21
   

Who destroyed philosophy?

 
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 07:31 pm
@kennethamy,
Critical theory thinks critically because it uses critical thinking. Is that more to your liking? You still won't agree with it. But at least this way you will have to use a real argument instead of trying to pick apart something that was obviously posted as a whimsical sentence.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 07:45 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

Critical theory thinks critically because it uses critical thinking. Is that more to your liking? You still won't agree with it. But at least this way you will have to use a real argument instead of trying to pick apart something that was obviously posted as a whimsical sentence.


But from what I can tell, critical theory does not think critically at all. What it does is talk nonsense. An example is Derrida and those who try to emulate him. To think critically is to produce and examine arguments with care and with attention to logic. Those like Derrida do nothing of the sort, and cannot even make themselves understood.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 10:00 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Critical theory thinks critically because it uses critical thinking. Is that more to your liking? You still won't agree with it. But at least this way you will have to use a real argument instead of trying to pick apart something that was obviously posted as a whimsical sentence.


But from what I can tell, critical theory does not think critically at all. What it does is talk nonsense. An example is Derrida and those who try to emulate him. To think critically is to produce and examine arguments with care and with attention to logic. Those like Derrida do nothing of the sort, and cannot even make themselves understood.


Your inability to understand something does not make it nonsense, neither does it make the thought process non-critical. Derrida does in fact pursue his writings with strict logic as do other Post-modern philosophers.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 10:12 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
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.
So I'm right, science killed philosophy!
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 10:35 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:
So I'm right, science killed philosophy!

I would say that science puts limits on philosophy (just like it puts limits on all speculation). If philosophy dies because of those limits, then I would put the blame on the remaining philosophers who can't navigate the tighter paths without wandering from reasonable speculation to *wild* speculation (which gets boring).
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 01:30 pm
Philosophy has not adjusted. Science has surpassed philosophy in knowledge but it still has philosophical problems such as eugenics, cloning, regulations, ethics, de-regulation, free market, democracy, etc. Philosophers need to know the sciences such as the hard sciences and political science, economics and accounting which seems to dominate political debate. Philosophical debate without the knowledge in these areas is futile.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 03:16 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
Philosophy has not adjusted. Science has surpassed philosophy in knowledge but it still has philosophical problems such as eugenics, cloning, regulations, ethics, de-regulation, free market, democracy, etc.

To be more precise, those things you listed aren't problems with science. They are challenges that society and culture have in dealing with change. And that's an important difference, because science isn't where the friction occurs, it's culture and human behavior where the friction occurs.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 06:59 pm
@rosborne979,
Science gained the knowledge but no guidance in using it. It left it to business folks whose knowledge is basically accounting.
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 0.05 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 07:00:10