Yeah, I think that philosophy spent too much time with the sciences, that started to believe and eventually convinced herself that she is one of them — Pussycat

Yes. Logical Positivism was an attempt to bring metaphysical Philosophy closer to physical Science. But it missed the point of Metaphysics : to understand "things" that are not material, but mental.

This is not what I am thinking. It is difficult to describe.. Not "things" that you can understand, in the normal sense of understanding. Let's say irrational stuff, pro-logic. In this sense, it is logic that killed philosophy.

In my humble opinion, the story of philosophy is much like that of the average family. Philosophy has birthed many, many children and the succesful ones have left the nest to make their mark on the world but the problem-children - those difficult to tackle - have stayed home and philosophy is making an effort to help them stand on their own feet so that one fine day they too may leave and become disciplines in their own right. That all independent subjects of study are utlimately connected to philosophy is given away by the highest degree attainable in all fields of study - the PhD or doctor of philosophy. The PhD is like the navel, a remnant of the umbilical cord that connects all subjects back to philisophy.

This is not what I am thinking. It is difficult to describe.. Not "things" that you can understand, in the normal sense of understanding. Let's say irrational stuff, pro-logic. In this sense, it is logic that killed philosophy. — Pussycat

Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone.

Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. — Gnomon

That is a complete misunderstanding.

Logic is also based on faith, and very much so, because of the 14 speculative, unjustifiable, and otherwise arbitrary axioms of propositional logic. Pure reason does not mean "free from otherwise unjustifiable premises". It means "free from sensory input".

Therefore, the fact that religion rests on system-wide premises merely puts it in the deductive-axiomatic domain as opposed to the empirical domain. There is nothing wrong with that, because if there were, there would also be something fundamentally wrong with mathematics.

Furthermore, religious law is a formal system, just like any theory. For example, Islamic law has a largely mechanical epistemology, very much like mathematics, and when written in formal language, Islamic law is machine verifiable, just like all sound knowledge.

Furthermore, all attacks on religion would also apply to any subdiscipline in mathematics, including logic itself. The reason why atheists pick religion as a target, is simply because it looks like an easier target than mathematics. This wrong perception is caused by Christianity, because, unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not and has never been a formal system.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition." ... Such solemn declarations of the church's teaching involve the infallibility of the Church. ... Such teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are obviously not given in a single specific document. ... men who had to be obeyed by virtue of their position, regardless of their personal holiness, and the distinction between “man” and “office.” — Wikipedia on the 'living' magisterium of the Church

Martin Luther tried to defend himself at his trial through scripture and reason, i.e. by treating religion as a mechanically-verifiable formal system, but the Church explicitly rejected such procedure. Still, the refusal to treat religion as as formal system is very much unique to Christianity. It generally does not apply to other religions.

Therefore, the entire idea that religion would not be a sound formal system is solely based on western ethnocentrism. It is simply an error.

Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone. — Gnomon

Well, it's semantics, like philosophers nowadays say. Of course, reasoning and intuition are important to our way of thinking. But is that philosophy? Or just reasoned and intuited thinking, in other words, a tautology? Why does philosophy have to approach the world logically and rationally, and not illogically and irrationally, also?

The thought that philosophy is dead and has been dead for a long time now, or maybe even that it never was alive to begin with, has come to me only recently, and I would like to explore it. So I am prepared to take a rather extreme position, just for the hell of it, or out of plain curiosity that needs satisfaction, see what happens. They say that curiosity killed the cat, but they also say that satisfaction brought her back! :)

So I am gonna go ahead and say that philosophy died along with the ancient world, maybe as way back as the time of Aristotle. And since then, we haven't been philosophizing, but rather putting nails on her coffin. And that philosophers, especially of the modern day, are all phonies, like Holden in The Catcher in the Rye would say.

It is not only from celebrity physicists that philosophy gets a bashing. Philosophers themselves also appear very critical of philosophy, which seems to be self-contradictory, but is it really? — Pussycat

Great point. Everyone likes to make fun of philosophers!

We reference the great philosophers more readily becuase the golden arra of philosophy has passed. Industrialized countries dont consider philosophy compatable rather a past ti,e relic.

Philosophy is dead and the over specialization killed it.

Cosmology, mathematics, doctines, etc... have whiddled down the emphasis of the subject but...but.. its more needed now then ever before.

The lack of philosophy has given us bad science, politics, curruption, and uncreativity.

I have a solution ot revive it.

Pure reason does not mean "free from otherwise unjustifiable premises". It means "free from sensory input". — alcontali

What do you mean? Free from empirical data? Free from experience? But then, from where does pure reason get its input? Where does it come from?

Furthermore, religious law is a formal system, just like any theory. For example, Islamic law has a largely mechanical epistemology, very much like mathematics, and when written in formal language, Islamic law is machine verifiable, just like all sound knowledge. — alcontali

Ah, I remember Godel saying that he was fond of Islam, finding it a consistent idea of religion and open-minded. This is what he was talking about, right?

Furthermore, all attacks on religion would also apply to any subdiscipline in mathematics, including logic itself. The reason why atheists pick religion as a target, is simply because it looks like an easier target than mathematics. This wrong perception is caused by Christianity, because, unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not and has never been a formal system. — alcontali

So you are saying that Islam is being caught in the crossfire, because of christianity?

I have a solution ot revive it. — Francesca

Please do tell! :smile:

Great point. Everyone likes to make fun of philosophers! — fishfry

Yeah, it's like they have it in them to be ridiculed, there's something about them. Just like our teachers at school that we used to hang them notes on their back, saying "I'm an idiot", or "hit me". :lol:

What do you mean? Free from empirical data? Free from experience? But then, from where does pure reason get its input? Where does it come from? — Pussycat

That is just a definition.

In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" — Wikipedia on Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', the definition of 'Pure Reason'

Ok, this is probably new bait for some of the Kant haters here ...

Ah, I remember Godel saying that he was fond of Islam, finding it a consistent idea of religion and open-minded. This is what he was talking about, right? — Pussycat

I did not know that Gödel was fond of Islam. Napoleon was apparently too. I would have to find original material in which Gödel explains his views on Islam. I like Islam a lot because usul al-fiqh turns it into a formal system. That was a revelation to me because it means that religion does not have to be mere bullshit.

So you are saying that Islam is being caught in the crossfire, because of christianity? — Pussycat

Yes.

The disaster at Martin Luther's trial in Worms has set the world on fire. It is horrible what happened there. Instead of discrediting just itself, or even just the Bible, the Church has successfully managed to discredit all possible religion in the western world. Duh.

:up:
:clap:
:death: :flower:

Only when death (i.e. human Mortality) becomes (medically/technologically) optional will (the need for) religion die. Likewise, when ignorance (of ignorance, especially) is no longer an inescapable, or inexhaustable, aspect of human Existence will philosophy be dead and buried.

So news of their respective demises is still very much premature. Both endeavors have been flattered by countless generations of undertakers - barkers at shadows - whom themselves in their turn have also been undertaken and will continue to be reaped grimly, no doubt, for countless generations to come.

Hawking's assertion that "philosophy is dead," was self-refuting. Why? Because the statement "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical statement. — LD Saunders

Yes - performative contradiction (e.g. like the assertion (by logical positivists) that 'only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful', which, of course, is not itself an 'empirically verifiable statement' and therefore is, in its own terms, meaningless). Folks have to watch out for those sneaky presuppositions (& damn entailments too).

So news of their respective demises is still very much premature. — 180 Proof

The ontology of X, and the epistemology of X, will not die as long as X does not die.

(X is any knowledge subject, actually.)

all attacks on religion would also apply to any subdiscipline in mathematics — alcontali

Category theory maybe. :smirk:

Category theory maybe. :smirk: — jgill

Yeah, general abstract nonsense. On the one side, I really like its "nonsensical" touch and feel, but on the other side, I haven't been able to find anything surprising to do with it. So, I will have to leave it open ...

Thanks for the link! I keep learning things on this forum. :cool:

Yeah, general abstract nonsense. On the one side, I really like its "nonsensical" touch and feel, but on the other side, I haven't been able to find anything surprising to do with it. So, I will have to leave it open ... — alcontali

It is being used in quantum mechanics, hoping one day to replace physics!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_quantum_mechanics

With category theory, physics becomes time-less and space-less. So it is very suitable for merging relativity theory with quantum mechanics, since the main problem there is that these two theories have a completely different notion of time.

Philosophy is not dead and won't ever be dead, naturally, the medium and nature of the discourse will change over time but not a problem unless you're sentimental.

I would say that many of us won't accept the philosophical ideas that we don't like as being philosophical. Nonetheless, they are.

Also, even if people don't call what they're doing philosophy but something else instead, it's still philosophy.

Also, even if people don't call what they're doing philosophy but something else instead, it's still philosophy. — Judaka

Right. All areas of knowledge and informed opinion involve philosophy.

Hawking suggested that to save humanity we should move out into space. We haven’t gotten past the moon and haven’t been there in over 40 years. Many intelligent people even doubt if we ever really even got there. 1969 technology?

Hawking was doing ethics and metaphysics in his life work, and the dolt didn’t even realize it.

Only when death (i.e. human Mortality) becomes (technologically) optional will (the need for) religion die. Likewise, when ignorance (of ignorance, especially) is no longer an inescapable, or inexhaustable, aspect of human Existence will philosophy be dead and buried. — 180 Proof

So do you think that philosophy has something to do with knowledge, and/or ignorance? And that when we stop being ignorant, then philosophy will die as a result? Maybe because it served its use and is no longer needed?

I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose.

In a perfect world, the latter uses of either martial arts or philosophy would be unnecessary, as such attacks would not be made to begin with, but in the actual world it is unfortunately useful to be thus prepared; and even in a perfect world, with no external attackers, martial arts and philosophy are both still useful for their internal development and exercise of the body, mind, and will.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

~Albert Einstein

:fire:

(NB: By stupidity I understand ... inadvertent harm to oneself and/or others, especially for no appreciable gain (e.g. playing lose-lose games), from making judgments on the basis of not knowing that (and what) one does not know (i.e. maladaptive conduct.))

So do you think that philosophy has something to do with knowledge, and/or ignorance? — Pussycat

I think it's a sustained self-examination (Socrates) which exposes to us that we, in fact, do not know or understand what we think - take for granted - we know or understand, and thereby helps us to align our expectations (i.e. judgments) with whatever is the case.

And that when we stop being ignorant, then philosophy will die as a result?

Like when we cannot be 'ignorant of our ignorance' or the eye cannot not see itself or there are no more 'unknown unknowns' ... but that's waiting on a train - apotheosis - that'll never come. No, Pussy, philosophy is an 'infinite task', or as Pierre Hadot says "a spiritual exercise" ...

Maybe because it served its use and is no longer needed?

... like 'hygiene' (or public health). :sweat:

↪Pussycat I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose. — Pfhorrest

:clap: :cool:

I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose.

In a perfect world, the latter uses of either martial arts or philosophy would be unnecessary, as such attacks would not be made to begin with, but in the actual world it is unfortunately useful to be thus prepared; and even in a perfect world, with no external attackers, martial arts and philosophy are both still useful for their internal development and exercise of the body, mind, and will. — Pfhorrest

What is philosophy's purpose?

So you are saying that philosophy offers some kind of protection? Do you think it is also used for offensive purposes? Or, using your analogy, is it like karate, as it was taught by Mr Miyagi at least, "only for defence"? :)

But anyway, if what you say is so, then there is a lot of psychology involved in philosophy, and whatever "knowledge" one receives from it, it is a different kind of knowledge - if any, if we can call this knowledge - than the one used in epistemology. Just as one that knows how to fight, or play the piano, we wouldn't call this knowledge per se. Also, I am not sure who the enemy really is.

I think it's a sustained self-examination (Socrates) which exposes to us that we, in fact, do not know or understand what we think - take for granted - we know or understand, and thereby helps us to align our expectations (i.e. judgments) with whatever is the case. — 180 Proof

But this is not how it is used nowadays, is it? Taking a course on philosophy of X, to use alcontali's syntax, does not teach you your ignorance of X. Well, maybe at the beginning of the course, but then when you graduate, you say, "ah now I know!". So I think it has the opposite result.

Like when we cannot be 'ignorant of our ignorance' or the eye cannot not see itself or there are no more 'unknown unknowns' ... but that's waiting on a train - apotheosis - that'll never come. No, Pussy, philosophy is an 'infinite task', or as Pierre Hadot says "a spiritual exercise" ... — 180 Proof

Again, one can hardly say that contemporary philosophy professors are "spiritual teachers".

What is philosophy's purpose? — Pussycat

The pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom, in turn, does not merely mean some set of correct statements, but rather is the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question.

To that end, philosophy must investigate questions about what our questions even mean, investigating questions about language; what criteria we use to judge the merits of a proposed answer, investigating questions about being and purpose, the objects of reality and morality respectively; what methods we use to apply those criteria, investigating questions about knowledge and justice; what faculties we need to enact those methods, investigating questions about the mind and the will; who is to exercise those faculties, investigating questions about academics and politics; and why any of it matters at all.

The tools of philosophy can be used against that end, but I prefer to call that "phobosophy" instead.

And your point is ...?

The pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom, in turn, does not merely mean some set of correct statements, but rather is the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest

Given Tarski's undefinability of truth, any system has no other choice but to receive its fundamental truths from a higher meta-system.

Tarski beautifully modelled this problem in convention T in his semantic theory of truth.

It is the higher system that provides us with the truth about our own system, which appears in our own system out of the blue as axioms.

From there on, our own system can indeed deductively discern some of the true from the false, but this ability will -- unless it is a trivial system -- necessarily be incomplete or inconsistent (Gödel's first incompleteness theorem).

Our system will also not know about itself whether it is incomplete or else inconsistent, because any capacity to discern between both, will automatically make it inconsistent (Gödel's second incompleteness theorem).

It sounds like you still want a solution to David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem:

The problem asks for a procedure that takes, as input, a statement and answers "Yes" or "No" according to whether the statement is universally valid.

The Entscheidungsproblem can also be viewed as asking for a procedure to decide whether a given statement is provable from the axioms using the rules of logic.

In 1936, Alonzo Church and Alan Turing published independent papers[2] showing that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible. — Wikipedia on Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem

And your point is ...? — 180 Proof

My point is that there is something wrong here, something fishy going on. :brow:

Almost recently the late Stephen Hawking declared:“Philosophy is dead” — David Jones

Philosophy is not so much dead as it is stuck at the end of a blind canyon.

There is no way forward except to retrace one's steps and re-examine the assumptions that have been made, particularly the implicit one's that are not even realised are assumptions. And then proceed from there.