Does philosophy evolve?

[RandFan]

One more point. My last philosophy class was almost 20 years ago as is obvious from some of the mistakes made in my post quoted by Eleatic Stranger. Which is a good reason for me not to take myself too seriously.

 

[RandFan]

You know I'm sitting here stewing on Eleatic Stranger's critique and becoming more certain of my position and yet questioning it just as much which is usually a bad thing. I just hate it when that happens.

I would love for anyone else and of course Eleatic Stranger to comment further.

I will back off for the time being. I'm not conceding anything but it has been a long time since my philosophy class and I admit that I am not the most versed on the subject.

Ego, aint it a bitch?

 

[Kopji]

I'll still respect you both in the morning.

 

[RandFan]

I'll still respect you both in the morning.

I needed that.

You're a first year grad student. You just got finished
reading some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison,
probably -- you gunna' be convinced of that till next
month when you get to James Lemon, then you're
gunna' be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia
and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist
way back in 1740. That's gunna' last until next year,
you're gunna' be in here regurgitatin' Gordon Wood.
Talkin' about, you know, the pre-Revolutionary Utopia
and the capital forming effects of military mobilization.

--Will Hunting

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Kopji]

Well, it was only a few minutes wait...

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

I stand by the simple fact that,

A.) Religion and philosophy are compatible.
B.) Religion is a branch of philosophy.
C.) Religious philosophy is just that.

You are contorting and twisting to separate religion and philosophy.

Finally, my link is "iffy"? This is your idea of argument?

I apologize for not being clearer about the link -- I was referring to the list of philosophers religious affiliations and not the one about Philosophy of Religion and its relation to metaphysics.

As far as the above three - the first is clearly true as far as it goes. Of course, Philosophy is also compatible with gardening or ice skating as far as that goes as well.

The second I think still relies too much on the sense in which "Philosophy" can mean "belief system". There certainly is such a thing as "Philosophy of Religion", but it's important to note that there's also such a thing as "Philosophy of knowledge (epistemology)", or "Philosophy of Mind", and I'd be hesistant to identify knowledge or having a mind with Philosophy in any sense. Philosophy of Religion is, to my mind, simply philosophy that is concerned with investigating religious claims or beliefs -- in the same way that we might also have a sociology of religion.

Religious philosophy, then, is a bit of a misnomer to my ears. It seems to pick out a particular area of philosophy (that which is religious), but that isn't the same as saying that it's religion. Theology certainly seems associated with both religion and philosophy - but generally to the detriment of both, or to the detriment of whichever one is favors. (Theology which is philosophically good is generally something that results in unrecognizeable accounts of the religion in question; and Theology which doesn't result in that sort of account is generally pretty awful philosophy.)

Finally I just have to note again that it's trivially true that some particular religion is a philosophy -- because when you use the phrase "a philosophy" that generally refers to the sense of "philosophy" that means "belief system". Philosophy as a subject matter for study is not something you could refer to as "a Philosophy" any more than you would refer to "a Biology". So saying that some religion is "a philosophy" is definitly true, but entirely different from saying that it is "philosophy".

 

[jay gw]

Theology IS a branch of philosophy. Since it relies on logic and reason rather than empiricism it can be argued that religion is more "philosophical" than science is.

Ok.

I don't at all agree that religion has no "creative element" On the contrary religion has spawned some of the greatest art in human history.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Religion has no regenerative (to form, construct, or create anew, especially in an improved state) elements. All religions consider their main texts to be infallible, most do. They cannot be improved upon. The churches can't be altered or recreated.

Through history, anytime somebody like Martin Luther wanted to reform a church or religion, they basically had to start a new one. What does that mean?

It has nothing to do with the art coming out or how religion inspires people. It has to do with the interpretation of their texts and organizations.

The difference between other non metaphysical philosophy and religion is that one considers all the questions to have been answered, and the other never stops asking and never expects a final answer.

All religions have texts they claim answer all the major questions of life. The reason I asked the original question, "Does philosophy evolve?" is because by contrast, religion does not evolve. It's just taught to every generation the same way it's always been.

 

[Kopji]

Some thoughts & mere opinions...

