The Big Questions - Philosophy's Failure?

[peter]

To what extent do you guys think philosophy has made a significant contribution to adressing 'The Big Questions' over the course of it's [what?] five thousand year plus history. Certainly we are not, as a result of philosophical thinking any closer to answering things such as 'Is their a God?, or 'Do we survive our bodily death' etc, but does that throw the whole activity into question, or have sound advances been made, advances that have significantly improved the lot of mankind as a result of all that cogitative crunching down the centuries. Alternatively, might it actually have been better for mankind if we hadn't of bothered; that for every plus it has given, it has given a corresponding minus, for every increase in understanding there has been an increase in depravity, for every Meditations a Maleus Maleficarum.

[Orlion]

I believe you are applying an extremely narrow view of philosophy's objectives, but first: answers to your Big Questions:


-Is their a God? No
-Do we survive our bodily death? No
-Etc.: Mangos with salt and lime.

In either event, most people will come to their own conclusions on the Big Questions, with or without philosophy, and will be convinced about their rightness. So, what is the point of philosophy? Sure, we want answers, but I believe that is a side-effect, what we really want is to be able to say we arrived at the answers correctly. We want a sound methodology, and a means to examine our results, all of which philosophy has done, is doing, and continues to do.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Truthfully, I find most philosophers to be full of shit. They make up words to make themselves sound more erudite than they really are, write long and boring books which are, at best, confusing and, at worst, contradictory, and leave most people who read them with more questions than answers. In their defense, perhaps the goal of philosophy is to get people to ask questions but most people are looking for answers, not questions--giving a cookbook to a hungry person does the hungry person no good even though the recipes sound delicious and the pictures of the prepared dishes look tasty.

If you want the answers to the Big Questions then figure them out for yourself rather than relying on someone else to answer them for you. My answers aren't your answers, but then neither are Kant's, James', Kierkegaard's, Aquinas', Locke's, Plato's, Confucius', or Lao Tzu's, or anyone else's.

We should treat our philosophy books the same way I advise that we treat our Zen books: read them once then burn them.

[hierachy]

Well, philosophy is an extremely old subject. You might even go as far as to say that philosophy is the parent of science.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Philosophy only "fails" if one expects more from it than it is capable of giving (i.e. that it can epistemically "solve" the Mystery, rather than merely illuminating and framing it as an object of contemplation). This fatal expectation is the bane of post-Enlightenment thought.

[Zarathustra]

Philosophy is more about correcting our errors than finding definitive answers. But we have developed quite a few really important answers. As Hierarchy says, we probably wouldn't have science without philosophy. That goes for math, too. In their beginnings, they were often indistinguishable from philosophy.

Some of the most important things philosophy shows us we already "know," but we often don't know that we know them, or simply don't think about them. One of my favorite quotes comes from a phenomenologist, M.M. Ponty:

Our relationship to the world, as it is untiringly enunciated within us, is not a thing which can be any further clarified by analysis; philosophy can only place it once more before our eyes and present it for our ratification.

We already-always have a connection to the world. While we live, we cannot be separated from it. But we can become inauthentic in relation to it. That, I believe is the most important thing philosophy can help us do: become authentic in our relation to reality. That's what the "ratification" is about (see above). There is so much denial and misunderstanding in the history of mankind--and much of that is in philosophy, too, unfortunately. A big part of the solution is simply correcting our language (despite Hashi's charge of "making up words to sound erudite). We need new words. The human experience is infinitely complex; we'll never capture every nuance of our being by sticking to our current vocabulary. Has nothing to do with trying to sound erudite.

Philosophy is a way to come into explicit relationships with things we're already doing. That's why there are so many "philosophies of __." Of science, of art, of religion, of whatever. It is discovering the meaning of what we do, the meaning of our Being.

[Vraith]

I'm tempted to say [so apparently I will give in and do it] some smart-ass thing like:
"Philosophy is the worst way to find answers, except for all the others."

Or something bad-poetic like:
"The attempt to unite our ground with our sky"
--a weak metaphor for our animal/senses with our thoughts/abstractions, our substance with our meaning/purpose.

It doesn't matter to me if some philosophers are just trying to sound smart---or if they have ulterior, less than pure/less than good motives/intentions in promoting/developing/creating a particular philosophy/frame. The best of them---even the ones who are long dead and perhaps "wrong,"---illuminate facets and ways and meanings of being human that nothing else does, and nothing else can.

