satisfying their greed with the help of science destroying philosophical empirical truths, that's one of the impeti that empowered Columbus to sail west to find the east.
Karl Marx said that human beings need an ideology to perform a sweeping change in social structure or in other endeavours of society. In personal affairs it's called "rationalizing the cognitive discord (or cognitive dissonance)". In social movements, the rationalization is replaced by ideology, and the cognitive discord or dissonance is replaced by facing the changing of societally accepted values. Marx recognized this event, and that this is a social law. We need to defend Christianity, was the motto for the Crusades, which aimed to gain an access route to India's wealth of spices and gold and jewels. We need to fight for freedom, for liberty, and for justice, was the slavekeepers' motto for ridding themselves of the king's rule in America, and the proletariat-oppressing, internationally expanding imperialism of the bourgeoise in France. We must bind up the broken, the ill, the lonely, the poor, we must eradicate slavery, was the Christian motto for establishing a hegemony of absolute power in Europe in the middle ages.
Once social stability is achieved, we won't need ideology, either.
In all, philosophy was an excellent tool to pave the way to secular thinking, which paved the way of man detaching himself from the rigors of the unbending dogma of faith. It was also an excellent outlet for man's curious nature, and for his obsession to find solutions to problems, theoretical or practical, same difference.
But like you pointed out, Jack Cummings, will philosophy survive if it loses its survival value?
As a study of something that has historical value, no. It won't lose its stance. But as a tool of secular detachment from religion, it will use its usefulness. Things that are no longer useful get sidetracked, and their only way to survive is through their value of novelty, curiosity. The "strange and curious" survive no matter what. And as such things go, philosophy is sure one of them.
Your post highlights the way in which knowledge exists in the form of ideologies, as argued by Marx. In the past, philosophy and religion often were interlinked through the ideas of the Greeks being brought forward into the ideas of the church fathers, Kant and many others. Gradually, as science became more predominant philosophy lead the way in the understanding of secular ideas.
As it is now, scientists have made so much progress, but the arts and humanities have not been thrown aside. There are so many obvious divisions such as science vs art, religion vs secular, academic vs popular ideas. My own view is that philosophy needs to lead the way in sorting out all these dichotomies, rather than become as you say dumped into the 'strange and the curious", although, they will probably 'survive no matter what'. I think that neither you or I believe that philosophy will because extinct as such, but it is about on what level it will survive in the information age.
But, I do believe that it is also interrelated to the way history goes, and I think that we need the philosophers right now more than ever before...
I do think that for some people 'all that matters is money and work'. However, the future is so bound up with ideas. The book which I have begun reading today is 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow', by Yuval Noah Harari (2016). I am at an early stage in the book but it does seem interesting so far in thinking about knowledge for the future. I will just throw in one quote for you and others, for thinking about the future of ideas:
'Modern science and modern culture has an entirely different take on life and death. They don't think of death as a metaphysical mystery, and they certainly don't view death as a the source of life's meaning. Rather, for modern people death is a technical problem we can and should solve.'
The author's use of 'They' is a bit ambiguous but I think he means both science and people from our culture. However, what I see as being important here is the whole way in which the interpretation and understanding of ideas is important. This leads me to believe that philosophy is central to culture and interpretation of human experience. The author of the book was writing before the time of the pandemic, in which the emphasis in global thinking has been about fighting to solve death as a 'technical problem.'
I hope that my comment makes sense in relation to your comment, but what I am trying to argue is that the 'deep questions' are truly with as ever, and that philosophy can have a vital role, rather than being seen as obscure.
I am wondering about the conspiracy of woe and how that relates to the idea of the posturing of the Nietzschean nihilist. Meanings have been broken down, and often we stand alone, with no gods to turn to, but simply our own selves, and the reflection of self in human relationships.
Our own worldviews and philosophies are based in that context. We, as individuals are looking back on the history of ideas, with a view to moving forwards, breaking down, assimilating and looking towards future possibilities.
