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

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/14/09 - 01:44 PM:	#21
wuliheron wrote: 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. Consider me duly informed. I merely was making the point that I made a number of arguments against your position and instead of addressing any of them, you resort to personal attacks. I continue to eargerly await you responses to my criticisms of your earlier points.

Kelby
analytic poop

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

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 07/15/09 - 01:28 PM:	#22
I wrote: 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 But the axial age, in my opinion, still stands as a form of historical reference worth mentioning. thewatcher wrote: 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. Thank you for pointing out what I already mentioned. The axial age, in my opinion, acts as a rough form worth mentioning. Another example is the distinction between Aristotle and Plato. The two modes of thought of the latter philosophers can be seen as archetypes for future philosophies. Two roads emerged from their views, and such views have had a steady emergence through out history, e.g. rationalism/empiricism, logical positivism/idealism. This way of viewing historical change has many downsides, and may lead to anachronistic issues. Rationalists were not Platonic, nor were empiricists entirely Aristotelean. Still, however, it acts as a useful tool to remember philosophical change. Read Karen Armstrong's "The Great Transformation." It may be of some interest. Likewise, the axial age still, in my opinion, acts as a useful hermeneutical device, worms and all. Besides...wuliheron said "roughly." That takes into account the small gaps of time left out. but that is quite different from saying that Platonism as a school has enjoyed massive historical popularity. Okay, it has had popularity...a lot. I don't see where the argument is. Plato's philosophy is amazingly popular. Everyone knows Plato. I'm sorry. I'm failing to see the point of your contention. Are you arguing about the details of a post just for fun...or are you addressing the OP's questions indirectly? I'm not really sure where this argument will lead, or even if it's even worth being led to. Are we really having an argument about dates? Edited by Incision on 07/15/09 - 02:51 PM. Reason: illiteracy

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/29/09 - 03:13 PM:	#23
Kelby wrote: Thank you for pointing out what I already mentioned. The axial age, in my opinion, acts as a rough form worth mentioning. Another example is the distinction between Aristotle and Plato. The two modes of thought of the latter philosophers can be seen as archetypes for future philosophies. Two roads emerged from their views, and such views have had a steady emergence through out history, e.g. rationalism/empiricism, logical positivism/idealism. This way of viewing historical change has many downsides, and may lead to anachronistic issues. Rationalists were not Platonic, nor were empiricists entirely Aristotelean. Still, however, it acts as a useful tool to remember philosophical change. You are mistaking pedagogy for philosophy. Admittedly, as instructors we find it useful to employ such tools when teaching philosophy to neophytes. But, as more advanced students of philosophy it is incumbant upon us to recognize these expedients as misleading in important respects, however pedagogically necessary they supposedly are. Kelby wrote: Likewise, the axial age still, in my opinion, acts as a useful hermeneutical device, worms and all. Besides...wuliheron said "roughly." That takes into account the small gaps of time left out. Small gaps? Try centuries, if not millenia. Such an imprecise timeframe is vague to the point of utter uselessness. Kelby wrote: Okay, it has had popularity...a lot. I don't see where the argument is. Plato's philosophy is amazingly popular. Everyone knows Plato. Dont mistake promulgation with popularity. It may be that "everyone knows Plato" but you will find VERY few Platonists out there, either in Academic departments or the broader population (UNLESS you are ascribing to some Whiteheadian simplification of what constitutes a "platonist"). Kelby wrote: I'm sorry. I'm failing to see the point of your contention. Are you arguing about the details of a post just for fun...or are you addressing the OP's questions indirectly? I'm not really sure where this argument will lead, or even if it's even worth being led to. Are we really having an argument about dates? I am addressing the flaws in a particular attempt to answer the OP. It is not just a question of dates, it is a question of a horribly flawed view of the (supposed) development of philosophy and religion. If allowed to color this discussion, such a view will lead us to misleading, even dangerous conclusion.

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 07/30/09 - 04:54 AM:	#24
wuliheron wrote: There are countless philosophers out there with similar holistic theories to Rosen. He is an example of the philosopher's I mentioned who are trying to create a philosophy that spans all of the sciences. The problem with such theories is that the foundations are extremely broad and difficult to conceptualize. They are making progress, but it is like slowly pulling teeth, both painful and difficult to watch. I suspect that much of the difficulty may reside in the lack of a shared knowledge base for rigorously dealing with certain concepts such as “function” and “organization”. I believe Rosen went some distance to this end, which is why I think he is a likely a great modern day philosopher of science.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 07/30/09 - 11:39 AM:	#25
Starts reading www.philosophyforums.com Anyways; a large number of beginning philosophers tend to get into arguments with behavioral economists who not only have egos; but call themselves by key names like Milton... or even Friedman.. or some other obtuse naming convention. They quite often mistake their role in determining the monetary value of finished products with determining the value of unfinished ideas. Oh, and alot of people loose in threads because continuance of writing of the subject instead of countering attacks of the person is considered defeat. 2. While the internet has increased the movement dramatically the access to information; the transfer of information to a change in society has not been so fast. Gads; even in the supposed "age of multi-tasking" people are still defined by a single aspect more-so then dualistic approaches.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Kelby
analytic poop

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

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 08/01/09 - 01:01 AM:	#26
thewatcher wrote: I am addressing the flaws in a particular attempt to answer the OP. It is not just a question of dates, it is a question of a horribly flawed view of the (supposed) development of philosophy and religion. If allowed to color this discussion, such a view will lead us to misleading, even dangerous conclusion. Thank you thewatcher, I'll have to sit on this for some time. You are correct. I did confuse philosophy with pedagogy. thank you for pointing that out. Now I see what you are trying to say.

yebiga
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 08/04/09 - 07:36 AM:	#27
Dear Watcher... the neophyte reference is a little cute. Debating the popularity of Plato what is that about? Plato's significance, historical or contemporary, can hardly be exaggerated. I suggest that if modern philosophy is lacking any coherence it is because this is the elephant in the room and modern philosophers can't seem to face it. Plato provides the foundation stones to our entire culture: christianity, judiciary, politics, ethics, metaphysics, mathematics, etc, etc. The very DNA of our culture remains Platonic. You may well by now be convinced I am a rambling nonsensical nutter, who makes broad statements offering little or no evidence and even less argumentation. Look for deification. Platonic philosophy loves to deify: virtues, ideas. Verbs begat nouns, and the nouns become idealized and finally deified: temperance, patience, valor. The deification proliferates Rome becomes deified, a country becomes an empire and even the empire spiritualizes. For the sake of brevity, Christianity picks up on the formula and begats faith, hope, charity and jesus who too is deified. Saints and angels are deified. Thousands of years later Kant hopes to deify the categorial imperative but can't see that for all its wisdom his imperative is merely a tautology of the christian golden rule: do unto others.... Of course, I am wrong.. In this post modern world of celebrity, sports stars and brand names, where is there any deification? But Platonic philosophy is much more than deification alone - the deification is a way to establish authority. It is Neitzsche who first exposes this oppression. And, ever since, much of modern philosophy has labored to loosen the grip. It seems that some if this labor is unconscious, particularly in the language philosophies. To loosen the grip Neitzsche searched for pre-christian, pre-platonic philosophy, myth and gods. We have the advantage of science to help - enough for now

slap
User of Mental Cosmetics

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100

Posted 08/05/09 - 03:07 PM:	#28
Kelby wrote: In other words, as Flanagan points out, philosophy's job is to keep an "eye on the whole." Is Sellars' philosophical ideal passé? On the surface, if would seem so. If the philosopher is to become more and more specialized, and take part in this exponential growth of knowledge and information, it seems to follow that the philosopher is destined to lose hold of such a holisitc vision. Don't really know though...just some thoughts. I do not think we have to worry about philosophers losing the eye on the whole. It seems common throughout the history of philosophy for one idea/train of thought to become succesful enough to grow to extraordinary lengths. These trains of thoughts, which we may be witnessing in the incredibly long and complex arguments you are mentioning are more likely to sprout off and form new fields than destroy the philosophers over-arching view of academia. Some examples of similar phenomenon(I'm going to call it "sprouting") -Astronomy, Galileo -Mathematics, I guess Archimedes? -Economics, Adam Smith -Sociology, Durkheim. These fields seemed to give us good answers(most definetly not perfect answers) but answers that seemed to have some "mystical"(for lack of a better word) component that allowed them to exit the sphere of pure argumentation and allow for an actual expansion of knowledge. These fields creations hasn't hurt philosophy as a whole, rather it has created a branch of specialists. It seems likely that similar specialsts will arise from these monstrous constructs of arguments without damaging the gentle general philosopher.
Harm(For a person)= 1-Happiness/% or relevant knowledge known

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 08/06/09 - 10:31 AM:	#29
yebiga wrote: snip I am well aware that philosophy and much of contemporary culture has its roots in Platonic thought. This does not mean that Platonic thought is popular, but rather that certain common themes (which may or may not be Platonic) are and have been abroad in the Western narrative. You are likewise quite right to note that much of contemporary philosophy is defined precisely in opposition to these trends.

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/06/09 - 01:16 PM:	#30
slap wrote: Kelby wrote: In other words, as Flanagan points out, philosophy's job is to keep an "eye on the whole." Is Sellars' philosophical ideal passé? On the surface, if would seem so. If the philosopher is to become more and more specialized, and take part in this exponential growth of knowledge and information, it seems to follow that the philosopher is destined to lose hold of such a holisitc vision. Don't really know though...just some thoughts. I do not think we have to worry about philosophers losing the eye on the whole. It seems common throughout the history of philosophy for one idea/train of thought to become succesful enough to grow to extraordinary lengths. These trains of thoughts, which we may be witnessing in the incredibly long and complex arguments you are mentioning are more likely to sprout off and form new fields than destroy the philosophers over-arching view of academia. Some examples of similar phenomenon(I'm going to call it "sprouting") -Astronomy, Galileo -Mathematics, I guess Archimedes? -Economics, Adam Smith -Sociology, Durkheim. These fields seemed to give us good answers(most definetly not perfect answers) but answers that seemed to have some "mystical"(for lack of a better word) component that allowed them to exit the sphere of pure argumentation and allow for an actual expansion of knowledge. These fields creations hasn't hurt philosophy as a whole, rather it has created a branch of specialists. It seems likely that similar specialsts will arise from these monstrous constructs of arguments without damaging the gentle general philosopher. I think you may find this a good read http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/t...thist/perimeterofignorance

Page: 1 2 3 4

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