• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Is Philosophy Important?

I think a hell of a lot. I've been reading Dennett and I find his insights into religion and the mind outstanding and I know that others like Pinker and Dennett agree (to some degree).
Click to expand...

That these are wonderful do not make them practical on their own. The science that comes from these ideas may be practical, but these ideas can't be immediately used in society.
 
Tricky said:
The formal study of philosophy hasn't had any effect on my career in science.
Click to expand...

That is a remarkable statement. I understand that you are referring to the fact that you have not taken a class from the philosophy department, and that taking such a class is not required to be a successful scientist. But I would suggest, in all seriousness, that the formal study of philosophy has had a profound effect on your career in science...it is the very thing that has made that career possible. Science is natural philosophy. The distinction between science and metaphysics is, historically speaking, relatively recent.

Having said that, I am firmly of the opinion that metaphysics is no longer a useful means of enquiry into the nature of reality - be it political, social, cosmological or whatever. As a scientist you are inheriting the intellectual mantel of philosophy and are a producer of the closest thing we can have to accurate knowledge about our condition.
 
CapelDodger said:
I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.
Click to expand...

Somehow I missed this post first time 'round. From a political philosophy perspective, I have to say that I completely agree. I would probably sound the death knell even earlier than 1900.

What about philosophy of the mind? Is neuroscience advanced enough that philosophy is no longer relevant?

ETA: My answer to my own question is that neuroscience has no need of philosophy, but I'm curious as to what other people think.
 
Last edited:
(Why am I always ignored? Do I have some sort of reputation I don't know about?)
 
dlacone said:
That is a remarkable statement. I understand that you are referring to the fact that you have not taken a class from the philosophy department, and that taking such a class is not required to be a successful scientist. But I would suggest, in all seriousness, that the formal study of philosophy has had a profound effect on your career in science...it is the very thing that has made that career possible. Science is natural philosophy. The distinction between science and metaphysics is, historically speaking, relatively recent.
Click to expand...
And I would say that informally absorbing the scientific method is not a formal study in philosophy. It requires learning no history, philosophical jargon or even formal logic (another thing I've never taken a class in). Yes, I know science is a philosophy (and a method) , but it has never been taught to me that way.

If it weren't for Monty Python, I wouldn't have even know the names of any philosophers until I started posting here.

But this is mere semantics.
 
l0rca said:
That these are wonderful do not make them practical on their own. The science that comes from these ideas may be practical, but these ideas can't be immediately used in society.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
l0rca said:
Progressions without philosophy is a headless pursuit, and without it, we have no compass to where we're heading.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a specific example? I'm not convinced that philosophy is necessary as a compass for progress. Ethics maybe, but I'll assert that our ethical/empathetic natures are enough and that we don't need particular philosophical systems of ethics.
 
Tricky said:
And I would say that informally absorbing the scientific method is not a formal study in philosophy. It requires learning no history, philosophical jargon or even formal logic (another thing I've never taken a class in). Yes, I know science is a philosophy (and a method) , but it has never been taught to me that way.

If it weren't for Monty Python, I wouldn't have even know the names of any philosophers until I started posting here.

But this is mere semantics.
Click to expand...

Yah...it is basically semantics. Carry on.

Three cheers for Python!
 
Tricky said:
And I would say that informally absorbing the scientific method is not a formal study in philosophy. It requires learning no history, philosophical jargon or even formal logic (another thing I've never taken a class in). Yes, I know science is a philosophy (and a method) , but it has never been taught to me that way.
Click to expand...
Marconi wasn't a scientist. Many successful business people have never taken courses in business, some have never even finished high school for that matter. A scientist needn't take science courses. An engineer needn't study engineering. Etc., etc. I really don't understand your point.

ETA: The work of one discipline often compliments the work of another. A geophysicist need not study astronomy to benifit from it. Why do we teach science to kids who will grow up to manage businesses? It's not necassary. Perhaps it makes them more rounded in their understanding of the natural world. Ya think?
 
Last edited:
dlacone said:
Can you provide a specific example? I'm not convinced that philosophy is necessary as a compass for progress. Ethics maybe, but I'll assert that our ethical/empathetic natures are enough and that we don't need particular philosophical systems of ethics.
Click to expand...

The inherited ethics we have allow us to live like animals in the bush. We need to apply out minds to rise above our animal base.
 
Dogdoctor said:
The inherited ethics we have allow us to live like animals in the bush. We need to apply out minds to rise above our animal base.
Click to expand...

Our inherited ethics comprise a large part of what we call our mind. I assume you mean that we must apply reason. But there is no way clear way to separate reason from emotion or to separate reason from any of our ethical behavior. When we act ethically we do so because we decide to act in a particular way arising from our inheritance.

This issue arises in debates about philosophy of mind frequently, when allowed to do so. Reason without emotion = the functioning of a computer. Reason with emotion = the valuation schemes that drive our minds. Emotion and motivation (based on emotion) constitute value. Without value (what we find important) ethics would not be possible.
 
RandFan said:
BTW, I'm not certain but I think sometimes Dark Jaguar simply rolls his eyes at me and moves on. If that is true I don't blame him. Some people think I'm too thick to get a point and perhaps I am sometimes. I appreciate those who are patient with me. I think I can say that my many posts here have actually led to some intellectual growth and maybe even some maturity and not simply been an opportunity to stroke my ego and engage in debate.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, the only impression I have ever formed of the persona behind your posts is of a very smart and very good person. Whatever else you may want to think of yourself you are clearly kind and try to keep a level head, which I find extremely commendable. Keep doing what you're doing. We're all in the same boat trying to figure out what the meaning of it all is (or, rather, trying to construct the meaning of it all).

Too thick? Nah. Definitely not my impression. We all have blocks to certain ways of thinking, all of us. That is why forums such as this are so important. No one has an exclusive claim on truth. Truth arises best, from what I have seen, through conversation and debate.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Truthfully, the only impression I have ever formed of the persona behind your posts is of a very smart and very good person. Whatever else you may want to think of yourself you are clearly kind and try to keep a level head, which I find extremely commendable. Keep doing what you're doing. We're all in the same boat trying to figure out what the meaning of it all is (or, rather, trying to construct the meaning of it all).

Too thick? Nah. Definitely not my impression. We all have blocks to certain ways of thinking, all of us. That is why forums such as this are so important. No one has an exclusive claim on truth. Truth arises best, from what I have seen, through conversation and debate.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
 
Dark Jaguar said:
Basically I'm saying that the most we can say is why we behave the way we do or find certain things moral or beautiful. The universe doesn't seem to have any absolute "how it SHOULD be" answers though.
Click to expand...
It sure does: the transformation of stuff into useless heat. Which brings us to the virtues of rough sex, explosions and guns, and a kind of biothermodynamic equilibrium: government. You see, the universe wants us all to be happy and not bored. When a man also rises to political power and nukes several cities, he is said to have attained oneness with the universe.

I must agree that if philosophy is defined as "world view", it is very nearly inescapable. I say "nearly" because I escape it during dreamless sleep and eventually in death :D.
Click to expand...
Surely any reasonable man wants to be again catapulted into the world system for more fun!
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Our inherited ethics comprise a large part of what we call our mind. I assume you mean that we must apply reason. But there is no way clear way to separate reason from emotion or to separate reason from any of our ethical behavior. When we act ethically we do so because we decide to act in a particular way arising from our inheritance.

This issue arises in debates about philosophy of mind frequently, when allowed to do so. Reason without emotion = the functioning of a computer. Reason with emotion = the valuation schemes that drive our minds. Emotion and motivation (based on emotion) constitute value. Without value (what we find important) ethics would not be possible.
Click to expand...

Baloney just study primitive tribes.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I have. Your point being, what? Virtually all of what I said is based on study of "primitive" peoples.
Click to expand...

Primitive tribe have primitive undeveloped ethics. Only when you have seperated man from the need to survive can he give much thought to ethics. Then ethical thought is obviously not a product of genetics but the propensity for it may be.
 
Dogdoctor said:
Primitive tribe have primitive undeveloped ethics. Only when you have seperated man from the need to survive can he give much thought to ethics. Then ethical thought is obviously not a product of genetics but the propensity for it may be.
Click to expand...

Do they? I wasn't aware of that. The San certainly do not seem to me to have "primitive undeveloped ethics". Their ethical system seems to fit their material situation, just as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics serves as a wonderful primer on how to be a good Athenian gentleman and Bentham's Utilitarianism fits the needs of the industrious Englishman. The San seem, at least to me, to make fairly sophisticated ethical judgments about sharing within their group, again as a consequence of their material situation. They actually have much more free time than we do, much more time for reflection and thought.

I never claimed that ethical thought is the product of genetics or, at least, completely determined by genetics. What I claimed is that ethical thought can not be viewed as the result of pure reason or calculation. It is inherently tied to emotion. We cannot separate the two. What we inherited as ethics -- propensities to certain ways of thinking about how to interact with each other -- provide much more than an ability to live like animals in the bush. Those propensities allow us to be human -- to live in communities, work together, etc. That is what we inherited. None of it is hard-wired; I don't think anyone claims that. What we seem to have inherited is a general purpose problem solving brain that attacks problems from several different angles. That is one of the reasons why we can't seem to arrive at any final ethics that we can all agree upon. We are endowed with modules for solving problems based on utility and modules for solving problems based on duty/responsibility/deontology. We solve the problem, apply a rationalization, and call it ethics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom