The End of Philosophy?
Michael
philosophy for example in classical Greeks it was philosophers who
tried to explain motion, matter, and reality while today it is physics
with the relative theory, quantum mechanics and newton's laws that
explain motion, matter and reality. Before modern times it was the
philosophers that dealt with thought now neuroscientist, biochemist are
leading the way in understanding thought throught analysis of the human
brain. Today psychologist are understanding more and more about human
behavior once a topic covered in its entirety by philosophy. The theory
of evolution in scientific terms describes the origin, the purpose of
humans without the need of phylosophy. Will science find the truth that
which philosophy has always sought and by doing it so ending the
discipline of philosophy?
Randy Story
"Michael" <jkt...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110340555.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Philosophy is the quest not just for knowledge, it is a quest for wisdom. It
is searching for how to use this knowledge properly. This will combine
morality with knowledge to learn how to best act out the knowledge we have.
Philosophy will never die.
Ron
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
Properly? Philosophy is religion for the atheist or agnostic. The labels
are somewhat different, but in form and function, philosophy provides
many of the same thing.
FreeThink
Maybe not, but it may be less utilized in the future. The latest
research on relativity could have a significant impact. If that has the
results expected they would go a long way in resolving major topics of
debate: determinism i.e. freewill i.e. judao-christian god concepts.
Sir Frederick
Please explain why there is something rather than nothing.
theBeaver
And underlying the quest for wisdom is the quest for power. The man who
seeks wisdom is drawn by the image of himself as an object of worship,
sitting on his throne and dispensing wisdom to fawning admirers. It is
not coincidence that wisdom would be rewarded with sexual opportunities
and security for one's progeny.
Maybe philosophy dies in proportion to the strength of one's passion.
An advanced artificial intelligence's analysis of any situation would
dwarf your own. Even if he could state it in such a way that you would
be awed if those same words issued from a human being, you would think
this dispassionate thinker unphilosophical since he doesn't share your
awe and sense of mystery.
Or, by your own definition, philosophy must die when the quest for
wisdom dies. And when does this die? When the real or subjective need
for it dies. When does this happen? When your fate is settled, when
you just lose interest, or when all important answers are to be found
elsewhere. If you believe that philosophy will never die then you must
believe that you can never conclude that life has no meaning.
Russell said "Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't
know." I don't think he meant that philosophy resides in the
unknowable, the random twitching of atoms, or some unknown but
inconsequential detail. He might have meant that philosophy is the
wallow of those who have contempt for anything that is known, who have
undying faith in the truth of their own baseless fantasies.
--
Philosophy is a stage in intellectual development, and is not compatible
with mental maturity. -- Bertrand Russell
Philosophy, as opposed to science, springs from a kind of
self-assertion: a belief that our purposes have an important relation to
the purposes of the universe, and that, in the long run, the course of
events is bound to be, on the whole, such as we should wish. -- Bertrand
Russell
theBeaver
> Please explain why there is something rather than nothing.
You are apparently, in your backhanded way, suggesting that "philosophy"
can answer this question?
I guarantee you that the only chance for an explanation for the
existence of the universe, if such is even possible, will come through
advanced science, not the disorganized, undisciplined, and
instinct-driven mind of the tribal animal that you are. Our thinking is
designed to propagate your DNA in an earthbound environment, and it is
only through feats of logic and science, disrespecting what we thought
we knew, that we move beyond this.
Philosophy exists because people are dissatisfied with scientific
explanations of things, with the world as it is, and is therefore rooted
in self-delusion and presumption. A scientist acts as if the truth
resides in the details. The philosopher assumes that the details are
irrelevant, which I have found this is often an excuse for laziness and
complacency.
More importantly, explain why you wonder that there is something rather
than nothing, why you presume that there must be a reason, why you are
dissatisfied if there is no reason for your existence. Science will
eventually answer these things.
Randy Story
"theBeaver" <no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BSCXd.58040$EL5.9225@trnddc05...
People can be disatisfied with so called sceince when it calls its theories
truth. You can never come to absolute truth with sceince through inductive
logic, but with deductive logic absolute truths can be discovered. And
besides sceince can only tell us the how something works but not where it
came from or why it works a certain way.
Sir Frederick
>Sir Frederick wrote:
>> Please explain why there is something rather than nothing.
>
>You are apparently, in your backhanded way, suggesting that "philosophy"
>can answer this question?
I'm not suggesting anything, only exercising my ability to ask
the question.
