granitetinker15 said:Stephen Hawking offered an interesting observation in his book "A Brief History of Time":
Until now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with developing new theories about what the universe is to even ask why it exists at all. On the other hand, philosophers—those whose actual job is to ask "why"—haven't been able to keep pace with scientific progress. Back in the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the entirety of human knowledge, including science, to be their domain, tackling questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. But during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became far too specialized and mathematical for philosophers and anyone else outside of a tiny circle of experts. Philosophers narrowed their scope so much that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, remarked: "The only remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." Quite a decline from the grand tradition of Aristotle to Kant...
Do you think philosophers are truly to blame for their shrinking scope because they couldn't keep up with science, or did science simply take over certain areas where it was more specialized and thus more successful?
Do you believe the scope of philosophy has actually narrowed?
What should modern philosophers actually be focusing on? 🙂
It reminds me of something similar that Hawking once wrote—if I recall correctly, physics and what we generally call the natural sciences were still considered part of "natural philosophy" or the philosophy of nature until somewhere around the 1920s. Even back in the 18th century, the great physicist Ruđer Bošković was essentially nothing other than a natural philosopher, and his theories are actually being validated today by modern branches of science like quantum physics.
I don't think it's about an inability to keep up; rather, it’s about the massive specialization occurring within the scientific sector and, frankly, the "dumbing down" of the general public. Everyone has become a tiny cog in a massive machine, effectively siloed into one specific department. Those Renaissance-style polymaths—or what we might call interdisciplinary scholars today, though they aren't quite the same thing—are becoming increasingly rare.
Another factor is the overwhelming dominance of the strong positivist tradition that has been driving things since the 19th century, favoring empiricism and experimental sciences.
granitetinker15 said:Stephen Hawking offered an interesting observation in his book "A Brief History of Time":
Until now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with developing new theories about what the universe is to even ask why it exists at all. On the other hand, philosophers—those whose actual job is to ask "why"—haven't been able to keep pace with scientific progress. Back in the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the entirety of human knowledge, including science, to be their domain, tackling questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. But during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became far too specialized and mathematical for philosophers and anyone else outside of a tiny circle of experts. Philosophers narrowed their scope so much that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, remarked: "The only remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." Quite a decline from the grand tradition of Aristotle to Kant...
Do you think philosophers are truly to blame for their shrinking scope because they couldn't keep up with science, or did science simply take over certain areas where it was more specialized and thus more successful?
Do you believe the scope of philosophy has actually narrowed?
What should modern philosophers actually be focusing on? 🙂
It might not be that their scope has shrunk, but the reality is that a philosopher today carries almost no prestige unless they happen to be a professor. Even then, being a philosophy professor carries far less weight than, say, being a notary, a lawyer, or an economist in a world where money dictates reputation and social status. It’s a bit sad, really. Not to mention that here in the States, we live in a cultural climate where "philosophizing" can sometimes be used as a bit of a slur. Because of how language works, anyone who isn't completely uncultured will automatically associate the mention of philosophy with people who "just philosophize"—meaning they just complicate things or are incredibly boring. While there’s certainly some truth behind those prejudices, it’s a shame that something that was once such a noble pursuit (and in my eyes, still is, even if society doesn't see it that way) has been reduced to a bit of a joke. But hey, no use dwelling on it, we move on. 🙂
You ask what modern philosophers have to do, and I’d argue that this is actually the first time in history they truly have something to work on. Since everything from science to manufacturing has undergone intense specialization, philosophy itself has split into wildly different approaches, methods, and traditions. I quite like what Jaspers said about how philosophy only truly has work to do in times like these. However, today, philosophy tends to be more critically oriented; its "job" often involves social critique, analysis, and deconstruction. On the other hand, philosophers constantly have to ask, "What does it actually mean when we say this, and does it even matter?" They have to fight against oppression, repression, and unfounded authority. They have to challenge everything from the old grip of the church to the modern hegemony of "experts"—those people who, simply because they have "expert" in their job title, can sell you just about anything. And of course, money is always involved. An official "expert" might tell you something is good just because they're the designated authority, while massive corporations will gladly pay to ensure an "experiment" goes exactly the way they want, or to get a dentist to endorse a specific brand of toothpaste in a commercial. There are endless examples of this.
I’ve always felt that a philosopher’s primary job is to elevate their own state of consciousness first, and then—if society hasn't become too mentally stagnant to actually listen—maybe try to lift the rest of us up too.
If we look at the realm of knowledge and culture, you could say science acts as the governing body or the executive power, while philosophy functions more like an oversight committee or a board of directors. 🙂 Every philosophical movement is naturally shaped by its era, which is why we're seeing disciplines emerge today that would have been totally unthinkable just a few decades ago. Nowadays, a philosopher isn't really the type preoccupied with abstract metaphysical "bits" and whatnot; instead, they're diving deep into phenomenology, social critique, media studies, semiotics, decoding complex systems, the societal impact of emerging tech, linguistics, and the analysis of science itself. For instance, one of the most fascinating puzzles in the philosophy of science is the demarcation problem—trying to figure out what truly qualifies as science versus what's just pseudoscience, or where the line is drawn between legitimate inquiry and mere speculation. It’s a massive web of questions, answers, implications, and potential insights that eventually leads toward a certain kind of enlightenment. Even if we never land on some absolute, final set of answers (whatever that might even mean), we can at least learn what *isn't* the answer. And honestly, there's value in that. I'd much rather spend my time searching for truth than finding it in all the wrong places, though who knows if the search itself isn't the whole point...
Regarding this whole Wittgenstein approach, I see it as just one possible path that modern philosophy can take—and it's a path I personally find quite engaging—but it certainly isn't the only one I'm looking into. Though, it seems likely (and perhaps a bit sad) that even philosophers today are being forced into narrow specialization. I don't know, I guess we'll see how it unfolds. One formulation that really resonates with me is the idea that philosophy operates in that space between language and reality. To me, that feels like a deeply meaningful claim, maybe even the best definition of philosophy out there. This isn't just a modern thing, either; even Aristotle defined the human being as *zoon logon echon*—a creature capable of speech. We exist through language, and that alone opens up a whole universe of complexities that makes philosophy both possible and, more often than not, absolutely necessary.
There's plenty more I could say about this, of course, but I'll leave it at that for now...
