When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[Dodo25]

It becomes drivel quite quickly, I think the majority of philosophical writing is nonsense, and even worse it is with 'amateur philosophers' and their speeches..

The whole field of metaphysics is nonsense, for it is grounded in no foundation whatsover. The worst being postmodernism..

But I disagree with the poster above, true philosophy is far away from being useless. Ethics for example can't be justified by mere science, moral philosophy is important and very interesting. Be it Kantian imperatifs, Moral Relativism or Utilitarianism, the stuff certainly leads to applicable rationales and interesting conclusions.

Another field of interest is philosophy of the mind. Anyone heard of Daniel Dennett? This philosophy is very closely linked to science and evolution (which is great because it has to be). And it's the only way the age old questions about free will or consciousness can be answered.

[The Atheist]

It becomes drivel quite quickly, I think the majority of philosophical writing is nonsense, and even worse it is with 'amateur philosophers' and their speeches..

The whole field of metaphysics is nonsense, for it is grounded in no foundation whatsover. The worst being postmodernism..

Can't disagree with any of that.

But I disagree with the poster above, true philosophy is far away from being useless. Ethics for example can't be justified by mere science, moral philosophy is important and very interesting. Be it Kantian imperatifs, Moral Relativism or Utilitarianism, the stuff certainly leads to applicable rationales and interesting conclusions.

I'm not sure philosophy enables any conclusions in ethics or morality. I have yet to see any evidence of it, anyway. If you can show where philosophy is able to direct to a specific ethical question, then fire away.

Another field of interest is philosophy of the mind. Anyone heard of Daniel Dennett? This philosophy is very closely linked to science and evolution (which is great because it has to be). And it's the only way the age old questions about free will or consciousness can be answered.

I'm not much of a fan of Dennett - I find him to be a bit wishy-washy, as most ex-fantasists are.

Questions on free will are meaningless since nobody's ever gained a consensus on what it actually is, while consciousness is the realm of science and MRI technology.

[skib]

In my non-philosophically educated/interested viewpoint, philosophy becomes drivel at the point where physical productivity becomes important. I'll say straight out that I've read at the most twenty-odd pages of a philosophy book and found it so blatantly unhelpful I never went back for seconds.

[paradoxical]

If there is no purpose to life other than just living it, I can't see where philosophy will or even can, provide answers.

That in itself is a philosophy, although a negative and materialist philosophy, it is still a philosophical position.

Like religion, philosophy is a 10,000-year fail.

I don't see how you can call something that has given hope and meaning to billions of people a 10,000 year fail. Science, on the other hand has provided many good things but science and technology have also created many problems. Above all, science does not answer the more important questions.

I usually use the abortion as the best example. Philosophy can give no answer as to whether it's right or wrong. Philosophy can't deal with real world problems because it isn't real.

Philosophy can deal with real world problems, and it can give an answer to whether it's right or wrong. Science certainly cannot answer this question.

Given that the Industrial Revolution has given us everything we have and philosophy has given us nothing, I'd say the child of the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, is winning by a long way.

It has also destroyed most of the natural world, has put the world at the brink of nuclear destruction, and has created a diseased, stressful society that is divorced from nature, etc.

Science tells us why we're born and die; it tells us why the universe exists and we might soon find out what it can and will do.

Science does not tell us why we're born and why we die and it most certainly does not tell us why the universe exists.

Note: please see this as a friendly debate, nothing more. I simply enjoy this kind of discussion, that's all.

[Lote-Tree]

Science does not tell us why we're born

Yes. It does. Self organization is inherent in nature. Because of this inherent nature you came to be.

and why we die

Because evolution needs it.

and it most certainly does not tell us why the universe exists.

It exists because there was quantum fluctations in the energy field.

Note: please see this as a friendly debate, nothing more. I simply enjoy this kind of discussion, that's all.

Yayee to that ;-)

[Dodo25]

If you can show where philosophy is able to direct to a specific ethical question, then fire away.

Well one thing is certian, science can't. And if you want to have any kind of opinion on moral issues, your approach must be either religious dogma or philosophical. It's not that science should be ignored. Take for example abortion, science tells you the relevant facts, but doesn't give you a conclusion.

Questions on free will are meaningless since nobody's ever gained a consensus on what it actually is,

There need not be a consensus. Philosophers are skilled (maybe too skilled and eager to do so) in defining their own words and explaining that before they start arguing. There are definitions of free will that make a whole lot of sense and tell us something interesting about human nature. Dennett's free will is whatever gives us moral responsibility (if it exists) comes to mind.

while consciousness is the realm of science and MRI technology.