>
>I guarantee you that the only chance for an explanation for the
>existence of the universe, if such is even possible, will come through
>advanced science, not the disorganized, undisciplined, and
>instinct-driven mind of the tribal animal that you are. Our thinking is
>designed to propagate your DNA in an earthbound environment, and it is
>only through feats of logic and science, disrespecting what we thought
>we knew, that we move beyond this.
>
>Philosophy exists because people are dissatisfied with scientific
>explanations of things, with the world as it is, and is therefore rooted
>in self-delusion and presumption. A scientist acts as if the truth
>resides in the details. The philosopher assumes that the details are
>irrelevant, which I have found this is often an excuse for laziness and
>complacency.
>
>More importantly, explain why you wonder that there is something rather
>than nothing,
Because I am a curmudgeon and like to cause trouble. :-)
>why you presume that there must be a reason, why you are
>dissatisfied if there is no reason for your existence.
I don't presume that. Why do you presume that I do presume that?
> Science will
>eventually answer these things.
IMO not human science, including, presumably, yours.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"For every complex problem there is a
solution that is simple, neat and wrong."
"Every normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
and begin slitting throats." -H. L. Mencken
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Tron
"Michael" <jkt...@mail.com> skrev i melding
news:1110340555.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The dichotomy science/philosophy is a false one. Historically, philosophy is
the mother, of all the special sciences. Philosophy encompasses all other
science, including "secondary philosophy" or philosophy of nature, and its
practical application in various productive disciplines and endeavours, and
is therefore definitely also the Queen of Sciences.
"Natural science" is a too narrow definition of science, although it
conforms to modern anglo-american usage. Science is in essence any ordered
hierarchy of concepts; i.e. logic + at least one other principle to supply
the material, the content of logic.
Example: The fourth principle that underpins empiricist natural philosophy
is of course (some form of more or less naive) realism, accepting the world
as it appears, except for the aspects of it that are not like they appear
(like the sun not really moving, and all that). Theology is logic + God, and
so on.
Sometimes the uninformed question the degree of progress in philosophy. They
fail to understand how incredibly far philosophy did progress right from
the start. Science, or, as it were, applied natural philosophy, is lagging
far behind. Who knows where science would have been, had scientists been
able to incorporate e.g. dialectical thinking.
Not to mention ethics - perhaps we might have done without the Bomb,
pollution, lifestyle diseases, mass extinction.
For a business that gets tons of money pured into it, science is itself not
so impressive.
Of course natural science engineers a smarter cheese grater every other
quater year. Put thousands of people to work for milions of dollars - _no_
development would be a miracle.
Since we are on the subject of utility, let me remind you of the computer
you use. The field of computers is the latest practical result of applied
philosophy, and, as always, it spawned a revolution. No philosophers = no
computers.
To answer whether or not philosophy has made progress, one would have to
have a standard for philosophical progress or development. Philosophy is
doing productive work in those areas where there is no accepted methodology
for arriving at true or, as it were, useful answers. Science, as the saying
goes, answers questions, while philosophy questions answers.Where philosophy
begins, sciencecomes to a halt. Hence, a lot of categories which validate
science are simply not applicable to philosophy. An extraneous standard,
like "has philosophy made any contribution to X?" is not a standard of
philosphical progress.
And philosphy has not only made contributions to, say, science, it has _made
science itself_. So there.
Philosophy and science is a bit like the Netherlands and farming. First
someone has to fill a certain plot up to rise above the North Sea, then the
farmers can move in. Land fillers don't produce vegetables, but neither do
Dutch farmers without landfillers.
I think you are confusing the use of the term "philosophy" for something
like "Weltanschauung", or "policy" (set of adopted principles to serve as
basis for choices and actions), with philosophy as the activity that
invetigates assumptions (in order to find more valid ones).
Personally, I would reserve the term philosophy for research in metaphysics,
epistemology and ethics, the standard disciplines (with their
sub-disciplines) of philosophy.
A.T.
>
> Philosophy exists because people are dissatisfied with scientific
> explanations of things, with the world as it is, and is therefore rooted
> in self-delusion and presumption. A scientist acts as if the truth...
Are you sure that the questions about materialism or idealism are
already over?
Are you sure that human nature could be completely explained by science?
What about human soul, spiritual or such things just not exist?
What about soul's DNA?
Are you already no what is soul?
A.T.
enki
There is no reason, things just exiest. I don't care why I exiest, I
do and I have to cope with it. I exiest and I see myself as an end in
myself.
enki
Hum, intersting and provocitive subject.
Some elements of philsophy I believe that will never we relpaced by
science. They are esthetics and ethics. That is how will science
define justice freedom or good. I guess somone could invent a machine
that can figure out your personal problems six decimal places.
enki
wisdom. It
is searching for how to use this knowledge properly. This will combine
morality with knowledge to learn how to best act out the knowledge we
have.
