The Future of Philosophy

I’m offering a status report on this subforum, but also a look at the broader crisis of meaning in the world. I want to know how you all see the future of philosophy. It’s easy enough to track its evolution and impact on civilization from the ancient era right up to the present day.

But today—specifically the era we're stuck in—places philosophy in a very tight spot within a society colonized by economic logic. Is there actually any room left for philosophers here? Technical experts, including engineers, economists, and HR managers, have essentially become slaves. Granted, they hold a privileged position among those slaves because their specialized knowledge keeps the machine running. Any technical expert who actually provides value can find a niche within this self-regulating system dedicated to one thing: the infinite optimization of efficiency. Philosophers aren't "useful" in the corporate sense of the word, though perhaps philosophy itself could be. If philosophy can't contribute to improving operational efficiency, productivity, or profitability, then we have to ask what its actual role is. Nowadays, it functions—and indeed does function—as little more than a consumer good for personal indulgence.

The intro is just my take on an article I found online, but it’s really meant to kick off a discussion on how you view the future of philosophy.

Here is what Jean-Paul Sartre says about it:

Identifying the core issue, pinning down the details, shedding light on the gray areas, and actually asking the right questions—that’s all a skill that demands you keep a sharp, watchful, critical eye on everything at all times.

Critical thinking. Real reasoning.

I’m reminded of something T.S. Eliot once said: "One should never rush toward a solution, but rather deepen and define the difficulty—polishing it like a diamond until it becomes brilliant and clear."

The sheer power of thought.

I truly believe one of the primary responsibilities for any future philosopher should be the constant work of developing and nurturing those mental capacities.

swifttiger75 said:I’m offering a status report on this subforum, but also a look at the broader crisis of meaning in the world. I want to know how you all see the future of philosophy. It’s easy enough to track its evolution and impact on civilization from the ancient era right up to the present day.

But today—specifically the era we're stuck in—places philosophy in a very tight spot within a society colonized by economic logic. Is there actually any room left for philosophers here? Technical experts, including engineers, economists, and HR managers, have essentially become slaves. Granted, they hold a privileged position among those slaves because their specialized knowledge keeps the machine running. Any technical expert who actually provides value can find a niche within this self-regulating system dedicated to one thing: the infinite optimization of efficiency. Philosophers aren't "useful" in the corporate sense of the word, though perhaps philosophy itself could be. If philosophy can't contribute to improving operational efficiency, productivity, or profitability, then we have to ask what its actual role is. Nowadays, it functions—and indeed does function—as little more than a consumer good for personal indulgence.

The intro is just my take on an article I found online, but it’s really meant to kick off a discussion on how you view the future of philosophy.

Here is what Jean-Paul Sartre says about it:

To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Nope.

Those are just tools.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Pretty damn far.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Because you're stuck living in a retarded, corrupted, completely insane era and civilization.

Anyway, time to scramble for scraps.
Right now.

Oh, and by the way, we've debited 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Look at initiatives already teaching kids how to engage with different perspectives...

The main goal is just getting kids used to thinking for themselves.

As for why science and philosophy need each other to survive—without it, both fail—check out Sabine Hossenfelder's take from the Brookings Institution...

Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

Not gonna get into a massive debate right now—I'm heading out for a few weeks for the beach, family stuff, etc. Peace.

🙂

hollowpuma762 said:Nope.

Those are just tools.

Pretty damn far.

Because you're stuck living in a retarded, corrupted, completely insane era and civilization.

Anyway, time to scramble for scraps.
Right now.

Oh, and by the way, we've debited 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look at initiatives already teaching kids how to engage with different perspectives...

The main goal is just getting kids used to thinking for themselves.

As for why science and philosophy need each other to survive—without it, both fail—check out Sabine Hossenfelder's take from the Brookings Institution...

Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

Not gonna get into a massive debate right now—I'm heading out for a few weeks for the beach, family stuff, etc. Peace.

🙂

Have a great time. 🙂

Based on those links, I'll definitely be doing some reading whenever I find a spare moment.

Where does science end and philosophy take over? It’s not about one replacing the other; it's more like philosophy picking up the baton, stepping into those spaces where our eyes can't reach. Cosmology is a perfect example of this, though certainly not the only one. You have your experiments and hard evidence, your math and physics—they carry you right up to a specific edge. But once you hit that wall, it's logic and intuition that have to lead the way. And then, eventually, we try to loop back to things we can actually touch and measure just to see if we were right all along.

swifttiger75 said:I’m offering a status report on this subforum, but also a look at the broader crisis of meaning in the world. I want to know how you all see the future of philosophy. It’s easy enough to track its evolution and impact on civilization from the ancient era right up to the present day.

But today—specifically the era we're stuck in—places philosophy in a very tight spot within a society colonized by economic logic. Is there actually any room left for philosophers here? Technical experts, including engineers, economists, and HR managers, have essentially become slaves. Granted, they hold a privileged position among those slaves because their specialized knowledge keeps the machine running. Any technical expert who actually provides value can find a niche within this self-regulating system dedicated to one thing: the infinite optimization of efficiency. Philosophers aren't "useful" in the corporate sense of the word, though perhaps philosophy itself could be. If philosophy can't contribute to improving operational efficiency, productivity, or profitability, then we have to ask what its actual role is. Nowadays, it functions—and indeed does function—as little more than a consumer good for personal indulgence.

The intro is just my take on an article I found online, but it’s really meant to kick off a discussion on how you view the future of philosophy.

