The Fall and Rise of Philosophy

Art48

Fooloso4’s excellent “Where Philosophy Went Wrong”
> https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14240/where-philosophy-went-wrong
motivated this post. This post is admittedly sketchy and opinionated.

We begin in the ancient world, where intelligent, educated people looked to philosophy (sometimes with an admixture of religion) for guidance in life. The philosophy of stoicism was the religion of Marcus Aurelius. Philosophy was the religion of Boethius, who wrote “The Consolation of Philosophy.” Religion for the common people consisted largely of myths and gods.

As Christianity (a religion of myths and gods for the common people) rose, it sought to eliminate competition. Christians killed Hypatia, a mathematician and Neoplatonic philosopher, who, in addition, had the audacity to be a beautiful, intelligent, independent woman.

Rufus Jones, in his “Studies in Mystical Religion” (p. 78) writes: “About forty years after the death of Proclus (in the year 527) the edict of a Christian emperor closed the doors of the Academy, and drove the little band of philosophers out into exile. There were seven of the band, and they took their beloved books and started out, in Persia—the wise men of the West going toward the East with no star for guide. It is a pathetic end. . . . The Church would brook no rival in the field of truth, and it proposed to ban all unbaptized teachers, and to taboo all streams of truth which did not flow from the canon.”

So, religion, with its gods and myths, largely replaced philosophy.

Fast forward to the 17th century, when Europe was beginning to shake off the influence of religion, when philosophy was being reborn and science as being born. About 1663, Robert Hooke, curator of the Royal Society, one of England’s foremost scientific societies, wrote: “The business and design of the Royal Society is—To improve the knowledge of naturall things, and all useful Arts, Manufactures, Mechanick practices, Engynes, and Inventions by Experiments—(not meddling with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick or Logick).” So, it was probably no accident that science went by the name natural philosophy. When religion could have killed science in the cradle, scientists adopted the attitude: “We are only trying to understand the natural world. We have no intention of intruding on religious questions. So please leave us in peace.” Thus, science voluntarily conceded certain philosophical questions to religion.

Since then, philosophy has grown and, at times, tackled moral issues. But a full-blooded union of philosophy with science, where they—or, better, it seriously addresses questions of morals, values, and ethics has yet to be realized.

About 1962, philosopher Alan Watts wrote: “For a long time we have been accustomed to the compartmentalization of religion and science was if they were two quite different and basically unrelated ways of seeing the world. I do not believe that this state of doublethink can last. It must eventually be replaced by a view of the world which is neither religious nor scientific but simply our view of the world. More exactly, it must become a view of the world in which the reports of science and religion are as concordant as those of the eyes and the ears.”

I think science united with philosophy addressing ultimate questions might produce a religion that satisfies Watts’ vision.

P.S. The is/ought problem is solved once we have goals. Goals give us the destination. Science gives us the map of the terrain so we can best decide how to reach the goals. Human flourishing is an obvious overall goal. Flourishing not strictly limited to humans, but which takes into consideration the environment and other living things, is a better goal.

Gnomon

I think science united with philosophy addressing ultimate questions might produce a religion that satisfies Watts’ vision. — Art48

Yes. I think the "compartmentalization" of Science vs Religion was mostly political*1, not philosophical. For example, Aristotle established basic categories for both physical Nature and metaphysical Culture (ideas). So, my personal philosophy makes no political distinction between empirical and theoretical methods of exploration into the unknown territories of the world. :smile:

*1. Political : revolt of independent thinkers against tyrannical imperial yes-men. : "the edict of a Christian emperor closed the doors of the Academy, and drove the little band of philosophers out into exile."

180 Proof

The philosophy of stoicism was the religion of Marcus Aurelius. Philosophy was the religion of Boethius, who wrote “The Consolation of Philosophy.” Religion for the common people consisted largely of myths and gods.

I think science united with philosophy addressing ultimate questions might produce a religion ... — Art48

I'm confused here by what you mean by "philosophy" and what you mean by "religion" and "science" as well. Some clarification would be helpful.

Manuel

I don't think that there will be such a merger of science and religion/spirituality. These are different aspects of human life. The latter includes issues of meaning and significance within the universe.

Science doesn't make these attributions, we add them to it, if we so choose to do so.

Religion is currently a loaded word, outside of believers, it is very frequently associated with negative connotations associated with fanaticism.

Although far from my favorite word, spirituality, or maybe mysticism, do a better job in being somewhat more neutral than religion.

Hanover

I agree with @180 Proof to the extent that science, philosophy, and religion aren't clearly defined in the OP.

In the vernacular, I take religion to be an organization that posits the existence of a creator and offers explanations for our existence, our purpose, and our ethics.

I take science to the be the systematic study of the physical world through observation and experimentation.

I take philosophy to be a general study of the logic of various systems and the ability to decipher other truths through that logical examination.

