The Future of Philosophy

Jack Williams6 said: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.

That's just a little zombie playing carefree because someone else is feeding them, dressing them, watching over them, and keeping them healthy. Once they have to start looking out for themselves? Boom. They turn into a full-blown zombie.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

Writes: "... A philosopher might not be able to provide a direct answer to a question in the natural sciences, but they can certainly point out what's wrong with the question itself. And that matters. That's why physicists need philosophy, even if the great Richard Feynman once remarked that philosophy is to scientists what ornithology is to birds."

space.com/science/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into

Sandra Murphy33 said: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?
🙂

That’s a lovely way to see it.
🙂

Jack Williams6 said: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.

Hegel actually had a response to this back in 1812.

Hegel said:Just as it would be bizarre for a nation to lose its utility—say, its constitutional law, its core convictions, its moral habits, and its virtues—it is just as strange when a people loses its metaphysics, when that spirit which grapples with pure essence truly ceases to exist within them.
The surface-level takeaway from Kant's philosophy—that reason shouldn't overstep the bounds of experience, lest our knowledge turn into mere theoretical dreaming that produces nothing but empty fantasies—provided a scientific excuse to abandon speculative thought. This idea played right into the hands of modern pedagogy's greatest flaw: the constant urge to focus only on immediate needs. It suggests that since experience is the foundation of knowledge, then purely theoretical study is actually detrimental to navigating public and private life, leaving only practical training as something useful. Since science and common sense teamed up to kill off metaphysics, we ended up with a surreal sight: an educated society without metaphysics, looking like a beautifully decorated temple that’s missing its most sacred centerpiece.

Jack Williams6 said: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.

It doesn't matter though. One scientist once famously noted: "Philosophical thinking is far too important to be left solely to philosophers." 😉

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.

So, could we perhaps say that the object is merely a projection of the subject?
Existence itself, viewed as a concept... when we talk about existing, at least for me, it feels as though it just means "to be perceived." It is only because someone else assigns existence to the perceived thing that it seems to hold weight.
I'll probably take another look at the source later.

ruggedraven36 said: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."

But then, saying it resembles "nothing" still sort of defines it, doesn't it? Without a subject, it seems to me that, well, nothing even exists. Without the subject, there is nothingness—it’s unknowable, an absolute end. Or rather, the end happens before that even begins. The subject is both the beginning and the end. Is everything we can ever discuss or think about—everything within our grasp—contained entirely within the subject's representation?

Laura Jones56 said:So, could we perhaps say that the object is merely a projection of the subject?
Existence itself, viewed as a concept... when we talk about existing, at least for me, it feels as though it just means "to be perceived." It is only because someone else assigns existence to the perceived thing that it seems to hold weight.
I'll probably take another look at the source later.

But then, saying it resembles "nothing" still sort of defines it, doesn't it? Without a subject, it seems to me that, well, nothing even exists. Without the subject, there is nothingness—it’s unknowable, an absolute end. Or rather, the end happens before that even begins. The subject is both the beginning and the end. Is everything we can ever discuss or think about—everything within our grasp—contained entirely within the subject's representation?

I'll give you that—everything stays within the subject's perception—but it isn't just limited to that. Sure, nothing exists without a subject, but that doesn't mean the subject is all there is.

Amanda Flores88 said:That's just a little zombie playing carefree because someone else is feeding them, dressing them, watching over them, and keeping them healthy. Once they have to start looking out for themselves? Boom. They turn into a full-blown zombie.

I honestly feel for you.

Jack Williams6 said:I honestly feel for you.

It's not exactly a walk in the park for you either. 🙂

Jack Williams6 said: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.

That's beautiful.
🙂 I truly believe that children exist at the very source of everything, or maybe it's more accurate to say that children *are* the source itself. That's why their wisdom feels so immediate and direct, coming straight from the spring, giving it that unique freshness and novelty that always manages to leave us adults feeling completely dazzled whenever we hear them speak.

Children embody wisdom through nothing more than their pure spontaneity and the way they express themselves without any filters. 🙂

Laura Jones56 said:So, could we perhaps say that the object is merely a projection of the subject?
Existence itself, viewed as a concept... when we talk about existing, at least for me, it feels as though it just means "to be perceived." It is only because someone else assigns existence to the perceived thing that it seems to hold weight.
I'll probably take another look at the source later.

But then, saying it resembles "nothing" still sort of defines it, doesn't it? Without a subject, it seems to me that, well, nothing even exists. Without the subject, there is nothingness—it’s unknowable, an absolute end. Or rather, the end happens before that even begins. The subject is both the beginning and the end. Is everything we can ever discuss or think about—everything within our grasp—contained entirely within the subject's representation?

I wouldn't go that far, though; I’d say it's more about objectification than simple projection.

Quincy:

Existence as a concept—when we talk about existing, at least for me, it feels almost as if "to exist" simply means "to be perceived," specifically by the one who decides that the thing being observed actually exists.

But you’re also perceiving your own existence, aren't you? You find yourself completely surrounded by this gaze—at least I do😉 from where I stand
under this constant scrutiny, no matter where you turn; the very environment you inhabit, the medium in which you exist, is the gaze itself.

There’s this incredibly beautiful and thought-provoking line from Maurice Merleau-Ponty where he writes

"There is a certain pre-existence of the gaze that stares at us from the world."
Just think about that for a second.

And we, in turn, stare right back.

"In the act of observation, the subject is fundamentally fractured. Objects are perceived from the vantage point of the ego—the subject defined by labels—yet they are desired from the perspective of the unconscious subject."

This carries weight.
It brings to mind something I read a while back regarding the necessity of letting the "autonomic nervous system" simply function on its own. We shouldn't over-intervene or attempt to "bring to consciousness" those processes that are meant to remain submerged in the unconscious...
I believe that was Bert Hellinger.

People in Italy seem to think philosophy still has a shot at relevance, especially since they’re hosting a Philosophy Festival this weekend focused on what philosophy can actually offer us regarding machines and AI festivalfilosofia.it

There's a multitude of events and lectures happening; for instance, there was one this morning about the IT revolution and personal fulfillment, and right now they're diving into Transhumanism I guess it explores the tension between scientific potential and that deep-seated urge to shed our physical bodies in a quest for immortality.