[Zarathustra]

Or something bad-poetic like:
"The attempt to unite our ground with our sky"
--a weak metaphor for our animal/senses with our thoughts/abstractions, our substance with our meaning/purpose.

Sounds interesting. Why do you say that's bad or weak? Where did you hear this metaphor?

[Orlion]

I'm tempted to say [so apparently I will give in and do it] some smart-ass thing like:
"Philosophy is the worst way to find answers, except for all the others."

Oscar Wilde you are not

That, I believe is the most important thing philosophy can help us do: become authentic in our relation to reality.

I like it. It also reminds me of Sarte, though I do not know if you were thinking about him when you wrote that.

Another way I look at studying Philosophy: Trying to establish a moral code or theory on...anything... without studying philosophy is like trying to build a rocket by first re-inventing the wheel. We have hundreds of years of many intelligent, clever people debating various issues, giving arguments, offering counter-arguments, etc... why wouldn't you make use of this background information as much as you can?

How does that one R. Scott Bakker quote go? What comes before determines what comes after?

[Avatar]

Sorta agree with Z that it's not about finding answers. I'm not so sure that there are answers to find other than temporary and biased (in one way or another) ones.

I think the important thing is to be able to ask the questions. To identify the questions. To speculate and experiment. My expectation is not that they will be answered, but that by trying to answer them we learn things about ourselves and each other.

--A

[peter]

The language thing is really interesting. I read recently that English has massively more words in it than most other languages, allowing for much more precise nuances of meaning to be iterated. In 1984 the newspeak guys didn't invent more words: they attempted to expunge those in which seditious thoughts could be framed. But to get to the question in hand (and it is simplistic I know, but), can we really come up with concrete examples of the benefits to mankind of the activity of Philosophy that ordinary wooly thinking would not have brought us to anyway? Put simply; Are we better off as a whole, and are we better, more moral, more kind than we would have been if the activity had not existed as a formalised discipline?

[edit; Just wanted to add, when it comes to clarity of thinking and rational disciplined argument philosophy can be as guilty of fuzzy compromise as the rest of us. Take Descartes and his Cogito. Within one axiomatic statement ["I think....etc"] he boxes himself into a corner that only a fudge of slipery rhetorical tricks allows him to move on to contemplate the rest of existance {The 'Ontological' argument is another one}. In fact more sucess has been made in demolishing Cogito's premise [eg re the nature of 'I' etc, than finding a more coherent way to move on from it's apparently inescapable coils. What comes next is the move into Cartesian Dualism that many would regard as a chalice of poison that affects our very thinking right to this day. What amount cruelties and abominations have been carried out on the alter of this shibboleth can only be guessed at - and similar examples can be pulled from many ares of the discipline. No - in order to mitigate the evils that have been perpetrated by over zealous adherence to the pronouncements of the discipline, we have to be able to cite the 'consolations' as well or it becomes indeed, as Hashi said, no more than showing pictures of food to the starving.]

[Nb Use of the word 'consolations' above is deliberate since many would regard the forays of Philosophy into the area of personal belief one of the disciplines greatest crimes against humanity.]

[[Greek literary criticism at least introduced the idea that a story should have a beginning [before which no act or action pertains to the story enclosed by the bounds], which does, of course not have to be at the beginning of the tale; a middle where it all happens, and an end where all the questions are answered and nothing that pertains to the story is ommitted. ie There are no loose ends. This framework has been tinkered with, ignored and abandoned altogether - but never improved upon.]]

[Fist and Faith]

The "formalised discipline" is an unavoidable, inescapable result of the way humans, on the whole, think. You could not do away with it without doing away with the nature of human thought. In that sense, which is not at all the sense you had in mind, we are certainly better off with having bothered doing things the way we did them.

[Vraith]

Or something bad-poetic like:
"The attempt to unite our ground with our sky"
--a weak metaphor for our animal/senses with our thoughts/abstractions, our substance with our meaning/purpose.

Sounds interesting. Why do you say that's bad or weak? Where did you hear this metaphor?

I made it up while writing that post. I think it's bad/weak in the aesthetic sense...a bit trite/easy/obvious. I don't think it is weak in accuracy...the idea, well, had many fathers. Probably Heidegger the closest one in philo-linguistically.

O--yea, not Wilde. But I did say "smart-ass" and not "wit."

peter: many things were born from philosophy, entire realms---if not the contents themselves, at least the frame/methods.
Muddling along may have gotten us there eventually...or maybe not. It's hard to imagine medicine or math or physics getting to where they are without organization/systemization. And I don't see them existing without the philosophical.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Another way I look at studying Philosophy: Trying to establish a moral code or theory on...anything... without studying philosophy is like trying to build a rocket by first re-inventing the wheel. We have hundreds of years of many intelligent, clever people debating various issues, giving arguments, offering counter-arguments, etc... why wouldn't you make use of this background information as much as you can?

The degree to which most people rely on arguments and counter-arguments by long-dead philosophers (or by those who are not-quite-so-long dead or even hey-I'm-still-alive) makes them intellectually lazy. Why bother to find your own answers when you can just read them in a book and parrot them? Surely the answers to all of life's little dilemmas have to be in there somewhere, right?

Yes, Zarathustra, philosophy used to be so intricately linked with science that the two couldn't be separated; however, things are not like that anymore. I can see the value in scientific reference materials--on one can memorize all the information in a CRC except for those rare cases of eidetic memory--but looking to someone else for a answer to a question you may have on a philosophical subject means that you are placing faith in that person's words when, in fact, they could have been completely wrong (or at least wrong for you or the situation you might be facing).

Or...maybe I am simply in a bad mood and I am venting by trash-talking people who can't fight back. Or maybe I just like coming up with my own answers and I have no time to waste on what some other person thought.

[peter]

Hashi - you are the closest thing we have to an amotional entity here on the Watch; a being of pure rational thought. You don't have moods! ( ).

[Fist and Faith]

Yup. Bad mood, Hashi.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi - you are the closest thing we have to an amotional entity here on the Watch; a being of pure rational thought. You don't have moods! ( ).

Make no mistake about it--I definitely have moods. You don't see them because I spend time crafting what I want to say before I say it and I sometimes choose my words carefully so as to avoid letting anyone see the cards in my hand. Although I didn't account for the dramatic increase in the population of trolls, I am still convinced that text-based communication via the Internet is the best way for people to discuss things because it removes any distractions caused by what the other person is saying, how impressive their pectoral muscles are, how shapely their hips might be, how handsome or ugly they may be, whether they didn't take a shower this morning, etc.

[peter]

Well perhaps now would be a good time to say I bear an uncanny resemblance to Scarlet Johansen..........

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

The degree to which most people rely on arguments and counter-arguments by long-dead philosophers (or by those who are not-quite-so-long dead or even hey-I'm-still-alive) makes them intellectually lazy. Why bother to find your own answers when you can just read them in a book and parrot them? Surely the answers to all of life's little dilemmas have to be in there somewhere, right?

Just as Science presupposes a universal Physical Nature as a condition of its work, Philosophy presupposes a universal Human Nature.

Though I happily admit of the existence of multiple orthodox points-of-approach (i.e. schools) to the centrality of the Mystery in both Philosophy and Science, everyone having to "find their own answers" in Philosophy is like everyone having to find their own Physical Laws. For an authentic unity-in-diversity, there must be an underlying substratum of commonality which allows for the I/Thou exchange. And so Philosophers should "speak to you" simply because you are Human (at least, that's the presupposition that we're going on ).

[Zarathustra]

The degree to which most people rely on arguments and counter-arguments by long-dead philosophers (or by those who are not-quite-so-long dead or even hey-I'm-still-alive) makes them intellectually lazy. Why bother to find your own answers when you can just read them in a book and parrot them? Surely the answers to all of life's little dilemmas have to be in there somewhere, right?

I don't think it's lazy to learn 2500 years worth of human thought! We don't reinvent the wheel before we use our cars. This is how progress is made. You learn your history, then take it farther.

...Philosophy presupposes a universal Human Nature.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of philosophers who don't recognize a universal "human nature," most notably the existentialists. As Sartre said, existence precedes essence.

The Sartrean claim is best understood in contrast to an established principle of metaphysics[dubious – discuss] that essence precedes existence, i.e. that there is such a thing as human nature, determined by nature, laid down by religious tradition, or legislated by political or social authority. ...

When it is said that man defines himself ... [w]hat is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. Of course, the more positive therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[9]

To claim that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in humans, and that an individual's essence is defined by him or her through how he or she creates and lives his or her life. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." [10]