5 ms·

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumpti

by unalone 17y ago

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts and thoughts were only worth consuming if you first assume that we're living on a gigantic turtle. Preposterous. I like religion-as-sociology, however, and there's where the "evolution of God" concept is most fascinating. If you haven't read Douglas Adams's speech "Is There An Artificial God?", it's worth the read. Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time. And bullets bounce off of Superman because he's from Krypton.

amichail 17y ago
What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?
- khafra 17y ago
  Philosophy is sometimes considered the parent of the sciences--just about every pursuit of knowledge used to be philosophy. Once they were systematized, testable, and useful enough to stand on their own, they became sciences.
  - amichail 17y ago
    That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.
    - khafra 17y ago
      I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Suppose you discover that you can get nasty illnesses from being exposed to other peoples germs which are spread in their bodily emissions, indeed some of those illnesses can kill. You then have kids. Do you defend that truth by instructing them to wash their hands, cover their mouths when they cough, avoid contact with faeces, etc., to stop germs spreading? Or, do you have to wait until that child is old enough to discover germs for themselves? The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry as Christians believe that knowing more about the created enables us to know more about the creator.
        khafra 17y ago
        E pur si muove.
        pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Galileo was educated in part in a monastery and at the Uni of Pisa (founded by a pope). He was sponsored by the Church to do his studies; when he wished to publish his pamphlet the authorities urged caution and refused to state outright that heliocentrism were true wishing instead to gather more evidence. Galileo went ahead pissed off the papacy and was censured. Indeed if we consider Einsteins relativity then we might argue that the anti's were right to hold reservations as without an ether it is no more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun than it is to say the Earth is static. I doubt they had this in mind though.
        danek 17y ago
        >> The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry lol
        pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Many universities (in Europe) grew out of monastic study and mediaeval universities were founded both by the wealth of princes and by papal bull. Individual scientists, Roger Bacon say, were provided a living by the church others, Copernicus springs to mind, were sponsored in their studies by particular bishops or similar Church luminaries. The Catholic Church still operates at least one observatory which has been going since the 16 Century. As highlighted in the Merton-Weber thesis scientific enquiry in the 17, 18 Century appears to have been pushed on by Protestant philosophy.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/dp/0262540673/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200063500&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d... The study of philosophy for most undergraduates taking a few classes can be thought of as the history of human thought.
  - amichail 17y ago
    The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?
    - foldr 17y ago
      >The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?" I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training. It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining. The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      What is scientific training? Logic & Mathematics? I was having a discussion in another thread about the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, and despite decades of trying the only definition is that works is consensus of other scientists. Most scientists believe physics is science while astrology is not. I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.
- fnid 17y ago
  I would say Questions are the greatest accomplishments of philosophy. There are many questions out there, the meaning of life, where we came from, what happens when we die. These are philosophical questions in origin. Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    And when we show there is no rational answer that is discoverable ...
    - foldr 17y ago
      To which questions?
    - unalone 17y ago
      I know, right? Like when we know there was no rational answer for the weather so we said gods did it. Silly scientists not realizing we haven't learned anything in the last five thousand years. They refuse to admit that it's impossible to find new answers to questions.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        I was thinking more about application of Godels Incompleteness Theorem or the Church-Turing Hypothesis or even to take a more basic consideration Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Based on the standard scientific and logical axioms the cause of the progression of weather is quite discoverable except that the chaotic nature makes it practically (at present at least) unpredictable. Perhaps you believe the world is entirely Newtonian?? I await your answer with baited breath.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer. I think that's a little harsh on philosophy. Scientists don't have a monopoly on rationality. There are many areas of philosophy (e.g. moral philosophy) where scientific methods are far from sufficient (though useful), but where we still benefit from clear and rational thinking.
- foldr 17y ago
  Ok, before answering that question, I'd like to ask you the following question: How much philosophy have you read? If the answer is "none" or "very little", don't ask people here what the accomplishments of philosophy are, but go and actually _read some_ and find out for yourself.
- unalone 17y ago
  Logic came originally from philosophy. Your question's like asking why we ever bothered with the Model T when Porsche is such a better vehicle. Modern philosophy is important because it targets common assumptions and attempts to debate and verify them. The whole point of common assumption is that if you believe something that's wrong, you don't necessarily realize it without a lot of work. Philosophy attempts to shine light in those unknown recesses. But "accomplishments"? I'd say the biggest casual accomplishment is that it serves as a great topic of discussion for people, gets people thinking together, and as a result brings them closer together. Might as well ask what accomplishments Shakespeare gave us, or Hitchcock. Not everything can be verified with an award and a metric.
isamuel 17y ago
I agree with the thrust of what you write. But this is wrong: "Philosophy requires no 'givens', which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it." In 1748, David Hume explained why this isn't right. Hume was a philosopher himself. The most important assumption that you must make in the natural sciences and in every brand of philosophy with which I'm familiar is causality. Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ for more.
- unalone 17y ago
  Huh! I guess that shows me to be the philosophical amateur I am. I always assume causality without thinking about it. Whoops.
foldr 17y ago
>Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God That's just not true. There's plenty of theology which you can enter into without a prior assumption of the existence of god. The most obvious example would be arguments _for_ the existence of God! But in general, most of theology can be appreciated while taking God's existence as a hypothetical. E.g. you can consider whether or not the existence of evil is compatible with the presence of an omnipotent and wholly good God. (And indeed, theologians spend a lot of time considering arguments _against_ God's existence based on the existence of evil, and these arguments clearly cannot presuppose his existence.) By the way, have you ever read any theology?
- unalone 17y ago
  I have. I took a course on religion last semester. Generally, I agreed with and loved the various sociological theories—the things that tried to explain the psychological origins of religion, for instance, were fascinating. But past a certain point, I find that I lose interest. I can't entertain a debate over whether evil could exist under a good God, because I don't believe in God or in evil.
  - foldr 17y ago
    If you don't find it interesting then you don't find it interesting, but that's quite a retreat from what you were claiming in your initial comment. >because I don't believe in God or in evil. You don't believe that evil things happen?
    - unalone 17y ago
      I believe that calling something evil is gross oversimplifation. Terrible things happen. Evil has overtones that I disagree with, if that makes sense.
      - foldr 17y ago
        It makes a little bit of sense, but I don't see how it's relevant to the problem of evil. You can pose the problem with pretty much whatever notion of evil you like: "If there is a good, omnipotent God, why do terrible things happen?"
fnid 17y ago
I suspect you knew this, but many religions suggest we actually are living on the back of a gigantic turtle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture#Turtles_in_religion_and_mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popula...
- unalone 17y ago
  That's what I was alluding to. That and the Turtles All The Way Down story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

