For those who prefer the written word. Bunge's criticisms:

Link

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

There a some good point in that, but also some serious issues, the fields he claims to be exhausted (Kantianism, Existentialism, etc.) are not.

If he has read the classic, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, he should clearly see that what motivated the questions they asked were the consequences of the science of the time, that has very little practical consequence. Might as well criticize literature for not helping ordinary folk.

A few other issues.

He has merits in terms of too much specialization and obscurantism - and the fact that all of it has moved to academia is not ideal either.

Nevertheless, the "ivory tower" critique - which has merit, no doubt - is not at all exclusive to philosophy. It's a privilege, one that should be treasured. And if some can make these ideas communicable to the masses, such as Magee or Russell, then all the better.

Of course, being the one to claim the whole field is stagnant can create the impression that the person writing is enlightened, which is suspicious to say the least...

Carrier defends philosophy and makes several points I found very interesting. — Art48

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

I watched the first 20 minutes of the video, but I stopped because I disagreed with so much the presenter said about what philosophy is and should be. His understanding of metaphysics is much different from mine. Since that is the aspect of philosophy that is the most important to me, it made the rest of is points unconvincing. I also found his argument that science once was and still is part of philosophy technically true but trivial and irrelevant.

Bunge’s ten criticisms of philosophy, — Art48

I too have been disappointed with much of Modern Philosophical Posturing, as compared to Ancient Wisdom Seeking. Especially the linguistic nit-picking of Postmodern academia. Fortunately for me, I have no formal training in philosophy, except for Logic, as a math requirement. Regarding the "intellectual engines of modern civilization", most of my amateur philosophizing is based on the paradoxes dug-up by scientists on the cutting-edge of understanding, such as Quantum & Information theories.

In the Feb/Mar 23 issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". "Science", as the name implies is in the business of obtaining practical knowledge from the real (material) world. But "Philosophy" is more like "Art", as an expression of ideas & impressions about the ideal (mental) world. Of course, the art of philosophy is supposed to be disciplined enough to sort-out the useful (meaningful) wheat from the useless (trivial) chaff. :smile:

1. Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions — Art48

Substantive contributions? Who decides that? Possibly like a clique of mathematicians who gather together to praise the subject to which they have devoted much time and effort. I've been there and done that and then looked with unbiased clarity and found little of consequence in a larger scheme of ideas.

His understanding of metaphysics is much different from mine. Since that is the aspect of philosophy that is the most important to me, it made the rest of is points unconvincing. — T Clark

Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting.

I have been posting this video for many years in this platform. Its good to see that you appreciate it.
You are right , Carrier is an atheist and a Methodological Naturalist (NOT a materialist) and its because of what he presents in his talk "Is philosophy stupid".

Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". — Gnomon

This goes back at least to the story of Thales. Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates not only for the uselessness of philosophy but for it being dangerous. Both Plato and Xenophon address this. Whether it is useful or useless depends on the person and what they want for their life. It is with regard to this that Socrates says that the unexamined life is not worth living. In other words, the philosophic life is the only truly useful life.

I think his view of Metaphysics is the only meaningful one. After all Philosophy's goal is nothing more than our efforts to produce wise claims about our world(etymology). In order for any claim to be wise it needs to interpret verified knowledge and reflect on the consequences of it. So by default Metaphysics provide solutions to questions and problems.
The best example of how good philosophy can be in problem solving can be found in Scientific Frameworks (Theories).

My meta-meta-philosophical position is that Bunge's meta-philosophical position regarding the deficiencies in philosophy is itself the deficiency in philosophy.

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom).
Knowledge is what verifies claims as Wise. So the Aristotelian Method (1.epistemology 2. Physika 3. Metaphysika etc) is not arbitrary or optional but mandatory.
We need knowledge to reflect upon and structure our metaphysics or else the outcome can never be recognized as "wise".
A verified Wise claim isn't something that we put in our trophy cabinet and forget about it but it carries epistemic value on its own. Again(I wrote it before) great example is Natural Philosophy and how Philosophy can take current knowledge, ask the correct question and construct Metaphysical hypotheses for Science to evaluate. ALL scientific Hypotheses are Metaphysics and all Scientific Theories are Philosophy capable to solve problems and produce additional knowledge.
Epistemic value in wise claims is inevitable and this is what makes Philosophy so important!
So I would add one more thing (Carrier agrees on that) in addition to problem solving and Knowledge. Asking the correct questions even when we are unable to arrive to solutions or knowledge.

Its a very accurate critique on a failing Academia especially when a specific Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) is doing great mainly because of a system capable to get rid off all ten issues.

Bunge's observation about constructive criticism, as a lack in philosophical discourse, does bring into question his dismissal of so many thinkers on the grounds of being useless wankers.

