Does philosophy evolve?

[jay gw]

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.

What examples are there that this could be true?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey, it's UCE,

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

Hi Randfan. Yeah, doing great. Exams in a couple of weeks and then three months off. The student life is great. How's yourself?

 

[RandFan]

Hi Randfan. Yeah, doing great. Exams in a couple of weeks and then three months off. The student life is great. How's yourself?

I'm doing ok, hanging in there.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What examples are there that this could be true?

Hi jay gw

I have to rush off....will answer this tomorrow when I can try to do it some justice.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It is hard coming up with a non-controversial example of Hegelian dialectic in motion. For example you might consider capitalism-communism-social democracy as a dialectical process. Capitalism represents the thesis, marxism its antithesis and eventually you end up with people realising that neither extreme works and synthesising social democracy from the best of both worlds. However, there are still places where people don't seem to have noticed that the cold war is over (I am thinking of North Korea and certain elements within the US here) so there are people who might get quite angry if you try to argue that there is a synthesis between capitalism and communism possible. Some people are still defending one of them from the other, and they consider a synthesis as a "defeat". I am using this as an example, but there are plenty of others from the history of philosophy. I'd be tempted to use the "materialism -> idealism" as an example of thesis -> anti-thesis, with Kant coming along and pointing out that both positions are really the results of mistaken use of (and understanding of) language. But in this case I am fully aware that many people here will be too busy defending materialism from idealism or idealism from materialism to be bothered to learn about any "synthesis", rather like the frothing-mouthed right-wingers who still warble on about "commies". The dialectical process applies to ideas. So it applies to the ideas of whole movements of history and it applies to the ideas of individual people too. Perhaps it is important to point out that in philosophy it is really up to individual people to come to their own decisions, and to allow their own philosophy to "evolve". Maybe that is the real difference between science and philosophy. Science tries to provide a means whereby there is a collective justified belief system which evolves as a body, but in philosophy no such collective exists. Instead, each individual must approach the arguments and come to his own conclusion. Eventually, he is likely to come to notice that this evolution in his belief system follows something like a dialectic pattern. This doesn't mean that philosophy provides no answers, or is degenerating. It just means you have to formulate and defend your own individual position, rather than being part of a collective attempt to acheive an impossible "objectivity".

Perhaps you can say that evolution of scientific ideas involves an attempt to give people improved knowledge about the physical world whereas evolution of philsophical idea involes an attempt to give people improved linguistics, logical and conceptual tools in order to be better able to come to their own conclusions about the issues addressed by philosophy. One tries to provide answers, the other provides the means for people to find their own answers (especially to questions which don't lend themselves to scientific investigation).

 

[jay gw]

Why does your response have no paragraph breaks?

For example you might consider capitalism-communism-social democracy as a dialectical process. Capitalism represents the thesis, marxism its antithesis and eventually you end up with people realising that neither extreme works and synthesising social democracy from the best of both worlds.

But that's not what happened. People didn't realize any higher truths, communism collapsed because the economics didn't work.

Maybe the public did get tired of it and come to some new conclusion, but it's pretty easy to change your mind when there's no bread in the stores.

Americans believe in social democracy? I beg to differ.

Marx was right about the centrality of economics to life. A philosophy that's not supported by economic truths and maybe historical precedents cannot become more than a passing fad. You can't create a government or society around ideas that violate economics.

If economics is in fact a science with inviolable laws, then philosophy is always going to be limited to what can be integrated with economic truths.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But that's not what happened. People didn't realize any higher truths, communism collapsed because the economics didn't work.

I never claimed that communism collapsed because of the evolution of ideas. It may be more accurate to say that the fact that it collapsed helped to move the ideas on. It remains the case that there aren't very many marxist revolutionaries anymore, and it should be pointed out that the economy of the US doesn't look very sustainable in the medium term either. It too is either going to collapse or change - partly because it is going to find it increasingly impossible to compete in a global market with China, a country which is now quite clearly pursuing an economic system which is a synthesis of capitalism and communism.

However, it was always going to be difficult for me to provide an example that someone, somewhere will challenge for all the reasons I discussed in my last post.

Americans believe in social democracy? I beg to differ.

Americans don't (yet). But Europe does, and so do south-east Asia and much of South America.

If economics is in fact a science with inviolable laws.....

It isn't. How on earth could it possibly be so?

I think this discussion may be heading nowhere, though. Hegel was not a philosopher who wrote for the masses, and what he wrote takes quite a bit of effort to understand. His audience was other philosophers, and it is taken for granted that this audience is very well acquainted with the history of philosophy up to that point. His system is an attempt to understand the dynamic involved in that history. In other words, you have to have a pretty good grasp of that history before you are really in a position either to agree with or to disagree with Hegel.

I think part of the problem I am having here is that people of a scientific bent tend to try to analyse things by looking at the fine details and trying to build a picture of reality bottom-up. But metaphysicians, especially Hegel, are trying to do the exact opposite - to build a system from the top-down. It's a different process and requires a different sort of thinking. In particular, it requires the suspension of skepticism at least to the point where you have enough information about both the relevant bits of history and Hegel's system, and I'm not capable of providing either. I'm not sure there's much point anyway. Nobody who was skeptical about philosophy having anything useful to say at all is going to anywhere near Hegel - he causes enough problems for philosophers already.

The thesis-antithesis-synthesis description is a gross oversimplification. If you are interested in a better description, go here:

http://www.hegel.net/en/kaufmann1959.htm

Hegel’s enormous importance becomes clear as soon as we reflect on his historic role. There is, first, his direct influence, which appears not only in philosophic idealism, which, at the turn of the last century, dominated British and American philosophy — Bradley, Bosanquet, McTaggart, T. H. Green, and Royce, to give but five examples — but also in almost all subsequent histories of philosophy, beginning with the epoch-making works of Erdmann, Zeller, and Kuno Fischer. It was Hegel who established the history of philosophy as a central academic discipline and as part of the core of any philosophic education. It was also Hegel who established the view that the different philosophic systems that we find in history are to be comprehended in terms of development and that they are generally one-sided because they owe their origins to a reaction against what has gone before.

Hegel's own philosophy is a long and complicated defence of the claim that there is indeed progress in philosophy, and an explanation of how it happens. But I'm not qualified to defend it and I doubt whether anyone here is qualified to critique it.

 

[jay gw]

It was also Hegel who established the view that the different philosophic systems that we find in history are to be comprehended in terms of development and that they are generally one-sided because they owe their origins to a reaction against what has gone before.

This makes sense. It's a clearer way of saying thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

It's true that philosophers are starting by questioning what's around them and what's come before and then go from there.

But is there any pattern beyond that? Unlike science and some religions, philosophy is an individual process and has no formal rules that it operates by. In order to introduce a new scientific principle/discovery, everyone follows the same rules including efforts at duplication. Religious "progress" must agree with the basic text of the bible(s) and there are people, like the new pope, who's job it is to monitor "compliance".

Philosophy doesn't come with any rules.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This makes sense. It's a clearer way of saying thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

It's true that philosophers are starting by questioning what's around them and what's come before and then go from there.

But is there any pattern beyond that? Unlike science and some religions, philosophy is an individual process and has no formal rules that it operates by. In order to introduce a new scientific principle/discovery, everyone follows the same rules including efforts at duplication. Religious "progress" must agree with the basic text of the bible(s) and there are people, like the new pope, who's job it is to monitor "compliance".

Philosophy doesn't come with any rules.

The distinctions you are making aren't so easy to defend though. Science doesn't actually have any formal rules, even though there has been no shortage of people who've tried to formulate them. The closest anyone got was Sir Karl Popper, but his attempt has been comprehensively deconstructed - the claim that "science is a methodology" can't actually be defended. It is historically innaccurate and (worse) if people actually tried to follow his rules, scientific progress would be impeded. Science is a combination of a community of people and a set of ideals (like the intention to be as objective as possible, and the intention to investigate reality with an open mind instead of being influenced by pre-existing dogma). But those rules are not hard-and-fast and the community has grey borders.