So, do you see painting as being part of the process of formulating philosophies? I most certainly do, because it seems to be such a complex mixture of looking beyond the objective to the subjective. We may have reached a crossroads in the history, but I am not at all certain that the spectrum beyond the objective and subjective has been met, even the intersubjective, especially in the realm of the arts.
I am a little disappointed that you did not answer my reply because I thought that we may have so much to discuss. Instead, you have started a thread, which appears to be based on my own questions. Have you done this because you think my own thinking is inadequate, or are you coming from a different angle entirely?From your initial reply, I thought that we had some common ground to discuss.
As for myself, I am interested in the future of philosophy, and see this as being interconnected with the question of where humanity and culture are going, but I do understand if your own interest is very different from mine. I believe that we are at a crossroads, for better or worse, and I am trying to think about this, and how ideas will lead us through..
Sorry Jack. I will reply, I always do! I'm just in between shifts at the moment and I work a rotating roster. I've been replying to lots of comments (more than I expected, which is a pleasant surprise) when I can.
I think we would be examining the same or a similar topic from different perspectives. I trust we will have lots to discuss.
:up:
Sure and it's probably impossible to get out of the intellectual context in which one lives and see things "objectively", standing atop the highest clearest mountain if you will.
As for that specific Harari quote, it's not too clear in the sense that I've never really understood what people mean when they say "science says", as if "science" could be separated from the scientists who engage in these projects. It's an obvious comment but there are all kinds of scientists who believe in all kinds of things. Granted one can see a tendency in them to be, say, non-religious or "hard nosed" but this is a tendency.
Philosophy is important in that it can help us make sense of the world. I want be as inclusive as I can be when I use the term - which is why I insist on the philosophic aspects of art.
But yes, the problem of culture and ideas is fascinating.
Yes, I think we are, but your thread is going in a different direction possibly, so it will be interesting to see what happens. You wrote your reply in the night when I was sleeping, and, then you created your own thread. I believe that you started your own thread and you may well come with a whole fresh perspective, which I cannot offer at all.
I have a certain amount of philosophy reading, ranging from existentialism, postmodernism, as well as questions of philosophies of our times. My own interest is more in the direction of the arts. But, I am concerned about the direction humanity is going, and how this is interconnected.
I may start a thread based on my own reading of Harari's ideas, but I am certainly not in the position of thinking that scientists have the ultimate word on truth. I think that we are an extremely critical juncture in history. We have so much information available to us, coming from the sciences and the arts.
On the other hand, we are at a time in which there are so many aspects of history which are uncertain. We have the pandemic, climate change, and it is so hard to predict what is going to happen next. This presents a challenge for individuals and for humanity, if the collective term still applies too.
My own thread was formed in trying to look at philosophy and the way in which this can be reconciled and put together in an individual way and in terms of knowledge. Philosophy has been through postmodernism and the deconstruction of meaning. However, we can ask what will happen next. I am asking about the future of philosophy, but do see this as being interconnected with developments in history, culture and politics.
Ok. So. Firstly, I think we are still in the collapse of Christianity as the prevailing worldview (at least from a Western perspective). Essentially, it takes time, and effort, to kill God. In saying that, Nietszche I think predicted accurately, the nihilistic wake that is left by the death of God, in the absense of another, similarly rapturous worldview to keep us all in awe. I think it was Rollo May who made a similar inference, that we are now in an age of the transient, where we have nowhere to anchor our ships so to speak, and have lost our connection with ourselves and others, or our "love", with violence now manifesting itself as the most desperate attempt for connection with others in the wake of this sense of loss, apathy, and hopelessness.
I'd like for you to expand on your idea of nihilism being a philosophical danger / red zone?
I think most if not all schools of thought have some merit and are worth investigating. Of course, with a critical eye and the insight to recognise extreme views for what they are to avoid them haunting you.
I also think that the questions that you ask, through your references to art and poetry are questions that have no easy answers. And whilst science can definitely lead us to more probable causes, outcomes and "answers", these can just as easily be replaced again with stronger science in future. Where old theories are disproven and new ones emerge to take their place. As such, I think philosophy will always have its place. As some of these questions have no easy answers, and given the limitations of our humanity, I don't think they ever will be answered with absolute certainty.
This, however, does not mean we should stop asking and searching. That's the essense of both science and philosophy I think, and in this they are aligned.
Nah. Conspiracies and tales of woe often ran side by side with Christianity through the ages. In fact, even today you will see that there are many Christians involved in some of the nuttier conspiracies. The idea that there is something empty which needs filling is poetry. The primary difference today is that crazy ideas are better organised and more readily available thanks to the internet.
I don't think this is accurate. When Christianity was a prevailing myth there were anti-Semitic conspiracies, witch trials, shunning, torture, religious wars, pogroms, brutal sectarian divisions, any manner of persecutions and apocalyptic cults, women were second class citizens and the average person had a stunted future.The idea that Christianity provided a stable meaningful society is one of those poetic half-truths.
Some would argue (Steven Pinker, a primary example) that the world is safer, healthier and happier today than ever before in history. There has been minimal collapse of meaning.You can even see in America that some of the angriest and most unhappy folk are those with a strong faith. Shared meaning does not bring with it contentment, despite what some commentators believe. What we have seen for the past decades is the common good, education and jobs undermined by corporatism and a very unhelpful media. For my money, a lot of social problems in the West stem just from this.
I am sure that the answers offered by the arts may be seen as inadequate in some ways, but we could argue that poesis is a way of a certain expression of truth. But, of course, this works for some, and is only one way of expressing. I believe that the arts are important, but that is about individual expression and the cultural aspect of human existence. I do believe that in some ways we have reached a deadline or impasse, but it is probably a situation from which we can find our own way out.
As much as I believe that philosophy is important, it may be that philosophy has its limitations. I t may be that the best artists will leave the visions of many philosophers as extremely lacking and that philosophy will really become an abstract worldview, left behind in the aftermath of science, but with nowhere left to go.
It is so easy to subscribe to crazy, shallow ideas, on the internet, whether it is conspiracy or otherwise. Right now, I am aware that I am competing with other threads, with topics of a similar nature. I probably write answers which are almost essays at times. It is likely that no.one wishes to read such answersm
Often, I feel like giving up in the expression of ideas. It is likely that my thread will fizzle and die, especially as a thread has been raised which is so similar to my own, and my own may be seen as inferior. Sometimes, I feel that I have reached a deadend myself. I think that the concept of the deadend and the wasteland are ones which are relevant for thinking about the personal life, as well as on the cultural level and the ongoing development of philosophical ideas.
I think that the experience of alienation is complex. It is about feeling rejected and about feeling lost, especially in the age of technology. We may have feelings of loss as individuals, and also feel that we do not count in the grand scheme of life. In some ways, such thinking is connected to our own psychology, and sense of lack of low self esteem and worth. But, in other ways, it is related to social and cultural perspectives and it may be that philosophy can help put this together. Perhaps, philosophy can help to save us.
Caught in his moment, he navigated as well as he could. I figure we are all like that.
As a matter of philosophy, alternatives are possible. A chance to change the deal.
The kind of thing that is not settled for all time but more of a working agreement.
Chess with the Devil, if you will.
You've misunderstood me, let me rephrase.
Philosophy is both an academic subject and a characteristic of thought. If your thinking has a philosophical characteristic then it's philosophy, whichever way one chooses to define this characteristic, it exists outside this academic branch. Depending on the definition it will also exist in politics, law, economics, psychology, sport, culture, music and so on. As an academic subject, it can be further characterised as a style of writing, a type of culture, with a certain history and continuous aspect to it. Perhaps it is the culture and broader administrative aspects which are becoming outdated rather than the spirit of philosophy. Even on this forum, many philosophical topics take their shape in a political context. Philosophical ideas become relevant based on how well they can be applied to the political context.
Or for example, questions about ethics and morality could be applied in rather different ways depending on whether the subject was criminal law or government policy on economic redistribution. The conversation still exists about ethics and morality in a philosophical manner even if the subject is actually about law or politics.
