Is there something like progress in the philosophical debate?
Does modern philosophy still make valuable contributions that create new knowledge, or are contemporary philosophers just busy analyzing existing knowledge?
If we assume that philosophers do create new knowledge (that cannot be found in the natural or social sciences), why is it so difficult - or even impossible - to detect progress in the philosophical debate ? My impression is that philosophers are still debating the same basic topics they were busy debating 50 or even 100 years ago, and that there is little hope that they will come to a conclusion.
Why is that so?
If we assume that philosophers do create new knowledge (that cannot be found in the natural or social sciences), why is it so difficult - or even impossible - to detect progress in the philosophical debate ? My impression is that philosophers are still debating the same basic topics they were busy debating 50 or even 100 years ago, and that there is little hope that they will come to a conclusion.
Why is that so?
Comments (42)
Why should we expect progress, and how would it be judged? If viewed from the perspective of Platonism, the attainment of wisdom is in some sense an individual matter, or rather, it is only the individual that can attain wisdom, by living the life of reason and virtue and by the attainment of the vision of the Good. How and by whom should such attainment be judged? If a philosophical aspirant realised such a vision, how would we know?
In some ways, your question is also a reflection on the meaning of ‘progress’, which perhaps can only be properly judged in terms of economic development, political liberty and instrumental proficiency. When viewed in those terms, progress and its absence is not hard to conceptualise, but the mere fact progress doesn’t guarantee that those living in developed economies will understand or pursue wisdom in the philosophical sense.
by a variety of rationalities applicable to 'science'.
What really bugs me is that they never seem to come to a conclusion, not even in a minor detail, so that they could say: Now, this question (about, say, 'qualia') has been solved. On the contrary: the more they debate, the more questions arise, which fuels more debates... and so on.
Is this really is virtuous circle?
Philosophy's value is primarily methodological. Its progress is primarily methodological.
When philosophers discuss "qualia" for decades without arriving at a conclusion (any conclusion!): what kind of methodological progress is achieved in this debate?
Could you give an example? Some debates have been decided already by reason and logic but one side or the other simply doesnt acknowledge they have come up short.
"[The contemporary philosopher] has better interlocutors to think with than people did 10 or 100 or 1000 years ago: later philosophers always have the advantage. The more we respond to one another, the better materials we hand down to our descendants for thinking with. For example, nowadays if you want to go ahead and assert, in a philosophical context, that there aren’t any true contradictions or that what didn’t but could’ve happened is unreal, or that you are sometimes morally responsible for some of the things you do, there are philosophers who have made it hard for you to do that. Graham Priest and David Lewis and Galen Strawson have, respectively, raised the cost of saying what you’re reflexively inclined to say. They’ve made you work for it—made you think for it.
Priest, Lewis and Strawson offer the person who is willing to do this work a decrease in the entropy in their original claim, which now has to be more specific and determinate. What one had before encountering them was, one now sees, nothing more than a way of vaguely gesturing at the idea in question. Engaging with them introduces order into one’s thinking as to what exactly is meant by claiming, e.g. that one is morally responsible. If someone is willing to do the work, she can have thoughts about these common sense, intuitive claims that are better than anyone could’ve had 10 or 100 or 1000 years ago".
This doesn't necessarily exhaust what constitutes 'progress' in philosophy, but it's a very nice start I think. For myself I definitely think there are what might be considered 'milestones' in philosophy, without which we would be set back disastrously. My list is perhaps idiosyncratic, but the cleave between pre-Kant and post-Kant would mark one hopefully not too controversial step.
While I agree that they would not characterize what they are doing as the pursuit of wisdom, it is simply not true that those days are long gone. When Wayfarer responds he is likely to mention Pierre Hadot. Much or the best work being done on Plato and Aristotle (Strauss, Klein, Benardete, and others) takes the pursuit of wisdom as fundamental. From a broader perspective so do Alexander Nahamas, Robert Solomon, and many other "professional" philosophers.
One way to think about it:
Did any philosopher contribute anything new to philosophy in the 19th Century? Was there anyone then that made us think about issues in a new way. Do we refer to any 19th Century philosopher when talking about philosophy or should we more accurately only refer to philosophers before 19th Century, who had the original ideas?
