@Faun147,
Faun147 wrote:What are your thoughts on philosophy in the future. Will it decline? Will it grow? Will major subjects of interest change? Into what?
I'm not sure that the core areas/core concerns of philosophy will alter much over time. At its basis, philosophy asks questions - and is concerned with issues - that have badgered the human mind for millenia. I'm not sure there's any reason to believe this will change.
The wrapper changes - as industrialization's infection spreads, civilizations rise and fall, as technology and science tweeks our world and religions (and their associated mind-set fads morph time and again), but the core concepts of thought, themselves, seem to remain.
I wouldn't ever expect to see philosophy's
role in the human condition change. As a means for understanding and learning, philosophy could almost be considered something everyone engages in (to some greater or lesser extent); almost as if
one can't avoid philosophy all together. Part of what differentiates the "philosopher" is the
conscious endeavor.
But at the risk of derailing us a tad, I'd like to address this:
Aedes wrote:Nothing is objective. Science provides a methodology that limits the impact of subjectivity, but to call it "objective" is only to state its aim.
Aedes and Fido: As you both so stated and agreed, the above quote
is correct; however, it lacks an important element (and seems to interject a note of fatalism) that I feel is counter-productive. Although nothing the human animal could ever endeavor for could logically be called "objective",
that is not to say that it never has any element of objective success. Even if in some small way, to some small extent, a scientific study is able to reveal
some objective knowledge, this is important to acknowledge.
Now let's not go down the silly "How would we know if X was really objective"-road. It's conceded that in all of humanity, complete and ultimate objective thought can't be conclusively known. But isn't it important to give worth, credit and legitimacy to the quest for same? Could we not, as a matter of course,
acknowledge that when Study Y was performed, we
learned that <bleh> is <bleh> in this situation? Or shall we, through language, inculcate that because we're human nothing (ever, in any way and to any extent) could be called "objective"?
I know its fashionable to say "we can't know anything", "nothing really exists" and "everything is subjective",
but this fatalistic mindset has implications that demoralizes the very effort. Besides, any of these statements (including "we can never achieve objectivity"), is self-defeating and only has worth insomuch as it helps us to keep perspective. Else, 1) The statement itself could never be true; 2) No motivation for learning anything could ever have worth -and- 3) As a non-falsifiable concept, the very statement is virtually meaningless.
I'll leave off on this guys, but I think it important - in these types of statements - to keep one's "feet on the ground". Let us not (by our very effort at accepting our human failings) short-circuit what measure of objectivity we
can achieve and
have achieved.
Thanks