Comment by Jedi Wanderer on May 19, 2011 at 8:54pm

Hey, glad to see a defense of philosophy here. Physicists often make awful philosophers , imho. You make some good points, especially concerning epistemology and the fact that when asking for rational explanations of anything, one must at the same time be able to explain what reason is and why it must be of a certain form or type. And yes, philosophy approaches the questions of why we should do anything, whereas how we do it is approachable through scientific means. While philosophy certainly is important in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology, I think it becomes still more vial in more human pursuits such as ethics and political philosophy. When we use our intuitions regarding what we in fact desire, in the absence of a science of psychology which can decipher and analyze vast numbers of people's minds, we use philosophy, and that doesn't seem to be about to change any time soon. Were we able to use genetics and psychology to understand and predict human nature and the future course of human history, philosophy might find itself shrinking into a far narrower area of inquiry. Until such a time, philosophy is only becoming more important for our understanding of ourselves and our values, for analyzing our values and figuring out what they should look like and how to get there, and perhaps most importantly for our ability to pose the difficult questions and judge the merits of the possible answers.

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on May 19, 2011 at 8:54pm

*vital*

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 19, 2011 at 9:08pm

Thanks, Wanderer - I believe you have constructed a better defense in your reply than I put forth in my blog.  I am not well educated in philosophy but I found Hawking's claim to be an affront to reason itself - especially that he laid out his defense in a very standard philosophical format.  I just hoped to raise some awareness of the claim so that those who are far better versed than I could start preparing their rebuttals.

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on May 19, 2011 at 9:36pm

Thanks Heather, for someone "not well educated in philosophy" I think you did I very nice job indeed. Not too many people outside of philosophy are even aware of epistemology, let alone ontology or even philosophy itself! I have met many people who really don't even know what philosophy is. I myself went to school for philosophy, and though it hasn't helped me "in the real world", I am proud that I have discovered it and realized its value. I've even had one or two people on here tell me that philosophy is not good for anything, that science has replaced the need for philosophy. I almost missed out on it myself, only realizing what philosophy was in my mid 20s, which points to 1. a serious failing of our school systems, and 2. the urgent need for philosophy itself. When one looks at how crazy the world has become, even by its own outlandish standards, I think the need for philosophy has never been greater. Would love to chat some more philosophy with you anytime!

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 19, 2011 at 10:24pm

I actually didn't really get into philosophy until I started debating theists online and had to explain to them the epistemological errancies in tautologically ontological arguments (circular reasoning, if I am not mistaken).  Anyway, navigating the Rube Goldberg constructs of William Lane Craig's rhetorical gymnastics sure gets one reflecting upon the nature of reason and knowledge as well as how easily they can lead an otherwise seemingly intelligent person down the garden path of god-think.  It has really helped me though, by motivating me to audit my own beliefs with a bit more scrutiny.  It's also helped me recognize a debate opponent who is wriggling away so I can set up some more weirs to keep them pinned in a little better.  Finally it has helped me realize that all that philosophical navel gazing has real merit when one wants to be certain of just what one knows and what to do with that knowledge.

Comment by John Camilli on May 20, 2011 at 4:37am

Heather, I like your writing here, and I think the issue is an important one. That someone bothered to contradict H&M's assertion is evidence enough that the philisophical debates are ongoing. I do, however, think they have lagged far behind scientific progress in that there is scant understanding of the meaning of modern scientific theories. In otherwords, I don't think anyone really understands yet the implications of, for example, superstring theory. There was a funny cartoon I saw recently on this site that illustrated this point. Two scientists are chatting and one says "Hey, what if everything in the universe is made up of tiny, vibrating strings of energy?" The other says "That's an interresting idea, but what would it mean? And the first responds "I don't know."

 

That's pretty much the current state of affairs with regards to much of modern science, which is to be expected. It takes time to understand such all-encompassing theories, especially when the theories are still in their growing years. I think, rather than saying philosophy is dead, H&M might have done better to say that philosophy is in the process of being reborn, and that it is in its infancy with regards to the last 40 years of discovery. That's why modern physics seems so erudite and ethereal to most people; they can't relate to it. I think discussions like some of the ones we have here are an important part of the process of continuing to develope philosophy, so I'm glad to see any interrest in it.

Comment by John Camilli on May 20, 2011 at 4:48am

To give a specific example of why philosophy is in need of attention, I'll mention something I brought up briefly in your last post: quantum entanglement. Perhaps you have heard of the experiements where two photons (or neutrons) are created at some epicenter and then sent speeding off in opposite directions. A measurement is made of one, and because of the laws of conservation of momentum, spin and energy, the properties of the other particle can be known instantaneously.

 

This has raised some very important philosophical questions because it seems to be a violation of the principal of locality, which holds that time is required for information to travel across space. Locality is a primary facet of epistemology because the idea that things can be seperated by space allows for the law of identities, which is the root of all ontological description. That the results of the experiements remain unexplained has been a thorn in the side of philosophers of epistemology because it leaves room for the possibility that the principal of locality and the law of identity could be wrong. That would be a huge setback to all of what humans call knowledge, but the debate cannot be resolved until physics moves ahead with an explanation.

 

To me, that's very interresting stuff. Hopefully someone else think so too, lol.

Comment by John Camilli on May 20, 2011 at 4:58am

I think another reason H&M may have said what they did about philosophy is because of something that both you and Wanderer have said: that philosophy seeks the answers to questions of 'why.' Modern scientists, and physicists specifically, have begun to abandon the idea that 'why' questions can even be answered. Many can be quoted as saying something along the lines of 'it is what it is, there's no reason for it at all.' From that perspective, science could be seen as the end of philosophy because it invalidates the search for meaning by asserting that there simply is no meaning.

 

I have that philosophy myself. I do not seek to ascribe meaning to anything because I do not think any of us, or any of This is here for any purpose. To me, purpose can only exist for something that is created with intent, and I do not think existence was created because of the logical loophole of explaining who or what created any hypothetical creator.

 

I think humans are in the habit of ascribing meaning beacuse of the relatively limited perspective we have, which gives us the impression that things are happening to us, or are caused by us, rather than that things are just happening.

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on May 20, 2011 at 11:06am

John,

I largely agree with you here.

"Meaning" or "purpose" is strictly a human concept or perhaps mamalian concept. It has no intrinsic place in the universe. I dont see at this point how modern physics can shed any light on philosophy.

But what is wrong with constructing our own little bubbles of meaning, knowing all the while that life is devoid of meaning? It is not as schizophrenic as it seems.

Comment by John Camilli on May 20, 2011 at 9:20pm

I can't say there's anything wrong with it, but I can't say there's anything right with it either. Ultimately, I say 'to each his own,' since no objective knowledge has been found that can replace subjective opinion.

 

The times when people do say there's something wrong with having one's own bubble of meaning is when theirs conflicts with someone else's, and they believe there's is correct. That's why I argue so vehemently against people who make claims of superiority of ideals, like you saying science is superior, lol. Or, conversely, when you guys say religion is inferior. To me, that's the same claim of one subjective opinion trumping another.

 

But who cares anymore, the world is gonna end tomorrow, right? I say good riddance to us all.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page