That part, however, was fun.

But is this unique to philosophy, or just the result of any over-specialization in the humanities? The value of basic knowledge of philosophy, literature, art, history, etc. is clear, as is a more advanced knowledge, but that value reduces as you grow more esoteric, but I'm not convinced the elimination of hyper-specialization and the competitve drive for originality would be an overall good thing.

Let the master puzzle players play I say. Every now and then a meaningful discovery is made. What is the alternative other than his general plea that it be fixed?

Thanks for the link.

Sure, philosophy, like plumbing, can be done very badly. And when it is done badly, it is smelly and messy.

Is the answer to not do any plumbing?

, , , , , , consider this:

Mary Midgley: Philosophical Plumbing

It's a very good essay, and she makes some excellent points. This type of approach seems to me be quite pertinent and potentially very useful for ethical matters, as well as politics and political discourse.

It seems to me that it is much harder to do this, with say, epistemology and metaphysics. It could be done, to an extent, but the practical use of these fields is not immediately apparent.

Nevertheless, there is much here which is very valuable. And it certainly doesn't hurt that she writes very well, which is always a treat.

Bunge points to a problem with specialization and then ends up tossing a lateral pass to a certain group of specialists. Others have made that move a part of their thesis. Bunge is excluding work on the basis of a value that is being negated by this list of thinkers.

Is that a set of judgements masquerading as facts?

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom). — Nickolasgaspar

Love of wisdom can mean different things. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world. It is outward directed. This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world.

Carrier is an atheist and a materialist. I felt similar to you at times. But, overall, I liked what he said and found it interesting. — Art48

I can see why you and others would like what he said. I like meta-philosophy like his - philosophy about the nature of philosophy. I just didn't find his answers convincing.

I think his view of Metaphysics is the only meaningful one. After all Philosophy's goal is nothing more than our efforts to produce wise claims about our world(etymology). In order for any claim to be wise it needs to interpret verified knowledge and reflect on the consequences of it. So by default Metaphysics provide solutions to questions and problems.
The best example of how good philosophy can be in problem solving can be found in Scientific Frameworks (Theories). — Nickolasgaspar

You and I are often in agreement about philosophical issues, but I disagree with just about all of your points here. No surprise - the definition and meaning of metaphysics is one of the most contentious and confusing issues on the forum and, I assume, in philosophy in general.

Carrier is an atheist and a Methodological Naturalist (NOT a materialist) — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, I believe you're correct.

Mary Midgley: Philosophical Plumbing — Banno

Thanks for the link. I skimmed the essay quickly. To start off, I agree with Midgley that metaphysics and epistemology are practical enterprises. I come to it from my pragmatic role as an engineer, which I come to from a natural inclination toward problem solving. Then she lost me. In the rest of the first half of the essay, she gave an unappealing, high falutin vision of the role of philosophy, metaphysics in particular.

I was ready to toss it aside, but in the second half she caught my interest again. She started describing the historic sequence of political philosophies and how the changes in metaphysics proceeded. That's something I've thought about a lot, but more in the precinct of ontology than ethics and politics. I haven't spent as much time thinking about them. I think that's because I live my life mostly through my intellect and I'm most interested in becoming more self-aware about how I think.

I may go back and put some more time into the essay, at least the second half.

Again, thanks.

1-4 is especially good.

I do not see how that is true of philosophy.

In general philosophical areas stem from the basic question of ‘What we should do?’. People then attach ideas, opinions and speculation to this fundamental question.

One thing I hear repeatedly (and believe to be true) is that philosophy is mostly about Questions rather than Solutions.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others.

Bunge’s ten criticisms of philosophy — Art48

I saw this a few years ago and found it fairly conventional - most of what is said here would apply to any number of subjects taught at university. There's a famous quote - a piece of hyperbole by Theodore Sturgeon from the 1950's which nevertheless holds a truism - '90% of everything is crap.'

Daniel Dennett updated the quote 50 years later with - "90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap."

In other words, things are done badly... but I think we already knew this, which is why most of us are on the lookout for the gems amidst the dross.

Bunge wrote in2001. Here's the Guardian in 2018. There has been an attack on philosophy from the right for more than 20 years, and another from the left. The reason is very simple; however one governs, however one manufactures consent, philosophy departments and philosophers in general are in the business of criticism of society. They rock the boat. They not only do not help, they hinder, the orderly governance of society, and the progress of the dominant ideology {science}.

No new broad and deep philosophies have been proposed in recent times, and none of the extant ideas has been of much help to understand the sea changes that have signed the twentieth century. — Bunge

This is just wrong. Much work has been done in reshaping man's relation to the world and conception of himself from the point of view of the environment as a whole. This gives rise to an entirely new value system which is necessarily in conflict with capitalism and scientism. It is very little discussed on this site, because it has been successfully marginalised, sidelined and ridiculed to a great extent. But there is a philosophy of ecology, that is even called Deep Ecology, and much related material on the concept of wilderness, and Ecosophy, and all sorts of interesting stuff that the Man does not want us to talk about.

There must be no alternative to moral nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, and despair. Therefore there must be no new philosophy. The nearest we can get here is the interminable lament of the Global Warming thread.

Biography of Arne Naess I mention this stuff now and then, as a way to think about how to live, which is the central concern of philosophy, or should be, but sadly, the natural world is so distant from everyone's actual life, that the non-human is taken to mean robotics and ChatGPT. The birds and the bees are a fairytale, fit only for euphemism. At the time, (early 80's) I was able to do some extra-mural courses on some of this, but that too came under attack and was defunded.

The philosophy of — I don't know what to call it; it is nameless and invisible because universal, but I'll say "Secular Humanism", to be as politically neutral as possible — your philosophy; is there room in it for the idea of restraint? Are there things, places, possibilities that humans should not, or can decide not to approach? Is there anything that is not our business, our property?

Descartes "provisional moral code" from the Discourse on Method marks the difference between ancient and modern philosophy.

My third maxim was to try always to master myself rather than fortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world.

This is the approach of the ancients. It is provisional because his method will allow man to master fortune. Man will no longer have to accept things the way they are. Descartes method of reason is, as he says in the Meditations, the Archimedean point from which he can move the world.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others. — I like sushi

The question of what we should do is tied to the question of what we can do. With the modern project of the conquest of nature the possibilities of what we can do is greatly expanded. Mastering oneself becomes secondary to mastering fortune. Why change yourself when you can change the world to accord with the self?

The self, following Descartes, is that "thinking thing". Here philosophy and psychology split off. The ancient maxim "know thyself" no longer has a place. It is replaced by the acceptance of an objective attitude, a "view from nowhere".

Political philosophy is replaced by political science. The question of 'What should we do?' is replaced by the question of how to make people's lives 'better'. The question of what makes life better fades into the background, as if answered and settled.

Daniel Dennett updated the quote 50 years later with - "90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap." — Tom Storm

I always looked at it a little differently - 25% of people are really good at what they do, 25% are really bad. The rest are in the middle, somewhere along the line from pretty good down through mediocre to pretty bad. I have a friend who's a therapist. She told me the range for really good therapists isn't the top 25%, but the topo 10%.

This is just wrong. Much work has been done in reshaping man's relation to the world and conception of himself from the point of view of the environment as a whole. This gives rise to an entirely new value system which is necessarily in conflict with capitalism and scientism. It is very little discussed on this site, because it has been successfully marginalised, sidelined and ridiculed to a great extent. But there is a philosophy of ecology, that is even called Deep Ecology, and much related material on the concept of wilderness, and Ecosophy, and all sorts of interesting stuff that the Man does not want us to talk about. — unenlightened

Really good, thoughtful post.

I think this is right. I remember coming across a fairly well-known essay - "Should Trees have Standing" - looking at whether the environment should have legal rights. It struck me as both radical and sensible. I've spent some time thinking about what changes in metaphysics have taken place in my lifetime. I never even thought about ecology and environmental ethics.

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

Yes. Philosophy shouldn't be pinned-down to a narrow job description. Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens, but he focused on one-man-at-a-time. His teachings were more like self-development than political or scientific problem-solving. However, Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) to Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". And other philosophers, through the years, have focused their "problem seeking"*1 on particular aspects of the quest for General Wisdom (know-that) and Practical Knowledge (know-how).

For example book-bound Marx asserted that, “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Ironically, if there is a typical personality type for philosophers, it seems to be Introverted or Introspective. Which is not well-suited to changing what's wrong with the world, via political revolutions. Nevertheless, the strong words of bookish thinkers can indeed inspire others to, not just point-out the problems, but to fix them. Yet a forum of brainy introverts talking to shy recluses is not likely to de-constipate the "plugged-up plumbing" of the natural or cultural milieu. :joke:


*1. In his 1977 book Problem Seeking, architect William Pena observed : "you can't solve a problem unless you know what it is". He didn't mean you should go out looking for trouble. Instead, his book on Architectural Programming presented methods for discovering the underlying (fundamental)*2 problems that motivate people to spend time & money to build something new, rather than to hold-on to something old. Those step-by-step procedures are essentially the same as Philosophical & Scientific methods --- e.g. analysis & synthesis.

*2. Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. ___Wiki