The Relevance of Philosophy

[Mr Sleep]

Aptitude for philosophy test?

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Sleep: Honestly I believe you are better than most at the philosophy aptitude test life. Your sceptic view of IQ-tests awarded you an extra point in my book

What does that make it, -4 or -5

@Wav, would you be one arguing that Skepticism is a philosophy? I would have thought it to be more a state of mind than a philosophy.

[Curdis]

This grew quick!

Tom wrote

I have to say I think that science can pretty much develop with out a lot of philosophical asumptions. In the same way philosophy can develop quit well with out science. Of course they have in fact developed together and influenced each other and that seems most natural.

I see what your getting at (I hope) but really science is based on deductive logic which is pretty much a branch of Philosophy, and as I said before due to this Philosophy is/was the overarching discipline.
Tom wrote

Philosophy has been divided on just about any issue throughout its history - that is how progress has been made, by trashing out the arguments presented. In the last century there have been huge progress in our understanding of all philosophical areas, this however is not widely understood since people are not taught even the most basic facts about philosophy.
To think that no progress has been made in philosophy is equivalent to thinking that no progress has been made in physics since Einstein and Bor.

Huge progress? While there should be two sides to a discourse much of what I read in current acedemic philosophy revolves around people going out of their way to misunderstand and/or disregard the meaning of the other party! You claim that there is no scism in philosphy by saying it is simply two views, but the modern schools of existentialists refuse to accept/allow the view that anything is real, or a fact, or provable. Arguing (in the philosophical sense) is pointless as they do not accept that the arguement exists.
Tom wrote

Leaving all that to one side.
There are philosophical concerns about quantum theory that cant be dismissed out of hand. Correct me if I am wrong but Einstein himself harboured doubts for a long time. Now of course quantum theory is correct in some sense. The double slit experiment and the action at a distance (entanglement) experiments have shown that quantum theory gives the right results. The results are shocking and bizarre but there is still a lot of unresolved issue, I'm sure you will agree, about the fundamentals.

BTW this is precisely the type of party discussion I was referring to. Any person who lives in the macro world will have doubts about quantum theory - So What?(even if it is Einstein). Quantum Theory is correct in the only way that matters (not 'some sense'). You yourself say that it gives the right results - QED. For what it is meant to do (predict Sub Macro behaviour) it is a beauty/true/correct/reproducable/predicable (etc.). If by unresolved issues you mean 'how can this possibly be because it can not be seen' or similar, for sure, but it really has nothing to do with Quantum Theory (an observer's lack of belief in something they cannot observe).

Mr Sleep wrote

I would agree with that line of thinking, i can not see how a person can just assume so much from reading a few lines of text, it is to me like reading just the last chapter of a book, you don't understand what brought the characters to this point, you have no grasp of relationships and other important plot effects, you just know the outcome.

This sounds appealing and seems to fit but quickly becomes an impossible (but undoubtably worthwhile) project in the real world. One cannot possibly know all the nuances of detail about everything in sufficent detail to put it into an absolute context, much as one may want to. The book arguement is seductive (Arguement by analogy) but is about a finite complete set of facts. In reality one must come to some point where one says O.K. basically the relevant facts are (....) and the arguement I'm putting forward is (....), and truely these need to be as concise as possible or else no one else will be able to grasp the facts or understand the arguement.

Mr Sleep wrote

That is total nonesense. It also brings up issues of culture and country divides, which if that was believed would drastically alter the current integration of societies.

And is also the position of the contextualist (Cultural relativist) (which you eloquently argued for in the previous quote). I am deeply saddened that a whole generation of philosophy students were made to feel inadequate by accidents of birth and gender. Go and check with your local institues of higher learning I think you'll find it is still on most philosophy curriculum (although it may be heavily disguised). Go figure.

Mr Sleep wrote

It always amazes me how before volume displacement was suggested by a scientist (can't remember his name at the moment) that no one had considered such things. Did it take his intellect or perhaps his grounding in science to understand the ramifications of the simple things?

Arcamedies(sp) a philosopher (not a scientist). It took his observations of the world. What is obvious to you (eg. the wheel) was sufficently obtuse to the Inca that despite using circles, having the arch, and advanced astronomy, that they used sleds (if the historical/archealogical records are acurate and my brain {non-Incan} can possibly grasp the situation).

Waverly wrote

The are obviously not one and the same, but are more closely related than one might think. Some might argue Skeptism itself is a philosophy, and most good science requires a healthy dose of it.

Many classical philosophers, including Socrates himself pondered how to best answer life’s questions.

I agree but disagree. I don't think 'they(sp) are obviously not one and the same'. The branch of mathematics, deductive logic, and the branch of philosophy, deductive logic, are indistinquishable. I would state (on documented historical grounds) that Scepticism is a school of philosophy. Good science requires innovation and imagination. Peer review of science requires scepticism. Pedantic, but I would claim that all documented classical philosophers were solely concerned with how to best answer life's questions. Indeed were it possible to ask any of them they would probably say that this was the purpose of philosophy.

Asleep yet? Aren't you glad I don't go to your parties - Curdis !

[Mr Sleep]

Re: This grew quick!

Originally posted by Curdis
This sounds appealing and seems to fit but quickly becomes an impossible (but undoubtably worthwhile) project in the real world. One cannot possibly know all the nuances of detail about everything in sufficent detail to put it into an absolute context, much as one may want to. The book arguement is seductive (Arguement by analogy) but is about a finite complete set of facts. In reality one must come to some point where one says O.K. basically the relevant facts are (....) and the arguement I'm putting forward is (....), and truely these need to be as concise as possible or else no one else will be able to grasp the facts or understand the arguement. [/b]

From my point of view it seems that one must seek to find a dividing line, look at the persons background, understand their perspective but also do not postulate to long on that persons psychology. It depends a great deal on Biographies and other sources of information how much one can discover about anyone, but in respect to ancient philosophers we may never know their motivations for their work since the information is so lacking, or clouded with time and translation.

I understood that the incans were very advanced, i suppose it is difficult to really grasp and understand their culture from my perspective, i can not understand how one can not see a wheel as a wheel.

It's applicaiton is an important one, but would it be a philosopher, scientist or engineer that finds that application, the discovery is all well and good, but what defines a good invention is how one uses it. The wheel would still be an idea if it wasn't applied to transport.

[Tom]

Re: This grew quick!

Originally posted by C Elegans

Interesting note - how do you think science could develop without philosophy? I can't really see how it would not stagnate, maybe because the two of them have been so intertwined historically, so I can't differentiate between them. The principles of modern science has developed under heavy influence from philosophers such as Popper and Kuhn, although many some principles are of course much older.

I don't think that popper or Kuhn had a big effect on science itself or the way scientists work but then it was not their aim to have an influence on science. They were of course important for the philosophy of science and methodology.

Originally posted by Curdis


I see what your getting at (I hope) but really science is based on deductive logic which is pretty much a branch of Philosophy, and as I said before due to this Philosophy is/was the overarching discipline.

It is true that logic is a branch of philosophy but only the most basic principles are presupposed in science (not that they are not argued about -that is one of the great things about philosophy, everything is up for grabs).

But it is not true that science is based on deductive logic(?) (allow me to be a bit pedantic). Lets draw some distinctions.

You can reason in two ways; deductively and inductively.

An example of Deductive reasoning:

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is a valid argument. If the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

An example of inductive reasoning:

We have only seen white polar bears.
Therefore, All polar bears are white.

This is not a valid argument but that does not mean it is not a good argument.

Now all areas of science use both forms of reasoning - to different degrees. The purpose of science is to describe the physical world and the laws that govern the physical world therefore I think it is more correct to say that science must presuppose certain logical principles like everything else.

Originally posted by Curdis


Huge progress? While there should be two sides to a discourse much of what I read in current acedemic philosophy revolves around people going out of their way to misunderstand and/or disregard the meaning of the other party! You claim that there is no scism in philosphy by saying it is simply two views, but the modern schools of existentialists refuse to accept/allow the view that anything is real, or a fact, or provable. Arguing (in the philosophical sense) is pointless as they do not accept that the arguement exists.

Well I think that is the problem, you are not reading the right stuff. If you really are interested in a particular subject get a Cambridge, Oxford or Routledge guide were you will be able to get a general idea of the subject and find details of further reading. (alternatively send me a mail and I should be able to give you the details of serious academic writing).

If I were you I would try to stay away from existentialism and focus more on analytical philosophy. Existentialism is a relatively small branch with very few advocates in anglo-american philosophy.
Other things that might have given you the wrong impression of philosophy is that a lot of nonsense is being written by sociologists and anthropologists that should stick to their own subject. (do you know of the famous Sokal Hoax?)

Originally posted by Waverly


Re Philosophy and science

The are obviously not one and the same, but are more closely related than one might think. Some might argue Skeptism itself is a philosophy, and most good science requires a healthy dose of it.

A little bit about scepticism. We should distinguish between philosophical scepticism and the every day notion of scepticism, although they of course are connected.

The every day notion means something like an unwillingness to accept a position without evidence, perhaps excessive amounts of evidence.

The philosophical notion is connected entirely with epistemology. It challenges our cognitive and sensory abilities when it comes to obtaining the truth.
This challenge is almost always restricted to certain areas like the past or material objects. This is because global scepticism seems to be unstable because the sceptics own claim comes under the scope of the scepticism.

Finally let me just reiterate that Relativism of any form is not a popular theory in analytical philosophy and it never have been popular. Richard Rorty have argued for something like it but he is the only major academic in philosophy to have done so. Many other philosophers have argued for other forms of anti-realism but these should not be confuted with relativism.

[Curdis]

Demonstrating a lack of aptitude for philosophy Curdis writes

@Mr Sleep, The first para of your response is fair enough, but as you say about the wheel (That it is an idea of itself - without a context) is this not also true of the ideas presented by an historical figure? The road that contextualising (and therefore presumely incporporating into your judgements on the relative merit of) a persons expressed ideas is the road of relativism which I strongly argue against. The idea stands on its own or does not. The supporting arguements are valid/relevant or invalid/irrelevant. Even the most immoral and lascivious person may recognise the benefits of abstention (from drugs, sex, SYM posting) and even expound them! To do otherwise is to play the person and not the ball.

@Tom, I hear you but really to further advance my thesis and draw the threads of this discourse to some shared and mutually exceptable concensus, I feel that we would have to get inappropriately enmeshed in the actual act of philosophical debate (citing references, defining meanings) for this forum.

I sense an implication that I am not widely read in philosophy, on the contrary I am extensively read in philosophy and have studied it at a Tertiary level.

I note that the existentialists (And their position) are effectively ignored and considered to be of no relevance. I think that as the claim was made that great advances were made in philosophy in the 21st Century they are not that easily dismissed.

I also assert the above to be true of the Relativists. Especially as it would interest me to hear your views on what the futurists, modernists and now postmodernists have to say to us on this topic (Specific to the 21st&22nd centuries).

I also assert that excessive focus on definition and generally turgid writing have now become the 'norm' in philosophical writing of any stripe.

While this may hold endless facsination for your good self and me it is unlikely to be of any interest to SYM generally and may actually turn people off philosophy. While I think this is an OK outcome you may not. Happy to discuss via private mail. - Curdis !

[Mr Sleep]

Re: Demonstrating a lack of aptitude for philosophy Curdis writes

Originally posted by Curdis
@Mr Sleep, The first para of your response is fair enough, but as you say about the wheel (That it is an idea of itself - without a context) is this not also true of the ideas presented by an historical figure?

I don't understand the question, are you asking whether i think that what ancient philosophers stated is as intrinsic as the wheel?

The road that contextualising (and therefore presumely incorporating into your judgements on the relative merit of) a persons expressed ideas is the road of relativism which I strongly argue against. The idea stands on its own or does not. The supporting arguements are valid/relevant or invalid/irrelevant. Even the most immoral and lascivious person may recognise the benefits of abstention (from drugs, sex, SYM posting) and even expound them! To do otherwise is to play the person and not the ball

What school of philosophy is closer to your own, why is it better than contextualism?

While this may hold endless facsination for your good self and me it is unlikely to be of any interest to SYM generally and may actually turn people off philosophy. While I think this is an OK outcome you may not.

Well i must say that a lot of this talk is far over my head, but as of yet it is all interesting

[Tom]

Re: Demonstrating a lack of aptitude for philosophy Curdis writes

Originally posted by Curdis

Tom, I hear you but really to further advance my thesis and draw the threads of this discourse to some shared and mutually exceptable concensus, I feel that we would have to get inappropriately enmeshed in the actual act of philosophical debate (citing references, defining meanings) for this forum.

I am sorry but I cant let you have the last word - not at this point anyway.

Originally posted by Curdis

I am extensively read in philosophy and have studied it at a Tertiary level.

Well then that is why I am surprised that you can say that there have not been great progress.

Frege the founder of modern logic and philosophical logic advanced our understanding immensly not only in the philosophy of mathematics and logic but also of course in the philosophy of language contributing to our understanding of theories of meaning.
What about Russell-? whose achievement are too many to state here and who incidentally broke poor old Frege’s heart by proving that arithmatic cannot be derived from logical principles. And Wittgenstein?

Too old you say. Well what about Donald Davidson who has contributed to the philosophy of language and philosophy of mind to such a degree that some philosophers cant help but drop to their knees when ever his name is mentioned. Dummet? And lets not forget Kripke and Putnam - and a favourite of mine Crispin Wright. Each of these is a genius in his own right.
If you say that there has not been advancement in philosophy in general then it follows that you are saying that these individuals have not contributed to our understanding of philosophical problems - but even their fiercest critics wouldn’t say that.

Originally posted by Curdis

I also assert the above to be true of the Relativists. Especially as it would interest me to hear your views on what the futurists, modernists and now postmodernists have to say to us on this topic (Specific to the 21st&22nd centuries).

I don't know what the Futurists stand for. I looked it up in a couple of reference works but there was no entry.

Modernists would presumably say that progress have been made.

Post-modernists would say that no progress is possible.

Originally posted by Curdis

I also assert that excessive focus on definition and generally turgid writing have now become the 'norm' in philosophical writing of any stripe.

Sadly philosophical aptitude and writing skill do not necessarily accompany each other but nor do they exclude each other. Try Kripke's Naming and necessity (1980 Oxford) if you are interested in philosophy of language. (Well written and very clear but it is not a book for beginners)

Now you seem to have a problem with discussions about definitions. And it is true that many people get impatient with such discussions but it is a fact that one can not do philosophy without defining certain very central concepts such as truth, meaning and knowledge.
Naturally the explanation and definition of such concepts become extremely important since so much depend on them.

Originally posted by Curdis

While this may hold endless facsination for your good self and me it is unlikely to be of any interest to SYM generally and may actually turn people off philosophy. While I think this is an OK outcome you may not. Happy to discuss via private mail.

If somebody is turned off philosophy because of a discussion they are not suited for that study anyway - so I have no worries in that regard.

And finally about quantum theory. I don't have time to discuss that now but I would love to do so in the future. The fundamental problems I had in mind was; The measurement problem, the many worlds or classical conception and quantum theory’s incompatibility with relativity theory. Maybe I am wrong - I have not read a lot about it but I think these are fundamental problems.

Ps. The list of philosophers I have mentioned should not be taken to be complete. So incase Chomsky or some other great Philosopher (insert name here) is lurking - you are great too.

[Curdis]

Rolls up philosophical shirt sleeves

@Mr Sleep, The first question was rhetorical. As you had stated that the idea and application of the wheel had a seperate existance I asked whether it was acceptable to apply this to the ideas of Historical figures (ie philosophers) also. My assumption was that it was therefore OK to do so.

We are all contextualists - it is pretty indisputable that we all have built in biases. The point is that it is not actually an obstacle to understanding generally. So to glibly sum up, 'It exists, it gets in the way, get over it'. Personally I'm a determinist.

@Tom,

The aim is surely NOT to get the last word .

To the down and dirty.

The original topic was 'The Relevance of Philosophy'

My thesis is this - Philosophy (as it is understood by the vast majority of people from a Western Background - and we could argue about this for a while I'm sure) has become totally (with out having become non-existent) irrelevant (to the lives and thought processes of the afforsaid persons of a Western Background).

To sucessfully argue this I would have to rely on a raft of generalities and you would have to agree that they were reasonable statements (in themselves). The final bracketed cavet that I place on my negation of the original topic actually restricts the subject of the arguement significantly and might constitute altering the question. You will have to agree that this is all right (or make a counter proposal).

Once all this (and what ever else may be necessary)is done. Let the discourse commence.

To your last point on Quantum Theory (which you don't have the time to discuss right now): What is 'The measurement problem'? What do you mean by 'the many worlds or classical conception and quantum theory’s incompatibility with relativity theory' is this two issues or one? I am very willing to state none of these seem to me to be fundamental problems but I may not have grasped your meaning.

Tom wrote
I don't know what the Futurists stand for. I looked it up in a couple of reference works but there was no entry.

Modernists would presumably say that progress have been made.

Post-modernists would say that no progress is possible.

I was (perhaps) not playing fair. The Futurists were a group of Italians (mainly artists) who share many commonalities with Modernists but also share the 'tainted heritage' which really was the point of my entrapment. It is my understanding that one of the motivations behind expressing things as Post Modern is a highly relativistic bias that the context of the Modernists (and Futurists) was such an anathama to the tastes of the modern intellectual that a seperation had to be made (regardless of any loss of meaning).

From your response I can see that you share my opinion that Post Modern = Nonsense, but the details of why I suspect are very different.

Finally, I sense and respect your admiration and reverence for philosophers and philosophy, the topic is unfortunately relevance. - Curdis !

[Tom]

Re: Rolls up philosophical shirt sleeves

Originally posted by Curdis

Tom, the aim is surely NOT to get the last word .

Hmm. If you say so.

Originally posted by Curdis

The original topic was 'The Relevance of Philosophy'

My thesis is this - Philosophy (as it is understood by the vast majority of people from a Western Background - and we could argue about this for a while I'm sure) has become totally (with out having become non-existent) irrelevant (to the lives and thought processes of the afforsaid persons of a Western Background).

But that was not what the discussion between us was about. Shall I take that as the end of our discussion on the progress in philosophy?

Turning to the question of relevance.

As was noted in the beginning of this thread most people do at times in a bit of philosophical discussion usually in bars when alcohol have lubricated the timidity that usually holds people back from discussing such things. The nature of the discussion that takes place in academia is much more theoretical but I think both can be relevant to people.

I can see at least three ways I which a subject can be said to be relevant to a person.

1. the person cares about the subject and thinks it is important.
2. it influences the life of the person with out the person being aware of it.
3. if the person knew about the subject it would influence his life.

Philosophy during the 20th century became increasingly complex and difficult. Add to that that no medicines or rockets was ever made by philosophy.

But I would claim that academic philosophy have been and is relevant in the 2nd and 3rd sense while lets call it pup philosophy is relevant in 1st sense. Philosophy have had huge influence on how world history has developed. Today’s political philosophers might not have the same influence that philosophical figures like Locke, Rousseau and Marx had in their time but Both Rawls ( ‘A theory of Justice’ 1972) and Nozick ( ‘Anarchy, state and utopia’ 1974) have influenced modern politics.
I also think that many people would find certain parts of academic philosophy relevant in the 1st sense, like political philosophy and moral philosophy i.e. ethics, if they knew more about it.

Originally posted by Curdis

To sucessfully argue this I would have to rely on a raft of generalities and you would have to agree that they were reasonable statements (in themselves). The final bracketed cavet that I place on my negation of the original topic actually restricts the subject of the arguement significantly and might constitute altering the question. You will have to agree that this is all right (or make a counter proposal).

I don't understand this.

Originally posted by Curdis

From your response I can see that you share my opinion that Post Modern = Nonsense, but the details of why I suspect are very different.

I can’t claim that I am an expert on post-modernism but from what I know I think that the position is partly a movement in art, literature and architecture and partly a number of philosophical ideas. I think that these philosophical ideas are mostly misunderstandings or partial understandings. But to be sure there is a lot more to be said on the subject.

Originally posted by Curdis

Finally, I sense and respect your admiration and reverence for philosophers and philosophy, the topic is unfortunately relevance.

Well certainly there are philosophers I admire and many more I respect but reverence is too strong a word. As for philosophy I enjoy it the same way some people enjoy the challege of playing chess.

I'm afraid I don't understand the last bit of that sentence.

[C Elegans]

posted by Tom
I don't think that popper or Kuhn had a big effect on science itself or the way scientists work but then it was not their aim to have an influence on science. They were of course important for the philosophy of science and methodology.

Hm, do you view philosophy of science as part of science or part of philosophy? Personally I think both Kuhn and Popper has played an important role for modern science, both the way we work and the way we think.

@Tom and Curdis: Interesting discussion, I'm following you but I know too little to be able to participate. May I ask you a couple of questions, based on what little I know about the subject - prior to my psychology/neuroscience education, I took philosophy 1 year, I've been to art school one year and I took astrophysics 1 semester, that's it, and that's a long time ago so forgive me if my questions are irrelevant or off.

Futurism and post-moderism are art movements, I never got the impression that they had any wider impact on philosophy even though there might be some tangents. How do these artistic movements fit into your reasoning here?

Existentialism I always thought was a narrow field and more or less exclusively still debated in France. Did it perhaps have an impact on modern philosophy that I haven't been taught since the uni where I took philosophy focus mainly on other fields?

The quantum theory and philosophy: Why is the quantum theory more involved in, or more connected to, philosophy than other theories? Or isn't it?

I've heard some people say that philosophy took a deep dive after Wittgenstein, what do you think about this claim?

[Curdis]

I am going to have to limit my post lengths - somehow

@C Elegans,

Hm, do you view philosophy of science as part of science or part of philosophy? Personally I think both Kuhn and Popper has played an important role for modern science, both the way we work and the way we think.

Like the original topic in a very few words you can provoke a whole ocean of response. The philosophy of science is part of both fields. Plenty of scientists eat, work and sleep whatever they do with no knowledge or obvious influence from the good Mr.s Kuhn and Popper. Plenty of scientists have used philosophy (particularily Popper's paradigms) to advance their work. Science is possible without philosophy (in one sense - see the bit preceding discussion about deductive logic and the structure of discourse) and philosophy is possible without science. Whether the philosophy of science can exist without science is clearly no, to me.

I'm following you but I know too little to be able to participate. May I ask you a couple of questions, based on what little I know about the subject

If your following us then you are participating, and asking questions is active participation. My lack of knowledge doesn't stop me, so don't belittle yourself. I haven't gone to my reference library yet!

Futurism and post-moderism are art movements, I never got the impression that they had any wider impact on philosophy even though there might be some tangents. How do these artistic movements fit into your reasoning here?

Without entering the What is Art? debate; The Futurists were (as a movement) much more than anything which is usually defined as art, one of their most active proponents was a racing driver and their funding came from wealthy Industralists who were participants in the Italian political process rather than patrons or sponsors. It is their unfortunate connection with Mussolini and Facism which has lead to them not being widely considered as anything but an Art movement. At the time of your studies it may have been the case that Post-Modernism was being used only to label an art movement. It is now a much more widely used term (especially in philosophy). I am of the opinion that Post-Modern is being used often to say 'I believe that this is actually a modernist position but would be associated with stuff I don't like if I were to say so, so I'll say Post-Modern instead'.

Existentialism I always thought was a narrow field and more or less exclusively still debated in France. Did it perhaps have an impact on modern philosophy that I haven't been taught since the uni where I took philosophy focus mainly on other fields?

Perhaps the whole existentialism thing has gained an unfair amount of airplay here (It is a curiosity). I am tempted to say more but this is my second rewrite of this sentence so I'll leave it be.

The quantum theory and philosophy: Why is the quantum theory more involved in, or more connected to, philosophy than other theories? Or isn't it?

I think it isn't but once a philosopher heard that there was no such thing as determinism (in quantum physics) it was skimmed, misquoted, obsficated and misunderstood, in order to promote and/or refute positions in philosophy. (Some of)the 'free will' school in particular have become immovable in the absolute relevance that this has to their position (That the determiniasts got it wrong -sheesh).

I've heard some people say that philosophy took a deep dive after Wittgenstein, what do you think about this claim?

After Wittgenstein?

@Tom, I've got students coming so I'll have to break there, but I WILL get back to you!

[Curdis]

Tom wrote
But that was not what the discussion between us was about. Shall I take that as the end of our discussion on the progress in philosophy?

Well it's not been much of a discussion from my end. If pressed it would be my position that there has been too much fragmentation and specialisation in philosophy in the last 102 years for any of the individual advances to be considered relatively significant. Furthermore, the modern media does not allow for philosophy to get coverage because it is too hard to quickly or concisely represent(science has similar troubles). Public perception therefore tends to focus on the bizarre, or contraversial, of which there has been plenty (This is an arguement about popular relative significance).

Tom wrote
I can see at least three ways I which a subject can be said to be relevant to a person.

1. the person cares about the subject and thinks it is important.
2. it influences the life of the person with out the person being aware of it.
3. if the person knew about the subject it would influence his life.

1. In this case you can not expect philosophy to be seen as relevent to many people.
2. I fail to see how this way of relevence:
a. can not be used to label all things as relevent (All things can be seen as meeting this), or
b. escapes the issue of perceived relevence altogether (If I am unaware of it, I can not have percieved it, so how can it's relevence to me be judged?) - So it is clearly not a useful way to discuss relevence.
3. I fail to see the connection to relevence based purely on an issue of tense. What is relevent now can not be directly equated to what is relevent in an individual's past or an individual's future. You would need to establish an actual relationship. All things are, under this way of relevence, potentially relevant.

The quote you didn't understand was my 'rules of engagement' for discussing relevence. If you didn't understand them then lets get some others - 'counter proposal' (which you did in the quote above). The closing para was more rhetoric.

Let's start again. I'm happy to discuss any issue (Amoung those that we have so far encompassed) that you are.

My original entry into the debate was as a nay sayer because of my pet dislike of (mainly amatuer) philosophers getting involved in something which they have a limited (or no) actual knowledge of - Quantum Theory.

I threw in some reasonably cheap assertions about the state of modern philosophy (we were in beer and pretzels mode then).

I also acknowledged philosophy as being (at least originally) the overarching intellectual dicipline (damning by faint praise?).

The canvas (as it currently stands) is getting a bit too large for me to address (With the required rigour of philosophical discourse) in the time I have available. What would interest you the most?

If you are truly interested in the (from a physicist's view point) reasons why there is no threat to the fundamentals of Quantum Theory (Which we will have to define at some stage) then this is where I am probably best qualified to comment.

[Tom]

Originally posted by C Elegans

Hm, do you view philosophy of science as part of science or part of philosophy? Personally I think both Kuhn and Popper has played an important role for modern science, both the way we work and the way we think.
[/b]

It was my impression that they did not have a lot of influence on science but you and Curdis would know more about this than me.

Originally posted by C Elegans

@Tom and Curdis: Interesting discussion, I'm following you but I know too little to be able to participate. May I ask you a couple of questions, based on what little I know about the subject - prior to my psychology/neuroscience education, I took philosophy 1 year, I've been to art school one year and I took astrophysics 1 semester, that's it, and that's a long time ago so forgive me if my questions are irrelevant or off.
[/b]

Ohh be all means - don't let ignorance stop you - as Curdis says it doesn’t stop him.

Originally posted by C Elegans

Existentialism I always thought was a narrow field and more or less exclusively still debated in France. Did it perhaps have an impact on modern philosophy that I haven't been taught since the uni where I took philosophy focus mainly on other fields?
[/b]

It is still marginal in the western analytical tradition.

Originally posted by C Elegans

The quantum theory and philosophy: Why is the quantum theory more involved in, or more connected to, philosophy than other theories? Or isn't it?
[/b]

Quantum theory raises interesting questions about lots of things.
But the problem of free will is not one of them as any professional philosopher knows. Indeed one doen’t need to reflect long to see that the issue of randomness can’t influence free will in any way.
Some have speculated that quantum theory might be a way of explaining consciousness but as far as I know that is just unfounded speculation.

Originally posted by C Elegans

I've heard some people say that philosophy took a deep dive after Wittgenstein, what do you think about this claim?
[/b]

Originally posted by Curdis

After Wittgenstein?
[/b]

LOL

As you can probably see from my earlier replies I think that that is wrong. There are philosophers that have taken the attitude that Wittgenstein's later philosophy is pretty much the final word on just about any philosophical problem. There can be no doubting that Wittgenstein was one of the greatest philosophers of the last century, perhaps the greatest, but I think that certain philosophers are not critical enough of Wittgenstein's work. But then I would say that since I believe that Wittgenstein was wrong in a number of arrears. I think that his most important work was not his positive theories but the problems that he identified. One major problem is unfortunately that Wittgenstein is notoriously hard to understand - both because of the nature of what he was writing about but also because of his way of writing. This is something he acknowledged and something that is of great regret to anyone that have to study him.

Originally posted by Curdis

I am of the opinion that Post-Modern is being used often to say 'I believe that this is actually a modernist position but would be associated with stuff I don't like if I were to say so, so I'll say Post-Modern instead'.
[/b]

I don't understand this. Post-modernism is usually seen as a denial of modernism.

Originally posted by Curdis

Well it's not been much of a discussion from my end.
[/b]

yes... I did notice that.

Originally posted by Curdis

If pressed it would be my position that there has been too much fragmentation and specialisation in philosophy in the last 102 years for any of the individual advances to be considered relatively significant.
[/b]

No you are simply wrong again. The same specialisation has taken place in science and has contributed greatly to progress in both fields.

Originally posted by Curdis

1. In this case you can not expect philosophy to be seen as relevent to many people.
2. I fail to see how this way of relevence:
a. can not be used to label all things as relevent (All things can be seen as meeting this), or
b. escapes the issue of perceived relevence altogether (If I am unaware of it, I can not have percieved it, so how can it's
relevence to me be judged?) - So it is clearly not a useful way to discuss relevence.
3. I fail to see the connection to relevence based purely on an issue of tense. What is relevent now can not be directly equated to what is relevent in an individual's past or an individual's future. You would need to establish an actual relationship. All things are, under this way of relevence, potentially relevant.
[/b]

I was making a list (not complete) of how the expression ‘relevant’ could be used in this context.

1. Part of philosophy is question about life, how to live etc. While people don't discuss it - such questions are relevant and important to them.
2. I think you are wrong. Relevance can indeed be used in this sense. If I have a guardian angle that helps me through life, that angle is relevant to me and my life even if I don’t know about my angle.
3. No you misunderstand me. If I have a brother I don't know about it might well be said to be relevant to me. So this is a question of whether people would actually agree that philosophy is important to them. Now if asked many people would probably say that philosophy is not relevant to them.

I had three points. 1. Parts of philosophy is important to people even if they don't identify it with philosophy, such as questions about life and how to live it. 2. Philosophy has influenced world history and therefore the state of affairs in the world and that is certainly relevant. 3. There are arrears of philosophy like ethics and political philosophy that if people knew more about them they would (and they certainly should) think them relevant. See Taxes and government thread for how political philosophy is relevant to people. There have also been discussions about philosophy of religion and ethics in sym.

Originally posted by Curdis

I also acknowledged philosophy as being (at least originally) the overarching intellectual dicipline (damning by faint praise?).
[/b]

Just about any attempt to gain new knowledge used to be called philosophy. That is not what we mean by the expression ‘philosophy’ today. What you are saying is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Curdis

If you are truly interested in the (from a physicist's view point) reasons why there is no threat to the fundamentals of Quantum Theory (Which we will have to define at some stage) then this is where I am probably best qualified to comment
[/b]

I would like to discuss that but I don't have time this week. Then I will show of my ignorance.

[der Moench]

My reserved opinion

Well, I debated a long time before posting to this thread. My opinion of philosophy is very particular, and yet so broad (almost amorphous) that "discussion" of the subject seems ... daunting.

I guess I will restrain my point to just this: whether or not you think about "philosophy." Whether or not you have ever read a book by Descartes or Kant or Heidegger, you do have a "philosophy." That philosophy may be (and probably is) implicit rather than explicit; and it may (and probably will) involve contradictions; and you may never consciously consider it at all. But it exists, and it directs you as a person.

What I consider "philosophy" is what motivates everything you do, and everything you say. Every action of yours is an indication of what you believe and how you believe it. As such, I consider philosophy to be of primary importance and relevance to everyday issues.

I'll close with a quote from a character in a book, which, I think, illustrates this idea: “A man cannot make general observations to any extent, on any subject, without betraying himself, without introducing his entire individuality, and presenting, as in an allegory, the fundamental problem of his own existence.” I would substitute as follows: "... without introducing his entire individuality, and presenting, as in an allegory, the fundamental basis of his philosophy."

Just my two cents.

[VoodooDali]

I've noticed a lot of people on this thread are confused about:
What is Modernism? What is Post-Modernism?

I happen to have been reading up on this on the web. Here are a couple of good sites that explain the above.
From a more literary/historical perspective:
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL201 ... /pomo.html
From more of an art history perspective:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/modernism/roots.html

They make for good reading. I highly suggest you check them out.

[C Elegans]

Thank's Voodoo for your links regarding moderism and postmoderism.

Thanks Tom and Curdis for your replies, some more questions for you when you have the time:

by Curdis
At the time of your studies it may have been the case that Post-Modernism was being used only to label an art movement. It is now a much more widely used term (especially in philosophy). I am of the opinion that Post-Modern is being used often to say 'I believe that this is actually a modernist position but would be associated with stuff I don't like if I were to say so, so I'll say Post-Modern instead'.

Well, postmodernism as I conceptualise it, was used to label an art movement that arose from an architechtural style, just as Voodoo's links says. I also perceived it as a reaction against modernism, and I'm familiar with the postmoderistic aestics and relative view of art. The implications of this, I've often seen used in debate articles and such, usually transferred to <insert chic topic of choice> and to describe a worldview and present socieity in terms of relativism and fragmentation. I always thought this was just a clever way of picking up a word that sounds intellectual and chic, just as "entropy" or "quantum", I'm sure you are familiar with stuff like "Quantum management" I didn't think postmodernism played a role in acedemic philosophy other than tangetial. So, what does postmodernism in philosophy deal with?

Existentialism: Can anything fruitful for philosophy be drawn out of existentialism, do you think? It seems to me that it has played a larger role in literature and psychology than in philosophy.

Science, philosophy and the philosophy of science: I probably view Popper and Kuhn as more important to modern science that you do - correctly or incorrectly I view philosophy of science as part of both science and philosophy. Popper's falsification theorem is included in the present definition of science, so of course I view him as influencial.
Whereas science could be performed according to the standards that it has developed intertwined with philosophy, I still fail to see how the scientific ideals as a constantly self-revising process could be upheld without a metaperspective where new ideas are shaped into testable hypothesis. We will continue to find data that are not possible to interpret within frameworks of present understanding, and we will continue to get stuck in die hard conceptualisations, and we will always need frames of thought to develop ways of entering unknown fields. I don't know if it's because my field or research, but I can't really see how we would be totally independant of all philosophy.

Wittgenstein: @Curdis: LOL @Tom: What would you say is the most important problem Wittgenstein pointed out? Having volontarily read Tractatus and Philosophical investigations yes, must have been mad, they weren't compulsory reading for my course, but I used to be very interested in language theories I'm certainly not sure if I understood him right.

posted by Tom
Some have speculated that quantum theory might be a way of explaining consciousness but as far as I know that is just unfounded speculation.

Feynman once said that he believed the quantum theory would eventually explain cognition, the above idea might be related to that line of thinking. Consciousness research and technology has a looong way to go before it's feasible to test any such hypothesis - I can't view it as anything other than unfounded speculation either.

posted by Curdis:
My original entry into the debate was as a nay sayer because of my pet dislike of (mainly amatuer) philosophers getting involved in something which they have a limited (or no) actual knowledge of - Quantum Theory.

I understand your irritation Curdis, but don't you think a lot of people likes to get involved in the Quantum Theory without having much knowledge about it? Is your experience that this is a particular behaviour to amateur philosophers?

My experince is that ideas that have become popular and that holds elements that can easily lead to overattribution and excessive inclusion of what those ideas actually cover and what conclusion can be drawn from them. QT is only one of several such ideas that I frequently see used in the strangest contexts - I wasn't joking about the "Quantum management". And what about "You study the human brain? Hey, Heisenberg's uncertaintly principle holds that a system can't be studied from a viewpoint within the system, and since all humans have brains, we can't study ourselves". What a party But whereas I sometimes get irritated, not at people but usually at the media for presenting ideas the way they often do ("Brain transplantation performed by Swedish scientists!" "How to think with your right brain hemisphere!"), I also think it's healthy that concepts and ideas from different areas are applied to things they weren't originally meant for as part of the process to gain new knowledge and make use of interdisciplinary knowledge. Apart from popular speculation, I also think a theory that in some respect changes the way we view our present knowledge (like I believe QT did) is sort of bound to have resonanse far beyond it's own scope. However, I know little about QT, so my reasoning might not be applicable here.

[Curdis]

@der Moench, You have effectively defined philosophy as personality. As such what you argue makes sense and is perfectly valid. I think that there is a whole lot more to philosophy than personality or even personal philosophy.

@VoodooDali, Good links I particularily like Colorado University one becasue it supports many of my previous conjectures. BTW the position that nothing has any meaning sounds pretty existentialist to me, and the whole deconstructionalist thesis is linked to cultural relativism and contextualism. I especially like the fact that the definition of Post-Modernism given is so absurd (the analogy with stages in inductrial capitalism). If anyone can find a coherent definition of post-modernism (which more than one person has agreed to) I'd like to see it - although I do favour mine.

@C Elegans, I think we have a very similar view (Although I'll argue against Popper and falsification at parties (but only to psychology PhDs)).

@Tom

But the problem of free will is not one of them as any professional philosopher knows. Indeed one doen’t need to reflect long to see that the issue of randomness can’t influence free will in any way. Some have speculated that quantum theory might be a way of explaining consciousness but as far as I know that is just unfounded speculation.

It is apparent from the above that you have no intention of coherently entering this part of the debate, so why raise issues which you yourself label as unfounded speculation?

I don't understand this. Post-modernism is usually seen as a denial of modernism.

Oh really, I think VoodooDali's link (and C Elegans) express it diferently, but a coherent (agreed) definition of Post-Modern is going to be a bit harder to find.

No you are simply wrong again. The same specialisation has taken place in science and has contributed greatly to progress in both fields.

I really must take exception with this. 'I am simply wrong again' is just poking out your toungue and going naugh naugh naugh. BTW where was I wrong the first time? This is not discourse, this is ridicule.

I reiterate my invitation to take this to private mail. - Curdis !

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Curdis
@der Moench, You have effectively defined philosophy as personality. As such what you argue makes sense and is perfectly valid.

Funny you should say this, I thought of BF Skinners definition of psychology when I read Moech's text. Personally, I'd call this "personality" as well, but I see the point in calling this "personal philosophy" or such. I think this is what philosophy means to many people, and it taps Tom's definiton 1.

I think we have a very similar view (Although I'll argue against Popper and falsification at parties (but only to psychology PhDs)).

Lucky I'm in neuroscience nowadays, I only have an MSc in psychology (I have a double psych/neuro background, but I'm don't like to deal with psychology without a brain, so to speak.) So, how to do party-argue against the falsification theorem to psychology PhD:s?

I reiterate my invitation to take this to private mail.

Please gentlemen, I really hope you will continue this discussion in public, I think we are some people following it I certainly think there is no disrespect meant from any of you, but message boards is such a clumsly medium for discussion of serious topics, as we have seen previously here at SYM.

[Georgi]

For what it's worth...

Originally posted by Curdis:
If anyone can find a coherent definition of post-modernism (which more than one person has agreed to) I'd like to see it - although I do favour mine.

Not sure how useful it'll be, but this is taken from The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

postmodernism

In the culture generally, postmodernism is associated with a playful acceptance of surfaces and superficial, self-conscious quotation and parody (although these are also found in modernist literature, such as that of James Joyce), and a celebration of the ironic, the transient and the glitzy. It is usually seen as a reaction against a naive and earnest confidence in progress, and against confidence in objective or scientific truth. In philosophy, therefore, it implies a mistrust of the grands recits of modernity: the large-scale justifications of western society and confidence in its progress visible in Kant, Hegel, or Marx, or arising from utopian visions of perfection achieved through evolution, social improvement, education, or the deployment of science. In its post-structuralist aspects it includes a denial of any fixed meaning, or any correspondence between language and the world, or any fixed reality or truth or fact to be the object of inquiry.

The tendency was anticipated, and perhaps most brilliantly expressed, by Nietzsche, whose perspectivism is seen as a philosophical technique for dissolving the presumption that there can be objective knowledge. Objectivity is revealed as a disguise for power or authority in the academy, and often as the last fortress of white male privilege. Logical or rational thought is revealed as the imposition of suspect dichotomies on the flux of events. Postmodernists differ over the consequences of such discoveries, sharing the sceptic's old problem of how to think and act in the light of the doctrine. While the dismantling of objectivity seems to some to be the way towards a liberating political radicalism, to others it allows such unliberating views as the denial that there was (objectively) such an event as the Second World War or the Holocaust, and to others such as Rorty, it licenses the retreat to an aesthetic, ironic, detached and playful attitude to one's own beliefs and to the march of events. This retreat has been criticized as socially irresponsible (and in its upshot, highly conservative). The postmodernist frame of mind, charted, for example, in The Postmodern Condition, by Jean-Francois Lyotard, ay seem to depend on a cavalier dismissal of the success of science in generating human improvement, an exaggeration of the admitted fallibility of any attempt to gain knowledge in the humane disciplines, and an ignoring of the quite ordinary truth that while human history and law admit of no one final description, they certainly admit of more or less accurate ones, just as a landscape permits of no one unique map, yet there can be more or less accurate maps.

[C Elegans]

So what about a postmodernistic representation of the Quantum theory...