What is MRI going to tell you about qualia? Why do we i.e. see colors the way they are? What happens if you reversed 'which color goes to what wavelength' in the brain during surgery? Again, science provides the foundation, but the conclusions need to be drawn by philosophy.

I don't see how you can call something that has given hope and meaning to billions of people a 10,000 year fail.

Hope and meaning? How about indoctrination, delusion, fear of afterlife, inquisition, discrimination, oppression of women, crusades and terrorists? Besides from giving virtually no 'answers' at all, which I think classifies it as 'fail'? I'm not saying religion is completely evil, but I must stress that it has prevented scientific and humanistic progress (still is!).

Yeah and for the rest of the matter I agree with Lote-Tree. And I don't see why philosophical materialism should be 'negative'. On a first level, all that counts is it's truth value. And on a second level, personal meaning can be found even in a purposeless universe.

[dizzydoll]

Good stuff , its like watching a bunch of professors debate

...

Fifty-One

Those who want to know the truth of the universe should practice the four cardinal virtues. The first is reverence for all life; this manifests as unconditional love and respect for oneself and all other beings. The Second is natural sincerity; this manifests as honesty, simplicity, and faithfulness. The third is gentleness; this manifests as kindness, consideration for others, and sensitivity to spiritual truth. The fourth is supportiveness; this manifests as service to others without expectation of reward. The four virtues are not an external dogma but a part of your original nature. When practiced, they give birth to wisdom and evoke the five blessings: health, wealth, happiness, longevity, and peace.

Brian Walker

[The Atheist]

That in itself is a philosophy, although a negative and materialist philosophy, it is still a philosophical position.

This is where again we butt up against the philosophy/Philosophy divide.

You say philosophy, I just think of it as critical thinking.

Pedantically, every thought can be a "philosophy", but I'd like to keep a divide in place. This is one I imagine academia would agree with me; I can't imagine Philosophy embracing Scientology, say.

I don't see how you can call something that has given hope and meaning to billions of people a 10,000 year fail.

False hope and meaning, it seems to me.

In this regard, it's just like religion. Sure, it may comfort some people, but that isn't a big enough reason for me to leave it alone as a target for derision.

Science, on the other hand has provided many good things but science and technology have also created many problems. Above all, science does not answer the more important questions.

Can you explain to me what problems science can't answer, and also note why they're important?

Philosophy can deal with real world problems, and it can give an answer to whether it's right or wrong. Science certainly cannot answer this question.

I'm quite certain science can, but that's by the by, really.

Can you display where Philosophy can help with one real world problem?

Provide some evidence.

It has also destroyed most of the natural world, has put the world at the brink of nuclear destruction, and has created a diseased, stressful society that is divorced from nature, etc.

What?

The Industrial Revolution hasn't caused any of that, human stupidity and lack of foresight has.

Such problems as that stupidity has brought will no doubt be identitified and repaired by technology rather than philosophy.

Science does not tell us why we're born and why we die and it most certainly does not tell us why the universe exists.

Science can tell us with 100% accuracy why we're born and die.

As to "why the universe exists" and some mythical "meaning of life", some people think they're important questions. I consider them to be worthless, because science has shown to my satisfaction that there is no answer - there is no "why", there just is.

Philosophy tries to make those questions seem important because they're Philosophy's sole raison d'etre.

Maybe if people were able to accept the meaninglessness of it all, they'd spend less time asking "Why?"

Note: please see this as a friendly debate, nothing more. I simply enjoy this kind of discussion, that's all.

Exactly where I am - I always tell people to remember that this is a discussion board and not the Security Council of the UN!

Because evolution needs it.

I'll be a bit pedantic here and disagree here.

Evolution doesn't "need" anything, it also just happens.

We die because cells degenerate.

Well one thing is certian, science can't. And if you want to have any kind of opinion on moral issues, your approach must be either religious dogma or philosophical. It's not that science should be ignored. Take for example abortion, science tells you the relevant facts, but doesn't give you a conclusion.

I disagree entirely with this, although it does bring back the philosophy/Philosophy divide, because once we're in possession of all the facts, I'm sure a little critical thinking can give us the answers.

You could assign one philosophy to it all - the greatest good - but I think the sciences of anthropology, biology (evolution) and physics can actually answer moral questions.

That's the only place I see for any kind of philosophical thinking, but even then, it tosses the rules of Philosophy out the wondiow, because logical fallacies aren't necessarily wrong.