by unalone 17y ago

amichail 17y ago

What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?

khafra 17y ago
Philosophy is sometimes considered the parent of the sciences--just about every pursuit of knowledge used to be philosophy. Once they were systematized, testable, and useful enough to stand on their own, they became sciences.
- amichail 17y ago
  That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.
  - khafra 17y ago
    I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      Suppose you discover that you can get nasty illnesses from being exposed to other peoples germs which are spread in their bodily emissions, indeed some of those illnesses can kill. You then have kids. Do you defend that truth by instructing them to wash their hands, cover their mouths when they cough, avoid contact with faeces, etc., to stop germs spreading? Or, do you have to wait until that child is old enough to discover germs for themselves? The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry as Christians believe that knowing more about the created enables us to know more about the creator.
      - khafra 17y ago
        E pur si muove.
        pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Galileo was educated in part in a monastery and at the Uni of Pisa (founded by a pope). He was sponsored by the Church to do his studies; when he wished to publish his pamphlet the authorities urged caution and refused to state outright that heliocentrism were true wishing instead to gather more evidence. Galileo went ahead pissed off the papacy and was censured. Indeed if we consider Einsteins relativity then we might argue that the anti's were right to hold reservations as without an ether it is no more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun than it is to say the Earth is static. I doubt they had this in mind though.
      - danek 17y ago
        >> The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry lol
        pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Many universities (in Europe) grew out of monastic study and mediaeval universities were founded both by the wealth of princes and by papal bull. Individual scientists, Roger Bacon say, were provided a living by the church others, Copernicus springs to mind, were sponsored in their studies by particular bishops or similar Church luminaries. The Catholic Church still operates at least one observatory which has been going since the 16 Century. As highlighted in the Merton-Weber thesis scientific enquiry in the 17, 18 Century appears to have been pushed on by Protestant philosophy.
dantheman 17y ago
Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/dp/0262540673/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200063500&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d... The study of philosophy for most undergraduates taking a few classes can be thought of as the history of human thought.
- amichail 17y ago
  The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?
  - foldr 17y ago
    >The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?" I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training. It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining. The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    What is scientific training? Logic & Mathematics? I was having a discussion in another thread about the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, and despite decades of trying the only definition is that works is consensus of other scientists. Most scientists believe physics is science while astrology is not. I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.
fnid 17y ago
I would say Questions are the greatest accomplishments of philosophy. There are many questions out there, the meaning of life, where we came from, what happens when we die. These are philosophical questions in origin. Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  And when we show there is no rational answer that is discoverable ...
  - foldr 17y ago
    To which questions?
  - unalone 17y ago
    I know, right? Like when we know there was no rational answer for the weather so we said gods did it. Silly scientists not realizing we haven't learned anything in the last five thousand years. They refuse to admit that it's impossible to find new answers to questions.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      I was thinking more about application of Godels Incompleteness Theorem or the Church-Turing Hypothesis or even to take a more basic consideration Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Based on the standard scientific and logical axioms the cause of the progression of weather is quite discoverable except that the chaotic nature makes it practically (at present at least) unpredictable. Perhaps you believe the world is entirely Newtonian?? I await your answer with baited breath.
- foldr 17y ago
  >Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer. I think that's a little harsh on philosophy. Scientists don't have a monopoly on rationality. There are many areas of philosophy (e.g. moral philosophy) where scientific methods are far from sufficient (though useful), but where we still benefit from clear and rational thinking.
foldr 17y ago
Ok, before answering that question, I'd like to ask you the following question: How much philosophy have you read? If the answer is "none" or "very little", don't ask people here what the accomplishments of philosophy are, but go and actually _read some_ and find out for yourself.
unalone 17y ago
Logic came originally from philosophy. Your question's like asking why we ever bothered with the Model T when Porsche is such a better vehicle. Modern philosophy is important because it targets common assumptions and attempts to debate and verify them. The whole point of common assumption is that if you believe something that's wrong, you don't necessarily realize it without a lot of work. Philosophy attempts to shine light in those unknown recesses. But "accomplishments"? I'd say the biggest casual accomplishment is that it serves as a great topic of discussion for people, gets people thinking together, and as a result brings them closer together. Might as well ask what accomplishments Shakespeare gave us, or Hitchcock. Not everything can be verified with an award and a metric.

isamuel 17y ago

I agree with the thrust of what you write. But this is wrong: "Philosophy requires no 'givens', which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it." In 1748, David Hume explained why this isn't right. Hume was a philosopher himself. The most important assumption that you must make in the natural sciences and in every brand of philosophy with which I'm familiar is causality. Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ for more.

unalone 17y ago
Huh! I guess that shows me to be the philosophical amateur I am. I always assume causality without thinking about it. Whoops.

foldr 17y ago

>Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God That's just not true. There's plenty of theology which you can enter into without a prior assumption of the existence of god. The most obvious example would be arguments _for_ the existence of God! But in general, most of theology can be appreciated while taking God's existence as a hypothetical. E.g. you can consider whether or not the existence of evil is compatible with the presence of an omnipotent and wholly good God. (And indeed, theologians spend a lot of time considering arguments _against_ God's existence based on the existence of evil, and these arguments clearly cannot presuppose his existence.) By the way, have you ever read any theology?

unalone 17y ago
I have. I took a course on religion last semester. Generally, I agreed with and loved the various sociological theories—the things that tried to explain the psychological origins of religion, for instance, were fascinating. But past a certain point, I find that I lose interest. I can't entertain a debate over whether evil could exist under a good God, because I don't believe in God or in evil.
- foldr 17y ago
  If you don't find it interesting then you don't find it interesting, but that's quite a retreat from what you were claiming in your initial comment. >because I don't believe in God or in evil. You don't believe that evil things happen?
  - unalone 17y ago
    I believe that calling something evil is gross oversimplifation. Terrible things happen. Evil has overtones that I disagree with, if that makes sense.
    - foldr 17y ago
      It makes a little bit of sense, but I don't see how it's relevant to the problem of evil. You can pose the problem with pretty much whatever notion of evil you like: "If there is a good, omnipotent God, why do terrible things happen?"

fnid 17y ago

I suspect you knew this, but many religions suggest we actually are living on the back of a gigantic turtle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture#Turtles_in_religion_and_mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popula...

unalone 17y ago
That's what I was alluding to. That and the Turtles All The Way Down story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down