In Defense of Philosophy

Certainly an idea can be considered valid without scientific validation. But that doesn't mean that the basis for the idea will be true, or accurate.

Philosophy is indefensible. It is also "viral."

My post is poorly worded. Whenever I try to discuss an abstract concept, I sound like Keanu Reeves in one of those goofy "Matrix" movies.

Is it possible to talk about a concept as a reality even if there is no way to demonstrate it scientifically? (Such concepts are the domain of "metaphysics", in my opinion.)

Sure. We talk about flying saucers and sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster as if they're real, even though they've never been scientifically demonstrated.

I still feel like Keanu Reeves when I discuss philosophy.

I think you are probably not an abstract thinker; therefore you process information differently and want (or require) different criteria than that with which other people are more comfortable. One of my avocations is doing workshops on temperament typing. It is generally entertaining, but it is useful in explaining elements that enhance or frustrate, sometimes even disable relationships and group dynamics. I'm doing one week after next in fact.

Abstract thinkers for instance 'get' the Matrix and the unstated dynamics within that concept. Hard core non-abstract thinkers usually appreciate neither the dialogue, the concept, nor the movie. (Those who do are more likely to be our modern day 'philosophers' though that isn't engraved in granite.)

To someone like me, there is a broad universe out there that exists and can be neither detected nor evaluated scientifically. That frustrates the non-abstract types no end and many attempt to ignore or deny its existence. Other types are quite comfortable in it and, again, these are our philosophers and those who expand knowledge and understanding beyond the five senses or that which can be diagrammed, quantified, or catalogued.

Of course! There is plenty that is real that is not scientific.

Let's start a list of the things that are non-scientific...

- Morality.
- The greatness of the Bach Mass in B minor (the greatest music ever written).
- The Value of human life.
- Good (or bad) literature.
- The beauty of a sunset.

Do you believe rape is wrong (for the record I do)? Go ahead... justify that scientifically.

Foxfyre... the problem with your line of reasoning is that you haven't provided a definition for the word "exist".

The Matrix was a fun, albeit goofy, movie. The problem with the philosophy in the Matrix is that it had an absolute truth. One of the realities was the true reality... the other reality was the fake one. If our reality isn't "real" (and again you have to define what "real" means)... then it is unlikely that any other reality is "real" either.

Science provides a definition of the words "exist" and "real". If you accept the rules of science then there is no question about what exists, and what is real... The problem with Science is that it insists that anything that exists is measurable. If you accept this then you will get a consistent, logical view of reality.

However is not hard at all to find things that are very real to me even though they are not measurable (i.e. scientifically real). This suggests a different definition of the word "real".

I don't believe there is any "absolute truth" that is different than what we measure in science-- certainly not in the Matrix kind of way.

I do think there are different ways to define the term that may be better for explaining human experience.

I was only pokin' ya with a pointy stick, Wandel, don't be hard on yourself. What i know of philosophy would not fill a very small thimble.

Thanks, everyone. Good discussion.

I suppose I was trying to find a rationale for the activity called "philosophy".

Well, science is primarily empirical, whereas philosophy is primarily logical. Science deals with observable facts, philosophy, in the end, deals with words and concepts. As Hume pointed out, just because something is empirically "true" doesn't mean that it is logically "true." Just because the sun came up yesterday and every preceding day doesn't mean that it will come up tomorrow.

Philosophy and science, therefore, deal with an entirely different subject matters. We have philosophy because it handles issues that science is not capable of handling and vice versa.

The utility f philosophy is to provide vantage points from which the developments of science and other fields can be "evaluated". Such evaluation could range from "functionality" to " morality", but is often transcendent of such evaluations by deconstructing the very concepts of "empiricism","knowledge" and "progress" etc. Such semantic deconstruction and rebuilding often involves metalogic rather than logic.

The central value--and function--of philosophy, as I understand it, is the permanent on-going critical examination of all conceptual presuppositions, including this one.

In a lecture on Pre-Socratic philosophy, Karl Popper made these comments on the role of philosophy:

It seems that even a critique against philosophy would itself be a philosophical effort.