What problems does philosophy solve

[John Cuthber]

Is philosophy an art and do we expect it to "achieve" anything beyond being enjoyed by some people?

If it's an art- comparable in some way to things like music and sculpture- then it has a purpose, but I'm not sure it solves a problem apart from the ones put forward earlier as jokes- it may be a pleasant enough way to waste some time.

[davidivad]

philosophy opens the people to questions tha science can answer.

this is how science was born itself.

once geometry was a thing caught in a philosopher's stone.

[Eise]

Is philosophy an art and do we expect it to "achieve" anything beyond being enjoyed by some people?

If it's an art- comparable in some way to things like music and sculpture- then it has a purpose, but I'm not sure it solves a problem apart from the ones put forward earlier as jokes- it may be a pleasant enough way to waste some time.

 

Well, then it least has a purpose.

 

But I do think philosophy offers more, but I already wrote that here.

 

Let me know what you think.

For a philosopher you sure seem to have missed every metaphorical meaning I put in that "beautifully written" argument.

 

OK. Message taken. But then your contribution is as meaningful as e.g. this one.

 

Physics resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the impossibility to know what reality really is behind our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.

 

If you think this is absurd, then look at all the crackpot theories that are posted here or sent to physicists. You know, it is for those who think that physics tells us what reality really is behind the scenes. It only has nothing to do with what physics really is.

[John Cuthber]

What you describe as it "offering more" Is essentially the invention of the "Scientific Method" which happened some time ago.

That's a problem which (arguably ) philosophy "solved" not "solves"

 

What are the circumstances where someone says "Help! I need a philosopher!"?

[Eise]

What you describe as it "offering more" Is essentially the invention of the "Scientific Method" which happened some time ago.

 

Now that is a straw man. I would even claim that philosophy didn't invent the scientific method.

What are the circumstances where someone says "Help! I need a philosopher!"?

 

If someone needs intellectual clarity.

[Dekan]

 

Now that is a straw man. I would even claim that philosophy didn't invent the scientific method.

 

If someone needs intellectual clarity.

Yes, I think your claim is right. Philosophers didn't invent the scientific method. More likely - they actually resisted it. Because they didn't like the plain exactitude of Science.

As an example - didn't one of them dismiss Galileo's 1610 epochal "Star Messenger" book, with its painstaking scientific diagrams of movements of Jupiter's satellites - by this snooty comment:

 

"A dry discourse, devoid of all philosophy"

 

As for intellectual clarity, I've always found more far more clarity in books written by scientists, than by philosophers. The philosophers were worthy in their time. Like in Ancient Greece. In those days, they deserved respect. Because they "loved wisdom", at a time when most people didn't. So the philosophers shouldn't be despised.

 

But their "wisdom" didn't go very far. These days it's been replaced by modern Science, which is much better. I think we should thank the philosophers for some of their past efforts.

And bid them adieu.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Dekan

[Strange]

Yes, I think your claim is right. Philosophers didn't invent the scientific method. More likely - they actually resisted it..

 

I would say that philosophers analysed and refined the scientific method after scientists had been using it on an ad-hoc basis for several centuries.

 

Philosophers also put mathematics on a solid, axiomatic basis.

[John Cuthber]

 

Now that is a straw man. I would even claim that philosophy didn't invent the scientific method.

 

If someone needs intellectual clarity.

I was giving philosophy the "benefit of the doubt" (considerable doubt).

It was a summary of this

"But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it justified to accept a theory."

If you say that philosophy achieves less than that, fair enough: I'm not going to argue.

 

You also said

"Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers"

As far as I can tell, that's a matter for some mixture of psychology, anatomy, physiology (possibly computer science) and a few other things- but those are all science ad it has been clearly stated (though not rigorously shown) that science isn't philosophy.

That we have reached 5 pages without anyone actually answering the question "what-problems-does-philosophy-solve" rather gainsays the notion that philosophy provides clarity.

 

 

At root, you say

" If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'.".

Name one.

[arc]

 

Physics resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the impossibility to know what reality really is behind our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.

 

If you think this is absurd, then look at all the crackpot theories that are posted here or sent to physicists. You know, it is for those who think that physics tells us what reality really is behind the scenes. It only has nothing to do with what physics really is.

 

I like what you did with that. I might have to borrow it sometime.

 

But the first and last sentences don't fit very well. And the middle is a little awkward. How about;

 

Science resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been in our understanding of nature. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the difficulties to understand our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going on to a much greater understanding than any previous discipline.

 

The reason for my criticism of philosophy, "And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology." is its inability to constrain its content. To put it another way, it leaks like a sieve. We had a thread recently http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86097-earth-is-a-living-organism/

 

It was a rather generic replay of the "we are just the cells of a larger organism - the Earth" concept or something similar. This idea is the result of our culture mixing philosophical ideas, many old with many new, without the benefit of any rigorous boundaries, into still newer hybrid concepts.

 

I have no doubt I would get a large "yes" response if I asked random people on the street if the Earth was/or is like a living organism. Pop culture has been pushing this idea for at least four decades. From Star Wars;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28Star_Wars%29#Midichlorians

 

The Force is a binding, metaphysical, and ubiquitous power created by Midichlorians, microscopic bio-organic entities.

 

"Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."

―Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker[src]

Midi-chlorians were intelligent microscopic life forms that lived symbiotically inside the cells of all living things.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Star Wars, always did. But people over time start to naturally mix concepts together, they always have and always will. Star Wars borrowed heavily from eastern culture, religion and philosophy, the jedi, their dress, their fighting style, even their names as seen above, it is a wonderful construct.

 

And then there's the hugely influential movie Avatar, a tour de force of a planet being an organism concept, borrowing heavily from indigenous culture and religious beliefs. Blending all life together with the planet in almost seamless symbiosis.

 

And in fashion with popular culture we have the quasi scientific Gaia movement that borrows heavily from all these philosophies, concepts and constructs to create a hybrid idea for the current sensitivity about the environment.

 

Philosophy may be constrained within academia, but step outside the door and it is a free for all.

 

Science on the other hand has the discipline and rigor to continually check its progress, stay on track so to speak. How do we know this? Because most things made from its efforts work. Airplanes fly, mag trains glide, electric cars roll, GPS works everywhere and so on and so forth.

 

Does philosophy have proof of such rigor? Will philosophy run head on into science's possible invalidation of gaia theory?

 

The question for Philosophy may not be what problems it solves, but how many of the distractions it makes for science is to many.

[Eise]

Yes, I think your claim is right. Philosophers didn't invent the scientific method. More likely - they actually resisted it. Because they didn't like the plain exactitude of Science.

As an example - didn't one of them dismiss Galileo's 1610 epochal "Star Messenger" book, with its painstaking scientific diagrams of movements of Jupiter's satellites - by this snooty comment:

 

"A dry discourse, devoid of all philosophy"

 

As for intellectual clarity, I've always found more far more clarity in books written by scientists, than by philosophers. The philosophers were worthy in their time. Like in Ancient Greece. In those days, they deserved respect. Because they "loved wisdom", at a time when most people didn't. So the philosophers shouldn't be despised.

 

But their "wisdom" didn't go very far. These days it's been replaced by modern Science, which is much better. I think we should thank the philosophers for some of their past efforts.

And bid them adieu.

 

Philosophers will not go away. Or better philosophy will not go away. The difference is: there might come a time that people do not want to pay an academic discipline that only strives for intellectual clarity. Of course, every science strives to intellectual clarity, so in this respect philosophy seems to be a discipline without a subject. However, every time science gets into some crisis, like the beginning of QM in the 20th century, or the methodological discussions in sociology, psychology etc, scientists are doing philosophy. They might be best equipped, better than 'general philosophers', but surely, when having fundamental methodological discussions, scientists are not actually doing science: they philosophise. Now, if somebody specialises in such fundamental questions in sciences in general, he is a philosopher.