Of course all these terms are nuanced and there are all sorts of exceptions, so it's entirely possible to have a scientific and philosophical religion, and you could probably move those words around and create more possibilties.

In any event, my own observations from my chair where I sit is that those three entities tend to have specialized and there's less overlap now than historically.

That is, scientists dress a certain way, speak a certain way, address certain problems, and work in buildings that look a certain way.

The same holds true for religious people and for philosophers. There's really no mistaking one for the other when they're going about their specialized business. That is, I don't see a dialectic (trialectic?) leading to a synthesis going on here, but I see a divergence of the various fields, with none ever being eliminated, but just being preserved among its followers.

To the extent I consider myself scientific, philosophical, and religious, it's not that I have one large melting pot position where everything is mixed together, but I have different methods for different sorts of questions, which would more resemble a mosaic, with each piece still divided.

Art48

I'm confused here by what you mean by "philosophy" and what you mean by "religion" and "science" as well. Some clarification would be helpful. — 180 Proof

That a tall order. Here's a response.

Epistemologically, science and philosophy accept the supremacy of human reason; religion has sacred texts and people (prophets, incarnations, etc.) whose authority cannot be denied.

Ontologically, science determines what is and philosophy (ideally) draws on science, attempting to answer ultimate questions, or, at least, give guidance in how to best live life. Current religions (ideally) become obsolete, although any valid insights are incorporate into science/philosophy.

An analogy: suppose a tribal civilization believes that the bark of a certain tree relieves headaches because the tree is dear to some god. Science examines, extracts the active ingredient, and doesn't accept belief in the tree god.

180 Proof

↪Art48

I appreciate the attempt. I'm afraid your terms are no clearer (to me) than before.

plaque flag

science and philosophy accept the supremacy of human reason; religion has sacred texts and people (prophets, incarnations, etc.) whose authority cannot be denied. — Art48

:up:

You have hit the target here.

So we clarify forever what we mean by the supremacy of human reason. We have/had enough of a foggy idea to get started of course.

Janus

“For a long time we have been accustomed to the compartmentalization of religion and science was if they were two quite different and basically unrelated ways of seeing the world. I do not believe that this state of doublethink can last. It must eventually be replaced by a view of the world which is neither religious nor scientific but simply our view of the world. More exactly, it must become a view of the world in which the reports of science and religion are as concordant as those of the eyes and the ears.” — Art48

A vision of an intellectual utopia, or dystopia, depending on your perspective.

Wayfarer

I agree with 180 Proof to the extent that science, philosophy, and religion aren't clearly defined in the OP. — Hanover

Those distinctions really only become visible in relatively recent times. I suppose there was an implicit distinction between dialectic and peity in Plato, but science as a separate mode of knowing as distinct from philosophy only came into being in the 1830's.

I've noticed a book, Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza, Carlos Fraenkel, which addresses this question (introductory chapter preview provided). Part of the jacket blurb says 'Many pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers from Antiquity to the Enlightenment made no meaningful distinction between philosophy and religion. Instead they advocated a philosophical religion, arguing that God is Reason and that the historical forms of a religious tradition serve as philosophy’s handmaid to promote the life of reason among non-philosophers.' You see the continuity of reason and revelation in Aquinas' philosophy but the antagonism between them is very much assumed in the Enlightenment philosophers (and still a dominant approach).

I've found that in the early Buddhist texts, there is, on the one hand, a recognition of the value of reason (or dialectic) in that the dialogues themself are often scrupulously rational. But there's also a recognition of a sphere 'beyond mere logic', namely, the actual content of the Buddha's teaching (the 'sasana' or dispensation). Buddhism, more so than other religions, says that the Buddhist aspirant can validate the principles of the teaching by realizing them for him/herself (albeit this is understood as a rare occurence).

But the problem with declaring the sovereignty of human reason (or science) is that it essentially reverts to the Protagoras 'man as the measure of all things' type of attitude. I also notice that in much modern philosophy, generally, any notion of purpose or intentionality (other than those entertained by individuals) has been ruled out, so the scope of 'reason' becomes narrowed to 'instrumental reason' i.e. what works for particular purposes.

Mikie

So, religion, with its gods and myths, largely replaced philosophy. — Art48

I carve it up a little differently and, admittedly, idiosyncratically. I take philosophy to mean a kind of thinking, defined by its questions. Religion — at least taken in a broad sense to include things like beliefs, faith, spirituality, a sense of one-ness or unity — therefore overlaps to a large degree. It too asks questions about, for example, the meaning of life, what happens when we die, and so forth. It does differ when it becomes dogmatic and rigid, but I don’t think it controversial to say it’s something like a cousin of philosophy, at least in antiquity.

Starting with a semantics like this, the above statement seems backwards. If anything, I think philosophy was an alternative to animism and the like.

The Fall and Rise of Philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions