4 ms·

"Philosophy today, almost by definition, is the study of problems that have resisted all attempts at systematic understanding for two thousand years. It has no

"Philosophy today, almost by definition, is the study of problems that have resisted all attempts at systematic understanding for two thousand years. It has no wisdom for us. If you want wisdom, look to math and science." What do math and science study? What is the proper subject of chemistry or physics? That question such questions are not something math or science can answer. When you've got some knowledge (say from science), what do you do with it? That question, again, is not something science can answer. Which course of action is right or wrong? Again, science can not do otherwise than to be silent here. Mathematics is widely considered to be the foundation of and one of the most useful tools that science has, yet it itself is based largely (if not completely) on logic. Logic is part of philosophy. The foundation of mathematics (as distinct from logic) is also a branch of philosophy. If you look at the deepest, most critical questions that science tries to answer, at the core of them is often a philosophical question that at least up to now has been intractable to scientific study. I'm talking about things such as the nature of consciousness or the mind, deep questions in physics also blend almost seamlessly in to philosophy -- things such as the nature of time and causality. Now, it may be the case that at some point in the future science will have some convincing answers and explanations to these questions, but the belief that it will is a form of faith in science that is often termed scientism -- something which is distinct from science itself, and is not subject to scientific inquiry. Also, when you say that "If you want wisdom, look to math and science", do you know what you mean by the word "wisdom"? Are math and science sources of wisdom or merely of knowledge, and what's the difference? All philosophical questions. How about whether science helps us to get closer to truth? And what is truth anyway? Again, all philosophical questions which science can not answer. I would argue that the most important questions for most people are not scientific or mathematical questions, but philosophical ones -- such as: - "what should I do with my life?" - "what is the purpose of my life or of the world?" - "should I help someone in need or help myself?" - "what subject (including mathematical or scientific subject) should I study or work on?" - "who should live or die, be punished or rewarded?" - "how should we structure our society?" - "how should we as a society or as individuals spend our money?" Science can offer no tools to help us answer any of these most pressing and practical of questions. At best it can give us some indication of what has happened or would happen if we chose a certain course of action, but is silent on what we actually should do or what the purpose or meaning of anything is. Even the question of how science itself should be conducted is not open to scientific inquiry. Usually people answer these questions for themselves in some ad-hoc way, usually without recognizing that they are philosophical questions, and usually unconsciously adopting some many-hundred-year-old philosophical position which has be passed down to them through the culture around them by osmosis. If they studied, read and thought about these questions, they might actually make more informed decisions.

elefanten 6y ago
I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant questions... but neither, really, can philosophy. GP is fundamentally right that those questions have proven intractable to philosophy. Philosophy is a standing list of all the theses put forward as solutions to those questions. But even people who are fully engaged with, have a stake in and spend their whole lives wrestling with such questions can come to diametrically or orthogonally opposed answers. Shrug? Philosophy offers lots of frameworks, tools, prior art, etc. to tackle such questions with. But it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers. Science, while it has huge blindspots and terminal unanswered questions, can goddamn perform in the areas that are well-trodden.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "those questions have proven intractable to philosophy" There are plenty of philosophers (and non-philosophers) who've thought they did in fact answer such questions, so they would not agree with you that these questions have been intractable. What philosophy lacks is the broad consensus that science has, there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate. "it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers" If you agree with someone about the ground rules and assumptions, then you can judge and by some such standards there have been "objectively" provable answers and "progress". But is philosophy's function to find answers? Many would say that it's actually more about helping you to find questions. I've heard that in science finding the right questions is often the harder and more important thing than finding the answers, which are often a pretty straightforward process after you know the questions to ask. If philosophy can help to ask the right questions, then it can be useful even if it doesn't help you find answers that will convince everyone no matter what assumptions they have or are willing to grant. People involved in the sciences (and believers in scientific ideals) often pride themselves as being open to questioning everything, and greatly value such openness. First, this itself is a philosophical position, so if such a position is useful to science then philosophy is useful to science. Second, while such openness is often claimed as an ideal, in practice it's common for people involved in the sciences (and their fans) not to be so open after all. Philosophical training can help them to be more questioning and see their own assumptions where they might be blind to them otherwise. So this too makes philosophy useful to science (or at least the ideals of science that so many aspire to). Next, philosophy, like math, is useful for training the mind. You can become a more rigorous thinker by studying philosophy -- this I believe is one reason that people with a philosophy degree are the ones most commonly admitted to law school. Philosophy could also expand your mind or your horizons, and let you see things from another perspective that you otherwise might have been blind to. That's been one of its most valuable uses for me.

elefanten 6y ago

I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant questions... but neither, really, can philosophy. GP is fundamentally right that those questions have proven intractable to philosophy. Philosophy is a standing list of all the theses put forward as solutions to those questions. But even people who are fully engaged with, have a stake in and spend their whole lives wrestling with such questions can come to diametrically or orthogonally opposed answers. Shrug? Philosophy offers lots of frameworks, tools, prior art, etc. to tackle such questions with. But it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers. Science, while it has huge blindspots and terminal unanswered questions, can goddamn perform in the areas that are well-trodden.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"those questions have proven intractable to philosophy" There are plenty of philosophers (and non-philosophers) who've thought they did in fact answer such questions, so they would not agree with you that these questions have been intractable. What philosophy lacks is the broad consensus that science has, there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate. "it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers" If you agree with someone about the ground rules and assumptions, then you can judge and by some such standards there have been "objectively" provable answers and "progress". But is philosophy's function to find answers? Many would say that it's actually more about helping you to find questions. I've heard that in science finding the right questions is often the harder and more important thing than finding the answers, which are often a pretty straightforward process after you know the questions to ask. If philosophy can help to ask the right questions, then it can be useful even if it doesn't help you find answers that will convince everyone no matter what assumptions they have or are willing to grant. People involved in the sciences (and believers in scientific ideals) often pride themselves as being open to questioning everything, and greatly value such openness. First, this itself is a philosophical position, so if such a position is useful to science then philosophy is useful to science. Second, while such openness is often claimed as an ideal, in practice it's common for people involved in the sciences (and their fans) not to be so open after all. Philosophical training can help them to be more questioning and see their own assumptions where they might be blind to them otherwise. So this too makes philosophy useful to science (or at least the ideals of science that so many aspire to). Next, philosophy, like math, is useful for training the mind. You can become a more rigorous thinker by studying philosophy -- this I believe is one reason that people with a philosophy degree are the ones most commonly admitted to law school. Philosophy could also expand your mind or your horizons, and let you see things from another perspective that you otherwise might have been blind to. That's been one of its most valuable uses for me.