I'd say that the times when professional philosophers defined their profession as "pursuit of wisdom" are long gone. Quine, Davidson, Sellars, Rorty, Dennett, Searle... they are IMHO not pursuing "wisdom" - whatever that might be — Matias
One way to think about it:Does modern philosophy still make valuable contributions that create new knowledge, or are contemporary philosophers just busy analyzing existing knowledge? — Matias
I'd say that the times when professional philosophers defined their profession as "pursuit of wisdom" are long gone. — Matias
It is not the point of philosophy to end philosophy, to ‘solve’ the deep questions so that people can stop thinking about them. It is the point of people to think about these questions, and the job of philosophers to rub their faces in that fact. Of all of philosophy’s achievements, perhaps the greatest one is just sticking around in the face of the fact that, from day one, anyone who has plumbed the depths of our ambitions has either joined us or … tried to silence, stop or kill us. This is an “old debate” indeed.
What really bugs me is that they never seem to come to a conclusion, not even in a minor detail, so that they could say: Now, this question (about, say, 'qualia') has been solved. — Matias
Does modern philosophy still make valuable contributions that create new knowledge, or are contemporary philosophers just busy analyzing existing knowledge? — Matias
I'd say that the times when professional philosophers defined their profession as "pursuit of wisdom" are long gone. Quine, Davidson, Sellars, Rorty, Dennett, Searle... they are IMHO not pursuing "wisdom" - whatever that might be — Matias
While I agree that they would not characterize what they are doing as the pursuit of wisdom, it is simply not true that those days are long gone. — Fooloso4
One way to think about it:
Did any philosopher contribute anything new to philosophy in the 19th Century? Was there anyone then that made us think about issues in a new way. Do we refer to any 19th Century philosopher when talking about philosophy or should we more accurately only refer to philosophers before 19th Century, who had the original ideas?
Did any philosopher contribute anything new to philosophy in the 20th Century? Was there anyone then that made us think about issues in a new way. Do we refer to any 20th Century philosopher when talking about philosophy or should we more accurately only refer to philosophers before 20th Century, who had the original ideas?
If you answer "yes" to both 19th and 20th Century philosophy, why would you think nothing would happen in the field in the 21st Century? — ssu
So, if philosophy gives us knowledge, then what could that knowledge be? Philosophy gives us knowledge of how we think and of what the limitations of our thinking are, and it gives us this knowledge through analysis of linguistic practices and also through introspective analysis of our intuitions of meaning and reference. This is the domain of analytic philosophy, philosophy of language and ordinary language philosophy. So, analytic philosophy presents us with new ways to think about these epistemological and semantic issues. — Janus
Are you claiming that there are no new ideas in all of analytic philosophy; that there is nothing significant there which cannot be found in Plato and Aristotle? — Janus
No. I made no such claim. What I am claiming is that the things you mentioned can be found there. I should have added that these things are not the exclusive domain of analytic philosophy either. These same issues are addressed in Continental philosophy. — Fooloso4
One thing to consider is that traditional philosophy is not necessarily forward-looking, as the ideal to which it aspires might be provided by ancestral wisdom or revealed truth, and the passage of time represents a 'falling away' rather than 'progress towards', so negating the very idea of 'progress'. — Wayfarer
In light of what you say here, you are not agreeing with Wayfarer that we have "fallen away" from those insights which you see as belonging to human nature, though. — Janus
I see the falling away as consisting, not in the advance of naturalism over supernaturalism, but in the increasing objectification of ourselves and nature, due mostly to the creeping capitilization, monetization, commodification and propertization of the natural world, and the concomitant widening gulf between ourselves and nature — Janus
This is the one problem which is little addressed in philosophy, but which I think is of the most vital significance, and it is an ethical problem, a problem concerning phronesis, concerning how best to live. The life of the modern consumer is, our lives are, becoming increasingly unsustainable, neurotic and tragic and this most important of all questions is the very one which almost everyone ignores, preferring to distract themselves with self-indulgent fantasies of physical, intellectual or supernatural control, self-cultivation and achievement. — Janus
But I'm skeptical about the transcendence of private property. There are just too many jerks in the world. — g0d
I know so because nature is alien. It is our environment. — I like sushi
Our priorities have changed today thanks to our ability to manipulate our surroundings. That is all I meant. — I like sushi
It’s perfectly natural to assess the value of resources - all animals do this on some level. — I like sushi
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.