present day Philosophers: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » present day Philosophers » present day Philosophers

present day Philosophers
Great present day philosophers of science

Page: 1 2 3 4

present day Philosophers

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4152

Posted 07/02/09 - 01:58 PM:	#11
I would differentiate between philosophy as "The love of wisdom" and the idiosyncratic tools of philosophy. Perhaps a little perspective can help. For reasons that still remain hotly debated roughly two thousand years ago most of the major world religions and philosophies all emerged on the scene. We could therefore posit that, like punctuated evolution, occationally the accumulation of many details over time come together with the right conditions for sudden leaps in progress to occur in the philosophical world. Therefore our current situation may be one of those where all of these apparently disparate elements are just beginning to come together and we can expect great changes at some point in the not too distant future as measured on a sociological scale.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:46 PM:	#12
wuliheron wrote: I would differentiate between philosophy as "The love of wisdom" and the idiosyncratic tools of philosophy. As would I: The latter are meaningful and useful and the former is neither meaningful nor useful. wuliheron wrote: Perhaps a little perspective can help. For reasons that still remain hotly debated roughly two thousand years ago most of the major world religions and philosophies all emerged on the scene. We could therefore posit that, like punctuated evolution, occationally the accumulation of many details over time come together with the right conditions for sudden leaps in progress to occur in the philosophical world. Therefore our current situation may be one of those where all of these apparently disparate elements are just beginning to come together and we can expect great changes at some point in the not too distant future as measured on a sociological scale. Most of philosophy came into existence at the time of Christ? This would come as a great shock to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herclitus, Pythagorus and his school, the Cynics etc who predated that time (some of them by centuries). Likewise, it would come as a shock to existentialists, phenomenologists, pragmatsits, Hegelians, Kantians, Idealists etc whose philosophies arose long after the time you refer to. The claim that most major philosophies came into being during that time is laughable. While we are on the subject, many world religions "came onto the scene" both earlier and later than 2000 years ago, some of them substantially so. But thanks for playing. Why would you suppose that philosophy is evolving and towards greater unity no less? One of the great problems that confronted Contemporary philosophy was precisely the Multiplicity of different philosophical perspectives at the close of the modern period. Husserl (in the Crisis of the European Sciences) and Heidegger (in the Introduction to Metaphysics) in particular saw themselves as responding to this particular problem.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4152

Posted 07/03/09 - 11:18 AM:	#13
thewatcher wrote: As would I: The latter are meaningful and useful and the former is neither meaningful nor useful. {/quote] I find the love of wisdom quite meaningful and useful on a personal level; if you don't then you have my sympathy. [quote=thewatcher]Most of philosophy came into existence at the time of Christ? This would come as a great shock to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herclitus, Pythagorus and his school, the Cynics etc who predated that time (some of them by centuries). Likewise, it would come as a shock to existentialists, phenomenologists, pragmatsits, Hegelians, Kantians, Idealists etc whose philosophies arose long after the time you refer to. The claim that most major philosophies came into being during that time is laughable. While we are on the subject, many world religions "came onto the scene" both earlier and later than 2000 years ago, some of them substantially so. But thanks for playing. I said roughly 2,000 years ago and most of the world's major religions and philosophies. Buddha and Lao Tzu, for example, were several hundred years ealier and Plato's philosophy is still widely considered the most popular in the west. Islam came five hundred years after Christ, so if you prefer you might say there was roughly a thousand year period in which most of todays widely adopted religions and philosophies emerged. Many of these still wildly popular schools of thought cross pollinated as well, for example, Aristotle's logic was an instant overnight success with the masses and was quickly incorporated into the major religions. thewatcher wrote: Why would you suppose that philosophy is evolving and towards greater unity no less? One of the great problems that confronted Contemporary philosophy was precisely the Multiplicity of different philosophical perspectives at the close of the modern period. Husserl (in the Crisis of the European Sciences) and Heidegger (in the Introduction to Metaphysics) in particular saw themselves as responding to this particular problem. Holistic views, by definition, describe more than their reductionist counterparts and are therefore more useful in certain respects. However, their foundations are extremely broad and difficult to conceptualize. Thus it is often darkest before the dawn of new holistic theories as people search in every possible direction and no clear path seems to emerge. In many cases a great deal of the confusion surrounding such issues is caused by the reluctance to let go of established reductionist ideas. As the old joke has it, "I lost my keys in the dark, but I've looked everywhere under the light and can't find them." This occured in physics with the discovery of such things as radiation and the constancy of the speed of light which the reductionist theory of Newtonian Mechanics was at a loss to explain. The vast majority of theoretical physicists at the time attempted to construct some version of a reductionist theory of the aether. Einstein then managed to create a holistic theory of motion which answered some of these issues, but not all. Then came quantum mechanics which is incompatable with Einstein's relativity, and the search is still on to unify the two theories. This trend is visible in all the major sciences and philosophy today. Over the last century each of the sciences has steadily adopted their own holistic theories and the tools of holistic philosophy like Contextualism have become wildly popular within the sciences. Again, this is only because such things have proven their value, from purely pragamatic point of view it does not make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To paraphrase Einstein, "Constructing a new theory is not like tearing down an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is more like climbing a mountain, gain new and wider insights on our adventurous way up."

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/03/09 - 10:37 PM:	#14
wuliheron wrote: I said roughly 2,000 years ago and most of the world's major religions and philosophies. Buddha and Lao Tzu, for example, were several hundred years ealier and Plato's philosophy is still widely considered the most popular in the west. Islam came five hundred years after Christ, so if you prefer you might say there was roughly a thousand year period in which most of todays widely adopted religions and philosophies emerged. Many of these still wildly popular schools of thought cross pollinated as well, for example, Aristotle's logic was an instant overnight success with the masses and was quickly incorporated into the major religions. Oh I see. I thought you meant roughly 2,000 years ago when what you really meant was roughly 2,000 years ago give or take a few thousand years. It makes much more sense now. Many of the most important thinkers and movements in the entire history of philosophy came into play well before or well after the time frame you give. Where do you get the idea that Plato's philosophy is the most popular Western philosophy? I have been to philosophy departments around the United States, and I could probably count the Platonists I know on one hand (and that only by cheating and including neo-Platonist, Analytic interpreters of Plato etc). Are you seriously claiming that Platonism or Aristotelianism are more popular today than, say, existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction, or logical positivism? I am at a complete loss for where you would get such an idea. Regarding religion, your point is nearly as absurd. You have already mentioned Islam (which arose much later than the period you outlined). To that you could add Hinduism (which arose much earlier), Protestantism, Mormonism, various sects within Buddhism, animism and so on. wuliheron wrote: This trend is visible in all the major sciences and philosophy today. Over the last century each of the sciences has steadily adopted their own holistic theories and the tools of holistic philosophy like Contextualism have become wildly popular within the sciences. Again, this is only because such things have proven their value, from purely pragamatic point of view it does not make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Are you claiming that pre-modern thought was not holistic? The ancients and (to an even greater degree) the medievals attempted to construct comprehension theories that would make the most ambitious of modern physicists blush. Likewise, an increasing general trend towards holism (assuming it exists within philosophy, which you have failed to demonstrate by recourse to any reasonable set of examples) is not the same as a gradual unification of philosophical or scientific perspectives. On the contrary, you just get a bunch of competing holistic theories that are all the more irreconcilable with each other by virtue of their holism.

