Has every fruitful avenue of philosophy been explored/talked about already?
(This may be a discussion more suited to the lounge, if so ok sure, but if I knew so I would have posted it there)
Has every branch of the tree of philosophy reached it's yield? Are we "done" with 99.9% of philosophical thought as far as new, original, and undiscussed ideas go?
I'm here a lot, I'll admit a good portion of it goes over my head, even when I think otherwise. Bearing this in mind I still have noticed there seems to be a lot of "touching on" and "proposing alternatives" that don't often lead too far or gain traction, again as far as new/original/undiscussed ideas and concepts go, at least from my view.
Would you agree with this assertion or no?
I think therefore I am. To be or not to be. The only thing I know is that I know nothing.
Tree falls in the woods, the object exists because we see it not because it contains matter, not great examples but you can recall quickly the root/base/elementary terms used and all their -isms and -ivities.
Relativism. Absolutism. Objectivism. Determinism. And everything in between. An old English teacher responded to me once when I brought up the concept of a "unique story". He said everything imaginable and writable has already been done so, if you know where to look. I want to say that may have been closed minded teaching but he does have a job as a professor so it definitely warranted some afterthought in my opinion.
What do you think? Give examples as to why or why not you believe in either possibility.
(just as a note, new devices, specifically their random "new" applications and realities they create are not new concepts in my view. sure they never had smartphones and machine guns, jetliners, and yachts but they did have letters, diaries, mail, primitive weapons, boats, etc. The same concepts are the same concepts just because they involve advanced platforms, in my view..)
Edit: and if "no" please cite one un discussed example you can think of that can't be Googled or is basically the same thing as a known -ism or -ivity. if you want to be a homie.
Has every branch of the tree of philosophy reached it's yield? Are we "done" with 99.9% of philosophical thought as far as new, original, and undiscussed ideas go?
I'm here a lot, I'll admit a good portion of it goes over my head, even when I think otherwise. Bearing this in mind I still have noticed there seems to be a lot of "touching on" and "proposing alternatives" that don't often lead too far or gain traction, again as far as new/original/undiscussed ideas and concepts go, at least from my view.
Would you agree with this assertion or no?
I think therefore I am. To be or not to be. The only thing I know is that I know nothing.
Tree falls in the woods, the object exists because we see it not because it contains matter, not great examples but you can recall quickly the root/base/elementary terms used and all their -isms and -ivities.
Relativism. Absolutism. Objectivism. Determinism. And everything in between. An old English teacher responded to me once when I brought up the concept of a "unique story". He said everything imaginable and writable has already been done so, if you know where to look. I want to say that may have been closed minded teaching but he does have a job as a professor so it definitely warranted some afterthought in my opinion.
What do you think? Give examples as to why or why not you believe in either possibility.
(just as a note, new devices, specifically their random "new" applications and realities they create are not new concepts in my view. sure they never had smartphones and machine guns, jetliners, and yachts but they did have letters, diaries, mail, primitive weapons, boats, etc. The same concepts are the same concepts just because they involve advanced platforms, in my view..)
Edit: and if "no" please cite one un discussed example you can think of that can't be Googled or is basically the same thing as a known -ism or -ivity. if you want to be a homie.
Comments (63)
No.
Contemporary philosophers debate whether there is progress in philosophy. My first answer is no, because there does not need to be progress. Qualified, sometimes there are vigorous debates and people accept a consensus view, which might be called progress.
Do you think there is progress in science?
As I've noted, philosophy for me is personal, so any "progress" is also personal. I don't know whether philosophy as a discipline progresses or should progress.
I don't think you can demonstrate that nothing further or new is possible.
Yes. But philosophy is not science.
The very notion seems absurd.
Look at all the babble about quantum theory. And judicial philosophy easily reaches the common citizen with reports of deliberations by the SCOTUS and actions and inactions of the Attorney General.
How can ethics not be on a top burner with the ongoing war in Ukraine, and a philosophy of international relations.
No, it is not science. A philosophical worldview is the basis of a science. If science progresses , then philosophy progresses. Newton=Descartes , Einstein=Kant , Freud=Nietzsche, enactive cogntive science=phenomenology. For every major innovation in science there is a parallel change in metaphysics. A scientific paradigm is nothing but a
conventionalized instantiation of a metaphysical worldview.
Science describes physical particles. Philosophy is not limited by physicality.
I see it the other way around. Metaphysics is a tool, a set of tools, people use when they want to figure stuff out.
In another 100 years natural science may no longer be in the business of describing physical particles. That is , it may no longer believe in the notion of the physical
particle. There is no clear definitional distinction between philosophy and science. One is simply a more or less applied and conventionalized version of the other.
I never heard that before. Please explain.
Quoting Joshs
Quoting Clarky
You mean, like a scientific theory?( except less
conventionalized)
I really don't want to get into a discussion about what "metaphysics" is. I'm already in one in another thread. As I see it, metaphysics is the set of underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," people use when they try to understand the world.
Pretty much how Aristotle defines it as "first philosophy."
Science progresses because it is based primarily (but not completely) on technological progress. Technology grows exponentially on top of all previous cultural gains in both science and technology. Also, unlike philosophers, scientists get gradually smarter via increasingly advanced math and science education, allowing them to group-think once settled in their specialties
Philosophy imitated this approach quite successfully in the 20th Century after advances in simple logic and linguistics. That has been over for a while, giving the impression to those exploring analytic philosophy that everything worthwhile has already been thoroughly investigated therefore philosophy is done. But the fundamental problems of philosophy have only been put aside and not resolved.
Yes, why philosophy is not science.
I think what that means is this is the last journey humans do and will perpetually be in the state of non-human related daily activities. You go to another realm where grocery lists and electric bills aren't relevant or existent. I don't know.
Socrates/Plato.
Thank you!
In postmodern philosophy , scientific speculation is recognized as being beholden to hidden metaphysical presuppositions.
:groan:
No. No.
Quoting Jackson
Categorical reasoning is hypothetical reasoning? :sweat:
No! By definition, geniuses have the uncommon ability to "think outside the box," to "interpret things in ways never before surmised." Will there no longer be geniuses? Will there no longer be humans who have this unique ability? Persons who can look at what we all take for granted and see in it, and show us, something new, strange, and absolutely marvelous? This is really what you are asking, isn't it? Geniuses have the ability to kill the old accepted paradigms.
To Cite Just One Example: Sartre's notion of pre-reflective consciousness as nihilation. This was absolutely new. Historically, no philosopher, other than Sartre, came up with this notion.
I anticipate that there will be many other such future geniuses.
Philosophy is far from being dead.
Instead, it is we, with our limited intellects, who have learned how to die!
As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."
I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I know what it means. It sounds romantic.
Quoting Tom Storm
Is that right? I've read Michel de Montaigne a long time ago. But couldn't remember that line. But Jackson said Socrates/Plato.
Yes, I am too. Brief and to the point, but brings a lot of punch. And oh yeah, when I read that line the first time, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world.
He is citing Plato. There would be no need to do philosophy if we were gods.
Seems to be verbatim from Plato.
Only analytic philosophy imitated this approach.
Technology does not represent the leading edge of thought. On the contrary, it is the last step in the process of dissemination of ideas though the culture, which begins with a small handful of philosophers. For example, the most advanced digital technologies available today are the final products of philosophical underpinnings contributed by Leibnitz , Hume and others in the 1700’s. These insights were then ‘applied’ by figures like Frege, Turing and Weiner. By the time inventors like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates turned them into popular products, the leading edge of philosophy had long since moved on.
This cycle is now repeating itself.
The underpinnings for the next great revolution in technology were set in motion more than 100 years ago with the work of philosophers like Nietzsche. More recently, they have been ‘applied’ by philosophers of mind like Dan Dennett. Eventually , you will see the final instantiation of these ideas in a new generation of technological products that you can claim to be the cutting edge of ideas.
Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful.
There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy?
Good definition. So as these presuppositions evolve , so does scientific theory. There would be no scientific progress otherwise.
Russell credits Leibniz with inventing mathematical logic.
Leibniz talked about the universe itself being a computer.
Go back to Charles Ferraro's comments and respond. All responses are welcome.
huh?
Maybe the other way around or maybe they evolve together.
They are ways people think about the world.
Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc.
So, I was attracted first to the cynics -- because they're the zero-fucks-given philosophers. I mean this. I thought, wow, okay, those were the ancients who didn't give a fuck! lol. How cool is that?