Did any philosopher contribute anything new to philosophy in the 20th Century? Was there anyone then that made us think about issues in a new way. Do we refer to any 20th Century philosopher when talking about philosophy or should we more accurately only refer to philosophers before 20th Century, who had the original ideas?
If you answer "yes" to both 19th and 20th Century philosophy, why would you think nothing would happen in the field in the 21st Century?
I think the idea of there being wisdom is nowadays treated rather coyly, because of its religious overtones; but that in traditional philosophy ‘sapientia’ was deemed as important as ‘scientia’ - kind of an equal partner, if you like. Virtue ethics, and Aristotle generally, might provide an example; as would the tradition of Catholic philosophy, generally (but again, not regarded favourably in the secular academy for obvious reasons.)
One thing to consider is that traditional philosophy is not necessarily forward-looking, as the ideal to which it aspires might be provided by ancestral wisdom or revealed truth, and the passage of time represents a 'falling away' rather than 'progress towards', so negating the very idea of 'progress'.
And also, there's a sense that the ‘idea of progress’ itself originated with belief in the imminent second coming (just as an original impetus for science was as a corrective to the intellectual disability resulting from the Fall). The idea of progress is very much a product of the Christian notion a linear history (arguably now transposed to a scientific key wherein ‘heaven’ is represented by (the hope of) interstellar travel).
The post mentioned above is also well worth reading, particularly this paragraph:
Quite true. Also consider in this context the Buddhist principle that Buddhism itself, as a philosophical paradigm, serves an ultimately pragmatic purpose, namely, as a raft to 'cross the river of suffering'. And what becomes of 'the raft' when that purpose is served? Why, it's left behind! And there's also a sense, therefore, in which the 'abandoned raft' of the Dharma comprises the whole vast edifice of Buddhist iconography, liturgy and sacred texts; represented iconographically (or iconoclastically?) in Zen Buddhism by the figure of the patriarch Hui Neng literally tearing up the sacred texts:
(This has sometimes been compared to Wittgenstein's aphorism that the student 'must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after climbing up it'.)
Quoting Matias
As long as the notion of the ontological primacy of brain over mind persists, then so too will the puzzle of "qualia". Many have long since come to the conclusion that the paradigm is false, and that solves it.
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting ssu
Thinking of philosophy as a science, as knowledge, opens the question as to what counts as knowledge. There is the old etymological definition of philosophy as "love of wisdom" as noted by @Fooloso4; but what constitutes wisdom? Is it a form of knowing? If it is, then the further question is whether it is a kind of "knowing-that" or "knowing-how" or both.
It seems the understanding of philosophy as wisdom is an understanding which sees philosophy as predominately an ethical activity, a practice through which we may come to know how to live well. But then, on that model, philosophy is an individual pursuit, and there could only be thought to be general progress if it is the case that people are ethically wiser today than they have been in the past.
It would seem that philosophy is also something else apart from the pursuit of ethical wisdom since, as @Matias notes, that is not the way that most, or even many, professional philosophers define their field today. Philosophy does not give us empirical knowledge of the world as the sciences do. The natural sciences give us knowledge of the natural world through observation, conjecture and experiment. The human sciences give us, or at least purport to give us, empirical knowledge.
So, if philosophy gives us knowledge, then what could that knowledge be? Philosophy gives us knowledge of how we think and of what the limitations of our thinking are, and it gives us this knowledge through analysis of linguistic practices and also through introspective analysis of our intuitions of meaning and reference. This is the domain of analytic philosophy, philosophy of language and ordinary language philosophy. So, analytic philosophy presents us with new ways to think about these epistemological and semantic issues.
Then there are the phenomenological and pragmatic approaches which open up new ways of thinking about human experience and knowledge itself. I think what @ssu writes, quoted above, asks the right question Thinking about the greatest contributions to philosophy in the 19th and 20th Centuries, the progress seems to consist in the achievement of new and different ways of thinking about the world and our relation to it.
It seems reasonable to regard these new ways of thinking as knowledge, even if no question is ever finally and definitively answered, even if only on account of the necessary contextual relativity of different ways of thinking, We should not expect final and definite answers at all, even in the sciences, where knowledge is by definition fallible and open to potentially endless revision.
