This time I have company! Linky
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This article is dated, but yeesh. That's some epic hubris if I've ever seen it.
Goodness, I'm sure all the philosophers out there will be thrilled to hear that they can stop thinking about stuff now and put in for early retirement.
*rolls eyes and blows a big raspberry in Hawking's direction*
* Getcha popcorn ready*
What does that mean??
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How very philosophical of him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in
philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of
discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear
demonstrations. Which is of the following is more probable?
A. Linda is a bank teller.
B. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
.
As to metaphilosophy I have to agree with Prof. Hawking.
There are other branches of philosophy however: Morale philosophy/ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, ect.
Do they do anything really or just apply a lot of fancy terminology to raucous squabbling?
Do they do anything really or just apply a lot of fancy terminology to raucous squabbling?As to metaphilosophy I have to agree with Prof. Hawking.
There are other branches of philosophy however: Morale philosophy/ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, ect.
That's the debate club you're thinking of ;)
That's the debate club you're thinking of ;)Do they do anything really or just apply a lot of fancy terminology to raucous squabbling?As to metaphilosophy I have to agree with Prof. Hawking.
There are other branches of philosophy however: Morale philosophy/ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, ect.
The difference being....?
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nietzsche is dead. Nietzsche remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become philosophers simply to appear worthy of it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From "Alzo Spanked Zarathustra."
Do they do anything really or just apply a lot of fancy terminology to raucous squabbling?
You seem to believe only scientists are capable of critical thinking and rational thought. Either that, or you got bad grades in a philosophy class once and this is your way of compensating.
You seem to believe only scientists are capable of critical thinking and rational thought.
Do they do anything really or just apply a lot of fancy terminology to raucous squabbling?
Oh, there's more than enough raucous squabbling over there, but at least there they can actually settle the matter given enough time, dropped water melons, and laser beams.
The raucous squabbling is much, much cooler that way.
Either that, or you got bad grades in a philosophy class once and this is your way of compensating.
And psychology failboats hard. (and yes thats on my list too)
This article is dated, but yeesh. That's some epic hubris if I've ever seen it.
Amen. Hawking's getting a bit self important in his old age.
This article is dated, but yeesh. That's some epic hubris if I've ever seen it.Amen. Hawking's getting a bit self important in his old age.
Hehe. The beggining of the illustrated brief uhistory of time/universe in a nut shell was basically "Hey! wheres the nobel prize? What the heck, those trogylodyte amatures with a telescope found what I've been predicting for years and THEY get it?!"
the blood of jesus washes away the dirt and stains we place upon ourselfs and fellow man....we all deserve it ( whatever it is ) the difference is some of us rampage through life with selfy smiles on, using and abusing everything in our path..others have regrets and want to see that light at the end of the tunnel..no matter theres only one standing place in the end the only real qeuston is how will we feel about ourselfs and others when we get to that place of standing...and are we truly ready for the rekoning that will follow
think twice.....maybe three times
This article is dated, but yeesh. That's some epic hubris if I've ever seen it.Amen. Hawking's getting a bit self important in his old age.
He was never exactly humble. Even in his earlier work, there was always a pretty significant sense of self-importance. (I can't find the exact word I'm looking for because I've, uh, been getting into the holiday spirit(s) *bubble, bubble, bubble*. I do have to give him credit for overcoming an incredible number of obstacles, but....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that most of philosophy is not rational.
Considering that one of the introductory philosophy classes is "Intro to Logic," you'd be wrong to say so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, there's more than enough raucous squabbling over there, but at least there they can actually settle the matter given enough time, dropped water melons, and laser beams.
Considering much of philosophy deals with questions that can't be quantified, there's not much point using watermelons and laser beams, unless you're looking to supplement with Gallagher and a light show.
Considering much of philosophy deals with questions that can't be quantified, there's not much point using watermelons and laser beams, unless you're looking to supplement with Gallagher and a light show.
Oh, there's more than enough raucous squabbling over there, but at least there they can actually settle the matter given enough time, dropped water melons, and laser beams.
Deals with questions. Never gets answers. Doesn't seem to be dealing with them very well.
You seem to believe only scientists are capable of critical thinking and rational thought.
Do they do anything really or just apply a lot of fancy terminology to raucous squabbling?
Oh, there's more than enough raucous squabbling over there, but at least there they can actually settle the matter given enough time, dropped water melons, and laser beams.
UThe raucous squabbling is much, much cooler that way.
Either that, or you got bad grades in a philosophy class once and this is your way of compensating.
And psychology failboats hard. (and yes thats on my list too)
You wanna die, ice king...?
Deals with questions. Never gets answers. Doesn't seem to be dealing with them very well.
There are all sorts of answers. Just not necessarily one definitive answer. If you think you can do better, by all means, enlighten us.
There are all sorts of answers. Just not necessarily one definitive answer. If you think you can do better, by all means, enlighten us.
Deals with questions. Never gets answers. Doesn't seem to be dealing with them very well.
Step 1: drop the semantics out of the arguments. If you ignore those half of the problems go away.
