The Future of Philosophy

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

Interesting enough.
And here I was thinking math was a science—one of many—and part of the natural sciences group, which makes it a doctrine.
I mean, does a geometric shape need a circle, and does a circle need a geometric shape? Would a geometric shape even be anything more than alchemy if it didn't have a circle? What about a triangle? Would fauna be at the level of alchemy if it didn't have the deer? Or the trees? The liquids? The dew-covered fields?

Does a bear need animals, or does an animal need the bear?

mistyridge3 said:Interesting enough.
And here I was thinking math was a science—one of many—and part of the natural sciences group, which makes it a doctrine.
I mean, does a geometric shape need a circle, and does a circle need a geometric shape? Would a geometric shape even be anything more than alchemy if it didn't have a circle? What about a triangle? Would fauna be at the level of alchemy if it didn't have the deer? Or the trees? The liquids? The dew-covered fields?

Does a bear need animals, or does an animal need the bear?

👍 Now those are some real philosophical questions.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

Sure, you're right. But do you actually have an idea as to why it turned out this way? Or perhaps, why it was always inevitable?

ruggedraven36 said:👍 Now those are some real philosophical questions.

And here we go... I'm just sitting here waiting for someone to claim There aren't actually different sciences, just one single truth that covers everything., so I can finally ask But what even defines a dogma? And should we just fire all the PhDs and let the dogmatists run the show instead?

Ethan Gomez82 said:Sure, you're right. But do you actually have an idea as to why it turned out this way? Or perhaps, why it was always inevitable?

I mean, that might hold water if you're looking at science strictly through the lens of natural science. If you focus solely on what can be measured and quantified, you’re naturally going to end up with this positivist mindset—where everything is built on hard facts and metaphysics just isn't part of the equation. But look, science isn't just one thing; it includes the social sciences and the humanities, too. Questions about humanity, our actions, and our values don't come with neat, exact answers. As long as that remains true, you can't really claim that science rejects philosophy. In fact, it's quite the opposite—you often see people turning to it when you least expect it, like theoretical physicists.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

Look, you’ve definitely spotted a real problem here, but you're blurring your terms and anthropomorphizing science.
It isn't "science" doing this; it's just certain scientists.
And honestly? Some of them aren't even like that.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

Again, you're anthropomorphizing a whole discipline.
Scientific disciplines don't deal with ontological questions.

That’s what interdisciplinary, multi-perspective philosophy is for—to provide the ontological interpretation of scientific findings.

The idea of "ontological defining" is just nonsense.

Real ontological insight reaches into the essential and hits a level of abstraction that's way beyond what a mere definition can touch.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Sure, you're right. But do you actually have an idea as to why it turned out this way? Or perhaps, why it was always inevitable?

The planet moves in cycles, man. It goes through eras where consciousness just... fluctuates.

Right now, we're stuck in the age of idiocy. You've got these brain-dead types looking at information overload and high-tech stakes and calling it "progress," while they dismiss everything before them as "primitive" just because people didn't have iPhones or weren't basically lobotomized from birth.

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/mo...7660-chapter-3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man

https://www.britannica.com/science/p...-the-equinoxes

The numbers in those first and last links are totally off.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.

It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether.
Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism.
You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums.
The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it.
Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science.
This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.

There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread.
It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.

Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉
Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!

However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science
—meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉

Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.

In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.

But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁

It’s mostly about empiricism, but honestly, there's no need to make a huge scene over it. Modern science has its own lane, and philosophy has its own. They cross paths sometimes, they don't—it doesn't really matter. Science hasn't tossed philosophy out the window, and philosophy isn't dumping science. No big deal.

Giving you a thumbs up for Tegmark's MUH. I haven't actually sat down to read your post yet, but hey, I'll give you credit just for bringing it up. 👍

It’s always the same old stories from different people.

Questions.

People have actually been debating the question of future philosophy for over seventeen years now on these forums. I'm just going to jump right in and stick to the same topic we were discussing before.I mean, honestly, you could probably argue that philosophy actually has a future simply because we’re sitting here actively questioning whether or not one even exists anymore.
And here we go again, where I feel like we’re just watching history loop back on itself through the years, circling right back to this exact same debate, only now we have a completely different group of people sitting around the table arguing about it.

If I had to pluck out the most important bits from that old thread, I’d say:

In a strictly literal sense, philosophy hasn't actually uncovered any definitive truths. We find ourselves standing exactly where we were thousands of years ago, forced to tackle the very same questions that Thales and his successors first wrestled with. If we just end up parroting old ideas like some kind of mindless echo chamber, then we aren't really practicing philosophy anymore—we’ve just drifted into empty dogmatism. Honestly, I think anyone who walks around convinced they’ve finally grasped the absolute truth has effectively abandoned the entire pursuit of philosophy; once you stop questioning, you basically give up on the whole idea of intellectual and spiritual growth.

I’ve always felt that when you look at philosophy, you aren't really going to stumble upon "new discoveries" in the way we talk about them in the natural sciences, where we’re constantly uncovering fresh data or shifting paradigms based on empirical evidence. Instead, what we're actually doing is revisiting the same fundamental questions over and over again, though I suppose we're constantly deepening our understanding and expanding the boundaries of those classic debates every single time we dive back in.

Philosophy itself can't exactly "lose pace with the times," but I truly believe an entire era can definitely "lose its footing with philosophy," and when that happens, we’re left facing a tragic age defined by nothing but pure silence and emptiness.

As long as we remain human—assuming we don't somehow ascend into gods or transform into pure machines—we are essentially condemned to live a life shaped by philosophy.

In this modern era where everything seems driven by cutting-edge technology and the rapid pace of natural science, I can't help but feel like philosophers have been backed into a corner, left with nothing more than the tedious task of picking apart language.

Stephen Hawking

And what else could potentially be linked to that whole mess of a question they were all arguing about? I guess we really went at it, didn't we? We spent so much time arguing and going back and forth that I think we might have actually managed to exhaust ourselves over absolutely nothing. I’ve been spending way too much time lately mulling over the tension between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and honestly, my brain feels a little fried from trying to reconcile their perspectives. It’s one of those deep dives that starts off simple but ends up pulling you into a complete existential rabbit hole where you start questioning everything you thought you knew about how we actually process truth. On one hand, you have Popper with his whole focus on falsifiability and the rigorous structure of scientific progress, which feels so grounded and logical, but then you run right into Wittgenstein’s ideas about language games and how the very tools we use to describe reality might be limiting our ability to understand it in the first place. It’s a bit overwhelming to sit with, especially when you realize that both of them were essentially trying to map out the boundaries of human knowledge from two completely different directions, leaving me feeling slightly lost in the shuffle of it all.

I’ve been sitting here staring at my coffee, wondering if we’re actually grappling with deep, fundamental truths about existence or if we’re all just getting hopelessly tangled up in our own linguistic knots. It’s that classic, nagging thought—are there genuine philosophical problems that exist independently of us, or is the whole thing just a massive series of language puzzles where we trip over our own definitions? I sometimes feel like I'm just circling the drain of semantics, trying to find something solid to hold onto, but then I wonder if the "problems" themselves are just glitches in how we communicate reality.

I find myself agreeing with this hiker's take; it hits the nail on the head:

hiker said:Philosophy is essentially a simulation of reality—as long as there are unanswered questions regarding our existence, philosophy will remain relevant.

... which is to say, any unresolved question about our reality qualifies as a philosophical one.

... and we really ought to start a discussion on this point: 😎

Tut II said:Let's add some complexity here. One fundamental question is whether an external reality exists independently of the mind. If we concede that it does, the next hurdle is determining if our perception is actually realistic or merely a subjective construction. In the philosophy of perception, these two opposing viewpoints are known as realism and anti-realism. Both sides offer a litany of arguments for and against their positions (for instance, see S. Price: "The Eye and the World").

Go ahead, Sandra Murphy33, be the first one to make things complicated. 😉

😂

..why does it always have to be me who deals with this first

Alright, I guess it's my turn. 🙂 🙂

While I was sitting here typing this out on the balcony, looking out over the rooftops of the neighborhood, I caught this sudden, brilliant glow from a nearly full Moon that just completely grabbed my attention the second I looked up.

It felt like it was calling out to me, which makes me wonder if all other "things" in this world work the exact same way.

And how can you be certain that some part of you didn't trigger his response...?
(The same goes for all those other variables...)

Of course, this assumes you actually believe in this idea of "something within yourself"—a concept that doesn't necessarily align with your own self-perception, yet remains something you might find yourself questioning repeatedly over time.