Here is what Jean-Paul Sartre says about it:

It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

In my book, philosophy is just going to keep circling back to the same fundamental questions—and you'll always have those same few core perspectives popping up over and over again.

ruggedraven36 said:In my book, philosophy is just going to keep circling back to the same fundamental questions—and you'll always have those same few core perspectives popping up over and over again.

Honestly, that sounds more like a pathology to me. Maybe
Buddha
actually had it right all along. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...ered_questions

hiddeneagle98 said:Honestly, that sounds more like a pathology to me. Maybe
Buddha
actually had it right all along. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...ered_questions

He was absolutely right, and it’s actually quite fascinating—that very link you shared even mentions the quote that Sigmund used to question the authenticity of.

That being said, if we want to defend philosophy, we have to admit it works perfectly fine on the level of reason.

The real issue with philosophy is that there exists a realm "beyond" reason, and that’s exactly what Buddha tended to avoid discussing.

Not because he didn't have the answers, but rather because

a) the Truth simply cannot be captured by language, since words are merely shadows of the Truth itself.

b) overthinking things doesn't actually lead to a reduction in suffering; instead, it just leads to confusion and an endless loop of mental clutter.

c) every individual needs to realize—or rather, personally experience—that INEFFABLE TRUTH for themselves.🙂

So, if you aren't actually planning to go out there and live it, why just sit here playing philosopher? You're basically using your own half-baked logic to cloud the Truth from everyone else.

hiddenpuma75 said:He was absolutely right, and it’s actually quite fascinating—that very link you shared even mentions the quote that Sigmund used to question the authenticity of.

That being said, if we want to defend philosophy, we have to admit it works perfectly fine on the level of reason.

The real issue with philosophy is that there exists a realm "beyond" reason, and that’s exactly what Buddha tended to avoid discussing.

Not because he didn't have the answers, but rather because

a) the Truth simply cannot be captured by language, since words are merely shadows of the Truth itself.

b) overthinking things doesn't actually lead to a reduction in suffering; instead, it just leads to confusion and an endless loop of mental clutter.

c) every individual needs to realize—or rather, personally experience—that INEFFABLE TRUTH for themselves.🙂

And then you’ve got Wittgenstein. It’s those things you just can't put into clear words, which is why you really ought to just stay quiet about them.

Sandra Murphy33 said:So, if you aren't actually planning to go out there and live it, why just sit here playing philosopher? You're basically using your own half-baked logic to cloud the Truth from everyone else.

But honestly, where else can you actually "go" when everywhere is just... HERE?

And really, any given moment is a perfect opportunity to just stop and be..

Whether it's on this forum, scrolling through a PDF, lounging at the beach, dreaming, drifting through dreamless sleep, or even in that tiny gap between two thoughts... whether you're alone, with others, or navigating the chaos of major historical turning points like the Great Depression or modern crises..

By the way... this "ultimate truth" people keep talking about 🙄 they call it "socialist," which basically means it doesn't belong to me, or you, or anyone specifically. It’s more like
a fundamental human right that even the most aggressive capitalists couldn't possibly privatize 😁

Our own thoughts, emotions, desires, and constant planning tend to troll and spam our awareness, successfully masking that truth—it's not like hiddenpuma75 is doing it on purpose 😬

I'm half-tempted to suggest the new moderator should strictly limit everyone's word count and number of posts, always using the excuse that Buddha recommended it 😁

Eric Newman75 said:And then you’ve got Wittgenstein. It’s those things you just can't put into clear words, which is why you really ought to just stay quiet about them.

But I remember reading a Gnostic perspective on this. They suggested that even if we can't find clear words for the divine, we still can't help ourselves—we feel this deep, driving need to speak. It’s almost like someone trying to describe the concept of color to someone who has never seen it.

And honestly, that’s fine. Language is one of those things that sets us apart from the animal kingdom, isn't it? But if you're blind to the divine, how on earth are you supposed to describe the indescribable? What kind of terminology would you even reach for—metaphorical or literal? Both end up being imprecise in their own way. And let's be real: words often just fall short. I am who I am. But what does that actually mean? Take Hebrew, for example. It doesn't bother with complex verb tenses like we do; it just uses perfective and imperfective aspects. Usually, people use the perfective for the past and the imperfective for the future. "Usually," I should add, because context is everything. In the original text, you see the first-person imperfect twice and the third-person once. "Who I am" and "who He is." It captures everything: who was, who is, and who will be. How can you even begin to express the Absolute in English?

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Yest.

Among other things.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Yest.

And then that leads somewhere further down the line.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Niye.

: )

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

I'm not sure what you're even asking here.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

But this specific type of discourse is the whole point here.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

That’s definitely a philosophical take.

Once you actually wrap your head around the rhetorical device being used and what it's really getting at.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

Man, you're just spouting nonsense when you're acting on pure impulse, but then when you actually slow down and stop rushing, you can come up with something halfway decent.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

That's because philosophy isn't about solving things.

It's about developing the person who does the solving.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

The work itself is developmental, while "subversion" is just what happens when the primitive bumps into the evolved. And usually, the primitive ends up undermining the evolved.

Which is exactly why it kept its distance from paradise.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

In a world where Truth can be "permitted," nothing stays unchangeable.

The world is already stale.

God help philosophy.

hiddeneagle98 said:Honestly, that sounds more like a pathology to me. Maybe
Buddha
actually had it right all along. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...ered_questions

I don't see it that way at all. It just means that real philosophical problems can't be proven—but they aren't unspeakable either. They’re baked right into human nature. They'll always be relevant, regardless of Wittgenstein's "wise" advice to just shut up about them. At the end of the day, you have to philosophize if you want to be human.