Ok, to my thinking, religion does not inspire art. Religion could be thought of as a channel for artistic impulse - like how a brush influences how and what the artist paints.

There is precision in thinking that a painting is only canvas, frame, and a few dollars of pigmented dyes. But to assert that is all there is to the painting is to have missed the essence. I have failed to understand the painting as it really is.

Religion has that same quality. It cannot offer reason or logic as a means to judge it by, we judge religion by its ability to reveal beauty: 'Does it have meaning for me?' So it makes more sense that religion evolves, because it offers more 'mistakes' to correct or change. But are mistakes bad? Humm. Depends on how the mistakes are used.

If religion evolves, what does it evolve toward? Atheism? Religion seems to need a philosophy to survive, but the reverse does not seem to be true.

*******

Philosophy functions like an ecosystem of ideas. It requires coherence - a narrow path of logic and reason that carries us from the early premises to the most complex implications. If the idea of evolution could be applied to this ecosystem of ideas, what is analogous to natural selection?

Reason?
Truth?
Beauty?
People willing to be followers?

Maybe there is an answer in looking at them as ways of power, and ways not of power.

I don't know. I might answer though, that life itself draws out the power or weakness of any philosophy. "just live, and find out as you go".














'...don't follow in the footsteps of the old poets, seek what they sought'

'...every day is a journey, and the journey itself is home'
-Basho

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Philosophy functions like an ecosystem of ideas. It requires coherence - a narrow path of logic and reason that carries us from the early premises to the most complex implications. If the idea of evolution could be applied to this ecosystem of ideas, what is analogous to natural selection?

This is an interesting metaphor, actually - I think the obvious choice would be (1) coherence, or (2) argument. Philosophy, in other words, naturally selects for positions that have substantial arguments behind them, and against positions that don't. (Which, of course, counts as satisfying coherence as well, as a philosophic position that doesn't cohere well with other positions or things we know has a substantial set of arguments against it to contend with.)

 

[jay gw]

Philosophy, in other words, naturally selects for positions that have substantial arguments behind them, and against positions that don't. (

However, a few religions have existed intact for 1000 years plus without any proof whatsoever of their basic assumptions.

People are not approaching religion the same way they approach areas like science. They approach it with an attitude of suspended disbelief.

If everyone had looked at religions the same way they do secular philosophy, expecting the parts to fit logically together, there wouldn't have been any churches to begin with.

 

[Ryokan]

The opposite of science? Both seek to find the truth. The problem with religion is that it is often tied to inerancy and therefore is resistent to change. Howevere there are some ways that it can. One is for a member to start his or her own Chruch. See Martin Luther.

You spelled it wrong. It's spelled 'Crutch'.

 

[jay gw]

Why is this a tough question? Nobody wants to suggest how philosophy progresses over time?

The mistakes corrected over time are not exactly fundamental. They seem more concerned with facts than basic values.

 

[Gestahl]

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Religion has no regenerative (to form, construct, or create anew, especially in an improved state) elements. All religions consider their main texts to be infallible, most do. They cannot be improved upon. The churches can't be altered or recreated.

Are you trying to tell me the Catholicism of Americans today is exactly identical to the Catholicism of the 1300s?

While the infallibility of scripture is a usually a tenent, the infallibility of the interpretation of it is not (except for really special people, like the Pope, who speaks ex-cathedra only occaisionally). Interpretations change as language, culture, and word meanings change.

I think you might need to revise that statement.

In response to your query, your question has gotten all the answers I can think of, other than no ;-).

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Well what exactly are you looking for?

Philosophers tend to have the same sort of intellectual temperament as scientists (unsuprisingly), and are generally motivated by things they don't understand. So it's hard to point to resolved problems in philosophy - when they get resolved we just move on. (Or, alternatively, when we figure out a better way of asking the question we ask it instead - which is even harder to point to as progress though frankly it's the major way in which philosophy does progress.)

But if you want some solved problems, how about the debator's paradox, or Russell's theory of descriptions?

(Specifically, the debator's paradox asks the question: "How could one inquire into something? If one is ignorant of the answer one wouldn't know when one found it, but if one wasn't ignorant of the answer ther would be no reason to inquire in the first place. Russell's theory of description solves a certain set of puzzling sentences for which double negation doesn't seem to function. (For example: the sentence "The present king of France is bald" is false, but so is "The present king of France is not bald".))

 

[jay gw]

While the infallibility of scripture is a usually a tenent, the infallibility of the interpretation of it is not (except for really special people, like the Pope, who speaks ex-cathedra only occaisionally). Interpretations change as language, culture, and word meanings change.

I don't agree. Religion basics don't change. Sins are still sins, the Catholics still don't let women in power, and Muslims still have 4 wives.

The changing interpretations you're talking about are about minor points only.

Secular philosophy and religion do not evolve in the same way.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Philosophers tend to have the same sort of intellectual temperament as scientists (unsuprisingly), and are generally motivated by things they don't understand. So it's hard to point to resolved problems in philosophy - when they get resolved we just move on. (Or, alternatively, when we figure out a better way of asking the question we ask it instead - which is even harder to point to as progress though frankly it's the major way in which philosophy does progress.)

This is an extremely good point. Philosophy has more to do with learning to ask the right questions, than to change beliefs via direct confrontation with "better beliefs".

The change of a point of view is far more important than the change of beliefs. Well, in fact, I believe it is impossible to change a belief without changing the point of view.

 

[Z]

This is an extremely good point. Philosophy has more to do with learning to ask the right questions, than to change beliefs via direct confrontation with "better beliefs".

The change of a point of view is far more important than the change of beliefs. Well, in fact, I believe it is impossible to change a belief without changing the point of view.

There's an old saying I was exposed to as a kid:

"Religion seeks to answer questions; science seeks to question answers."

I suppose philosophy bridges a gap between the two, then - often, you're looking for an answer, and instead find a new question.

 

[jay gw]

Philosophy has more to do with learning to ask the right questions, than to change beliefs via direct confrontation with "better beliefs".

Religious people want to change your beliefs too, but use very different methods.

Philosophy does not condone the use of manipulation and threats, intimidation to persuade. Religion does. It promotes the use of devices that no philosopher would allow.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Does philosophy evolve in a linear way, like science and technology....

Actually, I'd challenge the claim that science evolves in a linear way. I am surprised no-one has mention Thomas Kuhn, since he is very well known for having written a book which many people believe demonstrated that science does not always evolve in a linear way. Sometimes it evolves via revolutions, as he calls them. If you accept this then two things appear to follow.

1) Science doesn't always evolve linearly
2) Philosophy sometimes does evolve linearly, for example it is no longer impossible to ignore Kuhns arguments!

The idea that philosophy could be a purely linear progression also ignores the hugely influential philosophy of Hegel, the central theme of which is that philosophy evolves dialectically via thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In other words, you can't even begin to comment sensibly on this issue unless you have some idea of what Hegel wrote and the significance it has had for everything else that followed.

http://mythosandlogos.com/hegel.html

Hegel's more romantic perspective on the philosophy of religion, history and politics shifted shortly thereafter. This shift consisted of Hegel's argument that philosophy should consist of an understanding of the history of philosophical thought, wherein past philosophical thought is viewed as partially true rather than false. The progression of philosophical 'truth' for Hegel involves a dialectical resolution of past oppositions into increasingly accurate syntheses. Although Hegel never used them, Hegel's concept of this dialectic can be more easily grasped in terms of Heinrich Moritz Chalybaus' terms "thesis," "antithesis," and "synthesis." With this terminology, the "thesis" consists of a historical movement which, in itself, is incomplete. To resolve the incompletion, an "antithesis" arises which opposes itself to the historical thrust of the "thesis." In turn, the "synthesis" arrives when the "thesis" and "antithesis" become reconciled in such a way that a higher level of 'truth' is obtained. This "synthesis" thereby becomes the "thesis," which will again give rise to an "antithesis," leading to a new "synthesis," and so on. For Hegel, this dialectical movement is the result of a rational movement in history.

 

[RandFan]

Hey, it's UCE,

We where just talking about you. How ya doing? Sorry about the derail/