Xtratime Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Has Philosophy run its course? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Xtratime Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive. Try to avoid choosing short (like '1'), simple (like 'abcd') and easy to guess passwords (like a name of your favorite team, player, etc)! Complex and long enough passwords, that consists of random string of alphabet and numerical characters, are almost impossible to be stolen and misused.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
March 30th, 2018 22:15
Morierinho Edison > Zizek
March 30th, 2018 21:44
forestasuceava https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...-people-boring



Clearly not, looks at this man! He has shit to say.
March 30th, 2018 20:55
pele10brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morierinho View Post
There are some superstars like William Lane Craig though..
March 30th, 2018 20:52
Morierinho Being generous to today crop of philosophers we could say contemporary philosophy is a collaborative effort, like science (not many Einsteins out there).

There are some superstars like William Lane Craig though..
March 30th, 2018 16:28
pele10brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firdaus View Post
(2) pele is looking to compile a top 50 greatest philosophers list and doesn't want to look silly by not mentioning modern day philosophers.
Thought about that but I don't know if I should wait till I read at least one book form all the usual suspects(a personal ranking) or make a list based on reputation. And I think a top 20 would suffice, but anyway it's a thing for the future

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firdaus View Post
(3) Would Nietzsche in this era just be a Twitter troll, a soyboy or a view-hungry YouTuber?
Nietzsche vs Shapiro+Peterson
March 30th, 2018 16:15
Firdaus You guys are being too hard on pele.

I read the OP as asking/saying:

(1) where are all the great philosophers today?

(2) pele is looking to compile a top 50 greatest philosophers list and doesn't want to look silly by not mentioning modern day philosophers.

(3) Would Nietzsche in this era just be a Twitter troll, a soyboy or a view-hungry YouTuber?
March 28th, 2018 03:06
yeniceri
Quote:
Originally Posted by pele10brazil View Post

Let's start with people who haven't posted yet but think philosophy will continue to progress simultaneously with society @Laudrup @yeniceri
I really don't have anything interesting to add to the conversation.
March 27th, 2018 17:18
pele10brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
There is no progress because you are stuck trying to argue why you should be able to talk about a subject without studying it. I didnt call you stupid, my initial post has no mention of such word, so how you understood this way is beyond me. There is no personal attacks from my part (you however insists to talk about by "but hurt" or something). I gave you the most deep insight you could receive. Use it as you want.

Discussions in general would be nigh extinct if people would only ask about/offer their opinion in hope of further insight strictly about their field of expertise. So sorry to say this man but your line of reasoning is getting more retarded with each post. Not to mention that you're abusing every fallacious argument out there and literally pretending your OP wasn't a complete dodging of the matter and a personal attack on my education wich automatically rendered(by your logic) my question irelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
The little I know about Wittgeinstein is that didn't wrote about scientifc thought, he wrote about logic, mathemathics and language. He suggested a few things: the wrong question is a major problem of philosophy. Another is that comunication is a major problem, so silence is sometimes more productive than talking. Both are insights you can use because your question is stupid.

I never said that about Wittgeinstein, but yes. He did wrote about the problems arising from the limited effectiveness of language, although I don't think that's the case here.
You get exactly what I'm saying because I'm pretty sure coherence isn't something lacking in the explanations I gave you. But it's impossible to admit your error for the sake of this imaginary hierarchical position you must think you have as far as intelectually challenging debates go. Wich is fine man, I totally understand it.

P.S.
In my last posts I outlined exactly how one can attempt answering the thread's question and you're still picking on Wittgeinstein. Think it's better for both if you'd give it a rest for now.
March 27th, 2018 16:20
JCamilo
Quote:
Originally Posted by pele10brazil View Post
Well I might think so when your opening post on the matter is this



So I'll let you objectively ponder if my suspicion is groundless or not.

It's true you made slight progress because I had patience and didn't simply respond with a snappy one-line personal attack. But your insight is pretty shallow so far and I think we can agree you resorted more to ad hominem rather than approaching the substance of the question w/o nitpicking or deconstructing the meaning behind certain phrases. Like I said, if the subject is appealing and you have something meaningful to add, by all means go ahead.
There is no progress because you are stuck trying to argue why you should be able to talk about a subject without studying it. I didnt call you stupid, my initial post has no mention of such word, so how you understood this way is beyond me. There is no personal attacks from my part (you however insists to talk about by "but hurt" or something). I gave you the most deep insight you could receive. Use it as you want.


