21
   

Who destroyed philosophy?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 03:06 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

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.


So, I ask once again, and hope to get an answer (which is comprehensible and brief) what is the philosophy that has been destroyed?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:40 am
@kennethamy,
I have answerd that question 3 times already, all in different ways, now re-read and comprehend plz.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:52 am
@HexHammer,
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?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 07:11 am
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 10:25 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

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.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 10:41 am
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 11:55 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

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.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 12:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Philosophy is not dead, so nothing killed philosophy.
Aha, so what great philosophies has we uncoverd as of late?
Render
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 03:01 pm
@someone2010,
It was your mother.
(no one destroyed philosophy)
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 04:11 pm
@HexHammer,
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
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 04:45 pm
@kennethamy,
I like Daniel Dennett, I never would have thought you would like him even call him a great philosopher, "I am amazed . I have been wrong so many times before so it does not surprise me.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 05:20 pm
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2010 10:16 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

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.


Oh that! I am afraid that the age of schools of philosophy is past (although some would cite existentialism and post-modernism as evidence that is not true). But that schools of philosophy are passe' is not reason to declare the death of philosophy. In fact, it is a reason to celebrate the maturation of philosophy into a discipline. Schools of some subject are a sure-fire indication of the immaturity of the subject. As Wittgenstein wrote, "philosophy is a method, not a doctrine". Philosophers philosophize, they no longer build systems and doctrinize as formerly. But this is philosophical evolution and development. It is surely the end of doctrinal philosophy, but it is the evolution to philosophical analysis. 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.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 06:26 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.
Since science was originally an aspect of philosophy, the evolution of philosophy into the study of how to think straight is more of a transition from a whole human into an appendix.

Do scientists bother with it? Maybe some do. But I used to ask a question at parties to see what answers I would get. It astonished me how many scientific minded people I could have telling me that infinity times 0 equals 12. They could have used you ka...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 12:05 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

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.


A particular conception of philosophy is not so predominant as it used to be in before Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein, who transformed the notion of there being schools of philosophy to which some one belonged, and which did a good deal of the philosophers thinking for him. If one was (say) a Kantian, one was committed to the panoply of the phenomenon and numenon, and transcendental idealism. Much of philosophizing was fomulaic, and Kantians (for instance) could talk only to other Kantians. It was rather like schools of painting. After Moore and Russell demolished the dominant school of philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th century, Absolute Idealism in England, and C.S. Pierce did the same in America, philosophy transformed into philosophizing, with the attempt to deal with philosophical issues by thinking about them independently of the dogmas of the schools, and afresh. Thus we got Russell's theory of descriptions, or Moore's "The Refutation of Idealism", and in America, Peirce's "How to make our Ideas Clear", which did hot carry the deadening burden of conformity to a set of dogmas. And with the advent of Wittenstein's later philosophy, philosophy broke through to the freedom of philosophical analysis. It was a liberation. But, of course, there were those frightened by the (what I suppose Sartre would call) "the anxiety of freedom". Without the definite dogmas of the schools, the philosopher had to strike out into new and uncharted territory, and depend only on logic and his own brain. Scary. As Wittgenstein tells us, philosophy is an activity, not a doctrine. Replacing philosophies is philosophizing.

This new approach (not really so new, Socrates practiced it) leads those innured to the old approach with the sense that philosophy is dead when, in truth, it was dying, but then, given new life, and is now flourishing.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 12:15 pm
@GoshisDead,
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?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 12:27 pm
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 12:45 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

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?

Where shall I begin? Just at random, read the following and let me know whether it is reinterpreting a previous text of theory. Which one? (Eh, just what has any of this to do with the attainability of ultimate truth. Anything? ).

http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 01:42 pm
@kennethamy,
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?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 07:21 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:

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?




Why should it be necessary to cite Kripke to point out the obvious truth that simply because a description functions as a name, the description need not be true? Anyone who has a brain in his head should know that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 07:05:33