Then there's Schopenhauer and the hell-is-other-people Sartre. I said no to those. I couldn't subscribe to that kind of thinking when I myself was trying to want to love life.
Quoting Tom Storm
Where is thread? What's the title?
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm saying it would make a good thread.
Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How?
Perhaps you could summarize this idea of Sartre's briefly.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes. In my dealings with people and (ethics and epistemology). For example, I now know that people would cling to their belief in the face of evidence and proof to the contrary. Also, the way I view life in general. If we stop caring about material things, we could relax and be more accepting.
Philosophy will (probably) go extinct from the world of formal education conducted in universities and colleges in the coming 50-100 years or so. I read a news report a few years ago that some universities are downscaling their philosophy departments; the reason is quite obvious - unlike STEM, philosophy doesn't yield any tangible benefits to the university or the community at large.
The question of whether philosophy has explored all of the territory avaiable to it is moot then, oui?
That said philosophy might survive within religious universities and colleges, but only as a sidekick to theology.
[quote=R. Alan Woods]There are things far worse than death[...][/quote]
Let us get all our spiritual sustenance from STEM then.
Because of course, during the pandemic, we all made it through because the humanities did nothing to help any of us.
I know this is not your view. But it is a sad state of affairs when such things are said to contribute no value to society. Reflects our cultural poverty or, if not, then highlights our admiration for the superficial (how much it contributes to the economy as opposed to how it enriches us as human beings).
This is a really interesting thread. Very good question which I have wondered thousand of times myself.
What more can you say(or even think) about philosophy that hasn't already been said??
At the end it's fucking 2022.Your teacher was damn right.
Count the years,count the humans, count the minds, count the words that appeared in this planet all that time in humanitarian history.
I m really kind of jealous of previous philosophers. They had a vast sea of human nature to explore. Is there actually something really new to be expected?
I even found myself many times all these years to think things and say to myself "oh that's a really good idea/thought", only to find out later that has been expressed already.
Same even with whole phrases! Sometimes I have Googled some of them and they are even the same. Or at least very very similar.
Even a poster somewhere/somewhen over the Internet could have said/wrote it. It is damn frustrating sometimes.
My opinion is that as something really new and breakthrough in philosophy to exist, a really great scientific discovery has to be revealed.
Or a huge significance incident to occur in humanity (asteroid or aliens or whatever).As really basic Human aspects-values-attitudes-everything to be shaken till the ground!
Then philosophy would have again her vast sea back.
Till then, of course something new-ish can always be said but it is extremely difficult imo, to be something actually authentic.Well you never can say never of course but I don't know.
Philosophy has to wait for science or universe/nature as to get a huge boost towards new theories.
But in what at least personal I hope, is that there is always a new way of saying even the same things.
A way that might be able to inspire-touch humans in a way that never been achieved again. Well and that leads us to
Quoting Clarky
Again really nice thread.
Why? Leibniz conceived the relativity of space and time about 200 years before Einstein showed the math.
Was that idea a breakthrough in philosophy back then?? Don't really think so. Not till Einstein(science) prove it at least. No one would believe a philosopher in a scientific field. Leibniz made a prediction indeed but back then didn't actually proved anything.
But anyway already mentioned "you can never say never"
Yes. Leibniz saw the incoherence of the idea of absolute time and space in Newton.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Not a prediction. He gave arguments. And he was correct.
He didn't know it back then though.
Quantum philosophers might be correct also, that doesn't mean that we have to treat them as such till science actually prove them right.
If and when someone's prediction proves right, then he gets credited for it. That's the point till then it is just predictions. Or just arguments as you said. Nothing else.
I don't know what you mean by "prediction." Leibniz said nothing in the form of a prediction.
Also didn't prove anything either. It was just arguments since you stuck with the word "predictions" ."theory", "idea", "thought" whatever you prefer to call it! You choose. You are missing the point here.
Please state it.
Already did. Nothing to add further.
We're not so evil that we don't still need excuses.
:up: Good one!
There's plenty of subjects that we consider abstract or nonsense that are completely normal/unexplored.
However, now we've addressed it a paradigm occurs where they are all now explored by 0.001%.
This isn't egghead philosophy, humankind is actually very beginner.
Perhaps we're scared to take jumps as we're too constrained by our youth and organization.