Specifically I have to challenge the following claim : "In order to introduce a new scientific principle/discovery, everyone follows the same rules including efforts at duplication. "

The opposite is true. Quite often the introduction of a new principle or discovery in science requires the introduction of new rules. In fact, the more important and revolutionary the discovery, the more difficult the scientific community tends to find accepting it. In many cases you have to wait for an entire generation of scientists to die off, taking the old paradigm with them - and only then can the new generation come through and pick up the new paradigm. This is precisely what is occuring between the old-school "computationalists" and the new-school "connectionists" in cognitive science right now. What is occuring is not a rational, steady change based upon logical rules which everyone follows. What is happening is a turf war where sometimes the anomisity and hostility is very close to the surface. People's careers are on the line.

It's not surprising, given that this is the JREF, but I think some people here are looking at science through rose-tinted spectacles.

Now - having said all that there is still a difference between science and philosophy because in philosophy the ideal is for each person to provide his own arguments and reach his own conclusions and nobody really pretends anything else is the case, whereas in science there is at least an attempt to provide empirical evidence where this is possible. In philosophy it is openly acceptable to believe something on the strength of a logical argument whereas science requires both empirical evidence and a logical argument. I'm not going to comment on religion, since there are lots of them and they are all different.

The truth, I suspect, is that science doesn't come with any rules either. This is exactly what was argued by Paul Feyerabend : "Anything goes".

The following paper was written on precisely this subject by an old JREFer known as "telemachus", if anyone remembers him...

http://www.galilean-library.org/feyerabend.html

 

[Gestahl]

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.

Umm.... I didn't think that polygamy was a common Muslim practice... but I am too lazy to look up anything to call you on it.

Many Mormons still have more than one wife, even though the church has officially dropped the practice.

Sins are still sins, huh? Like loaning out money with interest (usuary)? That used to be a sin, no longer. Or how about the fury over witchcraft? Don't see that too much now.

I garantee that women have more influence in the Catholic church today than they did in the past.

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

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

Ah, but that is how things change... minor points. Religion does evolve a lot slower, but it is not static and is not incapable of reform, as Luther demonstrates.

I just think your original statement was too broad and absolute.

 

[jay gw]

Quite often the introduction of a new principle or discovery in science requires the introduction of new rules.

But you said that science doesn't follow any rules.

"In order to introduce a new scientific principle/discovery, everyone follows the same rules including efforts at duplication. "

The opposite is true.

No it's not. Nobody has ever accepted a discovery without being free to test it. Nothing new becomes established unless everyone in the field accepts it.

Religion does evolve a lot slower, but it is not static and is not incapable of reform, as Luther demonstrates.

Luther didn't change the Catholic church, he started a new one.

Why does Christianity have 100 denominations?

 

[Gestahl]

Luther didn't change the Catholic church, he started a new one.

Why does Christianity have 100 denominations?

Interesting, I would ask you the same question, seeing as you seem to believe religion to be incapable of change or reform. Seems a whole lot of differences between religions from the same source, many made without major reformations and splits.

For example, the attitude in Southern Fundamentalism towards slavery. I also see you ignored all my other statements about usury or the Mormon reform related to polygamy. Don't let your preconceptions about religion blind you to the fact that just like any other social institution, it does change, just very slowly, just like government.

You seem to be moving the goalposts here, either religions change, or you simply define each little change as a new religion. The fact that religious attitudes have changed over the years is indisputable.

 

[jay gw]

Interesting, I would ask you the same question, seeing as you seem to believe religion to be incapable of change or reform. Seems a whole lot of differences between religions from the same source, many made without major reformations and splits.

So religion evolves by thesis-antithesis-synthesis? Do you have any examples of this?