Zhuangzi figured you either got it or you didn't.
And then spent pages upon pages torturing those who did not. Explaining in detail where people get it wrong.
There is a disconnect between the different expressions.
This came to my mind because Habermas - who always has been the 'public intellectual' par excellence celebrates these days his ninetieth birthday
We find all of this in Plato and Aristotle.
What about phenomenology, existentialism, pragmatism and post-modern thought? Is all of that to be found in Plato and Aristotle too?
No. I made no such claim. What I am claiming is that the things you mentioned can be found there. I should have added that these things are not the exclusive domain of analytic philosophy either. These same issues are addressed in Continental philosophy.
I am not claiming that nothing has changed or that they saw or thought or conceived of things in the same way as an analytic philosopher does, but then, not all analytic philosophers see things in the same way either.
The topic question is about progress. While it is true that analytic philosophy has a great deal of technical rigor, it is not at clear what its relevance is outside its argumentative circle. Is that progress?
But I was claiming that significant new ideas (which are "the things I mentioned") can be found in modern philosophy, (and not merely in analytic philosophy), so it seemed that you were counter-claiming that no significant new ideas can be found in modern philosophy and that it is all to be found in Plato and Aristotle. So, it seems I misunderstood you, but I remain puzzled as to why you responded to my claim in that case.
I also agree that some of the concerns of analytic philosophy are also addressed (in quite different ways) in "Continental" philosophy and that of course analytic philosophers don't all think exactly the same thoughts.
The progress of philosophy (or one aspect of it at least) consists, for me, in the generation of new ideas, of interesting new ways to look at things, and that was the main point I was making. So what is of interest to the analytic philosopher may well not be of much interest to anyone totally unfamiliar with, or totally uninterested in, the history of analytic philosophy, but that goes without saying. You could saying something similar about any specialized pursuit: quantum physics or ornithology for example, but I doubt anyone would deny that progress is made in those fields.
.
This is a good point. While I do believe that philosophy progresses in various important ways, I also believe in something like human nature. We've been talking to ourselves for a long time now, and it's plausible indeed that some of the most vital things that we can hope to grasp have been grasped and recorded again and again. I relate this to the intersection of religion and philosophy, and I am hardly the first to do so.
The more I live, think, and read...the less original I realize myself to be. But this isn't a source of pain. Because the insights are good even if I can't claim them.
As I said in the other thread, I see the falling away as consisting, not in the advance of naturalism over supernaturalism, but in the increasing objectification of ourselves and nature, due mostly to the creeping capitilization, monetization, commodification and propertization of the natural world, and the concomitant widening gulf between ourselves and nature.
If there is an environmental or economic crisis which ends civilization in its current form, with all its indulgences and conveniences, many, or perhaps even most, people will be helpless insofar as they have little or no practical skill. It is in this sense that we have, due to the self-indulgence which comes with prosperity, convenience and comfort, become separated from nature in ways which are dangerous for our long-term survival.
This is the one problem which is little addressed in philosophy, but which I think is of the most vital significance, and it is an ethical problem, a problem concerning phronesis, concerning how best to live. The life of the modern consumer is, our lives are, becoming increasingly unsustainable, neurotic and tragic and this most important of all questions is the very one which almost everyone ignores, preferring to distract themselves with self-indulgent fantasies of physical, intellectual or supernatural control, self-cultivation and achievement.
To change our whole way of thinking about things as "yours" and "mine"; now that would be real progress!
That's true. I don't believe in the fall. @Wayfarer is our resident reactionary. While I do like some of the old school thinkers, I'd really miss 'Heidgenstein' and many others.
Quoting Janus
I relate to what you say, but I do think there's a connection. Does culture die into civilization? I for one can no longer experience reality in the same way as an atheist. It's all a 'dream.' The species itself will pass eventually. And there's the issue of the 'other.' It seems that groups are constituted by an exclusion.
I can think this abstractly and do as the others do, pay my rent, try to be 'good' in various ways. The hustle is haunted by a laughter from the back row or the balcony. It's those two old men from the muppets. Sometimes I forget my next line and join them.