Philosophy will never die.
Yes people who study philosophy are 3.76 time more wise than those who
don't.
Ron
"enki" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And they are also 6.74 less wise than those who study philosophy PLUS
another discipline.
RyanT
branch of philosophy, mainly "rational empiricism", originating from
Aristotle's ideas I think.
Ryan
JonTi
You claim there is no reason for existence in general. What about
particular things? If there is no reason for existence as such, can
there be reason for any particular thing to exist?
If things in general, or in particular, have no reason to exist (put
another way:- if there is no reason for things to be the way they are)
then where does the regularity of the world come from?
enki
particular things? If there is no reason for existence as such, can
there be reason for any particular thing to exist?
If things in general, or in particular, have no reason to exist (put
another way:- if there is no reason for things to be the way they are)
then where does the regularity of the world come from?
Why is a human interpitation. I exiest because of my parents and so on
all the way back to organic chemicals forming. I write this artlice
bcause of a choice that I percieve myself making. I have the sensation
of a wil. The wind blows because of cool and warm air. To me a why is
a means to an end. Nature has no end or purpose, it just is.
theBeaver
"Absolute truths" about the real world can NEVER be discovered, in
principle. 2+2=4 and syllogisms and everything else you know to be
absolutely true are about relations between ideas, not the real world.
In the realm of ideas, there can be "absolutes" because its all
hypothetical and doesn't pretend to be anything else. So what? But
real world deduction is based on premises which themselves are based on
premises (and so on) which ultimately cannot be "proven". Name one
"absolute truth" that has been "discovered" that is not simply a
relation between ideas. One example would prove me wrong.
theBeaver
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:29:05 GMT, theBeaver <no...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sir Frederick wrote:
>>
>>>Please explain why there is something rather than nothing.
>>
>>You are apparently, in your backhanded way, suggesting that "philosophy"
>>can answer this question?
>
>
> I'm not suggesting anything, only exercising my ability to ask
> the question.
>
>
>>I guarantee you that the only chance for an explanation for the
>>existence of the universe, if such is even possible, will come through
>>advanced science, not the disorganized, undisciplined, and
>>instinct-driven mind of the tribal animal that you are. Our thinking is
>>designed to propagate your DNA in an earthbound environment, and it is
>>only through feats of logic and science, disrespecting what we thought
>>we knew, that we move beyond this.
>>
>>Philosophy exists because people are dissatisfied with scientific
>>explanations of things, with the world as it is, and is therefore rooted
>>in self-delusion and presumption. A scientist acts as if the truth
>>resides in the details. The philosopher assumes that the details are
>>irrelevant, which I have found this is often an excuse for laziness and
>>complacency.
>>
>>More importantly, explain why you wonder that there is something rather
>>than nothing,
>
>
> Because I am a curmudgeon and like to cause trouble. :-)
>
Like me?
>
>>why you presume that there must be a reason, why you are
>>dissatisfied if there is no reason for your existence.
>
>
> I don't presume that. Why do you presume that I do presume that?
>
Because I am a curmudgeon and like to cause trouble.
>
>> Science will
>>eventually answer these things.
>
>
> IMO not human science, including, presumably, yours.
>
Then wait until human science evolves into non-human science, as it
inevitably will.
theBeaver
> theBeaver wrote:
>
>>
>> Philosophy exists because people are dissatisfied with scientific
>> explanations of things, with the world as it is, and is therefore
>> rooted in self-delusion and presumption. A scientist acts as if the
>> truth...
>
>
> Are you sure that the questions about materialism or idealism are
> already over?
>
> Are you sure that human nature could be completely explained by science?
>
As sure as I can be of anything. After all, we haven't yet observed any
atomic or subatomic activity in human flesh that is not covered by
quantum electrodynamic theory. The higher level functioning of the
human brain may of course not be precisely predictable because of the
system's complexity, but science can certainly tell us some things that
a pile of chemical slime CANNOT do.
> What about human soul, spiritual or such things just not exist?
After millenia, still no objective evidence supporting what would be the
fulfillment of the deepest human desire. Instead, ever-growing evidence
that, without a well-functioning brain, thought and consciousness and
feeling and memory can't continue. There's not the slightest clue that
what we regard as "human" can exist without matter. Just a persistent
wish and hope. But that we want something to be true doesn't mean it is
true.
> What about soul's DNA?
> Are you already no what is soul?
We don't know exactly what consciousness is, but we know what it can't
exist without, so we know how to destroy it. If your soul requires
consciousness and cannot, by definition, be destroyed, there is
therefore no such thing as a soul.