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 07/04/09 - 10:30 AM:	#15
thewatcher, I believe you have taken wuliheron too literally. I believe he was simply pointing out the influence of the axial age, where the majority of our religions and philosophies first emerged in their entirety. Now of course, such historical categorization has been attempted by many historians, and many have come up short. But the axial age, in my opinion, still stands as a form of historical reference worth mentioning. As for Wuliheron's metioning of Plato's popularity (though I cannot speak for him) I believe you have interpreted this incorrectly. I could be wrong, but I do not feel he meant that Palto's philosophy is the most popular within contemporary schools. Instead, as a historical philosophy, it has been widely held to be the most popular, possibly rivaled with Aristoteleanism. I could be wrong though...and perhaps Wuliheron will clear it up.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4152

Posted 07/04/09 - 11:47 AM:	#16
Thanks Kelby, you are correct on both counts, but I'm afraid it is not so easy to clear up the issues. Note that some of thewatchers "questions" appear to be facetious, having little or no bearing on anything I stated. For example, he asked, "Are you claiming that pre-modern thought was not holistic?" Likewise, he seems intent on writing his own dictionary with declarations that certain words are virtually meaningless or just plain incorrectly definied. Personally I'm waiting to see if he will resort to reductio ad absurdum, care to make any wagers? Unless he can present his views more coherently I don't see the wisdom (something he has declared so vague as to be meaningless) in responding.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/07/09 - 01:06 PM:	#17
Kelby wrote: thewatcher, I believe you have taken wuliheron too literally. I believe he was simply pointing out the influence of the axial age, where the majority of our religions and philosophies first emerged in their entirety. Now of course, such historical categorization has been attempted by many historians, and many have come up short. But the axial age, in my opinion, still stands as a form of historical reference worth mentioning. The assertion that most of the world's major philosophies and religions emerged during the time he suggested is demonstrably absurd. Even if we are to exclude major developments in recent though (as wuliheron seems intent on doing), we are still left with a range that is closer to between 3000 and about 1000 years ago. Kelby wrote: As for Wuliheron's metioning of Plato's popularity (though I cannot speak for him) I believe you have interpreted this incorrectly. I could be wrong, but I do not feel he meant that Palto's philosophy is the most popular within contemporary schools. Instead, as a historical philosophy, it has been widely held to be the most popular, possibly rivaled with Aristoteleanism. I could be wrong though...and perhaps Wuliheron will clear it up. I do not see how you could come to this conclusion either. Platonism proper, as a philosophy, did enjoy a few centuries of prominance, but following the rise of neo-Platonist thought, was very much overshadowed. It didnt take long for neo-Platonism to meet a similar fate in both Europe and the Near East with the rise of Medieval Scholastic thought. Now, it could be (to be VERY generous) that wuliheron is in fact suggesting something like "the Plato to Kant canon" but that is quite different from saying that Platonism as a school has enjoyed massive historical popularity.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/07/09 - 01:07 PM:	#18
wuliheron wrote: Thanks Kelby, you are correct on both counts, but I'm afraid it is not so easy to clear up the issues. Note that some of thewatchers "questions" appear to be facetious, having little or no bearing on anything I stated. For example, he asked, "Are you claiming that pre-modern thought was not holistic?" Likewise, he seems intent on writing his own dictionary with declarations that certain words are virtually meaningless or just plain incorrectly definied. Personally I'm waiting to see if he will resort to reductio ad absurdum, care to make any wagers? Unless he can present his views more coherently I don't see the wisdom (something he has declared so vague as to be meaningless) in responding. So, in other words, you are going to refuse to address any of my points and instead resort to ad hom attacks?

Rortabend
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/10/09 - 02:27 AM:	#19
t3chn0n3rd wrote: There seems to be a lacking of great present day philosophers of science. It seems instead of pursuing the natural sciences, present day scholars are turning the the inexact science of psychology. Today modern day universities seems to be turning out more phd's in psychology than philosophy. I would like to see a reemergence in the great natural philosophers, and I dont mean theologians. It seems the modern day theologian is also an armchair psychologist. It would be great to see modern day philosophers versed in western, and eastern philosophical systems. I also would like to see the modern day philosopher be able to articulate ideas on technology, cosmology etc. There are many great philosophers of science today. Try reading some Philip Kitcher or Bas van Fraassen.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4152

Posted 07/10/09 - 07:26 AM:	#20
thewatcher wrote: So, in other words, you are going to refuse to address any of my points and instead resort to ad hom attacks? Is that a question? A point? If I want to attack you there will be no doubt in anyone's mind, least of all yours.

Page: 1 2 3 4

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