Who destroyed philosophy?

kennethamy wrote:

If philosophy is not alive, then what would it be for philosophy to be alive? What (according to you) is it not?

Only if most of human race and our technology gets whiped, we have had to reinvent and rethink everything.

Most of classical philosophy was like shaking wrapped packages guessing what it is, and how it excatly functions, it was filled with superstision and pure spekulation, as I said before sure some of the thinking holds true today, but most are obsolete.
..and the philosophy-sitting-and-ponder has been refined into sientific research, AND!!! ...most philosophy has been clarifyed.

I have answerd that question 3 times already, all in different ways, now re-read and comprehend plz.

HexHammer wrote:

I have answerd that question 3 times already, all in different ways, now re-read and comprehend plz.

Not that I can tell. What views (which are central to philosophy) have been destroyed?

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

I have answerd that question 3 times already, all in different ways, now re-read and comprehend plz.

Not that I can tell. What views (which are central to philosophy) have been destroyed?

You have read my initial post wrong, and mislead youself into a weird fictional conclusion.

To answer the OP, it's "none", science destroyed old philosophy. I said "classical philosophy" which may have made you into your wild goose chase. I have no specific philosophy or time in mind.

"Classical philosophy" usually refers to the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans. I don't see that science destroyed (say) Stoicism or Epicurianism. On the other hand, it is true that the rise of science put an end to the Aristotelian world view of teleological explanation. But on the other hand, in the 17th century, both dominating philosophical theories, Rationalism and (especially Empiricism) were intentionally so constructed as to accommodate the science of that time. A wonderful account of this is contained in Alfred North Whitehead's, Science and the Modern World.

kennethamy wrote:

"Classical philosophy" usually refers to the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans. I don't see that science destroyed (say) Stoicism or Epicurianism. On the other hand, it is true that the rise of science put an end to the Aristotelian world view of teleological explanation. But on the other hand, in the 17th century, both dominating philosophical theories, Rationalism and (especially Empiricism) were intentionally so constructed as to accommodate the science of that time. A wonderful account of this is contained in Alfred North Whitehead's, Science and the Modern World.

Well, I might be mistaken but it seems that the concept of "double blind test" killed the openended philosophy, where the conclusion isn't nessesarily a product of strict test, trial and double blind testing, but relies on random'ishly observations and good rethorics.

Philosophy is not dead, so nothing killed philosophy.

kennethamy wrote:

Philosophy is not dead, so nothing killed philosophy.

Aha, so what great philosophies has we uncoverd as of late?

HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Philosophy is not dead, so nothing killed philosophy.

Aha, so what great philosophies has we uncoverd as of late?

Very good philosophers? John Searle, Daniel Dennett, Dereck Parfait, Donald Davidson, Saul Kripke, Van Orman Quine, Thomas Nagel, to name just a few, and that is in the late 20th century. And I am not au fait now

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Philosophy is not dead, so nothing killed philosophy.

Aha, so what great philosophies has we uncoverd as of late?

Very good philosophers? John Searle, Daniel Dennett, Dereck Parfait, Donald Davidson, Saul Kripke, Van Orman Quine, Thomas Nagel, to name just a few, and that is in the late 20th century. And I am not au fait now

Philosophy as in philosophy, not philosphers as in philosophers.

It is like the transition from alchemy to chemistry, or astrology to astronomy. Not something to be mourned, but something to be welcomed and celebrated.

although I do agree with Ken that the subject is not 'destroyed'. It has been changed considerably in the modern age, and I much prefer the period prior to the wretch Neitszce, but it is still a great subject.

And why does Po-Mo not count as philosophy?

GoshisDead wrote:

And why does Po-Mo not count as philosophy?

Because it does not engage in critical thought but rather in the "exposition de texte", the constant reinterpretation of what has been interpreted many times before, along with the denial that any one interpretation can be better than a different interpretation, let alone (God forbid!) true. It is not what philosophers do, but what literary theorists and critics do, which is why it is often frankly called, "critical theory" and why it has such an affinity for literary studies which is has taken over. It is why when I taught logic, and some student said something particularly idiotic, I asked him (or her) whether he or she was an English major?

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

And why does Po-Mo not count as philosophy?

Because it does not engage in critical thought but rather in the "exposition de texte", the constant reinterpretation of what has been interpreted many times before, along with the denial that any one interpretation can be better than a different interpretation, let alone (God forbid!) true. It is not what philosophers do, but what literary theorists and critics do, which is why it is often frankly called, "critical theory" and why it has such an affinity for literary studies which is has taken over. It is why when I taught logic, and some student said something particularly idiotic, I asked him (or her) whether he or she was an English major?

Yes often it can be called critical theory, because, drumroll please tatatatatatatatatatatatata. It uses critical thought. Post-modernism not only reinterprets texts it creates texts through critical thought. I have yet to see a work by a philosopher that isn't reinterpreting a previous text or theory that has come before it. Several philosophical traditions claim that an ultimate truth is not attainable with our faculties. None of what you have expressed here is any different than most trends and schools of philosophy.

It no more follows from the fact that it is called, "critical theory" that it is critical, than it follows from the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was called, "The Holy Roman Empire" that it was holy, roman, or an empire. Do you think that because the circus is called, "The Greatest Show on Earth" that is has to be the greatest show on earth? Tell me, are you an English major?

kennethamy wrote:

It no more follows from the fact that it is called, "critical theory" that it is critical, than it follows from the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was called, "The Holy Roman Empire" that it was holy, roman, or an empire. Do you think that because the circus is called, "The Greatest Show on Earth" that is has to be the greatest show on earth? Tell me, are you an English major?

Haha...shouldn't you have cited Kripke here?