-
Features
What useful stuff has *modern* philosophy accomplished for man-kind?
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Achwienichtig
Member
I personally would consider Dewey to be the most influential modern philosopher, but that might be a purely American perspective. However, it is hard to distinguish his philosophical work from his other theoretical work. Dewey's philosophy of education is extremely influential, though its influence on our school system waxes and wanes. I think his work has influenced a lot of alternative education movements that are quite strong in America. Compared to other countries around the world, AFAIK, America has the strongest support for alternative educational movements, and I think much of that comes from Dewey.
philosophy? Shouldnt pedagogics be based on science?
Achwienichtig
Member
Dewey was a huge fan of the scientific method. However, his application of the scientific method was unique. He thought education needed to be arraigned such the the child's experience would build up in the manner of the scientific method. He seems to have deemphasized the scientific method as a way of measuring educational success. The former allows the child to advance at his own unique pace, whereas the latter would force arbitrary uniformity upon the educational process.
Which totally exactly why we shouldnt listen to philosophers. To much thought and to little justification.
I didnt say that the scientific method should be used as the pedagogical method, but that the selection of pedagogic method should be based on the result of the science of pedagogics.
Achwienichtig
Member
That is a judgment call you cannot make unless you have actually read what philosophers have to say. Dewey is one of the best, and unless you have actually listened to him, you cannot make a call as to whether it is worth while.
Dewey is very concerned about the educational process and he is extremely scientifically minded. Perhaps my previous post didn't carry that across correctly. Dewey wants the scientific method to be integral to education, however, he expresses concern that the child will be forced to adapt to the pedagogical method rather than the method being adapted to the child. Even a "scientifically selected" pedagogical method can be coercive, after all. He wants to avoid this.
What is the science of pedagogics, and how does it select the pedagogical method? If what you are saying is true, then people like Dewey are extremely important since they are they ones who come up with the hypotheses for the science of pedagogics to test. Or is there no room for philosophers to even make well reasoned hypotheses in your world-view?
One of the reasons I made this thread on *modern* philosophy in particular is because I've dabbled in a bit of modern philosophy (admittedly a very small amount) and at least the works I've attempted seem so far into the obscure and abstract that they seem removed from anything pragmatic. Obviously some of the suggestions in this thread suggest that this isn't the case for all modern philosophy, though.
I was thinking the other day about how a lot of philosophy is not *necessary* for the betterment of individual human life, in the sense that average joe blow welder can go from end to end without reading a word of Hume and he doesn't notice. But that said there must have been a few kernels of wisdom throughout the millennia that profoundly affected joe blow's life without him realizing it, which there is evidence of in the other thread I made. So when you move to whatever one calls modern philosophy surely there must be some of those profound kernels of wisdom, I just haven't found them yet.
I was thinking the other day about how a lot of philosophy is not *necessary* for the betterment of individual human life, in the sense that average joe blow welder can go from end to end without reading a word of Hume and he doesn't notice. But that said there must have been a few kernels of wisdom throughout the millennia that profoundly affected joe blow's life without him realizing it, which there is evidence of in the other thread I made. So when you move to whatever one calls modern philosophy surely there must be some of those profound kernels of wisdom, I just haven't found them yet.
Achwienichtig
Member
Well, your question is about usefulness. That is a tricky term. For instance, is a philosophy useful if it helps you understand the world you live in but does not result in any direct action? Post-modernism usually falls under that category. Post-structuralism has lead to some really good literature. Is good literature a useful thing?
Then there are those ideas that are not influential at all but which would, if implemented, change the world (for the better?). Some people think Marx was right, but that true Marxism has never been realized. Supposing they are right, can we call Marxism useful even if it never gets implemented?
Dewey's philosophy of education was the only instance I could think of in modern philosophy (by modern I mean at least into the 20th century) where his ideas have actually exerted influence and have met with at least a degree of success.
Not if it is wrong. And if it is not based on science you cannot know.
Has it? How do we know?
Well, it's a problematic question in some ways. Philosophy is a humanity, and like most humanities, tends to spend most of it's effort in influencing ideas rather than creating concrete pronouncements.
Political philosophy has certainly been influential, and helped change the course of entire countries, particularly during the cold war. Ethical philosophy has changed the nature of some scientific and medical treatments and experiments, creating guidelines for the fair treatment of those who can't consent, and dealing with thorny ethical issues in the treatment of mental and coma patients. Some of the great social movements of our times, such as the legalisation of homosexuality, drew upon ethical philosophy.
Then there's the long history of philosophers influencing scientific ideas, from Darwin drawing on the common social philosophy concepts of the day, through to the fall of eugenics and Skinner's behaviourism in the face of philosophical humanism, and the subsequent of sea-change in the treatment of prisoners and mental patients. The development of cognitive and perceptual psychology has long interacted with philosophical models of how and in what way people explain and elucidate concepts. Electronics and formal logic have long had association.
Once you get into epistemology and logic, the going gets harder. Certainly a proper understanding of concepts around the limits of knowledge and what can and can't qualify as logical entailed have been of great interest to, say, posters on boards like this one, and I'd like to say that the quality of debate, discussion and reason has greatly benefitted as a result, and I do believe that is the case, but the actual effect is quite difficult to pin down. It gets even harder when you get into metaphysics, which I think is useful, but not in any concrete way. Certainly, anyone wanting to claim that it is useless would need to deal with the observation that so many people seem driven to make metaphysical pronouncements, and appear keen to discuss them.
Political philosophy has certainly been influential, and helped change the course of entire countries, particularly during the cold war. Ethical philosophy has changed the nature of some scientific and medical treatments and experiments, creating guidelines for the fair treatment of those who can't consent, and dealing with thorny ethical issues in the treatment of mental and coma patients. Some of the great social movements of our times, such as the legalisation of homosexuality, drew upon ethical philosophy.
Then there's the long history of philosophers influencing scientific ideas, from Darwin drawing on the common social philosophy concepts of the day, through to the fall of eugenics and Skinner's behaviourism in the face of philosophical humanism, and the subsequent of sea-change in the treatment of prisoners and mental patients. The development of cognitive and perceptual psychology has long interacted with philosophical models of how and in what way people explain and elucidate concepts. Electronics and formal logic have long had association.
Once you get into epistemology and logic, the going gets harder. Certainly a proper understanding of concepts around the limits of knowledge and what can and can't qualify as logical entailed have been of great interest to, say, posters on boards like this one, and I'd like to say that the quality of debate, discussion and reason has greatly benefitted as a result, and I do believe that is the case, but the actual effect is quite difficult to pin down. It gets even harder when you get into metaphysics, which I think is useful, but not in any concrete way. Certainly, anyone wanting to claim that it is useless would need to deal with the observation that so many people seem driven to make metaphysical pronouncements, and appear keen to discuss them.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Yeah, well, I was just reading some book written by a philosopher and the author digressed into remarking that Bergson's notion of Elan vital greatly influenced school teachers of his time, the same ones who became officers in the French army in 1914. Apparently, they immediately applied their idea of Elan vital to the battlefield and sent the French infantery straight into the lines of fire of the brand new German machine guns.
So, philosophy may not do any better than sheer ordinary stupidity.
I think philosophy is as influential as other modes of influence let it be. It is clear that many politicians, perhaps more in the past than today though, look up to philosophy to provide some guiding principles for their action (as well as history and economic theory, but definitely not science most of them). Think of "liberty" and the making of the American republic, think of the French revolution.
EB
PS. Modern philosophy starts with Descartes, not with the 20th century, which is contemporary philosophy.
Underseer
Contributor
The biggest is ethics and contributions to the ongoing attempt to resolve the demarcation problem.
WAB
Veteran Member
I can't help but recoil at 'average joe-blow welder'. I'm a blue-collar worker, and have worked among blue-collar workers my whole life. To be flatly honest here, without trying to be insulting: I have no reason to think that the people I've worked with are any dumber than the people I've associated with at FRDB and here over the past ten years. I've had many discussions about science and philosophy with my workmates, many political/religious discussions, etc. I know many wage earners who are extremely well-read and very bright.
Contrarily, I was in management for two years, and I met other department heads who couldn't compose a coherent sentence. Career choice probably doesn't have much to do with native intelligence. It boils down to ambition and opportunity, I think. And some people are forced to excel and succeed by overbearing parents.
Not to mention the fact that welding is damn hard and not just any joe-schmo can do it well. It's probably harder than a lot of administrative work. I've done administrative work, paper work, had a desk and all that. It was a breeze compared to some of the joe-jobs I've held.
Sorry, just venting, but that's a sore spot for me. I know you didn't mean anything demeaning by it, rousseau.
WAB
Veteran Member
As for the OP:
I haven't read much modern philosophy, mostly papers and articles. By and large I think philosophy and philosophers are necessary in any free society, as are artists and poets. We're humans, not just meat machines. We need to think and feel. That's part of what being human means. If we arrive at a point in my lifetime where only scientists are thought to have valid views on the Big Picture, I think I'll find that extremely unsettling.
***NOTE: this is NOT to say that scientists can't be artists and poets who think and feel. Of course they can! And they are. Let's hope it stays that way.
I haven't read much modern philosophy, mostly papers and articles. By and large I think philosophy and philosophers are necessary in any free society, as are artists and poets. We're humans, not just meat machines. We need to think and feel. That's part of what being human means. If we arrive at a point in my lifetime where only scientists are thought to have valid views on the Big Picture, I think I'll find that extremely unsettling.
***NOTE: this is NOT to say that scientists can't be artists and poets who think and feel. Of course they can! And they are. Let's hope it stays that way.
Last edited:
WAB
Veteran Member
Oh, and I should have added: not reading anything from Hume would be a good thing, intellectually. Hume is one of the reasons there is so much confusion in modern philosophy.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Is it not that each philosopher is one reason that there is so much confusion in modern philosophy?
I like Hume's observation that one cannot rationalise the sense of causality we have (I guess he must have meant "through introspection alone" if he didn't actually say it).
So what was Hume's main contribution to confusion do you think?
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Yeah, Einstein played the violin... I guess his woman meanwhile did the cooking and the laundry.
EB
Yea, I literally didn't. The point was that the average person has no real need for philosophy, not that the average person is dumb.
The emancipation of the Germans is the emancipation of mankind. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart is the proletariat. Philosophy can achieve nothing without raising up the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot raise itself up without the achievement of philosophy.--Marx (link is to the German original)
Well I guess philosophy is never going to accomplish anything then.
To re-iterate the point: philosophy is useful, but not often necessary. If the masses were capable of critical thought and understanding deep philosophical theory, or if they even cared, and there was a way to spread useful philosophical theory, we might progress a bit faster as a society, but such a people isn't reality. So we're left with a situation where philosophy helps some people some times, but if someone chooses to not read any philosophy at all over the course of their life, while they might be at a disadvantage, they can still lead their life successfully.