When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[mal4mac]

Einstein and the like had nothing sensible to say about it, and Feynman is the smart one... but did Feynman achieve anything them Einsteins did?

Feynman was one of those who put the finishing touches to QED, the most comprehensive and accurate theory that physics has produced to date.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...n-lecture.html

[caddy_caddy]

What's is more important : questions or answers ?
I say Questions not Answers .Philosophy arises questions and this is the most important thing . The jounrey itself is much more important than the end . This endless search is what gives meaning to our life . If we could find answers for every question , what would we live for ? Hence our life as human beings lies in this very fact of being Not able to find answers . Philosophy provides us with the essence of our life , that keeps us thinking , searching and moving .

[blp]

I'm not sure philosophy has much to offer the world of Higgs bosons.

I don't know. One of the great problems for physicists at the moment is that quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics, while sound in an of themselves, appear to be completely incompatible. In fact, even just remaining within quantum mechanics, you find a world that, at one of its furthest extremes (the infinitesimally small) appears to be completely contradictory. Physicists have yet to come up with solutions to these problems, but this kind of contradiction was predicted over two hundred years ago by Kant who posited that one always arrives at logical contradiction (antinomies) when trying to conceive of the limits of reality (God, the edge of the universe, the beginning of time etc.) because space and time have no objective reality, they are simply our ways of structuring reality for ourselves.

See what happens when you start discussing philosophy?

It seems to be what happens when you start discussing reality in general – as the problem of reconciling quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics demonstrates in extremis. You end up at contradictions and paradoxes.

You say most philosophy operates without a sense of the limits of logic. What are you basing that on? So much of it, from what I can see, appears to be directly concerned with the question, from Kant making his central thesis an inquiry into the limits of reason (Critique of Pure Reason) to Hegel refuting Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction to Derrida essentially concluding that the great philosophical project of achieving scientific status was essentially doomed to founder perpetually on philosophy's innate tendency to open itself to its own refutations.

It also surprises me to see someone like you for whom atheism is such a touchstone, denying philosophical progress. If nothing else, early modern philosophy seems to me to be the story of philosophers, almost in spite of themselves, reasoning their way painstakingly out of any real hope of hanging on to theistic belief. It's already nearly gone with Spinoza, though Leibniz, Berkeley and even Kant hung on by their fingernails in various ways. Hume withheld publication of his atheistic Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion during his lifetime for fear of the opprobrium of believers, but by the 19th Century, it was the believers, such as Kierkegaard, who were in the minority and fighting rearguard actions. By the time Darwin came along, philosophy already basically knew God was dead, even if Nietzsche didn't declare it so until after publication of the theory of evolution. Arguably, such a heretical theory would have had an even harder time of it without the atheistic groundwork of philosophical argument.

Ok, let's play then.

The scoreboard as I read it works like this:

Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.

Again, as a capitalised Atheist, I'd expect you to be a bit more up on this.

First of all, sorry to be pedantic, but the issue, as you posit it, is a logical trap. If the problems are intractable then how could they have been solved? Play fair!

It's true that a lot of morality continues to look insoluble, primarily, the problem of what might be termed an objective morality in the absence of religion. But are you able to argue that, soluble or not, this is a problem proper to any discipline other than philosophy?

Also, while an absolute objective morality might remain elusive, it can be argued that the breakdown of old, supposedly objective moral certainties during the age of Enlightenment led to what might be termed moral progress. No more divine right of Kingship and we get the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the birth of modern democracy, founded on an idea that moral issues, in the absence of moral absolutism, must be argued rationally and then, given that no single individual view could be deemed a priori correct, subject to quorum.

Surely this begins with the Cartesian insight, at the dawn of modern philosophy, that everything is open to question.

Gilles Deleuze argued that everyone is a philosopher; it's just that most of us are very bad ones. We get lost in logical wormholes or, worse, alight on theories that aren't really founded on anything and explanations that don't really explain. And then we act on these bad assumptions. Marx defined ideology as something like this when he said: 'They are doing it, but they do not know they are doing it.' In other words, without conscious engagement in philosophy, we are liable to become caught up in processes that have their roots in certain sorts of philosophy that may not really be very good without knowing it. Real lasting solutions may seem even more elusive the more we look for them philosophically, but at least we'll be less likely to get suckered by false ones.

On reflection and after consulting a dictionary, I'm prepared to concede in advance that 'intractable' probably means very difficult, not impossible. Even so, I think it's a kind of elaborate straw man question, for all the reasons I've given above.

When I did QM I was told to not try to understand it, just use the equations to get results!

Do you know the story about Nils Bohr having a horseshoe above his laboratory door? Someone asked him if he actually believed it would bring him good luck. 'No', he replied, 'but I have it because I was told it would work even if you don't believe in it.'

[The Atheist]

It also surprises me to see someone like you for whom atheism is such a touchstone,...

Atheism isn't a touchstone, it's a lack of belief. You could say rationality is.

denying philosophical progress. If nothing else, early modern philosophy seems to me to be the story of philosophers, almost in spite of themselves, reasoning their way painstakingly out of any real hope of hanging on to theistic belief.

No, I don't deny its use in the past. While philosophy hasn't answered any questions, the questions asked have led to some pretty useful discoveries.

I just think it's well past its use-by date.

You're misrepresenting quantum physics. Just because something appears contradictory to physics now doesn't mean it will be once all of the information is known. That's why scientists built the LHC. Kant's posit is no more useful than Augustine's.

[spookymulder93]

I read philosophy mainly to see different view points on topics. If you're looking for answers your better off going to science.

[mal4mac]

If you're looking for answers stop looking for answers.

[blp]

Atheism isn't a touchstone, it's a lack of belief. You could say rationality is.

Whatever.

No, I don't deny its use in the past. While philosophy hasn't answered any questions, the questions asked have led to some pretty useful discoveries.

I just think it's well past its use-by date.

At what point do you think its usefulness ran out and why?

You're misrepresenting quantum physics.

No, I'm representing it as it stands. At the moment, the contradictory behaviour of particles at the quantum level hasn't been explained.

[dafydd manton]

Whist The Atheist and I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs, (they call it mutual respect), he has an excellent point. Atheism is a LACK of belief, and there it should be allowed to stay. Accepted, respected, but not dismissed.

[The Atheist]

Whatever.

No, it's not "whatever".

You made a point about me which is completely incorrect and I corrected you. Rationalism and atheism are not the same in any way at all.

At what point do you think its usefulness ran out and why?

You need to read the thread - it's all in here.

No, I'm representing it as it stands. At the moment, the contradictory behaviour of particles at the quantum level hasn't been explained.

Which is not what you said the first time. Being unexplained is not terribly relevant - we don't know everything yet.

Gravity hasn't been explained yet either.

[blp]

No, it's not "whatever".

You made a point about me which is completely incorrect and I corrected you. Rationalism and atheism are not the same in any way at all.

I said atheism was a touchstone for you because you call yourself The Atheist, which suggested to me that the concept, however you define it, is key for you.

I said 'whatever' because, however much you wanted to clarify the matter, I didn't think it was worth what felt like an online slap in the face.

You need to read the thread - it's all in here.

I read quite a lot. Thanks all the same, but I'd rather read contemporary philosophy.

[The Atheist]

I said atheism was a touchstone for you because you call yourself The Atheist, which suggested to me that the concept, however you define it, is key for you.

It looks a lot more like you made an assumption which was just wrong. If you understand that atheism is a lack of belief, it cannot be a touchstone, just as a-philately cannot be.

No matter, it's clear now.

I read quite a lot. Thanks all the same, but I'd rather read contemporary philosophy.

Well, it was you who asked me. I just pointed out that the question has already been answered in this thread, so if your question was genuine, you could find out in just a few minutes. Whether you do or not is no concern to me.

[mazHur]

To think philosophy is drivel is drivel in itself. For without philosophy how dull life would be with no inquiry into who we are. Not that we have been able to answer exactly who we are or where we are from. You can say biologically we are men, homo-sapiens or thinking animals. You can say we have come from our parents or you can point to the geographies you are from.

But still we want a different answer. Don't we?

This is wherein philosophy interests us.

Hi Blaze!!
how do you do??


I take your point on the significance of philosophy...
philosophy is the evolution of thought which is the basis of all facts and sciences!

It looks a lot more like you made an assumption which was just wrong. If you understand that atheism is a lack of belief, it cannot be a touchstone, just as a-philately cannot be.

No matter, it's clear now.



Well, it was you who asked me. I just pointed out that the question has already been answered in this thread, so if your question was genuine, you could find out in just a few minutes. Whether you do or not is no concern to me.

Atheism is, infact a belief, in a disbelief about anything but self!

[The Atheist]

Atheism is, infact a belief, in a disbelief about anything but self!

You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.

Atheist = without belief in god/s.

No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.

[Drkshadow03]

You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.

Atheist = without belief in god/s.

No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.

IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

Also, it's not like a whole blog communities exist full of daily posts by atheist's spewing vitriol about religion and sharing other posts dealing with other topics of interest to a group of people who don't share a belief--whoops, I mean basic common assumptions--erm, I mean coincidental overlap of certain accidental synchronizations of ideas.

[The Atheist]

IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

I don't care whether you type it in all caps or put it in size seven bold, you are simply wrong.

And do make sure you check my name before considering your response, because I am The Atheist, not just an atheist.



How the hell are we discussing this here anyway?

What I'll do is start a thread in Serious topics and put a link right here, so you can see what I mean, and I am pleased to state that the links you provided are ideal for my answer.

Thanks!