 

I think you are perfectly able to make the parallels for other philosophical disciplines, like ethics, social philosophy, philosophical anthropology etc.

 

Then there is a big area that is often forgotten by scientists: daily life. As our understanding of nature and ourselves increases, questions about what the consequences for us individuals, change. These questions should be clarified, maybe answered. But as times change, these questions change, and so their answers. So there is no permanent 'body of philosophy', of definite answered questions. It is a mistake to see philosophy as a science.

 

Philosophy is the big reservoir of intellectual techniques, of memories about how people thought about all kind of problems, a training in how to cope with intelligibility problems. It is useful, because the same kind of intelligibility problems rise again and again in a changing society.

I was giving philosophy the "benefit of the doubt" (considerable doubt).

It was a summary of this

"But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it [/size]justified to accept a theory."[/size]

If you say that philosophy achieves less than that, fair enough: I'm not going to argue.

 

Philosophers did not develop the scientific method: scientists did. Philosophers clarified it, made it explicit. And so also made it useful for e.g. the demarcation between science and pseudo science. (Be aware: philosophy does not pretend to be a science, so it cannot be a pseudo science.)

 

You also said

"Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out [/size]how they think might again be a task for philosophers"[/size]

As far as I can tell, that's a matter for some mixture of psychology, anatomy, physiology (possibly computer science) and a few other things- but those are all science ad it has been clearly stated (though not rigorously shown) that science isn't philosophy.

That we have reached 5 pages without anyone actually answering the question "what-problems-does-philosophy-solve" rather gainsays the notion that philosophy provides clarity.

 

I already said: philosophy clarifies.

 

At root, you say

" If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'.".

Name one.

 

I consider the free will problem solved, mainly by clarifying what 'free will' really means. You can start a new thread about free will if you want to...

Edited November 9, 2014 by Eise

[John Cuthber]

There's already a thread discussing free will

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82234-the-debate-of-free-will/

 

 

If it had been "solved" or "clarified" by philosophy (or otherwise) there wouldn't have been a thread about it in the same way that there isn't a thread about "what is 2+2?".

[Eise]

If it had been "solved" or "clarified" by philosophy (or otherwise) there wouldn't have been a thread about it in the same way that there isn't a thread about "what is 2+2?".

 

Yes, and relativity and QM are also still highly disputed. Look at all those postings of crackpots coming in here! So many more threads on it than on "2+2".

 

I can't help that there are so many crackpots thinking that the problem isn't solved yet.

 

The 'problem' with relativity, QM and the solution of free will, is that they are (partially) counter intuitive. The extra problem with free will is that intuitions are very dear to many people, connected to their answer on the meaning of life, and their world view in general. That is true both for 'hard determinists' and believers in contra causal free will.

[John Cuthber]

 

I can't help that there are so many crackpots thinking that the problem isn't solved yet.

 

Well, if you say the only problem that philosophers can solve is giving clarity, and you can't provide clarity to those threads then either you are not a philosopher or you were mistaken.

[Strange]

... in the same way that there isn't a thread about "what is 2+2?".

 

Although there have been threads disputing the basics of arithmetic (either claiming it is wrong or that is just an arbitrary assumption).

Well, if you say the only problem that philosophers can solve is giving clarity, and you can't provide clarity to those threads then either you are not a philosopher or you were mistaken.

 

Or people are unwilling to accept the clarity offered. (Horse, water, etc.)

[Eise]

Well, if you say the only problem that philosophers can solve is giving clarity, and you can't provide clarity to those threads then either you are not a philosopher or you were mistaken.

 

Well, intellectual clarity does not mean that it is easy. When physicists say that they have a clear understanding of relativity, that does not mean that everybody can follow them.

 

Or people are unwilling to accept the clarity offered. (Horse, water, etc.)

 

Yep. Or unable.

[MonDie]

screw it

 

new thread, later

Edited November 10, 2014 by MonDie

[Eise]

Sorry, made an error with quoting

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Eise