Jump to content

Philosophy Is Dead... Or Is It?


Kaiser01
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recently read ( well still reading) a book called "A universe from nothing" and a book called "Why does the world exist: an existential detective story." The first deals with a scientific explanation for why the universe can indeed come from nothing, since the universe itself is nothing in its energy values. I wont go into major detail but i find the idea is very complete and explanatory of how we got the universe. The second book is one on the meta-physics of why the universe exist.

 

I never realized how opposed they are to one another.

 

 

Me and Valk were discussing what Value Philosophy still had in science. It seems Philosophy wants to add lots of extra baggage to something that has an actual natural explanation such as attaching meta physics to the origin of the universe. We were thinking that Philosophy might have discovered everything there is to discover in the world pertaining to philosophy. It seems you can no longer just sit in the arm chair and come up with an explanation to the universe when there is an actual natural answer.

 

Sure philosophy holds value in theology, politics, history and such but does it hold value in science, does it really offer anything anymore to cosmology and quantum mechanics?

 

I was prowling on a philosophy forum and i ran across a topic called, "Are there really infinite amount of stars." Just an example of what we are talking about.

 

( I also found Legion on this forum, he had the same avatar of the yin yang wolf and everything.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wester

Check out the special subset called Philosophy of Science

 

see Thomas Kuhn - Structure of Scientific Revolutions - http://www.fileden.c...Thomas Kuhn.pdf

Kuhn has many strong and valid criticisms of the practice and modern "belief" of science as such.

Kuhn's criticisms are almost never employed by any theist even though they are sometimes devastating.

 

or also see Karl Popper - http://www.tkpw.net/

 

I never saw philosophy as anything but a set of perspectives that can be applied to various situations.

 

Some questions:

What is the multiverse? Isn't it just a reconfiguration of Hindu cosmology?

Or 'areas' outside the universe? Is this the realm of the gods??

What about expansion and inflation initiated by a random vacuum created by quantum jitters or fluctuations? Is the long posited god therefore simply pure quantum randomness, chance or probability? (As Einstein said 'god doesn't play dice' - because maybe god is dice.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I am not even entirely sure it has much merit left in history.

 

The main question for the philosophy of history is the question of the miraculous.

 

It makes more sense to me to follow science and take a methodological naturalist approach.

 

Its the only way to totally protect against absurd conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course philosophy is relevant to science. Which faculty in a university teaches critical thinking, logical fallacies, biases, arguments, and premises? Philosophy. Does not science use these rules all the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Of course philosophy is relevant to science. Which faculty in a university teaches critical thinking, logical fallacies, biases, arguments, and premises? Philosophy. Does not science use these rules all the time?

Well speaking for my part of the conversation.

 

I think logic and critical thinking is as alive as ever. But that isn't exactly the same as philisophy.

 

A good example is a arguement for the existence of god, called the arguement from reason.

 

 

The argument against materialism holds:

  1. For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below).
  2. No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source. (i.e. anti-panpsychism)
  3. Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
  4. The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood

  • Conclusion: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source (see explanation below).

The argument for the existence of God holds:

  • (5) A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument).
  • (6) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source.
  • (7) Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source.
  • (8) Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing.
  • (9) No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to exist. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality.
  • (10) All humans began to exist at some point in time.
  • (11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies.
  • Conclusion: This being we call God.

 

Even if philosophically sound, its without empirical evidence.

 

Biology and neuroscience may very well find out how we do this. But if we are to hold to this philosophical argument. What are to we do with the facts. Ditch them? No we rethink are way of viewing what reason is. But from a philosophical view that is insane. After all logic supposedly dictates that we need a god (if you buy the argument).

 

I am noticing a lot of philosophical argument for things like god's existence are sort of following that line.

 

And its absurd, to ignore what facts may or may not tell us cause our logic doesn't like it.

 

That is where I mean philosophy is dead.

 

If we are talking about say the meaning of life, then sure philosophy is alive as ever. But I am starting to be of the opinion that it has done as about as much as it can in regards to what should be more scientific claims.

 

Maybe they could debate historical method. But no philosopher should be a biologist or a neuroscientist of a physicist as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course philosophy is relevant to science. Which faculty in a university teaches critical thinking, logical fallacies, biases, arguments, and premises? Philosophy. Does not science use these rules all the time?

 

Well philosophy is about alot more than trying to figure out WHY we are here, it also tries to determine how we are here. It determines how we got here at the arm chair, a term used to describe conclusion by thought rather than conclusion by evidence. Science in recent past with quantum mechanics has really come in conflict with philosophy, for example things happening for no reason is philosophical suicide yet it is empirically testable and mathematically predictable.

 

Science may have moved on past the need for philosophy and it has just become a hinderince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Philosophy seems to be about constructing arguments to defend an assumption or opinion. Often it relies on some very old opinions of previous philosophers who knew nothing of our current world. It smells a bit like religion to me. It has nothing to do with factual discovery but will beat to death the idea of what a factual discovery means and what we should do with it. Philosophy argues opinion, nothing more. Everyone has an opinion, and those who can clearly and convincingly state that opinion are called philosophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophy seems to be about constructing arguments to defend an assumption or opinion. Often it relies on some very old opinions of previous philosophers who knew nothing of our current world. It smells a bit like religion to me. It has nothing to do with factual discovery but will beat to death the idea of what a factual discovery means and what we should do with it. Philosophy argues opinion, nothing more. Everyone has an opinion, and those who can clearly and convincingly state that opinion are called philosophers.

 

Ha ha. Have you ever taken a formal class in philosophy F?

 

The reality is, philosophy frames the way we view society and how we establish our systems. Currently, the general paradigm was formed for us through enlightenment era philosophers, and from that has flown our laws, our sense of justice, etc... This system is currently being challenged quite profoundly by neo liberalism, or corporatism. You can call it all a whim and self-justified grand standing, but it has a major impact on how you live your life today.

 

BTW, the scientific method is a philosophy too. Is that a religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Ha ha. Have you ever taken a formal class in philosophy F?

Yes.

 

The reality is, philosophy frames the way we view society and how we establish our systems.

All that says is that someone's opinion won out in a particular area for the time being. To say that everything is philosophy makes the subject impossible to discuss. There is a 'philosophy' that currently predominates in science, politics, this and that. I think in this thread we may be looking more at the endless cud-chewing from thinkers with competing ideas. Maybe we're not.

 

My philosophy (just my opinion, see?) is that calling an opinion, process, mode of operation, or the general mechanics of a discipline or system a 'philosophy' is much like calling every object a 'thingy'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

All that says is that someone's opinion won out in a particular area for the time being.

 

Maybe, but the reality is, in a systems-based world, which is necessary if people are to live in groups, we need a philosophical framework or we have chaos. Our system of democracy is based in philosophy. Saying it's just the prevailing opinion seems to undermine its importance.

 

I think in this thread we may be looking more at the endless cud-chewing from thinkers with competing ideas. Maybe we're not.

 

Perhaps. Not all philosophy is created equal. I think we all here probably agree St Anselm was full of shit. We might have a much more difficult time taking down Rousseau, Locke, Mill, et al, as they helped frame the system of law, justice and form of governments that are predominate in western society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My philosophy teacher told us that philosophy is about to glue things together.

 

Scientific theory came from philosophical thinkers.

 

Funny thing. Asking the question "Philosophy Is Dead... Or Is It?" is in itself philosophical. A person asking it is a philosopher by asking it. :) So the question is answering itself and is self-refuting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.