What Tut II is getting at here is actually the very reason I first decided to wander into this subforum in the first place. I found myself wondering if I could ever truly find out—or perhaps just grasp a small fragment of the truth. Well, I suppose I did learn something, though I ended up feeling more uncertain than I ever thought possible.
I suppose there’s an entire rabbit hole worth exploring there, though I haven't quite found the inclination to dive any deeper into the matter myself.
If there actually exists an objective reality that functions independently of the subject—meaning, I suppose, whether we as human beings are merely constructing the dimension we call "existence" out of thin air—one has to wonder what that reality would even look like. If we were to strip away our perception and work our way up from basic colors and shapes to the actual density and solidity of matter itself, what kind of landscape would be left?
To put it in layman's terms, I suppose one might call it collective subjectivism—though I’m not entirely sure there's a better way to phrase it—referring to that shared assumption we all hold, like the idea that grass is green.
I’ve heard people throw around these kinds of philosophical ideas—you know, the ones suggesting that something exists even if nobody is there to witness it, because if it didn't, you’d eventually just stumble into it, like kicking a stone with your eyes closed. It’s almost as if you perceive reality through touch when sight fails you. I guess it’s one of those ways to argue that existence isn't just about being seen, but about the inevitable friction of being present.
I suppose one has to wonder whether we ought to confine our definitions of subjective and objective strictly to the realm of human experience. Perhaps objectivity is simply that which remains logical, universal, and constant, regardless of whether anyone is there to witness it.
And is that perception truly an objective representation of a shared subject? I suppose one might wonder if such a thing even exists.
I’ve asked the same questions over and over, and I’ve poured over every single response, yet somehow, nothing seems to stick. .

Sandra Murphy33 said:And how can you be certain that some part of you didn't trigger his response...?
(The same goes for all those other variables...)

Of course, this assumes you actually believe in this idea of "something within yourself"—a concept that doesn't necessarily align with your own self-perception, yet remains something you might find yourself questioning repeatedly over time.

Oh, please, don't make this more complicated than it needs to be!
🙂

I was just totally focused on my keyboard and really concentrating on what I was typing.
The Moon wasn't even a passing thought in my mind.

Laura Jones56 said:What Tut II is getting at here is actually the very reason I first decided to wander into this subforum in the first place. I found myself wondering if I could ever truly find out—or perhaps just grasp a small fragment of the truth. Well, I suppose I did learn something, though I ended up feeling more uncertain than I ever thought possible.
I suppose there’s an entire rabbit hole worth exploring there, though I haven't quite found the inclination to dive any deeper into the matter myself.
If there actually exists an objective reality that functions independently of the subject—meaning, I suppose, whether we as human beings are merely constructing the dimension we call "existence" out of thin air—one has to wonder what that reality would even look like. If we were to strip away our perception and work our way up from basic colors and shapes to the actual density and solidity of matter itself, what kind of landscape would be left?
To put it in layman's terms, I suppose one might call it collective subjectivism—though I’m not entirely sure there's a better way to phrase it—referring to that shared assumption we all hold, like the idea that grass is green.
I’ve heard people throw around these kinds of philosophical ideas—you know, the ones suggesting that something exists even if nobody is there to witness it, because if it didn't, you’d eventually just stumble into it, like kicking a stone with your eyes closed. It’s almost as if you perceive reality through touch when sight fails you. I guess it’s one of those ways to argue that existence isn't just about being seen, but about the inevitable friction of being present.
I suppose one has to wonder whether we ought to confine our definitions of subjective and objective strictly to the realm of human experience. Perhaps objectivity is simply that which remains logical, universal, and constant, regardless of whether anyone is there to witness it.
And is that perception truly an objective representation of a shared subject? I suppose one might wonder if such a thing even exists.
I’ve asked the same questions over and over, and I’ve poured over every single response, yet somehow, nothing seems to stick.

.

Whether things look a certain way regardless of our presence or entirely without us, we simply can't know for sure, because without a human mind there to perceive it, everything just remains a mystery.

Quincy:

If we start peeling back the layers—moving from the colors we see to the shapes we recognize, and finally down to the actual density and hardness of an object—we have to ask ourselves: what exactly constitutes matter? To put it in layman's terms—and I’m definitely not an expert here, so bear with me—I guess you could call it collective subjectivism, though I'm honestly not sure if there's a better way to frame it, when you consider something as simple and fundamental as the fact that grass is green.

According to Kant, everything we know as humans basically grows from two different roots: our raw senses and our reason.

Our senses basically hand us objects that have already been filtered through those prior frameworks of space and time, and then our intellect steps in to wrap all of that up under its own pure concepts, or what we call categories.
It’s funny how we think of them as separate things, but really, our raw sensitivity and our logical reasoning work hand in hand to build everything we actually experience.
Source
And what exactly would fit that thing you’re calling by that name, I guess?
It’s honestly kind of overwhelming when you stop to think about how we are essentially out here crafting the very dimension we call existence.