Quote:
Regarding Wittgenstein, he grandiosely suggested the Tractus to be the last radical theory change in philosophy. What I meant by "he was obviously on to something" is that indeed philosophy might need a major change, wich implied by my OP is IMO its permanent assimilation in "scientific thought"(or how I grandly put it, die). So the point is pretty simple, not a critical analysis of the Tractatus(unless you do have something meanigful to quote it on the subject) or a dick meassuring contest on who knows more about Wittgenstein, but is philosophy in need of major change? If yes, is philosophy conceding its goals to science the right answer? Stick to that if you can and you're interested
The little I know about Wittgeinstein is that didn't wrote about scientifc thought, he wrote about logic, mathemathics and language. He suggested a few things: the wrong question is a major problem of philosophy. Another is that comunication is a major problem, so silence is sometimes more productive than talking. Both are insights you can use because your question is stupid.
March 27th, 2018 16:16
pele10brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Christ View Post
we reached that point more than 100 years ago
Should have added "entirely" there but I thought I made my position clear


Quote:
Originally Posted by pele10brazil View Post
Now after humans became rational beings, their line of reasoning was dominated by superstition and dogma, afterwards philosophical thought in it's modern sense emerged and some new progress could be made(but superstitious thought still clinged to it heavily troughout centuries, impeding it's development).
So the question of the thread is if a new kind of progress is in the making and in need of detachment from it's predecessors, the scientific thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pele10brazil View Post
I guess I'm just under the suspicion that our quest to remove those pieces from the big picture will suffer if philosophical thought clinges to scientific thought the same way superstitious thought did/does on both.
In case there are peeps still wondering how a proper attempt to answer this question is made, here's how: Specify several matters in wich you think philosophy is more likely to "get to the bottom of it" in the future wich are outside the realm of possibility for science(or more likely than science). And ultimately people can give their opinion on that likelihood.

Let's start with people who haven't posted yet but think philosophy will continue to progress simultaneously with society @Laudrup @yeniceri
March 27th, 2018 14:30
Morierinho
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelface View Post
When people stop 'philosophizing,' it says something about them, not philosophy
Philosophy isn't dead, it just needs more race and gender quotas.
March 27th, 2018 14:26
Andy Christ
Quote:
Originally Posted by pele10brazil View Post
Ok so this is a very important post. I'd hate it if some peeps might think I'm suggesting people shouldn't study philosophy anymore or that all philosophical works are now useless. Profound reflective moments are something extremely beneficial for the human intellect, but DO NOT mistake "Is philosophical progress dead or dying?" with "You should not philosophise".(because the current view of "the big picture" I described isn't something every or any individual has. Some have more puzzle pieces left than others and only the total of human knowledge at any given point can perfectly describe the current view)

All I'm curious about is if we are reaching the point when philosophy has to pass the torch of enlightenment to science. Or as I put it, the latter's job from now on to pick up those puzzle pieces off the big picture.
we reached that point more than 100 years ago
March 27th, 2018 14:25
Andy Christ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronaldwho? View Post
Wow, didn't know you were an engineer, m8.
well, backhoes and lawnmowers do have engines which need fixing once in a while...
March 27th, 2018 13:22
pele10brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelface View Post
When people stop 'philosophizing,' it says something about them, not philosophy
Ok so this is a very important post. I'd hate it if some peeps might think I'm suggesting people shouldn't study philosophy anymore or that all philosophical works are now useless. Profound reflective moments are something extremely beneficial for the human intellect, but DO NOT mistake "Is philosophical progress dead or dying?" with "You should not philosophise".(because the current view of "the big picture" I described isn't something every or any individual has. Some have more puzzle pieces left than others and only the total of human knowledge at any given point can perfectly describe the current view)

All I'm curious about is if we are reaching the point when philosophy has to pass the torch of enlightenment to science. Or as I put it, the latter's job from now on to pick up those puzzle pieces off the big picture.
March 27th, 2018 13:16
Ronaldwho?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTM View Post
As an engineer, I piss on Philosophy
Wow, didn't know you were an engineer, m8.
March 27th, 2018 13:16
Ronaldwho?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pele10brazil View Post
Was thinking about this for a while when trying to guess wich living philosophers will be "included in the HoF" of philosophy.(Chomsky maybe?) Wittgenstein thought that his book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, is the last ever work on philosophy needing to be published and although he published latter works wich criticised ideas from the Tractatus, he was obviously on to something.

Most likely all major philosophical inquiries have been reflected and debated enough and the progress of philosophy(once slow because of dogmas) saw its most significant paradigm shift with the Age of Enlightenment. Now, fields like evolutionary biology and neuroscience shed light on questions such as the meaning of life, the nature of love or morality and it's here where we probably find the end(or future) of philosophy.
After DZG mentioned Sam Harris in another thread, I read a bit about him and he's currently researching the possibility of establishing a moral code by mapping the neural responses in various situations.(far-future discovery but still interesting)

So I think philosophy is no longer something that evolves in tandem with society, but needs to be replaced by special sciences, or we'll just end up pulling mental gymnastics to come up with something "new" and edgy.
March 27th, 2018 12:58
camelface When people stop 'philosophizing,' it says something about them, not philosophy
March 27th, 2018 12:56
pele10brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by szvkap View Post
as long as we have great philosophy battles la Ero vs Orkan, I don't see it running its course yet
The greatest XT philosophical debate was Rugarici vs scores of shining knights on Albanian hustlers
March 27th, 2018 12:37
szvkap as long as we have great philosophy battles la Ero vs Orkan, I don't see it running its course yet
March 27th, 2018 12:37
Morierinho In before Scrates.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome