Philosophy is Dead

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Sorry ..but "proof" is a straw man. Scientists "know better" (ho ho) than to play with such a low-level concept. I can't remember whether or not Hawking actually used the words "moral form" when discussing the nominal level of measurement. (counting one). Be that as it may, "naming" is clearly a social phenomenon concerning expected interactions on the part of agents. If you want to assign a "moral dimension" to all such interactions I suggest you are merely pandering a mystical concept of "purposeful existence" little different from that of a religionist.

First, I think emphatic is the term professional philosophers hang on non physical reality... But Moral is more to the point, in my opinion...I do not asign a moral dimension, but recognize it... Look at how much conflict there has been over social forms based only on moral forms like God... The conflicts like their resolution is a moral act...

Is two plus two, four??? If I want to take your life or preserve it, the answer is meaningless, and the truth is meaningless, and the cause is only an excuse... People agree or disagree out of their own morals and physical needs...Why should anyone agree with anyone if they see some benefit to disagreement... We tend to look at truth as neutral, but the truth coming out of social forms is seldom neutral... And since so little of truth exists as proved, and even proof rests on common acceptence, it is a moral form as well...

The success of physics is not that it all can be proved, but that it works and is reliable... To that extent it is easy money, and working the moral forms beneath the surface of our consciousness is hard work for little gain... Hawkins could only run down philosophy if it is framed in a narrow sense that cannot contain it... The judgement he makes could not be based on anything but philosophy that he does himself practice, so how dead can it be, since knowledge is judgement, and knowledge is essential to philosophy???...

2 Replies

@Fido,

The meaning or usefulness of Truth may even not be neutral when applied, but to imply from there that Truth is therefore relative to moral form is the same as saying that moral form itself has no particular meaning...
You navigate dangerous waters !...

On the contrary Moral form is dependent on whether there is a fixed Truth in the first place, or an order axis, from which we can stablish several layers to which it can conform. ("Gravity belts of relation")

1 Reply

@Fido,

I'm not going to go into what "knowledge" is, and whether "judgement" (moral or otherwise) is involved. I merely note that your remarks are anthropocentric, thereby adding to apparent religious tendencies. Some scientists/philosophers have seen anthropocentrism as parochial.

1 Reply

@The Outsider,

In my view both Hawkings and his fellow crusaders of the church of athiesm are hell bent on distorting truth. Sorry, this is an extremely strong statement and I do not make it lightly. They hold a dogmatic belief that no God exists. They believe in their unproven and unprovable statement and present physical evidence from time to time which in their view is proof of their world view. What they present is nothing of the sort. At best they are presenting physical models which do not contain God as their initial condition but then which scientific model does that? So proposing theories which satisfy this scientific condition is no proof against the existence of God. Its not even close!

On Hawkings book - The physical model M-Theory of Supersymmetry is an unproven theory at best and at worst its wrong and in the worst case scenario is not even testable and makes no predictions and may not be capable of doing so (there are two many parameters to choose from)!
Hawkings book is a disgrace to the open minded intellectual thinker and should be consigned to the alter of the dogma and deceivers.

He believes he has found his ultimate truth and therefore all thought is now closed i.e. no more philosophy!! Remind you of something?? ....The inquisitions? the trial of Galileo!

4 Replies

@Fido,

Your idea that knowledge can be made a foundation for good morals while belief cannot, what is that based on? And who's to say what's knowledge and what's belief?

1 Reply

@amer,

Whether God as commonly describe exists or not has hardly anything to do with Philosophy being Dead, besides the fact that such being a definite assertion exactly done in the manner those who believe it do...

1 Reply

@amer,

It seems unlikely that Hawking is so stupid as to dabble with your lay concepts of "truth" and "proof"(absolute or otherwise)!

2 Replies

@fresco,

What does that even mean ???
Science above all others pursuits certainty even if not expecting to get it.
Relative Truth, would be an Absolute Truth as the set of relatives would form itself an Absolute...Truth means final ! ...even to relativity...or is it relativity relative ?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

I can see you do not get it... Do the rules of physical reality maintain themselves out of our sight, or not???

I can rephrase it for you.

A student pointed and said "the flag moves".
Another student said "the wind moves".
The master said "the mind moves".

1 Reply

@fresco,

In that case may be I should concede to both yours and Hawkings superior intellects!

If you have an interest in questioning rather than blind belief read on:

How should any scientist, howsoever brilliant, claim that God does not exist, simply because his models do not require a creator as the initial condition of his model? In M theory he claims that in the 11 dimesional 'preuniverse' state there is sufficient potential energy contained in to generate the physical universe and so therefore God does not exist. BTW: If you do not have a background in Physics then I am sorry I cannot help you understand what these terminologies mean!

Where one may ask did these conditions come from and for that matter the law of gravity to create this precondition energy. He has simply moved the goal post one step up!

Layman I may be, stupid I am not!

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

"Truth" as every scientist knows is "what works today"...and because tomorrow is another day, we are speaking of a potentially infinite set. Those who seek to close the set are often theists

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes you are right. I was trying to demonstrate Hawkings propensity for 'closing off' thought just because he has arrived at his nirvana, however, unsubstantiated that may be. But you are right in your statement.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Ears don't make sounds; they are the receptacle of sound.

1 Reply

@amer,

If anybody thinks Hawking is "closing off" explorations of "reality" or has reached some personal "nirvana"(an oxymoron as it happens) they need ro read this.
http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php?/page/index.html/_/reviews/the-grand-design-by-stephen-hawking-r124
The conclusion that Hawking is still being anthropocentric does not detract from his attack on some traditional philosophers.

1 Reply

@amer,

amer, But by your claim you are saying that god exists, and you can prove it. Never happen.

2 Replies

Lock the whole of philosophers in a room and keep them there for a decade. When they emerge, it will not be as if thought has been on pause for 10 years. The reason for this is because philosophers never have nor will they ever hold the keys to thought itself. Thinking is not optional (no matter how we joke about some individuals).

When Eistein introduced the idea of a fourth dimension and bent space, he did not simply capture the most elite scientific minds, he also captured the minds of artists, writers, and musicians. How many artists have over-clocked their imagination since 1917 trying to create some depiction of the 4th dimension in a piece of art?

Great thinking happens, and I'd say those in the armchairs self elevate their own importance to the practice of thinking. I won't say they are unimportant, but I'd say the most profound thinkers rarely wear the badge of "philosopher."

A
R
T

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Concerning God there are two interdependent problems and not one...

...its not just about if God is or is not to be true, before WHAT is supposed to be in the first place...

To me it makes no difference, as God=Universe=Meta-verse=Multi-verse=Being, means just the same, one step up or one step down...I believe in Truth=Finity=Circular Infinity (but no new quality´s or property´s or new rules of Nature)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You didn't prove anything by your statement; it's circular, and meaningless.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Lock the whole of philosophers in a room and keep them there for a decade. When they emerge, it will not be as if thought has been on pause for 10 years. The reason for this is because philosophers never have nor will they ever hold the keys to thought itself. Thinking is not optional (no matter how we joke about some individuals).

When Eistein introduced the idea of a fourth dimension and bent space, he did not simply capture the most elite scientific minds, he also captured the minds of artists, writers, and musicians. How many artists have over-clocked their imagination since 1917 trying to create some depiction of the 4th dimension in a piece of art?

Great thinking happens, and I'd say those in the armchairs self elevate their own importance to the practice of thinking. I won't say they are unimportant, but I'd say the most profound thinkers rarely wear the badge of "philosopher."

A
R
T

Einstein and Bohr thought they did. Hawking in our day thinks he does. And apparently you are unfamiliar with the names of W.V.O. Quine, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, Saul Kripke, or else, you refuse to allow that they are profound thinkers just because they are philosophers. Which is flawed thinking since it is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

1 Reply

@failures art,

In how is this relevant to whether Philosophy is dead ?
"Fashion" as nothing to do with it...
Philosophy is well beyond formal philosophy...in fact since computer age and Internet, never before in human history there was so much thinking and discussion on philosophical themes...

1 Reply

Philosophy is Dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know