Lack of Progress in Philosophy

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I became interested in philosophy four years ago. I love it. It has given me so much. It has fed my starved intellect and revived my waning interest in life. It has increased my understanding of human nature. I've had four rewarding years!

Why, then, am I not sanguine about the next four years?

I think philosophy may be in decline. I see little progress. I find few signs any more that we are able to settle the basic issues and cooperatively build upon them. We seem to argue them endlessly, without a clear understanding of each other's position. About the only time we get off this merry-go-round is when a new finding of science forces us to substitute fact for speculation..

Philosopher Mortimer Adler became concerned about this problem back in the 70s. He stressed the need for disagreement in philosophy. Disagreement is an essential ingredient. But he also emphasized the need to control it. He said that what should exist is: "a disagreement that is based upon understanding of the diversity and of the issue. Disagreement in philosophy is profitable only in proportion as those who are disagreeing really join issue, really communicate with one another and understand the whole diversity of opinion and the reason for this diversity."

Good advice - largely ignored today by amateur and professional alike. But I guess the returns from philosophy, even though they are diminishing returns, can do nothing but improve me. I lack so much. I had better sign up for another four years

I invite all comments -- including disagreements (provided they are based on a full understanding of my position).

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,043 • Replies: 17

No top replies

@Dewey phil,

Dewey wrote:

I became interested in philosophy four years ago. I love it. It has given me so much. It has fed my starved intellect and revived my waning interest in life. It has increased my understanding of human nature. I've had four rewarding years!

Why, then, am I not sanguine about the next four years?

I think philosophy may be in decline. I see little progress. I find few signs any more that we are able to settle the basic issues and cooperatively build upon them. We seem to argue them endlessly, without a clear understanding of each other's position. About the only time we get off this merry-go-round is when a new finding of science forces us to substitute fact for speculation..

Philosopher Mortimer Adler became concerned about this problem back in the 70s. He stressed the need for disagreement in philosophy. Disagreement is an essential ingredient. But he also emphasized the need to control it. He said that what should exist is: "a disagreement that is based upon understanding of the diversity and of the issue. Disagreement in philosophy is profitable only in proportion as those who are disagreeing really join issue, really communicate with one another and understand the whole diversity of opinion and the reason for this diversity."

Good advice - largely ignored today by amateur and professional alike. But I guess the returns from philosophy, even though they are diminishing returns, can do nothing but improve me. I lack so much. I had better sign up for another four years

I invite all comments -- including disagreements (provided they are based on a full understanding of my position).

The question is, what constitutes progress in philosophy. In science that question is comparatively easy to answer. New discoveries. Explaining what we have been unable to explain before. But in philosophy we probably cannot use that kind of criterion. Science tries to achieve knowledge about the world, but not only knowledge, but understanding about why the world works as it does. Explanations are primary in theoretical science. The subject matter of science is the world. But what is the subject matter of philosophy? What are philosophers "looking into"? What are they trying to find out about? They are not in competition with scientists. At leas, I hope not. If they are, they are going to come out a very distant second.

I think that philosophers also seek understanding. But understanding of what? Again, not what scientists seek understanding of. I think that philosophers seek understanding of what it is that scientists and also non-scientists understand. Put it this way: the subject matter of scientist is the world, and they talk about the world. Philosopher talk scientific-talk, and also the talk other kinds of people produce. More specifically, scientists use terms (concepts) like "theory", "cause", "confirmation", "experiment", in the course of trying to understand the world, and philosophers, particularly those interested in the philosophy of science, try to understand the concepts like, "cause" or "confirmation" in terms of which scientists try to understand about the world. So philosophers engage in what can be called, "meta-understanding". Understanding of the understanding or scientist. What kind of "thing" for instance, are these "causes" that scientists are finding, and finding out about? But philosophers don't stop with science. People, in general, have very genera concepts in terms of which they try to understand and organize the world. Concepts like, knowledge, belief, understanding, subjective and objective, possibility, and so on. People use these concepts in various ways, sometimes successfully, and sometimes, unsuccessfully. Philosophy, it seems to me, is an inquiry into those very concepts which are used by people to understand and talk about the world. In daily life, and in our professional capacities, we use these concepts, but we don't have time or maybe the skills to examine these concepts. We do not have a clear view of these concepts. Philosophy, it seems to me is a "conceptual inquiry". It inquires into these concepts, and tries to clarify and understand them. And progress in the clarification and understanding of concepts like knowledge, or true and false, or right and wrong, and many others, if we can achieve such clarification and understanding, is what constitutes progress in philosophy.

1 Reply

@Dewey phil,

Dewey;63980 wrote:

I think philosophy may be in decline. I see little progress.

Philosophy is 'critical thought', on a continuum. 'Progress can seem very slow at times, and brilliantly spontaneous at others. Is anything 'the same' all the time? The Universe isn't, I'm not, and neither are you. That's why it's a fools errand and/or ignorant to expect (anything) to find "perpetual happiness". Or constant brilliant leaps of understanding.
It sounds like you have studied the thoughts of others and are unsatisfied. Perhaps it's time to have some of your own now; work them like sculptures, tease them thoroughly, critique them, taste them, examine them, compare them, add to them, remove the 'fat', etc.. It is the quality question that determines the 'quality' answer.

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

I believe we reach a point where the basic question - those INITIAL curiosities/fascinations - are largely resolved (even if it comes back an "I don't know"). I too am at a point where I find little that tweaks my intellect; all things have the same old taste, same old smell and texture.

But I also believe there are cycles to those who set off LONG TERM down the philosophical path. I blogged them here - you might find it interesting (or at the least, entertaining).

Good luck!

1 Reply

@Khethil,

When we speak of progress in a discipline what are we speaking of? From the general tone of the OP it seems that progress is being defined as interest or rheification of popularity. If this is the case, then yes, there has been little progress in philosophy proper. Philosophy's base is being torn from it by the material methods of and related to science and statistics. However I assert that there is no such thing as progress in a discipline only evolution. A discipline germinates, flowers, adapts, and dies as it is needed. It is not controlled by it practitioners but works in an organic relationship with them both influencing and being influenced by said practitioners. This give a discipline a sort of life of its own adapting and readapting to the lives and the ideologies of the practiitoners, in short an evolutionary life, not a progressive one. Philosophy in its most base form, meta-discourse, will never become extinct, however in its most refined forms it just may.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Philosophy, it seems to me is a "conceptual inquiry". It inquires into these concepts, and tries to clarify and understand them.

Hi kennethamy,

Your explanation helps me to see philosophy in a different light. You say it is a "conceptual inquiry". Perhaps, then, I can consider philosophy a tool - not an end but, rather, a means to the end. That way, I can redirect my assessment of progress away from the tool itself to the way it is used and the results it produces.

Here's my "assessment" which, of course, is really little more than a subjective impression:

Usage: Mostly limited to understanding the self. Insufficient use to understand others. (See M. Adler's advice in my previous post.)

Results: Inability to resolve differences. Undeserved mistrust and blind conflict.

---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

Hi nameless,

Thanks for your, I'm sure, well-intentioned advice.

You're right. I'm unsatisfied with the thoughts of others. I look at the books, the internet in general, and the discussion forums. I don't find much evidence of thought aimed at completely understanding the arguments of people with whom we initially disagree. Most often the aim is obviously to win the argument rather than to resolve the difference.

---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

Hi Khethil.

Thanks for the blog! It's appropriate to the occasion. I mostly laughed but sometimes winced!

1 Reply

@Dewey phil,

Two thoughts coming from someone with only a nascent philosophical bent:

1) Nobody gets anywhere by simply pitting their truths against one another if those are held as inviolable. Philosophy, to me, seems to be a learning process, but many (both philosophers and forum-punters) treat it as a preaching process, be that habitually or occassionally.

2) There is a similar capacity in philosophy as in my own field (physics) which is that of elimination. Progress can be made in rejecting 'truths' as well as discovering them. This elimination narrows down possible applicable descriptions. Of course, one must have those descriptions in the first place, so this depends on also having ideas: this too, then, is progress. And also eliminating idea depends on (1) above.

That's my interest in philosophy. Does that not tally?

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

Dewey;64128 wrote:

Hi nameless,

Thanks for your, I’m sure, well-intentioned advice. (of course! *__-)

You’re right. I’m unsatisfied with the thoughts of others. I look at the books, the internet in general, and the discussion forums. I don’t find much evidence of thought aimed at completely understanding the arguments of people with whom we initially disagree. Most often the aim is obviously to win the argument rather than to resolve the difference.

You are so very correct!
There will always be, at some point, 'disagreement', as all Conscious Perspectives (us) are unique.
If one makes the attempt to fully understand another presented Perspective (enhancing the possibility of empathic union and understanding), one has a better picture than simply 'one' Perspective. If one fully understands another perspective there is no 'argument' because all Perspectives are 'correct' and valid, though ego says otherwise.
One can present youPerspective as 'food for thought'/assimilation, rather than attempting to egoically 'convince' someone and 'change their mind'.
The sum-total of all Perspectives defines the complete Universe! Not winning vain arguments about who's 'right'!

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

Dewey;63980 wrote:

I think philosophy may be in decline. I see little progress. I find few signs any more that we are able to settle the basic issues and cooperatively build upon them.

1. If philosophy is in decline, when did it reach its apex? When was it ascending?

2. Which particular "issues" do you have in mind?

1 Reply

@Theages,

Theages;67904 wrote:

1. If philosophy is in decline, when did it reach its apex? When was it ascending?

2. Which particular "issues" do you have in mind?

I believe these words of Mortimer Adler answer Question 1:
"Crises in Philosophy --
The first of these crises is a crisis that occurred in the seventeenth
century, beginning with Descartes, in France, with Hobbes, in England,
and going on with Spinoza and Leibnitz on the continent. It
continued in Locke, and Berkeley, and Hume, coming to a crisis
that really turned modern philosophy upside down with Immanuel
Kant at the end of the eighteenth century.
These are the great modern philosophers, and they are great because
they are great thinkers, even though they made extraordinary
mistakes. The mistakes they made turned philosophy from the path
of common sense and common experience, and got it into one
muddle after another. All these mistakes stemmed, I think, from
neglect or ignorance of the philosophical wisdom to be found in
Aristotle and Aquinas. The line from Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza
and Locke to Hume, and from Hume to Kant and Hegel, produced
on the one hand the existentialism and phenomenology we find on
the continent, and the analytical, linguistic positivism on the Anglo-
American scene that is rampant in all of our western universities.
4
The errors and the befuddlement of these three centuries led to a
second crisis, a crisis which I have dated as beginning in 1930.
In the early part of this century, when I was studying philosophy,
there were still philosophers such as John Dewey, William James,
and George Santayana, on this side of the Atlantic; and on the
other side of the Atlantic, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead,
and Bergson, who still wrote philosophy as if it were something
addressed to the mind of the common man. They wrote
philosophical books of a sort that were published generally for
people to read.
If you begin to look at the productions of philosophers either on
this continent, or in Europe, since 1930 to 1935, you see a remarkable change. Philosophers now write books for other philosophers to read, not for ordinary people to read. Philosophy has grown technical and specialized; it has removed itself from the world of general learning. It has become as specialized as its branches of mathematics or logic. It has retreated from the tradition it long had through the centuries."

In response to Question 2, here's a couple of issues. One of them, particularly galling for me, concerns moral values. They meant something in Aristotle's time. Nowadays they are mostly treated as being too relative and subjective to allow much more than opining. That's the anthesis of progress in philosophy.

Here's another issue about which Adler says:
"The second mistake is that of failing to distinguish between two
distinct realms of thought, perceptual thought on the one hand, and conceptual thought on the other. This is accompanied by an even more egregious mistake, that of denying that there is even such a distinction, thereby reducing all thought to the level of sense perception and imagination. This mistake leads to the denial of any distinction between the human mind with its conceptual powers and the mind of brute animals, with nothing but perceptual powers."

1 Reply

@Dewey phil,

I.

Philosophy continually renews itself. Each account of the world starts over, despite either building upon prior thought or rejecting it entirely. Kant tellingly tells us that reading Hume awoke him from his dogmatic slumber; Aristotle's Metaphysics begins with a survey of his predecessors who he sees as only partially right; Heidegger returns to the original thinking of the Presocratics to recapture for us their understanding of Being that we have lost.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
II.

Philosophy interacts with the changing world even as it changes it. The "evolution" of political theory illustrates this process of reacting and interpreting scientific, social, and economic changes. If Locke considered politics afresh, his philosophy justified the American Revolution and was enshrined in its profound documents that influence the world today; the more recent history of Marxism as both an interpretation of new circumstances and as a justification for practical action provides another less fortunate example.

III.

Beginning just before the turn of the 19th century, philosophy begat an impressive list of great philosophers from Kant to Heidegger that echoed the radical changes in the world; these immense visions continue to compete, continue to unfold in unforeseen ways even today. Much of current philosophy is a working-through, a "testing" as it were of general positions of these major thinkers about the whole against the specific instances of the parts of a world continuing to change and to enlarge and expand itself (e.g. the scientific work in genetics, the globalisation of man through the Internet). It may be that, until this kind of exploration has completed itself, radically new and important philosophy cannot emerge.

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

Hi there,

I think you will find plenty of new ideas, but they may difficult to find. You may not find them in standard texts, or in the classroom. These venues tend to retread the old accepted standards for study. Socrates, Plato, Satre, ....

If you would like some new ideas, I can provide you with a whole host of thoughts that you might find very interesting. You might want to take a look at this video as a start, by Itzhak Bentov to start.

The Evolving Universe | My Meaning of Life and Philosophy

Or, if you have not studied Eastern Philosophy, I would be happy to talk about the Dao De Jing, but also more innovative books such as Who Can Ride the Dragon, by Zhang, which has an excellent exposition of Eastern philosophy and the progression of life and consciosness.

If you want something new, just let me know. My basic ideas are presented here:

The Essentials to the Meaning of Life | My Meaning of Life and Philosophy

Good luck on your journey, and feel free to be as wild and as crazy as you want with me. I love new ideas!

Rich

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

Dewey;68202 wrote:

I believe these words of Mortimer Adler answer Question 1:

I'm not interested in what Mortimer Adler has to say about anything. Tell me in your own words when you think that philosophy reached its apex and when it was ascending.

Quote:

In response to Question 2, here's a couple of issues. One of them, particularly galling for me, concerns moral values. They meant something in Aristotle's time. Nowadays they are mostly treated as being too relative and subjective to allow much more than opining. That's the anthesis of progress in philosophy.

So the essence of philosophy is...dogmatism? I don't follow.

Also, what do you mean when you say that "moral values meant something in Aristotle's time"? Which "moral values" from that time mattered then but don't and should matter now?

Incidentally, do you know "when Aristotle's time" was? Do you know what events were fresh in his mind?

1 Reply

@Theages,

Theages;68332 wrote:

I'm not interested in what Mortimer Adler has to say about anything. Tell me in your own words when you think that philosophy reached its apex and when it was ascending.

Hi Theages,

I'm flattered that, despite your disinterest in "anything" Dr. Adler says, you think you might be interested in what I have to say. Alas, regarding the subject at hand, telling you anything in my own words would just be redundant of what he has already said so well..

You do impress me as someone that could offer, as the other respondents have done to my great edification and appreciation, some constructive comments. I would likewise appreciate them very much.

1 Reply

@Dewey phil,

Dewey;68354 wrote:

Hi Theages,

I'm flattered that, despite your disinterest in "anything" Dr. Adler says, you think you might be interested in what I have to say. Alas, regarding the subject at hand, telling you anything in my own words would just be redundant of what he has already said so well..

I did exaggerate my dislike for Adler. I actually quite enjoyed his How to Read a Book. Other things he's written, like Six Great Ideas and Ten Philosophical Mistakes, I find trite and banal.

The thing that bothers me the most about him is his romanticism. He doesn't advocate the thinkers that he does because he's considered all the arguments thoughtfully and reached a conclusion; he does so out of an a priori conservatism and dissatisfaction with the present. People like Adler have always and will always say "Things these days are terrible, but in the past they were so much better!" Roman historian Livy said the the same thing when he was writing around 50 BCE, and Greek historian Herodotos said the same thing when he was writing around 450 BCE.

How do I know this? Look at his Great Books of the Western World series (list here:Great Books of the Western World). Notice that he includes the complete works of Shakespeare. Every single play that Shakespeare ever wrote is included. Is this because every single play that Shakespeare ever wrote is amongst the greatest things ever written in Europe? Perhaps. But notice also what is not included. Wittgenstein's legendary Tractatus is missing. Do you think that Pericles, Prince of Tyre, which is partially spurious, is more important than the Tractatus? Do you think that Adler thought so? Similarly, do you think, for example, that Plato's Ion is more important than Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols? Again, do you think Adler thought so? If so, why would you care about what he thinks? If not, why do you suppose he included what he did?

Quote:

You do impress me as someone that could offer, as the other respondents have done to my great edification and appreciation, some constructive comments. I would likewise appreciate them very much.

Asking you to explain yourself wasn't so much an attempt to get your view (though I would like to hear it) as it was an attempt to get you to come out from behind some authority. It's easy to romanticize the past and denigrate the present. Do you know well any thinkers from the second half of the twentieth century? How about the first half? Nineteenth century? There have been a lot of really smart people running around recently, and you shouldn't be too quick to write them off just because Adler said so.

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

Philosophy has turned more into Logic and Language. Thus it has become dull and boring. The best Philosophy in how one should live. This was Philosophy in the past and it will continue.

Also the limitations are your own creativity. There is much more work to do. A new Philosophy is being created merging it with Science and experimentation. You could have experiments in raising children in different ways and anaylizing their thoughts.

There is also the Philosophy of consciousness. Is there ways to bring more consciousness inside the human brain? We are only using 5-10% of the brain and the rest of it is asleep. How can we bring the activity to increase? What is the potential of someone with 100% of your brain being used at once?

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

While it is true that in American and Great Britain, philosophers have tended to emphasized logic and language, this is not an accurate description of Continental thinking. The legacy of Existentialism and Phenomenology continues to influence, for example, the contemporary philosophic schools of Hermeneutics, Lebensphilosophie, and Deconstruction.

0 Replies

@Dewey phil,

Philosophy has made its best progress in psychology.

Though, this often gets ignored in the face of rampant eugenic speculation
disguised as 'science', which hides its speculative nature behind unverifiable esoteric claims.

Psychology is often hidden from science, because the nature of mind is that it can mimic psychological aspects, it can also simply lie.

Phenomenology can describe the unconscious mind, and yet, the eugenicists and many others in the faculty of science, simply reject the notion of unconscious mind.

As each mind is quite different, its very difficult to produce a one-size-fits-all method for revealing the unconscious mind.

And, if the unconscious mind is accepted, eugenicists lose funding. Which is a great motive to producing unverifiable esoteric complexity in the guise of science.

Consider the causes of sexual behaviour, for eg homosexuality.
Developmental psychology claims that it is the result of abusive or rejecting behaviour in the phallic phase, age 4-6 years, when gender identity is formed.

In many dozens of studies it is clear to me, that homosexuals fit this analysis perfectly, and also that its ridiculous to suggest that sexual behaviour is caused by genes. When I decided that I no longer liked redheaded girls, but now I like brunette girls, did my genes suddenly change?

When a bisexual person has relations with someone of the same gender one week, and of the other gender the next week, do their genes just switch around?

But tell that to the eugencists, and all you get is belligerent accusations, and attacks on your person. Which of course, suggests unconscious abuse in the phallic phase!

Philosophy needs to focus on psychology.

0 Replies

Lack of Progress in Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know