Quoting Janus
Well I can relate to all of this. In school I took some philosophy classes that were all about the baldness of the present king of France. And that kind of philosophy is a bore, at least for me.
What you are criticizing reminds me of Epicurus. And I mentioned in another post the goal of feeling free and standing tall --of getting some distance from the rat race and Instagram's Vanity Fair. I'm talking about a state of feeling complete and unhurried, of being able to affirm the world and feel some gratitude for one's life. Some of this is a practical matter, but an unwise person can't even enjoy their free time when they have it.
Where I can't follow you is the inclusion of 'self-cultivation' on your list as a kind of vice or folly. And 'fantasies of achievement' are only as bad as the details of the fantasy. Obsessing over fame or great wealth is ugly, but what about the goal of finding a more suitable way of making a living? Of working with or for better people? Or of living within one's means and not being the slave of debt? Or having the discipline to eat healthy food? Ethically produced food?
I think happy people are usually invested in a suitable project or set of projects.
Hmm. Well I like this idea when applied to ideas. But I'm skeptical about the transcendence of private property. There are just too many jerks in the world.
Yes, I wouldn't advise giving everything away while the present condition of the world continues to prevail. I was more talking about the steady creep of monetization over the centuries being a major factor in our alienation from nature.
Philosophers rather discover new questions.
Success means that the question can actually be answered in one of the epistemically-restricted subsets of philosophy (math, science, ...). An answer that stays within general philosophy, is usually disappointing in terms of justification.
Money, as an abstraction of economic requirements, is perfectly natural and observable on all manner of biological levels - we can apply the term ‘resources’ here though instead of ‘money’.
I was referring to monetization, not money per se; but, in any case, I have no idea what you mean by saying that "money, as an abstraction of economic requirements, is perfectly natural and observable on all manner of biological levels - we can apply the term ‘resources’ here though instead of ‘money’".
Depends exactly how far back you were thinking? We have a far better understanding of nature today than 2000, or even 10,000 or 50,000 years ago. I’d say we’ve lost respect for the force of ‘nature’ because lives are easier now and we’re not worried about being eaten, dying due to dental problems or overly concerned with be taken away or possessed by ‘spirits’.
I’m guarding against the idea of some ‘noble savage’ at one with the trees and animals.
Monetization is just a means of abstract valuation. It’s perfectly natural to assess the value of resources - all animals do this on some level. Our priorities have changed today thanks to our ability to manipulate our surroundings. That is all I meant.
Someone with an average education would fair well in the wild if they possessed the same rudimentary tools as bushmen - granted it would take some time to adjust, but not a lifetime.
Why does it follow that because nature is our environment it is alien? In any case there is no real separation between the human and the natural environment. The very idea of it being "our environment with its implicit notion of separation is a fairly modern idea. On the contrary I see even modern cities as being part of nature; the only separation between us and nature is a psychological or philosophical one This notion probably began with agriculture where ownership and the struggle against the intrusion of wild nature began. Agriculture is born of the idea of imposing control on the wild, and it is no surprise that the wild would henceforth be seen as "other".
Quoting I like sushi
Sure, and our worldview, our understanding of nature, has also changed due to our ability to "manipulate our surrounding". And that is what I meant.
Quoting I like sushi
I doubt animals do that; I think such a valuation requires symbolic language. Also there's a difference between valuing and evaluating which I think is pertinent here. Seeing nature as a resource to be used rather than as a provider to be trusted and venerated is the kind of gestalt shift I have in mind.
I think there are several answers to these questions. Philosophy often considers some of the most basic, and most important (to us) issues. Often there are no clear-cut answers, but discussion helps to grow our understanding anyway, chipping away at the main issue. This is progress, of a sort.
There is also the matter of "contemporary philosophers just busy analysing existing knowledge". I'm sure this takes place too. On this forum, it seems there is a division between those who just enjoy discussing philosophy, and who often have no familiarity with academic philosophy, and those who are academically-qualified. The two groups have aims that are a little different; I don't know enough to offer details.
I think the academic philosophers (if I may call them that) often spend time reconsidering the wisdom of the philosophers that came before us, rehashing old reasoning, and reaching the same old conclusions, as though they were/are unavoidable. It's as if they're learning by rehearsing the old arguments. And there's nothing wrong with learning!
Aside: it's worth remembering that not all philosophy is known to all philosophers. So we need to rehash old insights to learn ideas that are new to us, even though, perhaps, others learned the same things in the past. We are not born knowing Cratylus; we have to learn about him. :wink:
Non-academic philosophers, on the other hand, delve into philosophy because they enjoy it. To them, many ideas are new, as they don't have the historical background that academics have. And new ideas are always interesting! They also sometimes indulge in throwing around ideas, new and old, to see if they fit together, and how. This too is learning: progress.
Edited to add: Oh, and the point of mentioning these two groups is to observe that their aims - the reason(s) they come to philosophy - are a little different. So both groups make progress, but they measure it differently. For me, for example, progress is discovering a new idea or a new connection between ideas.
The growth of understanding and learning among philosophers (individually and collectively) is what we achieve; that is our progress.
This is an interesting point because it is often assumed that in philosophy's progress such ideas are relegated to the dust bin of history. But Joseph Margolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Margolis) cogently argues that both though and the world are flux.
It is worth noting that until recently analytic philosophers all but ignored the history of philosophy, the assumption being that they had progressed to the point where the ancients could have nothing to teach them.
You said:
Quoting Janus
I take it that "this" refers to:
Quoting Janus
But such things are not exclusively the domain of analytic philosophy or modern or contemporary philosophy. It may be that analytic philosophy gives us new ways to think about these things, but certainly thinking about these things is something philosophers did long before analytic philosophy.
As to whether their way of thinking is a mark of progress remains an open question.
When I said that those things are the domain of analytic philosophy I was not thinking "exclusive domain", nor was I thinking that analytic philosophy is itself entirely restricted to Anglo-American philosophy of the 20th and 21st centuries. I was just trying to outline the general areas in which philosophy could be said to be progressing is all.
Quoting Fooloso4
Perhaps, but one of the criteria for progress I was using was whether new ideas and ways of understanding the world, both the natural and human world, are being created, and it seems fairly obvious that this has happened throughout the history of philosophy, and is still happening today.
I suggest that many individuals strongly detect progress. It's just that philosophical progress is more controversial. If you want to win over doubters, just be able to blow them up with a new weapon.
I read early Heidegger and late Wittgenstein as dispelling confusing superstitions. But no one has to understand them or take them seriously. There's plenty of wiggle room for excuses and counterattacks. So philosophical progress is like cultural progress. For some having a different bathroom situation is moral progress. For others it is something else. I think it's the same with philosophy. What you say about the progress or not in philosophy is also the presentation of an identity and a taking of sides.
I see your point. I wonder if our public intellectuals are just no longer called public intellectuals. Who are the folks that frame the situation for people these days? The internet changes everything. We can watch videos of anyone. No one needs a degree or a license. They just do or do not succeed winning attention from others.
That said, I've enjoyed 2 of Lee Braver's books,A Thing of This World and Groundless Groundslee. They are relevant to me. I read them for pleasure, insight and in the pursuit of wisdom.
He's a professor. So to me it's clear that some professors out there are doing it well. Admittedly his books aren't for everyone. They aren't as juicy as politics. But for those of us with the itch for clarity....
:lol: :rofl:
It is not clear whether you are laughing at my claim or at their presumptuousness. In support of my claim:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/#SH5c
it seems to me that the ideas of the French postmodern philosophers have had a massive impact over the past 50 years on political thought, political correctness, the advent of the social justice warrior, attitudes toward gender and race, etc. Slavoj Zizek is just one example of a contemporary philosopher who is also a public celebrity.
:blush: At their presumption! :up:
All these movements have their proximate origins in the US (in the "civil rights movement" as well as in the Sixties with all those ideas about "empowerment") ...
Derrida or Deleuze - as far as I can see - have little or no influence on these movements, their impact is much more in the spheres of art or literary criticism.
Philosophers mostly explain things rather than discover things ... nowadays. But I think that that's always been the case. Philosophy moves a lot slower than science does. And that's fine. Developments in other fields, such as science, are thanks to philosophy after all.