Does the world have a dominant philosophy?

[Ladewig]

Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.

As they say in the Southland, "you're not from around here, are you?"

Seventy-two percent of registered voters in the U.S. believe it is important for the president to have strong religious beliefs. Religion might be decreasing in the rest of the world, but given that every month, another county or state tries to add Intelligent Design to a science curriculum, it is not declining around these parts.

I agree with Zep although I might go a bit further and say the most popular attitude in the U.S. is: "I've got mine so f' you. In fact I'll enjoy having mine even more if you don't have any at all."

 

[Correa Neto]

I agree and will go beyond.

World´s top philosophy has been:

MONEY-MAKING!!!

Money is the true god all around the world worship it, since it was invented. Only money has the power to improve your life, provide you power, heal you, save you, get you sport cars, yatchs, dazzling women, etc.

Money is the only and true God and Greenspan is Its prophet.
In Money we trust.

edited to add:

Oh Lord, won´t you buy me a Mercedes-Benz...

 

[uruk]

It's a myth that science is a philosophy or the basis for one. A very naive myth, at that.

That's right LG. Because in many areas science has surpassed philosophy in answering question.

And before you trot out your worn out response of "science does not study anything real" hogwash. You cannot prove it. And you never will.

 

[hgc]

The world's dominant philosophy is: IMMORTALITY, driven by fear of death and meaninglessness.

 

[uruk]

The world's dominant philosophy is: IMMORTALITY, driven by fear of death and meaninglessness.

Which some day we may achieved through science.

 

[Ladewig]

World´s top philosophy has been:

MONEY-MAKING!!!

It is as true today as when it was put to music: Money makes the world go 'round.

 

[c4ts]

As I said to Russ, science has the absolute answer for nothing.
It's neither a philosophy nor the basis of one.

Evidently you missed out on the Age of Enlightenment. Sir Francis Bacon's philosophy is the foundation of modern scientific thought, and if you'd read his works and naturalistic philosophy leading up to it, you'd realize that science is a philosophy because of its foundations in it. The idea that the sensible universe is intelligeable, that it behaves in ways we can understand and predict, this is part of the philosophy of science. The ideas that nature can be observed, tested, and experimented with in order to learn more, these also come largely from Bacon. In fact, it used to be that scientific papers were considered philosophy, and only relatively recently has there been anything separating the two, and only then because so much progress was made in that one area.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

...and only then because so much progress was made in that one area.

Which, I should note, did not mean it substantially changed from a subsection of philosophy to a different discipline entirely, but simply that it became large enough that subsuming it under philosophy became really, really unwieldy.

The fact that they're considered as different is essentially born of convenience.