[ POLL ] The Current State of Philosophy.

Post Reply New Topic

I think it depends.

Sometimes people get caught up in philosophical arguments and ignore what the evidence actually says. They somehow think their abstract ideas are more important than relevant research. Perhaps this is more of a complaint about the misapplication of philosophy.

I think that people need to have a balanced approach and outlook. Rather than getting caught up in theories, it’s more important to know how to think critically in a practical sense. Philosophy could help with that, but it so often doesn’t.

With that being said, people should explore whatever interests them.

I read Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy a couple years ago and enjoyed it immensely. I also took a couple of philosophy classes when I was in college. I found them beneficial as far as my inner world is concerned. (I was raised with the ridiculous notion that “philosophy is bad,” so studying it was liberating. To rebel, some experiment with drugs; others read philosophy books. )

With our current access to knowledge and resources, I don’t think that philosophy is as important as it used to be. I think that most of the important stuff has already been said by this point, too. Philosophical thought is still evolving, I believe, but at a much, much slower rate than before.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 18 Aug 2022, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nothing is impossible

How will you try to prove your claim?

In my life, I take tidbits from multiple philosophers.

One should not ONLY believe in Kant, say.

There are some situations where Plato fills the bill; others where Aristotle applies.

Formal logic doesn’t always reflect what is true, even though it’s much easier and useful to use formal modes of thought.

When would you use Plato and when would you use Aristotle?

I would use Plato within relatively creative things.

I would use Aristotle within relatively practical things.

In my life, I lean pretty strongly towards empiricism-----though certainly not in an absolute sense. I believe that a tree in the Taiga of Russia is chopped down, even if I don't actually hear it being chopped down.

[/quote]

My first meeting with Rawls may have been colored by the Philosopher who I first heard of him through.

https://youtu.be/2Z2fvF7L5AY?t=777

I saw this local documentary [sic] with "the bum philosopher", and later checked out his PHD thesis. He was big on Rawls, very authoritarian, and his thesis was not so good, unless I was confused somewhere. I suspected Rawls may have paved the way for him a bit, even if Rawls was not himself authoritarian.

But I know you are no bum philosopher Isabella, ethically or cognitively. maybe I should give Rawls another chance?

Btw I like Rawls a lot personally.

and last time Rawls was brought up I thought it may be a trap to make me look rude

For me, it mostly comes down to enjoyment. I read philosophical works for pleasure, not for instruction.

I enjoy reading Plato and find him deeply moving at times, especially the dialogues and parts of The Republic. (I don’t like what he says regarding books, though.)

I don’t enjoy Aristotle all that much.

(I’m an empiricist or a rationalist depending on the topic, but I enjoy learning about different schools of philosophy and the progression of human thought.)

I cant prove anything to you without Gods help. [fify]

I like Bruno Latour and Peter Sloterdijk and Timothy Morton.
The professor of philosophy Ralph Moeller, who runs the youtube channel carefree wandering, said that the primary purpose of philosophy is to criticize religion.
Imho, in past centuries, the way to criticize the dominant religion has been to establish epistemology and such - but eventually, science did away with mystical religions and our dominant religion today is not mystic, but rational.
I think philosophy needed some time to readjust, in the 20th century, to a new object of criticism.
Latour, Sloterdijk and Morton all do that by either criticizing the modern, rational and scientific "religion" as not up to its own standards (Latour), historically very new and not well suited for humans - or humans not well suited for it (Sloterdijk) and limited by its focus on reductionism (Morton and Latour).

None of them advocates mysticism, yet all three are critics of our current worldview and it's limited horizon.

About the same. Unfortunately, unlike sciences, philosophy does not have an inner mechanism to weed out nonsense, so this push harms it more than it harms other disciplines.

And, by the way, post Wittgenstein, I recommend you to consider Karl Popper. He employed solid, logical approach and he significantly contributed to modern understanding of scientific method.

Scientific method is, I believe, the greatest achievement of human philosophy so far, but it does have its limits and understanding these limits is crucial to applying it properly.
Where the scientific method is non-applicable (i.e. philosophy itself...), attempts to mimic it are usually not a good idea... but they are common.

Mr. Popper is from whom I derived my "valid empirical evidence" standard.  His politics, however, seemed a little too "out there" for me -- but that is just my opinion.

While possible, such discussions are not likely unless all participants possess equivalent levels of rationality, and do not rely on mere belief to support their cases.

True.

Getting energy from cold fusion is also fundamentally possible but creating an environment where it sustainably happens has not been achieved so far.

Similarily, creating an environment for rational discussion on metaphysics, morality and purposes is a serious challenge in real life. Personally, I yearn for it.

[opinion=mine]

Personally, I believe creating an environment for rational discussion on metaphysics, morality, and purpose requires an initial tabla rasa condition and a subsequent build-up of rationally validated statements, without influence by politics, pre-judgement, or religion.

[/opinion]