Does philosophical progress exist? — Agustino
A lot of this I think has to do with whether we see philosophical issues as problems or questions. — darthbarracuda
I would have voted "No", "No", and "Platonism" most likely.I voted 'Yes' and 'other'. — Janus
I think it's of the nature of experiences though to allow a multitude of explanations. As such, no one metaphysical system will be satisfactory for all in the end - it will end up by being a matter of taste. The reason for this is that any finite number of data points (experiences) will have an infinite number of "right" possible explanations.On the other hand, philosophical system building is motivated by a desire to come up with a metaphysical system that includes and makes sense of all of our experience. — Janus
Whitehead is one of the few figures in philosophy that I've never read, nor have I read any secondary sources about him either. So I'm not sure where to locate him. I have heard he was one of the champions of process philosophy though... so, would you say that his thought is similar to Bergson? Or maybe more like Peirce even?I think of all philosophers Whitehead has come closest to achieving that. — Janus
Why do you call it the "consumption" model? Consumption implies that it is something that one must do over and over again, there is no terminus. Whereas when we speak of "solving" problems, and doing so definitively, then we're really speaking about getting rid of problems once and for all, no longer having to concern ourselves with them.Is it just the "solving" of problems, in the "consumption" model of knowledge? — darthbarracuda
Perhaps, if you're the kind of person who likes to go round and round for no reason, except for the going round and round. I personally disagree with the view of philosophy as end-in-itself, rather than as a means. It can, however, be a means to an end that is complementry to philosophical activity itself, such as the clarification of thought.Or can it be the appreciation of questions themselves, and the creation of new questions? — darthbarracuda
Yes, exactly. A lot of this has to do with personality. For me, I always experience some "anxiety" (if you can call it that - I think psychological discomfort is a better way to put it) whenever I have a problem to solve, whether it be philosophy, business, or otherwise. Indeed, it is the anxiety that motivates me to solve it and pursue the problem, at least most of the time.A lot of this I think has to do with whether we see philosophical issues as problems or questions. Problems implies we're anxious to figure things out and move on. — darthbarracuda
I'm not so sure. I think each person has a goal or mission in the world, that is part of their very being, and it's up to each one of us to discover what that is, and then do it. So I don't think everything is endless and pointless - things are quite definite. Once you finish university, you have your degree (but more importantly your knowledge), and that's that for example.Typically they ignore the fact that everything else is endless and pointless. — darthbarracuda
Ta-da! Enlightenment! >:O Ataraxia as the Pyrrhonists would say ;)Once you think you've "solved" a philosophical problem it seems to end up being dull and banal, like a dead weight you drag around. You wonder what the whole fuss was about, and why it's seen as so important. — darthbarracuda
The issue here is that people who have this sort of personality often risk pursuing some goal merely to escape from boredom, which actually prevents them from fully knowing themselves. I think a truly enlightened person cannot pursue some goal merely because of boredom - indeed, such a person ought to be free from boredom even if all they do is stare at a wall all day, like the old Zen patriarch Bodhidharma.If there's still a good reason to explore the world and discover new things it's because it's fun to hang out with friends and have a common goal. It's not very "aristocratic", but who cares. — darthbarracuda
I would have voted "No", "No", and "Platonism" most likely. — Agustino
I believe philosophy is useful up to a point, but beyond that point, there is only mysticism and direct understanding, intuition. Philosophy cannot travel beyond mind. — Agustino
As such, no one metaphysical system will be satisfactory for all in the end - it will end up by being a matter of taste. — Agustino
would you say that his thought is similar to Bergson? Or maybe more like Peirce even? — Agustino
Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. — Bitter Crank
At the time I wrote that, I had not voted ;) - I only voted a few hours later."Would have"! What, you didn't vote on your own poll? — Janus
Well he is a Platonist per my understanding since he extends the tradition Plato->Aristotle->Plotinus->Augustine->Aquinas. I've only dipped into Insight very little as well, but I have read a few secondary works about his philosophy. This was a good book.I'm not sure whether I would count him as a Platonist. — Janus
I agree - this is only in the sense that some metaphysical systems are more open to certain aspects of being than others.I think some metaphysical systems are more coherent and consistent with the whole range of human experience; aesthetic, ethical, religious, scientific, phenomenological and so on, than others. — Janus
Yeah, this is what it means for a metaphysical system to be closed off from certain areas of being.So, for example for someone who rejects the reality of religious experience there is no demand that metaphysical systems must account for religious experience; although they would still nedd to account for the belief that there are purported illusions of religious experience. — Janus
The humanities are suppose to point the direction of desirable cultural change. — apokrisis
The idea of progress often (not always) has an end-vision in sight. We're progressing towards some particular goal. Without a particular goal, we cannot know whether a change is progressive or regressive. As you well note, we can establish such a goal when it comes to technology - technology that can do the same job with fewer or cheaper resources (or faster) counts as a tick for progress.I don't think Philosophy makes progress, but neither does literature, music, or art. Which doesn't mean within these non-progressing fields there is never anything new or improved. Technology can make progress, because yesterday's tools can be remodeled, combined, and given new applications. A waterwheel can be replaced by a better waterwheel or better gearing. A higher dam can be built. Eventually the waterwheel can become a turbine and extract even more power out of falling water. That's "progress".
Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. Sophocles, Shakespeare, or Miller and Mamet all hit the target of drama. From the earliest music to today's latest, music soothes us savage beasts (or stirs us for the battle). The early philosophers take on what makes a life good may not be the final answer, but it a good answer that one is likely to get. — Bitter Crank
Now, why do philosophy, art, literature, etc. not progress? Is it because they lack a goal towards which to direct their energies? Or? — Agustino
Philosophers, artists, writers--creative workers in general, start from scratch. — Bitter Crank
The epic of Gilgamesh is 4000 years old. — Bitter Crank
I disagree. Of course an artist or philosopher builds off of what comes before. It’s well known who was influenced by who. — Noble Dust
But what makes it compelling now can’t be what made it compelling then; the focal point of interest changes over time, and the same is true of philosophical concepts. — Noble Dust
And if influence is a hair too obvious, then we sneer dismissively, "Derivative". — Bitter Crank
Of course, some hermeneutical effort will be needed to get the maximum value out of the thing, and we will never be THE intended audience. But I liked it when I read it, and if a dunce such as I was when I read it can get something out of it, then many others can too. It was better than some contemporary experimental literary works I have had the misfortune to come across. — Bitter Crank
Musician? — Bitter Crank
You will know, for instance, that the lines of a poem can have, may have, should have (depending) rhythm and rhyme. You will know (maybe) that a novel benefits from having an intriguing plot, very interesting characters, and lively dialogue. You'll know before you begin that plays are divided into acts, are all talk, but you get to provide stage directions. You will have poems, novels, and plays floating around your head, which you will want to keep at bay so you don't end up writing something too similar to last week's very popular episode of the horror show, Writer's Cramp on Amazon. — Bitter Crank
For the most part, though, you are on your own. YOU have to come up with all the amazingly good ideas, clever comments, exquisite word choices, etc., and no amount of familiarity with literature is going to help you very much. Evidence: how many Professors of English Literature (or any other literature) are also published authors of poetry, fiction, or drama that people actually enjoy? Few, few, few. Conversely, how many prize winning authors dump writing so they can teach at your average debased university English department? — Bitter Crank
Sure, I agree. — Noble Dust
The point I want to make is that it’s not so clear whether certain works have actually “stood the test of time”, given all of those factors we both mentioned. And, to stay on topic, perhaps the same goes for philosophical works and concepts. — Noble Dust
think musical composition would have to be more intuitively integrative and experiential than literary or plastic arts, because the composer has to know what a voice can and can not do, as well as what a violin, kazoo, gong, french horn, oboe, piano, guitar, or whatever the instruments are that one is going to compose for can and can not do. — Bitter Crank
All creators of art have to know what they get away with--as Warhol or McLuhan said, "Art is whatever you can get away with." — Bitter Crank
Well, right, just because there are several editions of Plato on the shelf, doesn't mean Plato stood the test of time for everybody that walked into the bookstore, or even bought one of the editions of Plato, or even read some of it. Shakespeare hasn't stood the test of time for a lot of people, because his large volume of work in early-modern English is at least something of a challenge for many to read, and there is a lot of it. — Bitter Crank
McLuhan thinks that the real art of our time is advertising, and at least to some extent I agree. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.