Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73

Thread: Is philosophy relevant anymore?

  1. #1
    Registered User fajfall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    76

    Is philosophy relevant anymore?

    Now that science answers so many matters philosphers used to ponder the existence/non-existence of, I'm wondering if it's worth reading?

    If so, what do you suggest starting on? I read Socrates' book a few years ago but I didn't find much in it, just that he proves that there's definitely a soul and that reincarnation is definitely real, which he proves by his philosophical reasoning.

  2. #2
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I just finished Jimena Canales, "The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time". This is a history of twentieth century philosophy and science. It is a ground on which to pick out who you might want to read. In my case, I am now looking at Quine's essay, "Two dogmas of empiricism", that was referenced in that text.

    The text also addresses your assumption that philosophy is not worth reading. If you ignore philosophy then pseudoscientific speculations have nothing to criticize them. For example, consider the idea of "time". What does it mean to you now? After you read the book, see if you understand it better from a philosophical perspective.

    To examine causality see Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum, "Causality: a very short introduction".

    There is also a famous essay in the philosophy of mind by Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a bat?" http://organizations.utep.edu/portal.../nagel_bat.pdf

    Part of the problem with starting with Socrates is you need to have a reason to read any philosopher's works. Get some questions that bother you and then look up what philosophers have to say about them. Most of my questions have to do with science. The philosophers, not the scientists, are most illuminating about each of these topics.

  3. #3
    Registered User kev67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Reading, England
    Posts
    2,458
    I think it is still relevant. It is quite a wide field. Some of it is now incorporated in social science. The logic and mathematical side is partly incorporated in computer science. There is an ethics branch, which I am less interested in. There are also law and economics branches, and apparently a branch that concerns itself with beauty. Some parts of science seem philosophical to me, especially those based on deductive reasoning, i.e. thought experiments. For example, Sadi Carnot's discovery of the maximum efficiency of a heat engine seems very philosophical to me.
    According to Aldous Huxley, D.H. Lawrence once said that Balzac was 'a gigantic dwarf', and in a sense the same is true of Dickens.
    Charles Dickens, by George Orwell

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by fajfall View Post
    Now that science answers so many matters philosphers used to ponder the existence/non-existence of, I'm wondering if it's worth reading?

    If so, what do you suggest starting on? I read Socrates' book a few years ago but I didn't find much in it, just that he proves that there's definitely a soul and that reincarnation is definitely real, which he proves by his philosophical reasoning.
    Counter-intuitive discoveries in science and mathematics, call for the philosopher's touch and interpretation, since the tools needed to approach the discoveries directly are quite out of reach for all but brilliant specialists. No one here is cranking out tensor equations, but we know certain notions about space-time and non-Euclidian geometry at a higher level of abstraction. There is little mud of mathematics under our fingernails.

    The discoveries and theories of science are themselves a primary topic for philosophy these days. A big mistake is to try plodding through Aristotle or Kant out of subservience to getting them under your belt as an education. The part of philosophy that mainly interests me is cosmology, therefore I do not sit around reading Spinoza's ethics. I have a special interest in math.

    You choose one of the great questions that interests you.

    1 Is there a God

    2 Origin of Universe

    3 Existence

    4 Morality

    5 Politics

    6 Perception

    7 Nature of Reality


    Do not feel obligated to finish philosphers until you feel one is worth following. Instead, follow the questions of your choice above and their branching. You will save years and be much more content that way.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    72
    Blog Entries
    3
    Philosophy was never relevant. It's a high definition of chatting up someone's ears off. It's high chatter. In ancient times I could imagine the appeal of philosophizing to increase one's brain power in social situations, perhaps to pass time because there wasn't a lot to do and so on. In this day and age there isn't much value in philosophy and it continues to live on as a time-passer in education circles. When I go to a book store I skip right over the philosophy section to the far more useful reference and almanac section.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by New Secret View Post
    Philosophy was never relevant. It's a high definition of chatting up someone's ears off. It's high chatter. In ancient times I could imagine the appeal of philosophizing to increase one's brain power in social situations, perhaps to pass time because there wasn't a lot to do and so on. In this day and age there isn't much value in philosophy and it continues to live on as a time-passer in education circles. When I go to a book store I skip right over the philosophy section to the far more useful reference and almanac section.
    I am betting if you tried honestly you could come up with something of personal value to yourself in philosophy. It might be a question you never thought to ask. Philosophy does not build skyscrapers or train stations, what is does do is ask questions, however, usually of a quite abstract nature, so it is adept at these kinds of questions, in fact about the only forum for such questions.

    As I have mentioned, one reasonable demand for philosophy these days is as an interpreter of the meaning and implications of scientific and mathematical discoveries.

    If you are into it, first tell me what you do find highly relevant. Perhaps literature. You are here on a literature forum after all. Perhaps you could be more specific.

  7. #7
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    In general, things are relevant TO other things. To say philosophy is not "relevant" without mentioning the referent to which it is not relevant is almost meaningless.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    In general, things are relevant TO other things. To say philosophy is not "relevant" without mentioning the referent to which it is not relevant is almost meaningless.
    Indeed it is like asking: Is thinking at very high and very low levels of abstraction relevant anymore?

    Now I can see that that even Shakespeare and Bellow were probably just Chatting me up, as well. And, mister, I don't appreciate being chatted up without my knowledge.
    Last edited by desiresjab; 03-29-2016 at 07:02 AM.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    6
    I have run aground in my philisophical pursuit.

    Philosophy has always been a quest for the "ground". What do we KNOW, without any doubt. "I think therefore I am", from there how far can we get? My experience thus far has been a plummeting away from even this grounding. Skepticism has destroyed everything. Hume engaged in me the eternal doubt but I heard Kant had a response and so optimistically I dove in to the basics - "a prolegomenon to any future metaphysics". Alas, Kant hedges his bets early on and I believe wisely so because in his revolt against "common sense" he resorts to logic and reason and I believe the truly shattering fact is that we cannot use reason to prove the validity of reason. Any logic we fall back on is useless unless we blindly follow logic. Furthermore, I have read of Godėl who has, using two theorems, proven the impossibility of creating a complete set of rules to define all of mathematics and don't contradict each other at some point.

    This accepted, there are many recourses - all essentially variants of solipsism/existentialism. Without a ground, philisophical speculation has no truth. Ethics, asthetics, right and wrong, all drifting without any objective point other than the individual. Until I See how truth can be anywhere outside of myself, philosophies answers are ash in my mouth.

  10. #10
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I don't find philosophy so depressing nor solipsistic, Nicholas.

    Are Godel's results really all that bad? One of the last sentences in Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman's "Godel's Proof" says, "The theorem does indicate that the structure and power of the human mind are far more complex and subtle than any non-living machine yet envisaged." (pages 101-102). If you would like to discuss that book, I would find it an interesting thread.

    Also when you talk about "the individual", which would be the ground of solipsism, are you sure the individual exists? I mean, we are here, but are we "individuals"? If we are not, then solipsism doesn't work either. Why might we not be individuals? We are able to live only in communities. It seems we are isolated, but how do we communicate with others?

    One of the problems with idolizing mathematics is that one gets models of reality that are either continuous like a line or discrete like a billiard ball. More than two thousand years ago, Zeno showed that either of these positions leads to results that do not fit our experience of reality. Even today, when looking for those billiard balls we run into stuff that can't be described without invoking the idea of waves. My conclusion: reality is neither continuous nor discrete. Mathematics is just an approximation to it.

    Is finding some ground that we are sure of really a good thing?

  11. #11
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    11,119
    Blog Entries
    2
    I never read much of philosophy, but I think its importance lies in chalenging not only the objects and forms of knowledge. It also puts in check our very manner of thinking.
    Philosophy engenders epistemology, ideology, methaphysics.
    Without phylosophy we would be condemned to take the superficie for the essence.
    Last edited by Danik 2016; 05-01-2016 at 11:43 AM.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    6
    My experience with Godėl is limited, YesNo, though I may pick up that book.

    I like you're inclusion of Zeno. I might invest some time into his works because my entire knowledge of him is his famous paradox. As you've shown though, he's observations are not only cute contradictions but have some metaphysical meat as well.

    As for the existence of the individual, my root point was we cannot be sure we are anything at all. Communication with others may be an illusion, we put forth thought and energy into a void and assume the minds perceptions report correctly a external existence. When are only perspective is from our minds, can we ever know our senses are not deceiving us? If we cast doubt upon reason and call ourselves insane then how can we trust what exists even before perception, in the realm of Kant?

    Without a ground, philisophical assertions rely on the base assumption that we aren't living in absurdism. All fields of thought must prove this or they are functioning in a hypothetical apodosis

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5
    Despite realising the absurdity of existence, a human can never stop the compulsion to take it seriously. The difficulty of reconciling one's physical and cognitive dimensions means that, for certain minds, philosophy is a defense mechanism against insanity. It's relevance is therefore irrelevant. Perhaps.

  14. #14
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas_ View Post
    My experience with Godėl is limited, YesNo, though I may pick up that book.

    I like you're inclusion of Zeno. I might invest some time into his works because my entire knowledge of him is his famous paradox. As you've shown though, he's observations are not only cute contradictions but have some metaphysical meat as well.

    As for the existence of the individual, my root point was we cannot be sure we are anything at all. Communication with others may be an illusion, we put forth thought and energy into a void and assume the minds perceptions report correctly a external existence. When are only perspective is from our minds, can we ever know our senses are not deceiving us? If we cast doubt upon reason and call ourselves insane then how can we trust what exists even before perception, in the realm of Kant?

    Without a ground, philisophical assertions rely on the base assumption that we aren't living in absurdism. All fields of thought must prove this or they are functioning in a hypothetical apodosis
    As Danik_2016 mentioned, philosophy's importance lies in challenging positions we may not even realize we hold. It is most useful when it challenges our own positions not those of other people, although other people help clarify our positions by stating their positions. Rather than look at philosophy as a source of sure knowledge, look at it as a process that undermines what we think is sure knowledge. The first thing philosophy has to do is make us aware of all the nonsense we believe to be true so it can challenge it.

    For example, yoki mentions something about the "absurdity of existence". Let's question that. Why is existence absurd? In asking the question, I am not trying to change yoki's position. I prefer yoki keep his or her position so I can more easily argue against it. Ultimately I want to challenge my own position, to test it. I use yoki as someone who has offered an alternative. I need alternatives to have two or more positions among which to choose which one I think is correct.

    As another example, why do you care if you have certain knowledge about anything? The species will survive without a proof of anything that leads to sure knowledge. We can get by, just as we have in the past, with what works.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    It's probably not relevant in the way most people imagine.

    Philosophy can be like weight lifting for your mind. Methods of thinking and analysis become more generalized, which lead to heightened problem solving, etc.

    Interpreting philosophy as a 'quest for truth' seems a bit passE, and can be the mark of an immature mind in some instances. For example, the young undergraduates who come to seminar and ceaselessly quote/interrupt with commentary, challenges, references to secular thinkers, etc. That process seems more emotive than curious or intellectual. The desire to 'stand on found ground' might be more psychological than philosophical.

    Continental philosophy seems relevant only historically or where it points to analytic inquiry.

    Alternatively, discussions in analytic philosophy seem equally as fruitless. If seems philosophy is simultaneously the least (directly) productive field but has serious benefits for cognitive capability and whatever that may yield (for example, you could probably easily design or interact with a relational database if you had studied enough predicate logic and set theory).

    But, no, most people's version of 'philosophy' is about as useful as what they actually understand of it. Why Nietszche or Camus over, say, Spinoza? Poor Spinoza, hard to put on a t-shirt or an ironic mug when your work is rigorously derived from axioms and not inherently caustic (though it must've been at the time).






    J

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Contemporarily Relevant Classic
    By Jeff Knowles in forum The Secret Agent
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 12:30 PM
  2. Relevant to todays times
    By Tiny Dancer in forum Austen, Jane
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-28-2008, 06:18 AM
  3. Historically Relevant Modern Novels, Anyone?
    By ParanoidAndroid in forum General Literature
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 11:32 PM
  4. Oedipus Rex - still relevant?
    By fayhound in forum Oedipus Trilogy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 05:15 PM
  5. surprisingly relevant
    By mitch m in forum Don Quixote
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •