• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What useful stuff has philosophy accomplished for man-kind?

Philosophy is just part of the ongoing human effort, conspicuously along with literature, to think, create meaning and even a bit of reverie.

Philosophical thought sometimes gets in the way of science, but no less than all human thought gets in the way of science from time to time. In any case, human thinking continuously reforms itself, and has until we got to where we are now, still moving, still correcting and wondering where and how to keep correcting itself.

It would be an act of irrepentant scientism to think science has been the fount of all good. Science did not abolish slavery, give suffrage to women, or devise the checks and balances of electoral democracy. Sience is and should remain the maidservant of humanity and its ideals, not its empress, lest our future is to become the Borg.

Philosophons enfants de la Patrie!
 
Something new: apparently, some business companies have taken to consulting philosophers to improve their business.

Only polite people can apply to get details. :D
EB
 
Oh dear, you haven't been visiting churches too often in your life have you? :p

You light a candle using one that's already burning. :cool:
EB
 
Kharakov said:
untermensche said:
And your point?
Click to expand...
 We didn't start the fire. It was always burning...
Click to expand...
I think that's a different point.

Do we mean by "philosophy" the philosophical texts that exists, or the philosophy either written or spoken that created it that doesn't anymore, going all the way back to the first philosophers?

How can anything come before philosophy?

Before one steps back and ponders the situation?
 
Moderation Note: Many posts about other members, rather than the subject of the thread, split to Up in
Flames area. Please address the subject, not other posters.
 
As far as I can tell philosophy has basically made society more rational, but I think the scope of what you'd actually call philosophy in this regard isn't completely clear. If good ideas making things better can be attributed to philosophy, then the act of philosophizing is responsible for every major advance in history. But then, how do you separate what is and what is not philosophy? If we draw the line at people who call themselves philosophers, and who call their works works of philosophy, then 'philosophy' has done much less, although still a lot.

Practically speaking, 'philosophers' seem somewhat responsible for the beginnings of science, and the enlightenment, which I think is their major contribution.
 
I think we have to avoid the idea that philosophy somehow encompasses everything, or else the question becomes meaningless. Just as claims that 'science' includes everything that involves interaction with the real world, ultimately become meaningless. Reducing it strictly to academic philosophy risks the opposite problem - academics generally influence the world by discovering ideas that other people then use, which is why so many of the accomplishments attributed to scientists are, strictly speaking, enacted by engineers.

In terms of the landscape of ideas, I have no difficulty with the idea that philosophy has contributed both significantly and widely. Certainly within my own discipline of experimental psychology, most of the models and theories of mind and to a lesser extent, brain, can trace their roots to philosophical ideas, and analysis of them can benefit greatly from experience in putting logical reasoning on a formal and systemic basis. From what I understand, higher mathematics has a very close relationship with philosophy. I can well believe that the relationship is less obvious, or even largely absent, in some of the harder sciences, where the theoretical framework is well established and no longer subject to question.
 
rousseau said:
As far as I can tell philosophy has basically made society more rational, but I think the scope of what you'd actually call philosophy in this regard isn't completely clear. If good ideas making things better can be attributed to philosophy, then the act of philosophizing is responsible for every major advance in history. But then, how do you separate what is and what is not philosophy? If we draw the line at people who call themselves philosophers, and who call their works works of philosophy, then 'philosophy' has done much less, although still a lot.

Practically speaking, 'philosophers' seem somewhat responsible for the beginnings of science, and the enlightenment, which I think is their major contribution.
Click to expand...
If one accepts that philosophers have been influential then it's for good as well as for bad ideas.

In particular, some of Kant's ideas on moral philosophy seem to have influenced some of the Nazy dignitaries (the one procecuted and executed in Israel... Eichmann?). Marx also comes to mind. And my earlier example about Bergson's Elan vital.

And then I don't see why philosophers would have on average better than average ideas. So, while I can see that a particular philosopher could have had a good influence on the history of mankind I don't believe that philosophical ideas on average have had a good influence. Rather, it's philosophy, as a methodological practice, that may be a positive factor.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
If one accepts that philosophers have been influential then it's for good as well as for bad ideas.
Click to expand...
The history of science is just as full of bad ideas.

But we don't associate science with the bad ideas. We don't condemn the scientific method because some understand it badly.

Even in research done today, published research, we find all kinds of bad methods and improper conclusions. These are many times slowly weeded out if the research has any significance, but it happens all the time.

To me philosophy and science are like matter and energy. The same thing in two different forms. Science has an easier job because it is dealing with the tangible while philosophy deals with this nebulous cloud called ideas.
 
Togo said:
I think we have to avoid the idea that philosophy somehow encompasses everything, or else the question becomes meaningless.
Click to expand...

But it is meaningless! The problem is that those that oppose science to philosophy doesnt know what they talk about.

It is them that should specify what lart of the immense field of philosophy they have this grudge against.
 
Juma said:
Togo said:
I think we have to avoid the idea that philosophy somehow encompasses everything, or else the question becomes meaningless.
Click to expand...

But it is meaningless! The problem is that those that oppose science to philosophy doesnt know what they talk about.

It is them that should specify what lart of the immense field of philosophy they have this grudge against.
Click to expand...

The impression I get is that the objection is to critical thought. Science is successful and good, and thus any basis on which science might be criticised is seen a target. If science were more like fundamentalist Christianity, then it would be easier to bludgeon other people with it.

The objections to this are largely logical, demonstrating that it's illogical to people who consider themselves intelligent requires formal logic, and hence formal logic is viewed with suspicion. The target is not ethics, or moral philosophy, it's any claim to truth that is outside science - formal logic, pure maths, any form of analytical philosophy, and so on.

Or to put it another way, the impression I get is that those who oppose philosophy want all truth to be located in the field that they are personally familiar with, or derived from it. Just like religious and political extremists of any other kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom