Re: Contemporary philosophy
I'm no expert myself, by any means, but after seeing your question (I must admit I have wondered as to the state of modern philosophy in a vague manner now and then) I decided to have a rumage through the interweb. I'm sure nothing you could not have found yourself, but it might help:
Main Issues: http://neouto.wordpress.com/2010/01/...-21st-century/
Recent Evolution of Schools: http://www.friesian.com/hist-3.htm
I never hear of any well known contemporary philosophers - except for Žižek of course - perhaps like artists their best once they're dead?
Hope this Helps.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Well here is the link to contemporary philosophy on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_philosophy
Currently most of us get our opinions based on religious and political outlooks. Which as you have discovered in your political debates are mostly dogmatic. Philosophy of any age takes a premise and builds on it until a conclusion is reached or the premise becomes circular and reaches the beginning. In that way theology is little different from philosophy as one always has to have a base premise that they accept is correct before anything else can be resolved. Without a base premise nothing is resolvable. As a point of fact philosophy also runs in science because anything without proof is theoretical and thus we end up with theoretical physics which attempts to extrapolate on existing theories that are believed to be proved.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dogukan
I would also like to know more about Analytical philosophy
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....4L._AA160_.jpg
If you follow the reference till the next junction, you'll find what you are looking for.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
If you don't want to include science and numbers you are probably a joke. Nothing else. Humanities worldwide are shrinking and it is because they are largely worthless and wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble.
That which survives has integrated, good riddance to the shrinking rest.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denny Crane!
If you don't want to include science and numbers you are probably a joke. Nothing else. Humanities worldwide are shrinking and it is because they are largely worthless and wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble.
That which survives has integrated, good riddance to the shrinking rest.
Couldn't disagree more. Science fetishism is a dogma in-itself. I do not reject science or anything, all I know is that this attitude has no place in philosophy. In fact, this attitude is the -joke-.
What gives the sciences its worth? The biggest BS I have studied so far was economics, and its claim to be a science.
If you are talking about neuro-science and physics, they are not incompatible with epistemology and ontology.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dogukan
Couldn't disagree more. Science fetishism is a dogma in-itself. I do not reject science or anything, all I know is that this attitude has no place in philosophy. In fact, this attitude is the -joke-.
What gives the sciences its worth? The biggest BS I have studied so far was economics, and its claim to be a science.
If you are talking about neuro-science and physics, they are not incompatible with epistemology and ontology.
Economics isn't a science at all and no one really claims it is, well "soft science" it is sometimes referred too. There is nothing remotely related to having a fetish for science because you expect a certain methodology or evidence based approach.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denny Crane!
Economics isn't a science at all and no one really claims it is, well "soft science" it is sometimes referred too.
I have seen many claim it to be a science.
Quote:
There is nothing remotely related to having a fetish for science because you expect a certain methodology or evidence based approach.
I know how science works, but when you are discussing how the reality exists and how can we know, people can fetishize science. Not necessarily scientists, I am talking about science as a social phenomena rather than science as a process. What had been "scientific" had changed throughout time. And I am strong believer of positive sciences, but there is no way I will put it next to philosophy. I believe a good scientist should be well-versed in epistemology&ontology literature to put it into a social context. Otherwise it would science for science.
At least, I believe philosophy means more. It contributes "less", but from a philosophical point of view you can make scientific progress meaningless. Long story short, I believe philosophy's contribution to individual and his consciousness, the way he perceives/contributes a lot more to life. Scientific progress can come from a well established philosophical background anyways. At least that is what happened historically.
I know your argument was more the contemporary situation. And I believe in this post-modern world of ours with immense amount of misinformation, un-trackable progress and continuous chaos-crises-wars, lives we live without choosing, without decisions of good consciousness, I believe philosophy needs to step-in again. Or maybe I feel this way because I am from the middle east :P I was not as concerned when I was in Sweden. You see how much material conditions shape consciousness? :D
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denny Crane!
If you don't want to include science and numbers you are probably a joke. Nothing else. Humanities worldwide are shrinking and it is because they are largely worthless and wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble.
That which survives has integrated, good riddance to the shrinking rest.
The only reason they shrink and are 'wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble' is because they are confronted with a fundamental problem - they do not exist outside of human perception (or at least we think they don't, that old philosophy complicating things yet again...) unlike the 'Real' Sciences, which are there regardless of human society. As the Humanities are about human society any ideas concerning them are necessarily ideological - the trick is to get out of ideology and attempt to take an overview of society and how it fundamentally works - which some schools of the humanities do better than others... If more did this then we can construct a scientific (I admit I use the word loosely) school in the humanities, which I hope would reverse this supposed 'shrinking' and restore the humanities to their rightful place as one of the key subjects of human understanding. How much more of the universe we would understand if we only understood ourselves.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Napoleonic Bonapartism
The only reason they shrink and are 'wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble' is because they are confronted with a fundamental problem - they do not exist outside of human perception (or at least we think they don't, that old philosophy complicating things yet again...) unlike the 'Real' Sciences, which are there regardless of human society. As the Humanities are about human society any ideas concerning them are necessarily ideological - the trick is to get out of ideology and attempt to take an overview of society and how it fundamentally works - which some schools of the humanities do better than others... If more did this then we can construct a scientific (I admit I use the word loosely) school in the humanities, which I hope would reverse this supposed 'shrinking' and restore the humanities to their rightful place as one of the key subjects of human understanding. How much more of the universe we would understand if we only understood ourselves.
Most philosophies that bear relevance have ended up in the physical sciences at least partially, philosophy of mind, psychology, physics.
What hasn't...go on>
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Napoleonic Bonapartism
The only reason they shrink and are 'wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble' is because they are confronted with a fundamental problem - they do not exist outside of human perception (or at least we think they don't, that old philosophy complicating things yet again...) unlike the 'Real' Sciences, which are there regardless of human society. As the Humanities are about human society any ideas concerning them are necessarily ideological - the trick is to get out of ideology and attempt to take an overview of society and how it fundamentally works - which some schools of the humanities do better than others... If more did this then we can construct a scientific (I admit I use the word loosely) school in the humanities, which I hope would reverse this supposed 'shrinking' and restore the humanities to their rightful place as one of the key subjects of human understanding. How much more of the universe we would understand if we only understood ourselves.
Not "Real" sciences, but imo. hard-sciences is the right word (if i understood you right for the kind of differentiation). I (and not only me) is seeing science not limited to nature-science aka hard-sciences - although, i myself make a profession of mainly applied hard-sciences (but that's one aspect only, as economy and humans/society are extreme relevant in my job), plus i come from another basement due to my youth with interests in multiple departments, and anyway, i guess, Germany is different to other countries in this regard, ie. sociology, psychology etc. are acted as sciences, and usually commonly approved as such). Science means basicly, providing knowledge, right? And, philosophy means literally 'the love to think', and this of course helps in science-researchment and all its (possible) progress (in our societies). And else, you are completely right in your approach above (bold).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denny Crane!
Most philosophies that bear relevance have ended up in the physical sciences at least partially, philosophy of mind, psychology, physics.
What hasn't...go on>
Basicly, i assume, the thinking about the world developed from observing the nature, the trial to understand the climate, the weather-changing, circles, periods ...why? To get some kind of control for a successful farming (term used as overall 'providing food'), to forsee what comes next (based on fear, lastly, to die out of hunger) - that was essential in the early religions. Thus, no, not philosophy as what we understand it today was first there, but nature-science connected with religion (because in the imagination, someone, a "branch"-god or gods has/have the might for the ongoings in the nature, even if the sun or whatever was seen as god or gods), thus also that old researchment was also societal thinking or researchment for the better of the community, one could call it also as kind of sociology. The observation of the nature brought out mathematic approaches, math, which is a philosophical system, but basicly interpretation of nature observation in its roots, looking for rules and laws which help to describe the ongoings. Our sciences today are the developed refinements of these old roots.
Edit
Next item in this regard: The political nature of sciences - when somebody understands what i wrote above, then one will also see the politics in that (aka science exists practically not politics-free). Why? The one who had that knowledge which eventually decided about life and death was the 'man of the time'. Considered, as what we would interpete as priest (religion ... making rules), often, but probably not always, also the tribe leader. If he, the priest, wasn't the tribe leader, and there was also another one with might, ie. due to doing/leading the hunt etc., the executive of the 'providing food' (and perhaps leader of defence vs. competitors, another tribe), then there is politics of who has the say ... politics was born there, and probably the 'fight' between religion (while "nature-science" based in the old days) leaders and merely (secular) physical powerful leaders. First the christendom and also islam differentiated the religion leaders from the nature-science based religions (which then was the belief of heathens), but that controverse development brought also wisdom in the end (renaissance aka back to old knowledge, plus then progress on that base), and then lastly (in some countries today) the overcoming of static beliefs (religion owned science monopol) or insight in all those items, researchment as possible and desired science.
And btw., philosophy as such, was usually only possible for people who didn't need to provide a living in work aka providing food - this in itself is progress for us humans, when somebody was able to not "fight" daily for his survival (providing food etc.), but also parallely overall the option of progress-making for the humans (time to think), ie. where would we be without the ie. greek and arab thinkers (from which we have our mathematic system, not only that, of course).
Bach once more: Art, which i (not only me, lol) consider as very important cultural item, was born in the olden days, when people started to draw their nature/environment observations on ie. cave walls or hides, and music&dance, when people sat or moved around in groups by the fire or whatever to celebrate whatever and started to make any sound on material and vocals ie. due to (religious) rituals, language developed here, the more complicate/complex the things got in the living-together structures, all that was society-furthering action, human progress.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
We do have problems in science across the board. Most of it stems from how science is funded and the way people choose to publicise studies that merit little due to poor logic in the analysis of data. Their presumptions and weak attempts at falsification give a bad name to the rest of science. Sadly there is so much inept science out there that most of us don't hear about the well researched or useful things until years after the event when someone wades through the rubbish to find it and brings it to the attention of everyone else. By this point we now have it established that the only way to save the planet is if we wear used rubbish bags as clothes to stop global warming and don't believe the study that has a better solution.
Regarding philosophy there is no inherent superiority in philosophy. The superior merit would actually come from logic which is a tool used in debating and as such should be something acquired through an education in critical thinking which is something that goes beyond philosophy.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denny Crane!
If you don't want to include science and numbers you are probably a joke. Nothing else. Humanities worldwide are shrinking and it is because they are largely worthless and wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble.
That which survives has integrated, good riddance to the shrinking rest.
What a positivist nonsense. Humanities have their own scientific methods. That something needs to be based on maths and hard laws has simply been proven to be false the last century. What makes a science is not a reliance on numbers, but the use of a sound methodology, based on valid logic and solid arguments. Whether that's based on hermeneutics, statistics or mathematic laws is irrelevant (different disciplines simply need to have different methodologies). Scientific monism fails to respect the diversity of approaches that can be taken to understand the world and everything in it (i.e., also, the human mind).
Quote:
Most philosophies that bear relevance have ended up in the physical sciences at least partially, philosophy of mind, psychology, physics.
What about political philosophy, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, etc. They're at least as relevant, if not even more so.
Anyway, if you fail to see the relevance of the human sciences or other fields that are not "hard science", I fear that it is ultimately your loss.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinan
What a positivist nonsense. Humanities have their own scientific methods. That something needs to be based on maths and hard laws has simply been proven to be false the last century. What makes a science is not a reliance on numbers, but the use of a sound methodology, based on valid logic and solid arguments. Whether that's based on hermeneutics, statistics or mathematic laws is irrelevant (different disciplines simply need to have different methodologies). Scientific monism fails to respect the diversity of approaches that can be taken to understand the world and everything in it (i.e., also, the human mind).
Did you and Denny just make the same argument using different words?
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaidin
Did you and Denny just make the same argument using different words?
yup
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaidin
Did you and Denny just make the same argument using different words?
I interpreted him to mean that sciences which do not use mathematics and/or law-models for their deductions are inferior to those which do (e.g. most philosophical disciplines, literature, history, etc. are inferior to physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.), since he was referring to a "linguistic bubble". I interpreted it this way because a lot of people seem to think philosophy is redundant, now that the hard sciences are tackling questions traditionally done by philosophy.
In case I misunderstood, consider my post invalid. In case I did not misunderstand, please point out which point of my post you did not understand. To clarify, I see the humanities (and hence also (contemporary) philosophy) as a science, since they use a rational, scientific method.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinan
I interpreted him to mean that sciences which do not use mathematics and/or law-models for their deductions are inferior to those which do (e.g. most philosophical disciplines, literature, history, etc. are inferior to physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.), since he was referring to a "linguistic bubble". I interpreted it this way because a lot of people seem to think philosophy is redundant, now that the hard sciences are tackling questions traditionally done by philosophy.
In case I misunderstood, consider my post invalid. In case I did not misunderstand, please point out which point of my post you did not understand. To clarify, I see the humanities (and hence also (contemporary) philosophy) as a science, since they use a rational, scientific method.
Well, pretty much every research field has a methodology to it if it hopes to field anything resembling a worthwhile Masters or PhD. Or anything resembling a subject matter expert who could only have a Bachelor's degree but has just been in the field that long that's putting out a white paper or its equivalent. We like to moan about a biased corporation putting out biased research, but...every now and then... You never know until you actually read the paper honestly. It doesn't matter whether it's what we consider the "Sciences" or the "Humanities" or the "Arts" really. There's got to be a worthwhile way to assess the work by the experts of the field. A 'science' to it, so to speak. Each field will have it's method. You two just seemed to be talking past each other but saying the same thing, is all.
Re: Contemporary philosophy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denny Crane!
Humanities worldwide are [...] wrapped up in their own linguistic bubble.
I study social anthropology and you have no idea how much this applies to this field. Or maybe you do, and that is why you posted this.