The questions about human nature or the human condition persist within our culture, but the subject is culture, not philosophy. It exists in music or film, the practical ramifications or explicit mention of philosophical concepts ends up affecting these different areas of life.
But you even threw culture into the mix. I remember discussing this in another thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9857/death-of-language-the-real-way-cultures-decay-and-die/p1
Culture is changing so fast now compared to any time in human history and that change is going to continue to speed up. Your characterisation of an impending dead end seems to go against everything that is happening around you, so why this characterisation? It is not because of the world and therefore it is something to do with you. Just as in that thread, culture is always seemingly declining or being destroyed in someone's eyes but in reality, the rate of change has been accelerating exponentially over the last thousand years. However you're worried about things becoming now, people will be worrying about being changed in the future, it is the way of things.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I am just interested in the future of philosophy and related fields of thought. It is not my own personal issue, because apart from writing on this site and reading books, I don't have any role or life revolving around philosophy at all. But, I do enjoy my reading and, thinking itself.
I do agree that culture is changing fast and it is hard to keep up with it. Also, it is easy to feel lost amidst it all, with no sense of any belonging. I think that it is enough of a struggle to find meaning and purpose, and it is for that reason that I turn towards philosophy. Of course, it doesn't have all the answers.I would not really expect it to provide them, but at least it provides methods and ways of thinking for the many different aspects of human existence, as the arts do too. It can be about coping in the face of the deadend and wastelands.
Some would argue (Steven Pinker, a primary example) that the world is safer, healthier and happier today than ever before in history.
I'm unfamiliar with his work, but will take a look now, thanks.
There has been minimal collapse of meaning... Shared meaning does not bring with it contentment, despite what some commentators believe. What we have seen for the past decades is the common good, education and jobs undermined by corporatism and a very unhelpful media. For my money, a lot of social problems in the West stem just from this.
This statement is something I thought about and can agree with. However, when corporate / technocratic elites and the media control the prevailing narrative, if that narrative is one of division, woe, apathy and hopelessness, then what does that mean for us, the masses? Of course, some of us see it for what it is and know better, but for many, this fear and the threats it implies seem all too real. The flow on effect from these giants shaping the discourse and public opinion could very well be overwhelmingly negative, an insidious psychological manipulation. Disturbing.
People need a sense of what is real and where to find out reliable information.
Bear in mind, I am not saying there is a coordinated conspiracy to feed us nonsense - it's simply that bad news and stories of danger and woe resonate strongest and are click bait and ratings $$ successes. As everyone knows, humans are drawn to car crashes, they're compelling.
People need a sense of what is real and where to find out reliable information.
This. This is key.
When you speak of elites and technocracies, this also makes me think about how in some ways rather than a possible deadend, there is also so much scope for ideas which challenge the status quo. I think that this exists in the internet, but also within philosophy and the arts historically. When I spoke of T.S. Eliot's 'The Wasteland', we can think how that was a major influence in literature and the cultural development of ideas.
I think that it is worth looking back at the way in which ideas developed in the twentieth century. The 1960s protest movement played a key role with the expression in the music and the development of counterculture. This was linked with the rise of sociology and women's liberation. There was also punk rock and other genres, which spoke of alienation, but also with a radical idea of transformation.
In the twentieth century, we are in an interesting time. In philosophy, we can see the past history of existentialism and romanticism, as well as postmodernism. Alongside this, we have the developments in the sciences, especially neuroscientists. So, it is interesting to know what comes next in philosophy and culture. My own thinking about it fluctuates between demoralisation and optimism. But, I think it is clear that in this information age, there is so much which, as you say is nonsense, and part of the problem may be that many people get lost in making their way through all the jumble of ideas.
Late to the party as always, and haven't read the rest of the thread...
I think this is just the rub; you appear to be concerned that philosophical questions will fall away somehow, but what you say here is exactly why they will ultimately not do so. Knowledge is slippery and seems to often slip away on accident; It's almost like a venus fly trap; just when knowledge appears to arrive at the fake bud, the trap closes.