So, basically, both our sensory perception and our actual reasoning provide those built-in, a priori building blocks that make it possible for us to actually grasp anything at all—it’s like everything we experience has to pass through these internal filters first. When Kant talks about these fundamental, pre-set elements, he uses the term "form" to describe them.
Same source.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it would imply that the subject is actually what makes the object exist in the first place.
What exactly is it that explains why we can't ever truly grasp what reality looks like when we aren't looking at it? It’s that frustrating realization that we can’t step outside our own heads to see the world independent of our own perception.

steelridge58 said:Whether things look a certain way regardless of our presence or entirely without us, we simply can't know for sure, because without a human mind there to perceive it, everything just remains a mystery.

Quincy:

If we start peeling back the layers—moving from the colors we see to the shapes we recognize, and finally down to the actual density and hardness of an object—we have to ask ourselves: what exactly constitutes matter? To put it in layman's terms—and I’m definitely not an expert here, so bear with me—I guess you could call it collective subjectivism, though I'm honestly not sure if there's a better way to frame it, when you consider something as simple and fundamental as the fact that grass is green.

According to Kant, everything we know as humans basically grows from two different roots: our raw senses and our reason.

Our senses basically hand us objects that have already been filtered through those prior frameworks of space and time, and then our intellect steps in to wrap all of that up under its own pure concepts, or what we call categories.
It’s funny how we think of them as separate things, but really, our raw sensitivity and our logical reasoning work hand in hand to build everything we actually experience.
Source
And what exactly would fit that thing you’re calling by that name, I guess?
It’s honestly kind of overwhelming when you stop to think about how we are essentially out here crafting the very dimension we call existence.

So, basically, both our sensory perception and our actual reasoning provide those built-in, a priori building blocks that make it possible for us to actually grasp anything at all—it’s like everything we experience has to pass through these internal filters first. When Kant talks about these fundamental, pre-set elements, he uses the term "form" to describe them.
Same source.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it would imply that the subject is actually what makes the object exist in the first place.
What exactly is it that explains why we can't ever truly grasp what reality looks like when we aren't looking at it? It’s that frustrating realization that we can’t step outside our own heads to see the world independent of our own perception.

The thing is, "reality independent of the subject" doesn't look like anything—because if it did, it would be looking like something to a subject. Hegel touches on this in the preface to his logic science: "When critical philosophy [Kant] views the relationship between these three terms [us, thought, and things] such that we place thought between ourselves and things—treating it as a sort of middle ground that actually separates us from things rather than connecting us to them—then we have to counter that thought with this simple observation: those very things that are supposed to exist outside of us, viewed through the lens of our thoughts, end up being nothing more than ideas themselves. And as completely undefined, they're just a single idea—so-called thing-in-itself—which are nothing but empty abstractions."

steelridge58 said:Oh, please, don't make this more complicated than it needs to be!
🙂

I was just totally focused on my keyboard and really concentrating on what I was typing.
The Moon wasn't even a passing thought in my mind.

You were focused on crafting a response—and then, seemingly without provocation, you looked up at the Moon, and there it was, your answer.

Isn't that just a beautiful coincidence?
🙂

Philosophy died a long time ago—honestly, it’s been dead for ages. It’s been completely usurped by science. Science actually provides answers to questions, and when faced with a question it can't solve, it uses scientific methods to hunt for one. Nowadays, calling someone a "philosopher" is basically just a polite euphemism for saying they don't know anything. (And if you aren't familiar with the term, a euphemism is just a stylistic way to swap out harsh words for softer ones to blunt the blow—you know, sugarcoating things). There is precious little that is more useless in the 21st century than sitting through some long-winded philosophical lecture. The whole pursuit of wisdom is really just an attempt to reclaim that innate sense we had as kids—though, granted, wisdom supposedly crystallizes in some people as they age. Or maybe it doesn't. Kids possess a certain kind of wisdom, and you can actually learn from them just how much we’ve mangled our own mental machinery by growing up, or which fundamental truths we failed to grasp that even a toddler understands perfectly well. You don't need grand philosophy for those lessons. It’s either clear to you, or it isn't. I remember once—at a local park I won't name—watching a child playing with total, carefree abandon while the adults stood around like frozen mummies, lost in some sort of trance. It hit me immediately that this state of being isn't necessary for people; that sort of mindless trance is entirely superfluous. That child, left to their own devices, could eventually turn into one of those pathetic caricatures—those zombies who stare blankly at gadgets and worship abstract ideas that only serve to restrict their freedom. But right now? That child can play without being forced into a mold. In other words, they can follow their own path and live a full life without needing a mountain of philosophy, letting the essence of that play stay within them while only its outward shape changes.