Philosophy is Dead

no its not , at all

to question your existence is unhealthy to say the least

You have personal experience with this, I believe. LOL

Please excuse my simple mind. Im not well educated in this matter. But Im having trouble grasping the question. I looked up the defenition, it says ; Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those conected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Isnt this topic in itself Philosophical discussion?

Quit correct, that all the branches of knowledge, the hard and soft sciences are branches of philosophy... I would not count so much on definitions though... The problems we face are moral problem, and moral forms are infinites and resist definition, so we much define them as best we can in relation to our own lives accepting that conflict and difference of opinion is normal and natural...

Philosophy is Dead

in the middle east

Where faith lives, philosophy dies.

My favorite philosopher, Ortega y Gasset, said that "Philosophy" was born with Parmenides and his idea of "Being." What he proposed was something "Beyond Philosophy," which he called "Vital or Historical Reason," in which "Being" was replaced with "Living." In that sense, "Philosophy is Dead." Viva Ortega!

To the same point: False... Being is granted, and taken for granted long before it ever became a subject of philosophy, and we could abstract reality long before it occured to humanity to consider abstractly that which we were abstract with, and about: Our Lives... We conceived first of the visible, and then of the invisible, and my reason for saying this is that alphabetic language grew out of pictographic language... We did not abstract symbols for sounds without the sounds associated with the object symbolized...Language as we think of it, as abstraction, like numbers as abstraction grew out of a more concrete identical relationship... Some where one must be one for numbers to work... The art of picturing and of naming something may be the same mental process as far as I know, but it is what is done with the object conceived of once it is conceived... Any child can reproduce a man, or a bird, or a tree in drawing... Once that has been done, then the drawing can be refined, and this is not only an individual action, but a social action... This refinement of the concept in regard to the conceived is philosophy, and I trust it is far older than parmenides...

We know that concepts give power over reality, and those with the most refined concepts master the most power, and here I refer to scientists.. For primitives, this power was conceived of magically, as mana... There was mana in names, for example; because the power to bring an animal or a place to mind with a name gave primitives the power of life or death, and the ability to plan in relation to the conception... For this reason, primitives would only share their names with friends... This means they understood a certain relationship between the concept and the power, and they wished to avoid others having power over them by way of a word... The whole thought processes of primitives may seem primitive to us, and yet it holds the germ of science and philosophy boldly...They did not have to understand concept as analogy to use the concept as analogy... They did not have to understand how it worked to make it work, and to begin the long process through syllogism to an accurate definition, which is a process ongoing today...

Yes, the philosopher, Arthur Danto, began his book, What is Philosophy, with the acknowledgement that his attempt to define philosophy was itself a philosophical process.

Better late than never!

Definition is the whole of philosophy...

...yeah right...but is it the case that any X definition is necessary or randomly contingent ?
Could the old folks in the neolithic period not believe the Sun was going around the earth in our own Universe ?

Why don't you and Fido give me a little help over here! LOL

http://able2know.org/topic/138901-59#post-4691660

Fido probably is more interested in the existence of objective grounds for ethics and moral or should I say its non existence...heck I suspect he does not have the time, he is probably busy...
(not like Dawkins but really busy in himself)

A neolythic painting is a definition.... It is only through definitions that we can answer cosmic questionsm for without them all our words are guesses...

So I suppose you mean their are necessary...although you probably don´t mean they are particularly necessary...of course while I believe each in its own time they all are necessary...but that is a matter of inclination...

Jebediah says: "I don't think philosophy has tried to answer physics questions for a while".
We might add that physics has not addressed philosophical questions for a while (if ever) either.

They argue model-dependent realism, this is a philosophical ('dead') arguement that reality is not true (perhaps simulated), therefore 'usefulness' of models defines meaning.

It is an intriguing arguement, furthermore I am also an anti realist.

Philosophy of science is thoroughly obsolete, partially because physics is moving too fast, and partially because relativism and uncertainty blows everyone's mind. We're just not mentally equipped to handle a physical world that is crazier and more counterintuitive than Alice's. But dead is not quite right. Almost dead. Hibernating.

Science is philosophy... It is because ethics and morality present such problems to people that philosophy seems to dwell upon those subject...The thing is that science has a bad rep... It is a fair distance from knowledge as virtue to knowledge as power... It is strange that the language of logic, as the greatest tool of science was given to us by people hostile to science, but it is the truth so far as I know... Philosophy for its part has a bad reputation with scientist, and no scientist worth his pay check would call himself a philosopher when the philosopher is the equal of a nutcase...

I think, that ultimately, the problem of science defining itself as philosophy results from the powerlessness philosophers show, which is the same reason God and theology are rejected... No one seeking power can idealize the powerless, and there is nothing about the virtue sought by true philosophy, or idealized by God that gives one person greater power than another... Whether it is God or Philosophy the ideal of human behavior is freedom and self control, and science promises power and control over others... Science is a faithless dog that will serve any master... It is yours today, and tomorrow it will be there for another...