In our current physicalist world, it may take years of painful slippery fly-trap deaths for us to realize this hubristic error. And I almost think that we need to go through all these painful deaths if we're ever going to see our mistake.
Yes, I think having the ability and courage to challenge the status quo is essential to growth. Complacency is what leads to stagnation. I think philosophy will still have its place, as long as the ideas keep coming and we don't give up the conversation.
part of the problem may be that many people get lost in making their way through all the jumble of ideas.
This is true. I think that because information is so readily available, it can be challenging sometimes to navigate the murk.
But counterculture was also a commercial venture that made a lot of people rich whilst they played at being hippies. One of the nastiest things about the 1960's is how many of those counterculture figures ended up running the corporations and mainstream advertising/marketing worlds that have screwed us over ever since.
Is this a new "counter culture"?
More properly I guess it's the counter reformation culture. :worry:
That makes sense, but actually I realize I responded too quickly...what I wanted to intimate, as maybe a half-joke, was that you are attempting to represent a new counter-culture with your critique of the old counter-culture..."they've screwed us over ever since", etc...I'll see myself out...
Many of them became 'The Man' in the end
I suppose that's the thing with counter culture, you rage against the machine until you end up raging with it. Then a new counter culture emerges.
:cheer: I love jokes, especially in the middle of serious threads.
I think that it a complicated dialectic. On one hand, there is the way in which mainstream and countercultural protests are opposed. But, also the ideas and ideals in the counterculture become so successful that they are incorporated into the mainstream. So, a further new wave of protest ideas come in, both within the arts and other forms of ideas.
Also, political factors come into play affecting trends, as well as interrelated ideas which are not necessarily countercultural as such, but divergent. What I am thinking of is how there was the whole idea of the new age movement. This was partly connected to ideals based on the aquarian movement, which was linked in some ways with the utopian ideals which emerged from the hippy age, and the rise of the new age hippies. However, it was also interconnected with millennium fears, linked to the significance of the year 2000.
But, the world didn't end or the computers didn't crash, and even 2012 was seen as being potentially significant, in relation to the Mayan calendar. But, I think it is harder to disentangle the different conflicting ideas now, because it is as if many movements are partly fragmenting and converging too. I am not even sure how or if the idea of the new age affected or was seen by the philosophers. I know that such ideas are often seen as 'woo' on this site, but I don't know if that is an accurate global picture.
You suggest that 'we need to go through all these painful deaths if we're going to ever see our mistakes' regarding errors in philosophy. It reminds me of a book title by the psychologist, James Hillman, 'We've Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World is Getting Worse.' Similarly, we may ask about where philosophy is going in way of progress?
What I have been thinking since reading and writing on this thread earlier is there is little chance of complacency because trends and developments are so rapid. There are just so many voices, from the past and from the present, with so much variation. The symbol that has come to my mind, and I may have mentioned it in some other thread, is the Tower of Babel. There are so many variations in expression of ideas that it can be hard to distinguish the unique, individual voices. There are just so many voices and it is probably not a case of a deadend, but of being overwhelmed in the cacophony of them all.
there is little chance of complacency because trends and developments are so rapid.
There are just so many voices and it is probably not a case of a deadend, but of being overwhelmed in the cacophony of them all.
I'd say it's likely a bit of both. The trends and developments are indeed rapid, however this leads to more voices, as well as less. You get those that want to be heard, and those that grow complacent simply because they don't want to deal with the cacophony.
I have not lost interest in this topic of the deadend and the wastelands, and where culture is going.
Today, I have just read a chapter in a book, 'Paths Beyond Ego' (ed. Walsh and Vaughan) by Duane Elgin, 'The Tao of Personal and Social Transformation', in which the author is describing the way in which ideas arise within the socioeconomic context, and I how ideas arise within the context of consumer materialism. I think that this is so important for seeing philosophy, including ideas such as nihilism, and many other ideologies.
My own additional thought is that consumer materialism may be collapsing, so what will come next, philosophically, politically and culturally? Where can philosophy take us and, play a leading role or pathway?
My own additional thought is that consumer materialism may be collapsing, so what will come next, philosophically, politically and culturally? Where can philosophy take us and, play a leading role or pathway?
Unless there is a radical change to the Capitalist model in modern Western society, I don't see consumer materialism collapsing anytime soon. Rather, it is the current will to power. The current game to be played in order to survive and thrive. Within this economic model, for arguably, a prosperous life that minimises potential suffering, philosophy may have a duty here to help the individual thrive. Unfortunately, culturally, I personally can only see more division, apathy and ultimately stagnation. Unless of course, the status quo is continually challenged, and modern visionaries and artists inspire the culture to move forward.
It's tough to evaluate it all whilst in the midst of it. It may be that we will only be able to see what is, when it becomes what was, in hindsight.
I am not sure to what extent consumer materialism will collapse completely, because people are still buying items, but I think that has changed. Perhaps, one change is people relying more on the internet and less on shops, with many big chains having collapsed. It is hard to know where everything is going to lead until, as you say, we are able to look back in hindsight. I am not sure that there can be actual stagnation in our culture, because there seems to be so much development all the time, but I don't see how Western civilisation can develop and thrive in the same way without radical changes in the way resources are used, but this may be very different from cultural collapse itself.
But, yes, where do ideas and philosophy lie in this and it may be that they are needed to help the individual and groups cope within any potential changes, especially in the potentially difficult times. Some people are probably experiencing a lot of suffering as it is, and this may need a lot of inner strength too, but of course, suffering has always been a central aspect of human life.
The map of the world chosen is shrouded in what gamers will immediately recognize as the irksome fog of war. The scout's job is to explore the map, can be done either manually or in automatic mode, and reveal resources, city-friendly tiles, natural wonders, other civilizations, friendlies, and foes (barbarians or other belligerents).
Once a scout reveals parts of the map, we can send settlers to build more cities that can maximize benefits for my civilization in terms of wealth, knowledge, tourism, military power, and so on. However, what's interesting is, once I've developed a tile's resources as uncovered by a scout, keeping the scout on that tile or others I've already capitalized on is a total waste of a scout's innate exploratory skills. I must, should, send my scout units to the edges of my cities' borders, out into areas of the map still obscured by the fog of war. That's what scouts (are supposed to) do!
Perhaps we need to learn to be scouts for ourselves and others, to prevent us getting lost in the fog.
I think that you are right to see the artists and visionaries as being important in bringing ideas and culture forward. That is because culture and philosophy are not just abstract ideas, or even political ideologies, but more about imagination. Utopia may never be achieved, but it does seem to me that any real progress is about dreaming of new possibilities, even if the translation of such dreams to the real world falls far short of that which is imagined. It is also hard to know what new ideas within philosophy are waiting to be arise within human consciousness.
I think that philosophy will survive probably for as long as humanity does, even though it may be defined and redefined. I do believe that some think that metaphysics has passed its sell by date.However, this is in itself open to questioning, because as individuals, we are still stuck in the position of trying to make sense of our lives, for better or worse. I am not sure that the bigger questions are really redundant, because it may be hard to frame and contextualize our own lives without some relation to the wider aspects of life and the cosmic aspects of existence.
Western philosophy took a wrong turn at the Galileo roundabout, and ended up making Descartes the father of modern philosophy; and to the exclusion of a scientific epistemology, building on an argument based on skeptical doubt, that dispenses with the real world by imagining being deceived by a demon! That pretence may well be played out.
I see the possibility of a philosophy of science - in a society that values science as valid knowledge of reality, and so secures a prosperous sustainable future; that is deeper and more meaningful than Cartesian soul gazing - through to the subjectivist doggerel of the left wing house of postmodern "whatever!"
We could start by putting causality into evolution; by discussing the selection pressure exerted by a physical reality with definite physical and chemical characteristics, and consider the role this plays in designing the organism. Then we can discuss the nature of intelligence; physiological and behavioural intelligence, underlying human intellectual intelligence.