CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Philosophers and their purpose

Philosophers and their purpose

Started by granitetinker15 · · 👁 7 views · 26 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants granitetinker15Elizabeth Ruiz65Taylor Campbell4casualtiger2casualfox2Jonathan Brooks8Nicole Castillo11Hannah Thomas13Mark Anderson9jademarlin26mistyscout2steelridge58bluebison70
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#21 ·
Do you think philosophers are actually to blame for their own narrowing scope—largely due to an inability to keep pace with scientific progress—or has science simply carved out specific niches where it’s naturally more specialized and effective?

In my view, philosophers should be capable of this—in fact, they ought to be able to survey the entirety of scientific achievement. They don't need to master every granular detail or every minute differentiation. If science thrives on specialization, philosophers can focus on integration instead. It shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp the big picture of a field, or at least its major components. To be honest, I feel many self-proclaimed "philosophers"—if that's even the right word for them—lack even a basic foundation in the natural sciences. They really ought to possess that knowledge, and more importantly, they should actually care about it.
Elizabeth Ruiz65 Elizabeth Ruiz65 Active Member
66 messages
joined Jan 2008
#22 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:True—though I don't personally feel that philosophy is posing many relevant questions these days; at least, not in its main vein. Everything feels a bit hollow and disconnected from reality lately—both in the world at large and here on this forum. (And that’s the impression I get from Zuckerberg—not to deviate too far from the main point, though his delivery might suggest otherwise, which is just surface-level stuff. He’s certainly a phenomenon, but I wouldn't call him particularly positive.)

Žižek. Come on, is it really that difficult? =)
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#23 ·
It really should have been called Zuckerberg
Elizabeth Ruiz65 Elizabeth Ruiz65 Active Member
66 messages
joined Jan 2008
#24 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:It really should have been called Zuckerberg

At this point, we’re entering the territory where one might suggest he consult with
his parents, assuming that's even an option.
mistyscout2 mistyscout2 Active Member
197 messages
joined Feb 2007
#25 ·
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "LNP20," but if you were trying to point me toward a specific topic or perhaps a typo from a previous conversation, please do let me know. I'm always happy to dive into a deep discussion or clear up any confusion, though I'll admit my brain occasionally needs a little nudge to get on the right track! Just give me a bit more context and I'll be right there with you. kaže:
So, what did everyone think? What was actually on the agenda today, and what were all the big debates about?

Since we’re already heading down this rabbit hole, we might as well go all the way. Let's just commit to the tangent, or else we might as well not bother at all.
Just as a quick side note—there’s absolutely no reason you shouldn't keep diving deeper into this topic if you're feeling it. =)

He once gave this lecture titled "How Stalinism Actually Saved Human Humanity." 😁 Anyone who’s actually spent any time looking into Žižek knows he’s got this incredible, sharp sense of humor. Honestly, seeing him pick such a provocative title for a lecture didn't surprise me one bit—it’s just classic Žižek. I found the whole thing really engaging; it was one of those deep dives that blended history and philosophy in a way that kept me hooked the entire time.
bluebison70 bluebison70 Active Member
50 messages
joined Nov 2007
#26 ·
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? 🙂


I guess science has its own domain, and philosophy has its own... which doesn't mean a philosopher can't look at scientific questions, or that a scientist isn't philosophizing. It’s not like a philosopher *has* to follow science. If they did, I suppose, what would be the point of science, and how would we tell scientists apart from philosophers?

Then again, everyone philosophizes, whether they're researchers or just working a desk job in some office. It’s really just a matter of how and at what level. Maybe when a physicist steps outside their specific field and starts talking about physics itself, they aren't acting as a physicist anymore, but rather as a philosopher. Physics—along with all the other sciences—doesn't really have the methods to examine itself, nor does it have the conceptual framework to speak about itself. I mean, what language could mathematics use to talk about itself? Mathematical notation? That doesn't seem possible, I guess.

Philosophy isn't just empty chatter—which is how some people, maybe a bit stuck in a primitive mindset, tend to see it—but rather a systematic, methodical way of processing its subject matter, which is basically asking about the meaning of reality as a whole and trying to answer that. Not everyone will agree, of course, but I think that's the charm of philosophy; there isn't just one right answer, but many. It's kind of like how small streams flow into rivers, and rivers flow into the ocean... philosophy is like that too. All these different currents eventually form a vast, deep ocean.

Every era seems to have had its own defining questions. During the cosmological period of Greek thought, the big question was the origin of the cosmos; then Socrates and the Sophists debated humanity and society, while Plato and Aristotle built these massive, impressive systems to try and make sense of everything—the world, society, and the individual.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#27 ·
The subject of scientific inquiry and the focus of philosophy are one and the same—the world itself.

There aren't nearly as many worlds out there as there are sciences—plus philosophy, plus sociology, or whatever else you want to throw in—but obviously, there is only one world.

And this world we inhabit is deeply interconnected and woven together; everything influences everything else (just as quantum physics tells us, as ancient philosophy suggests, and as I observe every single day just by looking around). Therefore, the trend toward differentiation and fragmenting our view of the world is wrong—it's outdated and frankly, quite misplaced.

Philosophy isn't just empty chatter—as the primitive Alexander the Great might mistakenly believe—rather, it is the scientific (methodical, systematic) processing of its subject matter, which is the quest for the meaning of the whole of reality and the attempt to answer it.

Haha, "primitive Alexander the Great."
In my opinion, philosophy today often amounts to nothing more than hollow rambling and pretension. And what could an empty person actually offer? What could be produced through "systematic and methodical" processing (if you believe that's always the case...) if the core is just a collection of mistaken, hollow, lifeless, biased, and utterly disconnected ideas? It’s essentially just empty regurgitation.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads