l0rca
I know so much karate
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,100
(The last thread I made trying to bring up a good discussion I think turned out miserably. Most people here jump into arguments with different definitions for the same words others use, almost to the point of them being homographs, and we end up in pointless roundabout arguments. So I ask for the sake of intelligent discussion and input that people take the time to look in the dictionary for the main words and ideas they are talking about.
If they find that the word they wish to use is defined differently than the dictionary states, it's a good indicator you have the wrong word or idea in mind, and you're using a trope, and needless trope. This goes along with why metaphors are the worst way to argue a point. If you don't take the time to talk semantics, nobody will know what you're arguing for anyway.)
Honestly you folks, I haven't much knowledge in where philosophy is heading these days. I'm sort of hoping someone here can school me with this.
What I do think is that modern philosophy is much different than philosophies in the past. What we seem to be less concerned about is reasoning about the universe. Philosophers have thankfully abandoned that concern, and probably for the better. It's more about things of themselves nowadays. Our concerns center critiquing, and guiding science. This is great, if you ask me. I'd rather have a philosophy that groks and critiques scientific theories instead of goes off in its own.
My bone is this: philosophy, in the sense of semiotics and epistemology creates the groundwork of how we build off of operational definitions in science. When science first started, it based itself off of religious axioms; that the world had meaning, and was capable of beings understood. How the universe worked could be extracted physically, and why it worked came a priori. But now I think the wise among has have good enough reason to put that idea down. 300 years ago we started in with this. Secular ideas spawned an idea of science that attempted to explain things in a purely natural sense. That's a good leg up. But science has been under scrutiny since then, not from all corners of philosophy, but from enough.
Can we ever truly describe the universe in the character of the universe? To what degree is explanation true? Is there such a thing of describing matter to the point where you have a perfect formulation of all its values and qualities? Can language and the human mind even go so far?
(I would add some of my own questions concerning conscioueness, but I don't want to invite any silly replies. Let's just say that I've a feeling that the role of consciousness in the universe is not so much 'currently out of reach' by science as it is misunderstood. I offer no way to better understand it, though.)
This is what I think philosophy should do for science (not that it already hasn't to a degree): it should form the boundaries of what we try to express when we speak about our discoveries.
Another idea, evidenced by neuroethical research, is that philosophy can come up with new realms of scientific endeavor. As we progress in our ability to access physical phenomena, and manipulate it, philosophical discussiosn which have been on hold can now gain new ground.
"Philosophy of Language" would be a good buzz-phrase for this thread. A theory is, after all, only as good as our understanding of what's possible to describe.
If they find that the word they wish to use is defined differently than the dictionary states, it's a good indicator you have the wrong word or idea in mind, and you're using a trope, and needless trope. This goes along with why metaphors are the worst way to argue a point. If you don't take the time to talk semantics, nobody will know what you're arguing for anyway.)
Honestly you folks, I haven't much knowledge in where philosophy is heading these days. I'm sort of hoping someone here can school me with this.
What I do think is that modern philosophy is much different than philosophies in the past. What we seem to be less concerned about is reasoning about the universe. Philosophers have thankfully abandoned that concern, and probably for the better. It's more about things of themselves nowadays. Our concerns center critiquing, and guiding science. This is great, if you ask me. I'd rather have a philosophy that groks and critiques scientific theories instead of goes off in its own.
My bone is this: philosophy, in the sense of semiotics and epistemology creates the groundwork of how we build off of operational definitions in science. When science first started, it based itself off of religious axioms; that the world had meaning, and was capable of beings understood. How the universe worked could be extracted physically, and why it worked came a priori. But now I think the wise among has have good enough reason to put that idea down. 300 years ago we started in with this. Secular ideas spawned an idea of science that attempted to explain things in a purely natural sense. That's a good leg up. But science has been under scrutiny since then, not from all corners of philosophy, but from enough.
Can we ever truly describe the universe in the character of the universe? To what degree is explanation true? Is there such a thing of describing matter to the point where you have a perfect formulation of all its values and qualities? Can language and the human mind even go so far?
(I would add some of my own questions concerning conscioueness, but I don't want to invite any silly replies. Let's just say that I've a feeling that the role of consciousness in the universe is not so much 'currently out of reach' by science as it is misunderstood. I offer no way to better understand it, though.)
This is what I think philosophy should do for science (not that it already hasn't to a degree): it should form the boundaries of what we try to express when we speak about our discoveries.
Another idea, evidenced by neuroethical research, is that philosophy can come up with new realms of scientific endeavor. As we progress in our ability to access physical phenomena, and manipulate it, philosophical discussiosn which have been on hold can now gain new ground.
"Philosophy of Language" would be a good buzz-phrase for this thread. A theory is, after all, only as good as our understanding of what's possible to describe.