>
> A.T.
>
>
--
Philosophy is a stage in intellectual development, and is not compatible
with mental maturity. -- Bertrand Russell
Philosophy, as opposed to science, springs from a kind of
self-assertion: a belief that our purposes have an important relation to
the purposes of the universe, and that, in the long run, the course of
events is bound to be, on the whole, such as we should wish. -- Bertrand
Russell
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human
Side , edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman,
and published by Princeton University Press.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should
be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality,
deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how
despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than
be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under
the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." [Albert Einstein]
Sir Frederick
>> theBeaver wrote:
>>
>
>We
I object to your royal 'We'.
>don't know exactly what consciousness is,
I know exactly what consciousness is,
speak for your curmudgeonly ignorant self.
The subjective experience called 'consciousness'
is a quale (a representation of some brain states,
similar to color being a representation of some sensory
states) (just as there is no 'real' color, there is no 'real'
consciousness) (the 'representations' are parts of the
personal brain based virtual self)
Isn't nature lovely, making use of fictions, then conning us to
consider that fiction as real.
>but we know what it can't
>exist without, so we know how to destroy it. If your soul requires
>consciousness and cannot, by definition, be destroyed, there is
>therefore no such thing as a soul.
Are you prone to mumbling?
enki
I can't concieve nothing. I don't see nothing as a posibility.
These doulbe negives...
enki
theories
truth. You can never come to absolute truth with sceince through
inductive
logic, but with deductive logic absolute truths can be discovered. And
besides sceince can only tell us the how something works but not where
it
came from or why it works a certain way.
Scientific is or is supposed to be an objective way of looking at the
world, basically it is about getting the same result under the same
circumstances. What you are saying is that some people don't like the
color blue so they try to see the sky as a different color.
In human affairs, how we relate ot each other, we are different. We
appear to have independent wills. You put people in school they will
not all obtain the same level of education, people will not all invest
their money the same under the same cirumstances. Not all people have
the same opinion on file sharing on and on. We create principals of
what is good bad right wrong ok and bad. We get enough people who
believe the same or can influnce government and we make laws and
formally punish people. If more than 51% of the peopel have use
marahuana why is it still illegal?
Ron
"enki" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People can be disatisfied with so called sceince when it calls its
> theories
> truth. You can never come to absolute truth with sceince through
> inductive
> logic, but with deductive logic absolute truths can be discovered. And
> besides sceince can only tell us the how something works but not where
> it
> came from or why it works a certain way.
>
> Scientific is or is supposed to be an objective way of looking at the
> world, basically it is about getting the same result under the same
> circumstances. What you are saying is that some people don't like the
> color blue so they try to see the sky as a different color.
Philosophy ignores the effects of time and space when it considers "what
is truth?" I am a human being. This is true. This is something that can
be demonstrated through empirical evidence AND it can be demonstrated
with abstract theorizing. This, however, has a limitation. I was not a
human being 100 years ago. In 20,000 when all evidence of my existence
is gone, the statement "I am a human being" will be false.
FreeThink
The term "human being" must be defined as to be understood for use as a
premise of philosophical examination like you have just done.
Ron
"FreeThink" <zeno7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I stated recently though, philosphy ignores the issue of space and
time. Regardless of what the definition of what a human *is* the
definition will not longer be true at various points in time. It a
question of where we decide to place the time boundaries with respect to
the definition.
FreeThink
You then may want to include your assertion in the debate as well. Or
make it the debate.
Ron
"FreeThink" <zeno7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I already did that.
The statement of "truth" that I am a human being is true now. The
statement will only be true for a period of time. 20 years before the
birth of my mother, the statement "I am a human being" is no longer
true. The statement becomes false. This is true no matter what criteria
or traits that I use in the definition of human being.
I suspect that all statement of truth or absolute truth can be
demonstrated as false by looking at the effects of time. An apple is
only an apple while it is an apple. When it is a blossom, it no longer
conforms to the definition of an apple, unless the definition of an
apple includes the process of becoming a piece of fruit that may be
eaten, or that is red, or that is green, or some otherwise described.
FreeThink
As I stated earlier in this topic the first "truth" may soon be proven.
Einstein's relativity theory included time in the equation and is
universally applicable. I think that if it is proven then much will no
longer need to be debated that currently is.
Does your assertion state that if it is proven topics should resume
being debated that should not be now?
Ron
"FreeThink" <zeno7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I found the question difficult to follow. What I am suggesting is that
many of the things that we accept, upon further review, can be found to
be untrue. The general notion of truth is that it transcends time. The
"truth" that I am a human being will not be true for all time.