There need not be a consensus. Philosophers are skilled (maybe too skilled and eager to do so) in defining their own words and explaining that before they start arguing. There are definitions of free will that make a whole lot of sense and tell us something interesting about human nature. Dennett's free will is whatever gives us moral responsibility (if it exists) comes to mind.

This is why the whole "free will" argument is the core of religion and religious thinking - I can bag one description of it, but no sooner have I done so than another version springs up. Different branches of Philosophy cannot even agree on it, so I don't believe rational debate is possible on the subjet without clarity of what this "free will" is.

I can show you several million pages of debate if you'd like to follow up on it.

Dennett's just wrong, but it does exemplify what I think is wrong with his philosophical stances.

What is MRI going to tell you about qualia?

Everything.

It will repeatedly show that the same portion of the brain is used in each individual class of quale and that different people will use the exact same bit of the brain every time for the same quale. (Except in brain damage cases)

Why do we i.e. see colors the way they are?]

Because our eyes evolved to work as they do.

What happens if you reversed 'which color goes to what wavelength' in the brain during surgery? Again, science provides the foundation, but the conclusions need to be drawn by philosophy.

Nope. Science will tell us exactly why, because something is obviously broken and we can find that out from scientific enquiry, not philosophical.

[Dodo25]

I don't have time to respond in detail, just some brief thoughts before I leave this discussion:

Lote-Tree is actually right in a way, evolution 'favors death', at some point, the repair-work in the body becomes too costly, even though technically, it's not impossible for an organism to live forever (or at least until the universe cools to death).

Philosophy should be critical thinking. I think you are too concentrated on the image of philosophy as a whole. As I've said before, most of it is indeed useless nonsense, but there are parts of it that are valuable.

Of course brain scans show you active regions, but how is this going to explain why a pattern of neurons firing creates any sensation at all, anything 'thinking'?

[Vautrin]

So if philosophy is what gives birth to the various fields and disciplines and is often pushed aside or replaced once the field organizes itself and establishes its own methods and procedures, then can we say that philosophy becomes drivel once it is replaced by more tangible things like evidence and experiments (hard science)?

If this is the case then philosophy only becomes helpful again in the theoretical branches of these sciences.

As for the social sciences, perhaps philosophy is treated the same way once actual ethnographic and sociological studies are carried out to gather hard data and prove/disprove theories.

[The Atheist]

Philosophy should be critical thinking. I think you are too concentrated on the image of philosophy as a whole. As I've said before, most of it is indeed useless nonsense, but there are parts of it that are valuable.

I think that's fair enough.

Of course brain scans show you active regions, but how is this going to explain why a pattern of neurons firing creates any sensation at all, anything 'thinking'?

We know that from enquiry rather than MRI. As yet, we can't tell what a person is thinking from an MRI scan, but it won't be long. In the meantime, if people tell us they're seeing or thinking about blue, we take it at face value.

Again, there is no "why", there just is.

So if philosophy is what gives birth to the various fields and disciplines and is often pushed aside or replaced once the field organizes itself and establishes its own methods and procedures, then can we say that philosophy becomes drivel once it is replaced by more tangible things like evidence and experiments (hard science)?

That seems bang on to me.

[JuniperWoolf]

There's no universal system of judgement; obviously, the relevency of philosophy is subjective (as is the relevency of pretty much everything else). To say anything more about the boundaries between drivel and genius is pointless (at least, that's my subjective opinion).

[Lote-Tree]

Evolution doesn't "need" anything, it also just happens.

I will be pedantic too and say evolution needs variation to work on ;-)

Without it does not work.

[TheFifthElement]

Can you display where Philosophy can help with one real world problem?

Define 'real'?

This is, as I see it, the value of philosophy; not in the drawing of conclusions but in the opening up of questions. Because in philosophical terms your statement is flawed. What is real? How do you know what is real? How do you define what is real? Will your definition, expectation, of real be the same as mine? Is there such a thing as a common frame of reference? Is human 'perception' the limit and entirety of what is 'real' in the universe and if it is not how can it be a reliable basis on which to judge 'reality'?

Philosophy, to me, is less about results and more about opening oneself up to the concept that everything we 'know', including religion, including philisophy, including science, including 'reality' may be flawed. I think that's valuable, personally.

[Lote-Tree]

Philosophy, to me, is less about results

That sums up everything about philosophy.

It produces no results.

And hence it's a pointless exercise.

It has taken 2000 years of this pointless excerise to realise that it's a pointless exercise!