5 ms·

> To me, the point of philosophy is to examine those aspects of existence that cannot be examined by other sciences, especially because the measurement or exper

> To me, the point of philosophy is to examine those aspects of existence that cannot be examined by other sciences, especially because the measurement or experimental methods or the resources to do so do not (yet) exist. Not at all. Philosophy is about fundamental questions that fall outside the scope of the set of questions that can be settled by empirical validation. For example: "what is science?", "how can we know something?", "what does it mean for something to exist?", "why is there something rather than nothing?", "what is good and evil?", etc. One important branch of philosophy is that of epistemology, concerned with the nature and acquisition of knowledge itself. You expressed two rather extreme epistemological views (extreme in relation to the positions of most non-naive philosophers on these topics): -> That one can only judge knowledge on the basis of its applications; -> That given good enough instruments and enough resources, science could answer all questions worth being asked. Maybe the example questions above can convince you to think deeper about these positions.

Koshkin 8y ago
> "how can we know something?", "what does it mean for something to exist?", "why is there something rather than nothing?", "what is good and evil?" These all are perfectly valid questions, and they deserve answers which are based on rigorous science. Philosophical discourse is just the first step in trying to find these answers or to establish the scientific framework (a model) that would allow to discover them in a completely rational way.
- CM30 8y ago
  I strongly doubt we'll find scientific answers to moral questions anytime soon. The answer to 'what's right' likely doesn't exist in nature outside of human civilisation and social standards, and going from 'this is true' to 'this is right' is not an easy jump to make. (It's also one that would theoretically obsolete the field of politics if it was ever answered scientifically).
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    The answers to moral questions ("what is right") are found at the intersection of sociology, psychology, and biology - which are all very well established sciences.
    - wsy 8y ago
      They can't because they are empirical sciences. They only can find out facts about the world. Philosophy has already shown that moral is not derivable from facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem.
      - Koshkin 8y ago
        To be clear, I wasn't talking about creating "optimal" moral imperatives (which is impossible and even meaningless), only about finding out why they are the way they are in a particular social group, how they have evolved, etc.
        CM30 8y ago
        That's all very well and good, but it's not really what moral philosophy/ethics is trying to solve. It's about what is right and how society should work, and whether the right thing is say, what brings the most happiness/utility or what's someone's duty as a good person or what not. No, those are not meaningless goals, since they kind of determine how society works/should work, and are often the basis of fair political and legal systems. Here's how it worked in the past doesn't justify it working the same way now, and cultures throughout history have done all sorts of questionable things on the assumption they were in the right. It's the job of moral philosophers to figure out how to move forward from this, figure out what's right for society and go beyond tribalism and instinct.
        Koshkin 8y ago
        It is indeed meaningless and impossible, because, on the one hand, the spectrum of choices is too large and fuzzy, and, on the other hand, "happiness" cannot be universal, because the interest are naturally in contradiction with one another, so the reason one is happy can make another sad. Which is why we have dura lex for morals. And which is why, for example, a "just" war can be "immoral" or even "criminal" at the same time. The popular saying "No good deed goes unpunished" is an expression of the deep distrust towards any attempts to derive morals from some abstract "first principles."

Koshkin 8y ago

> "how can we know something?", "what does it mean for something to exist?", "why is there something rather than nothing?", "what is good and evil?" These all are perfectly valid questions, and they deserve answers which are based on rigorous science. Philosophical discourse is just the first step in trying to find these answers or to establish the scientific framework (a model) that would allow to discover them in a completely rational way.

CM30 8y ago
I strongly doubt we'll find scientific answers to moral questions anytime soon. The answer to 'what's right' likely doesn't exist in nature outside of human civilisation and social standards, and going from 'this is true' to 'this is right' is not an easy jump to make. (It's also one that would theoretically obsolete the field of politics if it was ever answered scientifically).
- Koshkin 8y ago
  The answers to moral questions ("what is right") are found at the intersection of sociology, psychology, and biology - which are all very well established sciences.
  - wsy 8y ago
    They can't because they are empirical sciences. They only can find out facts about the world. Philosophy has already shown that moral is not derivable from facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem.
    - Koshkin 8y ago
      To be clear, I wasn't talking about creating "optimal" moral imperatives (which is impossible and even meaningless), only about finding out why they are the way they are in a particular social group, how they have evolved, etc.
      - CM30 8y ago
        That's all very well and good, but it's not really what moral philosophy/ethics is trying to solve. It's about what is right and how society should work, and whether the right thing is say, what brings the most happiness/utility or what's someone's duty as a good person or what not. No, those are not meaningless goals, since they kind of determine how society works/should work, and are often the basis of fair political and legal systems. Here's how it worked in the past doesn't justify it working the same way now, and cultures throughout history have done all sorts of questionable things on the assumption they were in the right. It's the job of moral philosophers to figure out how to move forward from this, figure out what's right for society and go beyond tribalism and instinct.
        Koshkin 8y ago
        It is indeed meaningless and impossible, because, on the one hand, the spectrum of choices is too large and fuzzy, and, on the other hand, "happiness" cannot be universal, because the interest are naturally in contradiction with one another, so the reason one is happy can make another sad. Which is why we have dura lex for morals. And which is why, for example, a "just" war can be "immoral" or even "criminal" at the same time. The popular saying "No good deed goes unpunished" is an expression of the deep distrust towards any attempts to derive morals from some abstract "first principles."