Step 2:. After you've built up the idea TEST it. Compare it to the real world and see if your bloviating amounts to anything. If it doesn't, rework it and try it again.
.
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in
philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of
discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear
demonstrations. Which is of the following is more probable?A. Linda is a bank teller.
B. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement..
Pretty sure Grand Magus is passing out a pop quiz here, BNW.
Philosophy IS semantics.
Science isn't.
That's the beauty of the process, no? It's a symbiotic relationship. To each truism there is a morality attached. History has proved that the relationship between science and morality is challenging, and that one cannot exist socially or economically without the other.
Ergo, philosophy ain't dead, though technology may be trying to bury it alive.
It is painfully obvious that many posters in this thread have never actually read philosophy. Also is seems fair to point out that philosophy has PROVEN more than science has. In fact, the only one thing that has ever been proven in the history of our little species was accomplished by philosophy, not science.
I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?
Obligatory Post:
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
--Darl Jubannich, Theses on Government
I used to muck around with philosophy a little when I was younger. Then I discovered communism and didn't need it so much.
But it's fun to think about, sometimes, with proper stimulation.
[Passes [bubble bubble bubble] back to SnowJade]
From "Alzo Spanked Zarathustra."
I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?
Cogito ergo sum. Everything beyond that is an abstraction, assumption, or estimation, and therefore uncertain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like chocolate milk.
Read David Hume discussing the color blue and then tell me there is no rational thought it philosophy.
|
It is painfully obvious that many posters in this thread have never actually read philosophy. Also is seems fair to point out that philosophy has PROVEN more than science has. In fact, the only one thing that has ever been proven in the history of our little species was accomplished by philosophy, not science.
Thing is, I don't think S.H was referring to Descartes (although, I feel obligated to point out that he certainly wasn't the first to "prove" "cognito erg sums", nor the first to think about it or tackle that issue - as far as I know, the credit for that goes to the much earlier Muslim philosopher al-Kindī).
Stephen Hawkings is talking about modern philosophy and the direction that field of thought has taken in the last few dozen years. I have a very close friend who is on her way to be a fully fledged philosopher, and she really loves that stuff. She would return from a day's studies and excitedly tell me all about what she just learned... and I have to say, what is now called "continental philosophy" (or European philosophy) seems to be so deep in decadence that salvaging it would be nearly impossible.
It basically gave up any pretense of being a discipline that deals with concrete arguments and coherent thoughts. To quote my friend:
"I would tell you what my seminar work is about, but if I'll try to present it as a list of ideas supporting each other to create an argument, it will not be a good one at all."
That work later went on to receive the best grade in her class.
Another work that Iv'e read that baffled me greatly was entitled "education as an erotic experience" - other than being written in an intentionally clumsy way which made it hard to understand it, that paper boiled down to these points:
1) the origins of the word "erotic" means "fun"
2) learning is fun
3) therefore, education is an erotic act
There you go, an implementation of the alpha conversion that a child could pull off, and this paper was very hyped around local circles. Other than some snobbish writing that is supposed to take the reader through some emotional experience, the paper was completely pointless.
From my perspective, philosophy is no longer relevant to 99.9999& of humanity, and no longer takes any central role in shaping the educated and organized thought of our generation's learned people - because it has itself seized to be organized or even sophisticated. Very much like literature, I feel that philosophy has built upon itself so much that those who are sitting on top of it currently are secluded from the rest of us humans, and are basically pursuing a hobby that only has an impact on them. Kind of like how the Magic: The Gathering sporting scene has zero to no impact on anyone who is not a Magic player.
I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?Cogito ergo sum. Everything beyond that is an abstraction, assumption, or estimation, and therefore uncertain.
As "uncertain" as it is, I think penicillin kills bacterium, which are the cause of many diseases, is a much better notion.
|
|
Read David Hume discussing the color blue and then tell me there is no rational thought it philosophy.
And again - it's not that there never was rational thought in philosophy. In fact even today, some of the philosophy practiced in some places of the world (America, for example) continues to be rational.
Remember that most of the great western philosophers of yore doubled up as the pioneering scientists who shaped the way we think today.It's the more recent, modern, curled-up-and-twisted-into-itself philosophy that is no longer rational. In fact, modern philosophers have very deliberately abandoned rationality once they have cemented the very quote you gave earlier - I think therefore I am - into the western canon. If nothing is provable, striving to prove the validity of your argument is pointless, and so philosophy has turned to other ways of continuing it's own existence. I will quote my friend again in her definition of a rational discussion: "a discussion is rational if both sides are willing to listen and communicate with each other, with the shared hope of finding the best answer". No where in that definition is anybody required to back up their points in anything that holds objective value, since in modern philosophical perception the very idea of objectiveness is false.
Anyone can see how this idea rather quickly dispersed anything solid in philosophy an made it into a parody of its' former glory - a parody where anyone can claim anything and as long as they make a decent enough work of making their writing seem complicated, and as long as they can convey some subjective feeling in their readers, they are considered to be outputting good philosophy.
That's fun for those interested, but darn silly to anyone looking at it from the outside. Therefore, philosophy cannot any longer be said to carry significance to anyone other than philosophers. The same cannot be said for any current field of exact science, or even for most fields of pseudo-science.
I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?Cogito ergo sum. Everything beyond that is an abstraction, assumption, or estimation, and therefore uncertain.
You go running full tilt at the nearest wall. When you're capable of rational thought again, come back and give me an in-depth report on how abstract and uncertain that wall is.
You shouldn't have any trouble. Science tells me that wall is mostly empty space anyway, as are you. Should be a piece of cake.
I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?Cogito ergo sum. Everything beyond that is an abstraction, assumption, or estimation, and therefore uncertain.
As "uncertain" as it is, I think penicillin kills bacterium, which are the cause of many diseases, is a much better notion.
You'll get no argument from me that the sciences produce useful things. Things that are reliable and predictable. But when S.H. Starts talking about the nature of the universe it is certainly less certain than the existing accomplishments of philosophy.
You go running full tilt at the nearest wall. When you're capable of rational thought again, come back and give me an in-depth report on how abstract and uncertain that wall is.I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?Cogito ergo sum. Everything beyond that is an abstraction, assumption, or estimation, and therefore uncertain.
I didn't say that things in the world are not reliable or predictable. But my interaction with the wall is a product of how my mind relates the experience. I presume that I hit a wall and it hurt, but all I know for certain is that I am thinking about it and so therefore I exist. Beyond that is supposition.
Read David Hume discussing the color blue and then tell me there is no rational thought it philosophy.And again - it's not that there never was rational thought in philosophy. In fact even today, some of the philosophy practiced in some places of the world (America, for example) continues to be rational.
Remember that most of the great western philosophers of yore doubled up as the pioneering scientists who shaped the way we think today.It's the more recent, modern, curled-up-and-twisted-into-itself philosophy that is no longer rational. In fact, modern philosophers have very deliberately abandoned rationality once they have cemented the very quote you gave earlier - I think therefore I am - into the western canon. If nothing is provable, striving to prove the validity of your argument is pointless, and so philosophy has turned to other ways of continuing it's own existence. I will quote my friend again in her definition of a rational discussion: "a discussion is rational if both sides are willing to listen and communicate with each other, with the shared hope of finding the best answer". No where in that definition is anybody required to back up their points in anything that holds objective value, since in modern philosophical perception the very idea of objectiveness is false.
Anyone can see how this idea rather quickly dispersed anything solid in philosophy an made it into a parody of its' former glory - a parody where anyone can claim anything and as long as they make a decent enough work of making their writing seem complicated, and as long as they can convey some subjective feeling in their readers, they are considered to be outputting good philosophy.That's fun for those interested, but darn silly to anyone looking at it from the outside. Therefore, philosophy cannot any longer be said to carry significance to anyone other than philosophers. The same cannot be said for any current field of exact science, or even for most fields of pseudo-science.
As for epistemology I would agree but social (particularly political) philosophy is incredibly relevent today. With so many new states comming into existence this discipline really could use more practitioners.
Also Environmental Ethics has had a fair expansion of late and is also a field which is very relevent to society.
You'll get no argument from me that the sciences produce useful things. Things that are reliable and predictable. But when S.H. Starts talking about the nature of the universe it is certainly less certain than the existing accomplishments of philosophy.I doubt ther eis a consensus about what those "existing accomplishments of philosophy" within philosophers, but to in order to understand better your post I would like to ask
in your opinion what are those accomplishment of phiilosophy?
Off the top of my head I would say that the US Constitution is an accomplishment of philosophy. Large parts are paraphrased from Locke's second treatise on government, which was the result of nearly 300 years of discourse in political philosophy.
You'll get no argument from me that the sciences produce useful things. Things that are reliable and predictable. But when S.H. Starts talking about the nature of the universe it is certainly less certain than the existing accomplishments of philosophy.I'll bite. What one thing has been proven?Cogito ergo sum. Everything beyond that is an abstraction, assumption, or estimation, and therefore uncertain.As "uncertain" as it is, I think penicillin kills bacterium, which are the cause of many diseases, is a much better notion.
I'm not certain anything in philosophy is an accomplishment.
Trillions of dollars over the years on philosophers and you have... one sentence.
Meanwhile science has produced medicine, increased crop yields, unlocked the nature of the universe, and made this conversation possible... and you think philosophy is winning?
Hawking is going to be more certain heres why. He had a bet with another physicist about something. It turns out hawking was wrong, and the other scientist has the letter framed in his office somewhere.
Now why does a story about Hawking being wrong make him MORE certain?
Because they actually could settle the bet. It was possible (with a few technological advancements) to observe which one of them was right. Science is far more certain than philosophy because it can test its ideas. The only problem with this is that its not 100% philosophically tested....
But nothing is. Its like worrying about pleasing a food critic that has NEVER eaten anything they liked in their life.
@Nicos: Please don't take me to mean "The American Revolution" when I say the "US Constitution." If anything that would be more related to the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution was written during a period of relative peace in order to establish a lasting system of government. It was a largely academic exercise and a natural extension of the political philosophy of the day.