Has philosophy answered anything?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Has philosophy answered anything? » Has philosophy answered anything?

Has philosophy answered anything?

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 09/06/09 - 10:36 PM:	#61
In short, Philosophy cannot answer anything because philosophy is the cosmic workshop to discover wisdom. Once, Philosophy does germinate a truly useful idea which threatens to answer a question, a new field of human knowledge is born: christianity, politics, jurisprudence, psychology, science, maths, physics, sociology, etc, etc. Of course not necessarily in that order. Some of the less defined ideas just hang around and polute universities, government or corporate think tanks - a la critical theory, post modernism, foucalt, etc. Others like existentialism evolve into our pop culture, fiction and movies. But once an idea threatens to answer a question conclusively philosophers feel compelled to become skeptical and to question the assumptions behind it. It is for more practical types to see if the idea can be persuasive in the real world. Thus there can never be a philosophical question which is answered and proven. Society may find something useful but by then the philosphers are already headed down a thousand new exciting possibilities. It is wisdoms workshop not its factory

onisani
angry panda

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 174

Posted 09/06/09 - 11:31 PM:	#62
Arkady wrote: Nope. He was a scientist. That science was borne of philosophy doesn't make all scientists philosophers. Even if scientists in Darwin's time were then called "natural philosophers" they were scientists. He provided a solution to the mystery of complex life forms. "How is it possible that there are such complicated, beautiful things like plants and animals in the world?" seems to be a philosophical question. You asked for answers to "purely philosophical" questions. I'm guessing the one above is too biologically tainted to qualify. But what question is purely philosophical?

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 260

Posted 09/07/09 - 06:26 AM:	#63
Philosophy is like a weed whacker that chops away the invalid, unsound, and silly answers to philosopher questions.
thanatos

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 433

Posted 09/07/09 - 06:38 AM:	#64
onisani wrote: He provided a solution to the mystery of complex life forms. "How is it possible that there are such complicated, beautiful things like plants and animals in the world?" seems to be a philosophical question. Then all scientists are philosophers. As well as historians, detectives, journalists, and anybody who answers any deep or important question. This would seem an overbroad definition. onisani wrote: You asked for answers to "purely philosophical" questions. I'm guessing the one above is too biologically tainted to qualify. But what question is purely philosophical? I asked for a "uniquely" philosophical question, as in "wouldn't fall under the jurisdiction of any other field, such as psychology or physics (or biology, in this case)." Examples would be "Are there other minds?" "What are the requirements of knowledge?" "What is truth?" etc etc Edited by Arkady on 09/07/09 - 06:53 AM
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

onisani
angry panda

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 174

Posted 09/07/09 - 08:03 AM:	#65
Arkady wrote: Then all scientists are philosophers. As well as historians, detectives, journalists, and anybody who answers any deep or important question. This would seem an overbroad definition. I asked for a "uniquely" philosophical question, as in "wouldn't fall under the jurisdiction of any other field, such as psychology or physics (or biology, in this case)." Examples would be "Are there other minds?" "What are the requirements of knowledge?" "What is truth?" etc etc If you want to restrict your thread to those kinds of questions then that is of course your choice, but I think it is a mistake to separate philosophy from the sciences. Philosophy doesn't have many of its "own" problems (even the ones you state are not so clear. For example, when discussing minds, knowledge etc. neuroscience and phsychology will probably creep into your debate). Just look at the sections of PF: Philosophy of Science, Language, Religion, Politics etc. If you exclude any question within the realm of another discipline, then maybe philosophy has never answered anything, because there is no substance left to work with. All one is left with are word games. What is truth? No wonder no-one has answered that one conclusively.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 433

Posted 09/07/09 - 08:14 AM:	#66
onisani wrote: If you want to restrict your thread to those kinds of questions then that is of course your choice, but I think it is a mistake to separate philosophy from the sciences. Philosophy is distinct from the sciences, having parted company hundreds of years ago as distinct disciplines. Science has little if anything to say about huge swaths of certain philosophical topics. Ethics, for instance, is almost completely out of the purview of the sciences, being a normative, rather than descriptive, discipline. Science can inform some aspects of the debate, but any ethical conclusions we'd reach are purely philosophical in nature. onisani wrote: Philosophy doesn't have many of its "own" problems (even the ones you state are not so clear. For example, when discussing minds, knowledge etc. neuroscience and psychology will probably creep into your debate). Just look at the sections of PF: Philosophy of Science, Language, Religion, Politics etc. I agree they'll "creep in" but this type of cross-fertilization doesn't undermine either the science of mind or the philosophy of mind as distinct enterprises. Read papers on the philosophy of mind and you'll find nary a reference to neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters, etc. Some philosophers (e.g. Dan Dennett) are comfortable inhabiting both worlds; most are not. onisani wrote: If you exclude any question within the realm of another discipline, then maybe philosophy has never answered anything, because there is no substance left to work with. I disagree for the reasons stated above. onisani wrote: All one is left with are word games. Certainly a very Wittgensteinian point of view. But I doubt most philosophers would agree. onisani wrote: What is truth? No wonder no-one has answered that one conclusively. Certainly this is a very deep and complex issue. But it is not out of the realm of possibility that a philosopher could come up with a solution to this problem. Asking "what makes a proposition true?" is perfectly amenable to rational discussion and analysis and has spawned any number of theories (correspondence theory, deflationary theory, etc). There's no reason to believe such a question is intractable. But, if that's too rich for your blood, perhaps focus on more modest questions, such as "what are the requirements of knowledge?"
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

onisani
angry panda

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 174

Posted 09/07/09 - 10:36 AM:	#67
Arkady wrote: Philosophy is distinct from the sciences, having parted company hundreds of years ago as distinct disciplines. Science has little if anything to say about huge swaths of certain philosophical topics. Ethics, for instance, is almost completely out of the purview of the sciences, being a normative, rather than descriptive, discipline. Science can inform some aspects of the debate, but any ethical conclusions we'd reach are purely philosophical in nature. Maybe the fact that ethics is a normative discipline is what makes it impossible to find answers. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is", or norms and values from facts. In ethics, we look for norms and values, but there are only facts in the world. The sciences, on the other hand, look for facts, which they can find by working on the facts they know.

Ratheius Netheros
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005

Total Topics: 49
Total Posts: 304

Posted 09/09/09 - 05:15 PM:	#68
Why do we assume that disagreement means that philosophy hasn't established a truth. We consider scientific truths valid even if disagreement exists. We simply say those who disagree are not being "scientific" and obeying the particular rules of that language game. Why do we concede, unlike science, that we are simply having a "disagreement." I regularly discuss philosophical issues with people and think, quite frankly, that they are wrong and the issue is solved. If I didn't think philosophy could provide tangible results, and be useful, I wouldn't be pursuing a philosophy degree. I study it precisely because I think it's useful. Why do we even concede that science answers anything, then, or even produces anything? Surely we can treat philosophies usefulness, like science, with respect to the results it produces (not some mystical notion of truth). If that is the case, philosophy has contributed in many ways. Why do we insist on judging "answers" with respect to anything other than pragmatics?

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 433

Posted 09/09/09 - 05:36 PM:	#69
Ratheius Netheros wrote: Why do we assume that disagreement means that philosophy hasn't established a truth I don't. Please see post #45 for what I'd consider an "answer" to a philosophical question. Ratheius Netheros wrote: We consider scientific truths valid even if disagreement exists. We simply say those who disagree are not being "scientific" and obeying the particular rules of that language game. I don't know that science is a "language game," if by that term you mean an arbitrary social construction (or something close to that). Ratheius Netheros wrote: If I didn't think philosophy could provide tangible results, and be useful, I wouldn't be pursuing a philosophy degree. I study it precisely because I think it's useful. I never made any claim as to the usefulness of philosophy or lack thereof in this thread. It is simply not the topic. Ratheius Netheros wrote: Why do we even concede that science answers anything, then, or even produces anything? Surely we can treat philosophies usefulness, like science, with respect to the results it produces (not some mystical notion of truth). I'm not sure you're using "concede" correctly. Anyway, science does answer questions and produce things, so anyone stating that would be making a well-supported claim. Ratheius Netheros wrote: If that is the case, philosophy has contributed in many ways. I agree. But, again, the contributions of philosophy are not at issue here. Ratheius Netheros wrote: Why do we insist on judging "answers" with respect to anything other than pragmatics? Answers should be judged on their logic and correspondence to reality. I don't understand your use of "pragmatics" here. Edited by Arkady on 09/09/09 - 05:44 PM
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Ratheius Netheros
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005

Total Topics: 49
Total Posts: 304

Posted 09/09/09 - 06:06 PM:	#70
Yeah I meant science in terms of constructions. I was using "concede" legitimately. I was saying we could accept, for the sake of argument, that science actually answers questions. What makes you think science answers questions? If the definition of an answered question is as you suggest in 45, scientific theory is based on the idea that its answers could be proven wrong in the future, by new evidence. Is an answer something true given all available information. Then it becomes a matter of degree. If solutions are degrees, rather than certainties, you could argue philosophy has solved problems simply by appealing to a truth criteria. Science necessarily accepts its own criteria of truth as legitimate because those criteria have been shown to produce results for society. Similarly, philosophical methods have been shown to produce results. I am suggesting that perhaps truth is simply what "works", pragmatism, rather than something that corresponds to reality. Even if it is correspondence, I still think the issue of how science can have concluded something, using your statement 45, is quite problematic. You have to say truth is X, to begin with, rather than discovery what truth is. Truth could be a potato. If truth is 45, why does science satisfy that criteria?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.