Mormons and polygamy - they were forced by the government to stop the practice. They don't have enough power in America to continue the practice or they would. Some of them live far enough outside civilization that they get away with it, but it's too obvious living in downtown Salt Lake City that you've got 10 wives and the law would come down on you. They didn't do it because they evolved.

 

[drkitten]

So religion evolves by thesis-antithesis-synthesis? Do you have any examples of this?

The second Vatican council?

Almost all of the reforms promulgated therein were in response to criticisms ("antitheses") leveled over the years at the Catholic Church, which were then "synthesized" into the new doctrine.

For that matter, see any of the major Catholic meetings since the very beginning. Where do you think the wording of the Nicenean creed came from?

 

[drkitten]

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?


I'm afraid it means you didn't read your history very closely. Look up the Counter-Reformation sometime. Look up this history of the High and Low Churches within the Anglican communion.

Formation of a new church through sectarian split is actually substantially rarer than mere changes in church doctrine.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello jay gw.

It's nice to be talking to someone sane. I've just spent an hour responding to someone called lifegazer who thinks there's no such thing as reality. Oh boy..... :no:

But you said that science doesn't follow any rules.

No fixed rules. This was Feyerabends point. There are rules in science, but they change. His claim was that if you want to provide a set of rules which define science and which are also historically accurate then the only description that works is "anything goes". It doesn't follow that "anything goes" at any one time.

No it's not. Nobody has ever accepted a discovery without being free to test it. Nothing new becomes established unless everyone in the field accepts it.

OK, but this is compatible with the Kuhnian claim that in the end it comes down to the subjective judgements of scientists. Kuhns critics called this "mob rule" and wanted something more concrete. But I agree with you, and with Kuhn. Something is scientific if it is accepted as the scientific community as such. Something is pseudo-scientific if it purports to have that acceptance, but doesn't. You then have to ask how those scientists come to their conclusions.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Some of them live far enough outside civilization that they get away with it, but it's too obvious living in downtown Salt Lake City that you've got 10 wives and the law would come down on you. They didn't do it because they evolved. [/B]

That's not evolution. From their POV, it's social engineering.

 

[Gestahl]

So religion evolves by thesis-antithesis-synthesis? Do you have any examples of this?

Mormons and polygamy - they were forced by the government to stop the practice. They don't have enough power in America to continue the practice or they would. Some of them live far enough outside civilization that they get away with it, but it's too obvious living in downtown Salt Lake City that you've got 10 wives and the law would come down on you. They didn't do it because they evolved.

Why the hell else would any social institution change except in response to environmental social pressures? Just give the Mormons a while... it will dissappear in another few generations.

Just like attitudes towards blacks have taken so long to change in the South.

An example would be:

Thesis: Darwin's Origins
Anti-thesis: Scopes trial, rabid Creationism, primary rejection by Catholic church
Synthesis: Modern liberal protestantism, acceptance by Catholic church

And in the other direction:

Thesis: modern liberal protestantism
Anti-thesis: crumbling of Biblical relevancy
Synthesis: modern neo-fundamentalism

 

[jay gw]

OK, but this is compatible with the Kuhnian claim that in the end it comes down to the subjective judgements of scientists.

So if a group of scientists gets together and over a few crack pipe hits decides that "ether" is real, it's science?

It was science that:

the sun revolved around the earth
there were gods that influenced human actions
diseases were caused by imbalances in chi and humors
using magnetism was beneficial


?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So if a group of scientists gets together and over a few crack pipe hits decides that "ether" is real, it's science?

Well that's a grey area, as shown by the example of Blondlot and the non-existent N-Rays. They weren't on crack, but a whole bunch of them managed to convince themselves they were seeing something which was never there. It was science for a while, but the wider scientific community eventually rejected it, just as they would reject the "ether" in your example. If this is what defines science then scientists are under an obligation to be very careful that they are being as objective as possible at al ltimes, and not allowing themselves to be influenced by idealogical and metaphysical preferences of any sort, or their egos and career requirements. Usually they do quite a good job, but sometimes it does go wrong - at least for a while.