The Relevance of Philosophy

[Tom]

Originally posted by C Elegans

I didn't think postmodernism played a role in acedemic philosophy other than tangetial. So, what does postmodernism in philosophy deal with?

Its a bit messy. The people that talk about post-modernism very rarely come from philosophy but rather intellectuals from other fields such as litterature and sociology.
Basically I think post-modernism in its philosophical context is derived from a number of intuitions concerning anti-realism. Recently some intellectuals have taken their que from Rorty others from Wittgenstein.
The problem with what Rorty is argueing is that it seem to be self-refuting. Because he is making a global relativity claim his own statement comes under this relativity claim. But Rorty must want his claim to be more than relative - hence self-refuting.

The Wittgenstein claims are a lot harder to evaluate. Wittgenstein discovered a problem in the philosophy of language that we today call the rule-following paradox. This problem is complex and difficult to understand and the proposed solutions more so. The rule-following paradox seem to deny the possibility of any expression having a meaning. Now, it is clear that this is self-refuting - but that of course doesn’t solve the paradox it just makes it more urgent.
Some philosophers have argued that it might be possible to salvage the notion of meaning by making it radically anti-realist (note that if you make the notion of meaning anti-realist you necessarily make the notion of truth anti-realist too).
Two of the anti-realist solutions that have been put forward are radical conventionalism and global expresivism. But most philosophers find that these solutions have irrefutable logical problems and are not adequate to solve the problem anyway. The problem is still hotly debated and there is no consensus what-so-ever on a solution.

I realise that it is unlikely that any one will understand the above - since the problem is usually only taught in any detail to 3rd years and postgrads. But it is just to give an idea of the nature of the problem.

Recently I have heard certain intellectuals try to bolster up their claims by referring to the above discussion - this I think is based on misunderstandings.

Originally posted by C Elegans

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.

I take a rather dim view of existentialism but the fact is I don't know nearly enough about it to say that nothing fruitful can be taken from it.

Originally posted by C Elegans

I can't really see how we would be totally independant of all philosophy.

Maybe you need some philosophical presuppositions but you don't need the subject of philosophy to have those.

Originally posted by C Elegans

Wittgenstein: @Curdis: LOL @Tom: What would you say is the most important problem Wittgenstein pointed out?

Certainly the problem I mentioned above is very important but Wittgenstein was a great philosopher and active in a number fields.

Originally posted by C Elegans

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.

Very brave of you - and if you got from cover to cover you must have quite a stamina. But if you have an interest in the subject there are better places to start.

Originally posted by C Elegans

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.

As I am sure you know there is great philosophical interest in consciousness and there have been a number of attempts to understand how such a thing as consciousness can occur - I didn't know Feynman had opinion on consciousness. Did you see by the way that Roger Penrose put out a theory on the subject?

Originally posted by Curdis

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 am sorry that you take exception to what I said but I can assure you I did not mean any form of ridicule.

You said that "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."

I replied that" The same specialisation has taken place in science and has contributed greatly to progress in both fields".

I think that what progress there have been in philosophy could not have taken place to the same degree if there had not been specialisation.

Therefore I must respectfully maintain that you are wrong.

I got the impression that there have been a bit of gentle teasing from both sides in this discussion - I regret if you took offence to anything I have said.

[der Moench]

OK, like I said, I kinda wanted to just drop my two cents on the counter and walk, but I suppose some further explanation is in order. Curdis replied to my post with:

Originally posted by 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.

And, CE backs up this with:

Originally posted by C Elegans
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.

@Curdis: A couple of points about your statement. Saying that “[you] think that there is a whole lot more to philosophy than personality or even personal philosophy” is, IMHO, impossible given the definition that I have given “philosophy.” Really, the way I have defined the term, all human thought (and consequent action) are “philosophical”. Now, that simply points out that I need to qualify and quantify my terms a bit.

Yes, there is a “science” of philosophy. And, though others break it up differently, I define five inherent parts to the study: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. And philosophers have the responsibility of thinking deeply about these fields, and defining, and theorizing, and discussing, etc, ad nauseum. But therein, IMHO, lies the rub – because looking at philosophy in this manner makes it academic and esoteric beyond the interest or understanding of the “common man.” And that in my view is dangerous. Just think of what an average joe (not meaning our fellow board member) would think as he read through a thread such as this one. He would be baffled and intimidated. That, IMO, is highly dangerous. (But that is worth another thread.)

What I was attempting to point out in my post is that everybody has implicit or explicit ideas on all the five branches of philosophy that I have named above. These constitute a philosophy for each individual. My main intent for framing the terms as I have done is to make this point (which is the subject of this thread BTW): philosophy is of primary importance to us all. It is not something that only people with PhDs can or should know about. It is not useless nor academic. It is what makes individual histories, and it is what drives the history of the human race.

@CE: do you remember a discussion we had on the subject of “spirituality?” We ran in circles there a bit, too, and I think you will see with my most recent post how it was that that discussion on “spirituality” eventually came around to “philosophy.”

Anyway, y’all can carry on with your discussion of “post-modernism” and what-not now. (You can probably guess my opinion of that philosophy … ) See you in the ivory tower.

[VoodooDali]

But what is Post-Post Modernism???

@Curdis, Georgi, CE, Tom

Georgi, thanks for that additional description of post-modernism. Since post-modernism crosses so many different disciplines, I think that you'd have to read many explanations before a coherent whole of just *what* it is could form in your brain.

Tom--you mention that "the people that talk about post-modernism rarely come from philosophy." I beg to differ. What about Jacques Derrida & Deconstruction, which has played such a large role in post-modernism (although the goals of the two are somewhat different)?

For those of you who don't know what I mean--a short explanation:
Deconstruction is a method of analysis primarily associated with literary criticism that was first postulated in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (b. 1930). Through his writings, he argued that by analysing or "deconstructing" the logic of Western metaphysics, its underlying biases could be uncovered. Deconstruction was also used to demonstrate that because a creative work is subject to different interpretations, its content is ultimately ambiguous, which in turn undermines its logic. By deconstructing the formal language of the Modern Movement, its multiplicity of meanings and biases were revealed, which resulted in the questioning of its philosophical foundations. During the 1970s, Derrida's ideas were translated and transformed into a style of architecture and design — Deconstructivism.

It seems to me that Derrida directly influenced architecture, which in turn influenced art. I remember that when I first heard the word "Post-Modern" being tossed around--it was in the early 80's and was usually used in the same sentences with "Deconstruction" and Derrida.

Also, I think that philosopher's like Kuhn and Foucault were very influential.

Another interesting sidebar: I was thinking about how some of the articles I've read talk about how things like relativity or evolution upset people's world-view. But it seems to me that the theory of cultural relativism developed by people like Malinowski, Benedict, Boas, Mead, et al., shook up the world order just as much.

BTW, so any ideas on what Post-Post Modernism is?

[Curdis]

O.K. by popular request

I'm going to make some quick and dirty observations.

1. It would appear that Post-Modernism is a 'school' of philosophy(Thanks @Georgi).

2. It would appear (based on the two external definitions so far quoted) that there is no coherent agreed definition (although the Oxford one is at least usable to some extent).

3. It would appear that 'unrealism=existentialism' (as it has appeared in two external references - cited for other reasons) is alive and well and regularily encountered in philosophical literature.

4. It would appear that 'contextualism=cultural relativism=relativism' is similarily alive and well.

I make the above points because they have all been hotly disputed and I have not had the time or motivation to go and find 'proof'.

@der Moench, I agreed with you and by your definition this is the case. I too see that 'academising' philosophy is not a good thing (My comment to @Tom about this thread turning people off academic philosophy).

Some academic points: Unfortunately it is not 'impossible' for me to say what I have, because I did. It may be illogical, ill advised.. but it clearly wasn't 'impossible'.

How do you propose to further your cult of personality and have it usurp the 'evil empire of ivory towers'?

@Tom, I have tried to keep this discourse within some boundaries to assist us all in managing it and our responses.

Putting a smiley after something which could cause offence means that you have recognised that what you have written is likely to cause offence. Redraft, I do.

O.K. to point out why I think what I said (to someone else as part of a different discourse) is not wrong.

I said '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."

You replied that" The same specialisation has taken place in science and has contributed greatly to progress in both fields".
You then clarified with "I think that what progress there have been in philosophy could not have taken place to the same degree if there had not been specialisation. Therefore I must respectfully maintain that you are wrong."

In my original statement I mentioned fragmentation you have not addressed this issue. Is it not true (wrong), not relevent? Your arguement subsists upon:

1/ It being accepted that there has been progress in science due to specialisation. I agree there has been progress in science, but if ANY discipline got most significant advancement in the last centery it would have to be science. Whether this has been DUE to specialisation I'm not so sure, although the two have certainly been developing (Science and specialisation in science) together.

2/ that somehow (not made clear or supported in your rebuttal) Science and Philosophy are intimately linked (In fact taken at face value you are claiming they are parallel - 'the same specialisation'). And because science has advanced greatly therefore so has philosophy. I say that this claim is actually unsupportable and if you had thought more closely about it you would not have proposed it in your rebuttal.

Your clarification removes reference to Science so your claim becomes that due to specialisation in philosophy there has been great advance made in philosophy generally.

That this clearly negates my claim (that there has been little advance in philosophy taken as whole, over the last 102 years, and compared to the previous history of philosophy, due to fragmentation and specialisation) and makes it wrong is hardly certain from your arguement. In fact your arguement would appear to be there has been great advance in philosophy taken...philosophy due to specialisation.

Or simply the negation of part of my assertion. (NOT little advance due to specialisation).

You would have to admit it would be childish of me to now argue 'NOT NOT little advance due to specialisation', but by your standards this would now make me Right, AGAIN.

I am not a 'professional philosopher' but this is not a relevent scale of judgement. There are plenty of published philosophers who would not claim to be professional, and it is besides the point (as well as a considerable slight to those who fit this category).

I said I would engage in proper philosophical discourse with you and have made every effort to accommodate your wishes. Lets get down to it. Clarifying my original statement.

Limiting, as is necessary, to Western Philosophy. In the last 102 years there have been significant advances in specialised areas of philosophy, in fact several new 'schools' have been founded. There has however been a greater level of disengagement by other disciplines and the public generally than in previous times starting with the Victorian era. Popularily the 'cogito'(DeCartes) is so well known due to its study by all those who professed to have an education up to approximately the end of this era. Leaving aside the issue of the relative contribution of the ancient greeks (not ancient geeks that's me), what popularily known issue in philosophy of a like nature has been made known in the last 102 years? I can think of none. To me this is reasonably clear evidence that philosophy is not considered as important by the public and a brief survey of modern acedemic philosophy shows that there are any number of camps who consider each other fringe to mainstream philosophy (what ever that may be). It is my contention that this, perhaps, percieved lack of cohesion has hastened the development of specialist streams in philosophical discourse and rendered the mainstream to obscurity.

[C Elegans]

Thanks Tom and Curdis for continuing this discussion in the thread

@Curdis: I hope you noticed the cartoon I posted especially for you

[Curdis]

Thank You

@C Elegans, yes I did notice, thank you very much I wasn't sure I could cite it as a reference though . This discoursing does take it out of one and any light relief is very welcome (Might I refer you to 'a little History lesson for the wee ones?' which is much more my style of debate). I only continue in this thread because others have expressed interest. - Curdis

[Tom]

Originally posted by der Moench

Yes, there is a "science" of philosophy. And, though others break it up differently, I define five inherent parts to the study: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. And philosophers have the responsibility of thinking deeply about these fields, and defining, and theorizing, and discussing, etc, ad nauseum. But therein, IMHO, lies the rub – because looking at philosophy in this manner makes it academic and esoteric beyond the interest or understanding of the "common man." And that in my view is dangerous. Just think of what an average joe (not meaning our fellow board member) would think as he read through a thread such as this one. He would be baffled and intimidated. That, IMO, is highly dangerous. (But that is worth another thread.)

This will have to be quick. To say that there is a science of philosophy is misleading. When you do philosophy you try to solve (and sometimes you discover) philosophical problems. The problems fall into different categorise depending on what the problem concerns. So for example the problem of universals concerns whether and in what sense universals exist. The important word here is 'exist' and that is why it is classified under metaphysics (or ontology). You could probably classify the problems in a different way but the problems would remain the same so very little would change.

Originally posted by VoodooDali

Tom--you mention that "the people that talk about post-modernism rarely come from philosophy." I beg to differ. What about Jacques Derrida & Deconstruction, which has played such a large role in post-modernism (although the goals of the two are somewhat different)?

True. A number of mostly French philosophers have flirted with this kind of thing. I was thinking about philosophers in the anglo-american tradition.

Originally posted by VoodooDali

BTW, so any ideas on what Post-Post Modernism is?

With all the discussion in this thread and the links to reference works I think all the information is there.

Originally posted by Curdis

1. It would appear that Post-Modernism is a 'school' of philosophy(Thanks @Georgi).

I think that is probably a good way of putting it. Provided you add misguided.

Originally posted by Curdis

2. It would appear (based on the two external definitions so far quoted) that there is no coherent agreed definition (although the Oxford one is at least usable to some extent).

yes I think that is part of the reason why most philosophers simply just ignore it. Its a muddle.

Originally posted by Curdis

3. It would appear that 'unrealism=existentialism'.

I don't think this is correct.

Originally posted by Curdis

I said '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."

You replied that" The same specialisation has taken place in science and has contributed greatly to progress in both fields".
You then clarified with "I think that what progress there have been in philosophy could not have taken place to the same degree if there had not been specialisation. Therefore I must respectfully maintain that you are wrong."

In my original statement I mentioned fragmentation you have not addressed this issue. Is it not true (wrong), not relevent? Your arguement subsists upon:

I think actually that if we look at the western tradition of philosophy there is a large degree of cohesion - I also think that the progress in philosophy have taken place almost exclusively in the western tradition. That of course doesn't stop philosophers in that tradition disagreeing on just about every subject under the sun.

Originally posted by Curdis

1/ It being accepted that there has been progress in science due to specialisation. I agree there has been progress in science, but if ANY discipline got most significant advancement in the last centery it would have to be science. Whether this has been DUE to specialisation I'm not so sure, although the two have certainly been developing (Science and specialisation in science) together.

I think that the specialisation that have taken place in both philosophy and science have taken place naturally because of the developing complexity of the subjects. But lets imagine that there had been an agreement in academic philosophy that all philosophers should deal with all areas of philosophy and not focus their energies on a couple of areas. Such a scenario is of course highly implausible but if there had been such an agreement it would undoubtedly have impeded progress.

Originally posted by Curdis

2/ that somehow (not made clear or supported in your rebuttal) Science and Philosophy are intimately linked (In fact taken at face value you are claiming they are parallel - 'the same specialisation'). And because science has advanced greatly therefore so has philosophy. I say that this claim is actually unsupportable and if you had thought more closely about it you would not have proposed it in your rebuttal.

I presuppose or say no such thing. I think that philosophy and science are fundamentally different. But if you claim that specialisation somehow blocked progress in philosophy but haven’t blocked progress in science then the onus is on you, not me, to show that the subject of philosophy is somehow incompatible with specialisation.

Originally posted by Curdis

Your clarification removes reference to Science so your claim becomes that due to specialisation in philosophy there has been great advance made in philosophy generally.

Let me clarify again. If for some reason there had not been greater specialisation in philosophy this would have slowed down progress.

Originally posted by Curdis

Limiting, as is necessary, to Western Philosophy. In the last 102 years there have been significant advances in specialised areas of philosophy, in fact several new 'schools' have been founded. There has however been a greater level of disengagement by other disciplines and the public generally than in previous times starting with the Victorian era. Popularily the 'cogito'(DeCartes) is so well known due to its study by all those who professed to have an education up to approximately the end of this era. Leaving aside the issue of the relative contribution of the ancient greeks (not ancient geeks that's me), what popularily known issue in philosophy of a like nature has been made known in the last 102 years? I can think of none. To me this is reasonably clear evidence that philosophy is not considered as important by the public and a brief survey of modern acedemic philosophy shows that there are any number of camps who consider each other fringe to mainstream philosophy (what ever that may be). It is my contention that this, perhaps, percieved lack of cohesion has hastened the development of specialist streams in philosophical discourse and rendered the mainstream to obscurity.

I can I think agree with a lot of what you say here. Shock

The public sees philosophy as obscure and they are absolutely right that parts of philosophy are obscure. Further more some of the areas are not really important. I mean cancer research vs. Philosophy of language?! Two areas I do think are important is political philosophy and ethics. It would be wrong too ignore discussion in these areas. Actually I think it should be taught in school.

Allright I'm ready to let you have the last word. Lets agree to disagree - we have made our points.

Now that was quick

[Curdis]

@Tom, I'm not shocked it has been my experience that once proper discourse has been commenced progress towards concensus begins. It is sometimes surprising how quickly a resolution is made.

Tinkering amongst the process however:

3. It would appear that 'unrealism=existentialism'.

You have quoted me out of context and foreshortened my statement without due indication. I headed this with 'quick and dirty' and it is certainly arguable that unrealism=existenialism is false but in the context of still being in use (both of them) and them sharing the same characteristic of 'there is no meaning', it is fair enough. As you have noted however there is no quick in philosophy.

Tom wrote
I presuppose or say no such thing. I think that philosophy and science are fundamentally different. But if you claim that specialisation somehow blocked progress in philosophy but haven’t blocked progress in science then the onus
is on you, not me, to show that the subject of philosophy is somehow incompatible with specialisation.

Your original rebuttal was " The same specialisation has taken place in science and has contributed greatly to progress in both fields". I pointed out, with suitable qualifiers that I was not getting your meaning, that you could be seen to be argueing that science and philosophy shared great advances because they had shared specialisations. Even aside from any judgement about specialisation leading to, rather than inhibiting, advancement, 'coat tailing' onto science in the last 102 years where the scale of advancement has been so unprecedentedly enormonous is not probably warranted.

However to your point "..the onus is on you, not me, to show that the subject of philosophy is somehow incompatible with specialisation." Taken out of context (as above) I agree with you but I was merely stating a position which I am (was) quite prepared to argue to. In context however I contend that what you state is impossible. How can the onus have been on me to show something which you raise in a rebuttal (specialisation in science)? It is perfectly proper to say 'what do you say to this issue because I feel that your position requires you address it'. As you must understand clarity is very important.

So to the issue 'That specialisation in philosophy has lead to great progress.' I cede this point conditionally.

1/ I'm unsure as to whether specialisation leads to progress (in any field) or progress leads to specialisation, or if it is a concurrent development. It is however correct to assume that not specialising would generally accompany a lower rate of progress.

2/ The addition of 'great' to this proposition is also problematic. As I assert in 1.: Without seeing some evidence of a mechanism (or proposed mechanism {whereby specialisation leads inevitably to progress}) the bald assertion that specialisation leads to great progress is not (I feel) supportable.

So to recap. The basic statement of a proposition in philosophy can mean that one has to qualify or define every issue/meaning/subject/context to prevent confusion/misunderstanding.

Compare - '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." (That contains a propostion {NOT specialisation in philosophy has lead to great progress} that I should not have included because it is not clear or easily supportable. Among its many other faults.)

to

"Limiting, as is necessary, to Western Philosophy. In the last 102 years there have been significant advances in specialised areas of philosophy, in fact several new 'schools' have been founded. There has however been a greater level of disengagement by other disciplines and the public generally than in previous times starting with the Victorian era. Popularily the 'cogito'(DeCartes) is so well known due to its study by all those who professed to have an education up to approximately the end of this era. Leaving aside the issue of the relative contribution of the ancient greeks (not ancient geeks that's me), what popularily known issue in philosophy of a like nature has been made known in the last 102 years? I can think of none. To me this is reasonably clear evidence that philosophy is not considered as important by the public and a brief survey of modern acedemic philosophy shows that there are any number of camps who consider each other fringe to mainstream philosophy (what ever that may be). It is my contention that this, perhaps, percieved lack of cohesion has hastened the development of specialist streams in philosophical discourse and rendered the mainstream to obscurity."



I would like clarity of thought to play a greater role in our world but I see little prospect for it. From the above it can be seen that the process of discourse is long and to some extent tedious. Without disputation little progress towards useful meanings could be made and the preceding discourse (including my hissy fits and drama queening - which I can assure you all were fully justified, yadda, yadda) is an example.

Placing intellectual rigour into ethics is like sending a rabbit into a minefield, the ethical issues surrounding wealth, genetics, and health care are truly astonishing and the consequences of there being no strong intervention are also stark, still no less than the valuation of environmental factors in economics. There is no existing mechanism (well maybe democracy?) to give the intellectual any weight over the economic, religious.. and whether there should be such a mechanism at all is yet another ethical issue.

In the last two paras I have given us about twenty five years of solid discourse, please don't take me up on this.

Select a single topic for our further debate.

Post-post-modernism?

Modernism - Our brains can provide all the technology and stuff that we can ever need.

Post-Modernism - Our brains recognise that technology is BAD and we need no STUFF so there really isn't any point in considering Technology and STUFF (precised as the STUFF all position).

Post-Post-Modernism - Don't touch me. I'm super important (precised as the my cornflakes are smarter than you position). - Curdis !