The Greatest Thinker Of The Millennium

[Haffner]

I couldn't have put it better myself. But indeed, that is just (you and) me.

I guess I'm holding the torch for open mindedness. Probably to a fault. But it's helped my life so much. One of the forum members here has a quote from Zappa (paraphrase), that the mind is like a parachute...


Brilliant.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I think it's a matter of application. Even when a major philosopher is difficult, the student can at least learn, through study, how to discipline oneself mentally in order to more fully comprehend the thinker's works. This can be invaluable when applied to making day to day decisions.

But let's face, most people don't like to think too much

Perhaps.  But please don't be too hard on us since most humans simply do not  have  the 'linguistic' and 'logical' ability that is necessary to read philosophy in the first place.

[Haffner]

Perhaps.  But please don't be too hard on us since most humans simply do not  have  the 'linguistic' and 'logical' ability that is necessary to read philosophy in the first place.

What I wrote had nothing to do with you personally, dear friend. It had to do with people whom make dismissive comments in general.

I had a hard time getting into philosophy and psychology until I absolutely WANTED to. If I can do it, anyone can, of that I'm certain.

[nut-job]

I think it's a matter of application. Even when a major philosopher is difficult, the student can at least learn, through study, how to discipline oneself mentally in order to more fully comprehend the thinker's works. This can be invaluable when applied to making day to day decisions.

This can also be applied to the various other arts as well. As long as one is able to both apply oneself to the subject material, and find how to apply the cognitive processes to everyday decision making, one wins regardless of how "practical"  in itself the subject matter may seem.

But let's face, most people don't like to think too much. To me, that's like not wanting to live too much. But that's just me.

Reasoning can only draw conclusions which follow logically from assumptions.   When the assumptions are empirical, that is science.  For instance, Newton assumed certain laws of dynamics and a certain law of gravitation and used a chain of reasoning to conclude that an orbiting planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times, independent of the distance from the sun.   The laws of motion and the rule about the areas was based on empirical evidence.  Newton implicitly proved his law of gravitation.   The law of gravitation was later verified in separate experiments. 

When you apply reasoning to unsupported assumptions and reach certain conclusions this is called philosophy.  Unfortunately the conclusions are no better supported than the assumptions.  This avtivity produces no knowledge, but is considered entertaining by some people.

[DavidRoss]

When you apply reasoning to unsupported assumptions and reach certain conclusions this is called philosophy. 

FALSE!

The rational methodology of science, which you just explained with admirable brevity, is philosophy.  What you described in the passage quoted above is not.  It is just speculation.

[Haffner]

Reasoning can only draw conclusions which follow logically from assumptions.   When the assumptions are empirical, that is science.  For instance, Newton assumed certain laws of dynamics and a certain law of gravitation and used a chain of reasoning to conclude that an orbiting planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times, independent of the distance from the sun.   The laws of motion and the rule about the areas was based on empirical evidence.  Newton implicitly proved his law of gravitation.   The law of gravitation was later verified in separate experiments. 

When you apply reasoning to unsupported assumptions and reach certain conclusions this is called philosophy.  Unfortunately the conclusions are no better supported than the assumptions.  This avtivity produces no knowledge, but is considered entertaining by some people.

This post shows some serious thought, and I apologize if I came across a little harsh earlier. But you seem to completely miss the point as far as the mental exercise value of philosophical and psychological study (and this is only one of the benefits of such study). As Hegel put it, the abstract is, yet cannot "be" anything but mental smoke until one successfully brings it into the world as a workable, organic entity. The point, is, if you haven't adequately kept up your thinking equipment, for example by expanding your philosophical horizons, then you end up woefully limited in what you can do judgement (action)-wise in the real world. Marx himself was accused of being "all about" abstraction with his Manifesto, because it seemed to only work in principle, not in the real world.

I have to point out how David made a valid point as to the grounds of your argument.

Ultimately , though,  I admit that I am really happy that you are taking the time to think things out, bravo!

[drogulus]

When you apply reasoning to unsupported assumptions and reach certain conclusions this is called philosophy.  Unfortunately the conclusions are no better supported than the assumptions.  This avtivity produces no knowledge, but is considered entertaining by some people.

    I don't think this covers the cases we need to concern ourselves with. Science is philosophy that has matured to the point that specific rather than general questions can be asked. Science then stands on philosophy's back and says nothing is holding it up but it's own discoveries. That's not exactly right. There's a lot of philosophy that is presupposed to make scientific questions frameable let alone answerable.

    Philosophy is often concerned with rules to apply, not propositional truths. So while a scientist verifies his hypothesis the philosopher argues for the value of a rule like verification. If philosophy was all science and nothing but then the fact that the verification rule can't itself be verified would render it meaningless by your standard. So it isn't entertainment, or not only.

[nut-job]

  Philosophy is often concerned with rules to apply, not propositional truths. So while a scientist verifies his hypothesis the philosopher argues for the value of a rule like verification. If philosophy was all science and nothing but then the fact that the verification rule can't itself be verified would render it meaningless by your standard. So it isn't entertainment, or not only.

Science does not rely on philosophical reasoning for its basis, justifies itself with the observation that the method is successful.

[drogulus]

Science does not rely on philosophical reasoning for its basis, justifies itself with the observation that the method is successful.

      Yes, like that. Thank you. Of course, you can't verify that. It just a rule you use. That's philosophy.

      My kind, that is. The good kind.

     

[DavidRoss]

Science does not rely on philosophical reasoning for its basis, justifies itself with the observation that the method is successful.

I'm sure you're well-intentioned, just ignorant regarding philosophy (don't worry, it's not a big deal and you've plenty of company...as the comments on this thread demonstrate).  Science is a particularly fruitful development of philosophical inquiry marrying both inductive and deductive reasoning to observation and controlled testing of hypotheses.  Each of the sciences is just a branch of natural philosophy.

[Florestan]

By the way, Lewis Wolpert, the great developmental biologist, once said the following in an interview:

"With the exception of David Hume I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that..."

This guy might be a great developmental biologist but he surely is a great idiot as well.

As for the windshield wiper, it is my firm conviction that had it not been for Descartes or Francis Bacon it would have never been invented.

[nut-job]

This guy might be a great developmental biologist but he surely is a great idiot as well.

As for the windshield wiper, it is my firm conviction that had it not been for Descartes or Francis Bacon it would have never been invented.

How important can philosophy be if one if a person can become one of the great scientists of his age without even being aware of it? 

Certainly we owe it to the philosophers of antiquity, because they were the first to develop the culture of thinking hard about things.  I tend to think of them as being similar to the alchemists, who produced no correct knowledge, but were valuable as precursors to chemists.

On the other hand, philosophy is a revered occupation of scientists in their dotage, too confused to do further original work, but interesting to listen to.

[Florestan]

How important can philosophy be if one if a person can become one of the great scientists of his age without even being aware of it? 

Without this much despised philosophy there would not have been any science and scientists in the first place. Just like most car-drivers have no clue about who Otto or Diesel were, but they are very proud of their new Toyota or BMW.

[drogulus]

     Scientists have cut the link to philosophy in their own minds. Einstein, Heisenberg, and Bohr understood themselves to be philosophers in the old sense of seekers of knowledge. The new model scientist follows the example of Feynman, who wasn't happy to learn that his son was going to study philosophy. I sympathize in a way since so much philosophy is useless for them. Much of what philosophers do is create categories for the thoughts of the few who say interesting things. Also, some philosophers have decided that they can rule on factual questions in the way they imagine scientists can. The sociology of science is where you can find some of this. I think it's mostly cargo cult thinking. Sometimes an equation or a science term will show up to propitiate a god of some kind.

     Wolpert has excellent instincts about philosophy in choosing the one great philosopher who most clearly expressed what science can and can't do, and why. Yet, I feel it shows considerable ignorance not to understand how much science owes to speculation, without which science simply disappears. Still, philosophers ignorant of science contribute as much to the estrangement as the ignorant scientists do.

   

Without this much despised philosophy there would not have been any science and scientists in the first place. Just like most car-drivers have no clue about who Otto or Diesel were, but they are very proud of their new Toyota or BMW.

    It's part of the price paid for the expansion of knowledge as well as it's branching off the way it does. It's very hard to get a clear overview. And you have to understand the very good reasons scientists have for walling themselves off from the toxic influence of the mysterians of religion and philosophy. The evil machinations of the lovers of ignorance are not in the past, they are active now, and they are very dangerous.

   

[DavidRoss]

Ignorant but self-satisfied comments about the nature of Philosophy on this thread remind me of the similar comments about Music on the "What Is Quality Music" thread or about Art on the "Modern Art Is Junk" thread.  It's been said many times but still bears repeating:  It's impossible to learn anything when you think you already know.

There is an enormous gap between the academic discipline called "Philosophy" and the common but uninformed belief that it has something to do with the stuff described in books usually found under the erroneous heading "Metaphysics" at your local bookstore.  There is nearly as great a gap between Anglo-American Philosophy rooted in empiricism and that rather mystical mish-mash of ideas known as Continental Philosophy.

As for the "greatest thinker of the past millennium," I doubt it would be any of the usual suspects, regardless of the criteria employed.  Gee, it might even be someone from a non-European culture, or a woman...although few here, if any, seem to have considered either possibility.

[nut-job]

Without this much despised philosophy there would not have been any science and scientists in the first place.

Evidently your reading comprehension is rather low, because that is exactly I said in my very next sentence, science grew out of philosophy.  But in my view, to study philosophy now (except as a historian) is like going to university to study alchemy.

[drogulus]

Evidently your reading comprehension is rather low, because that is exactly I said in my very next sentence, science grew out of philosophy.  But in my view, to study philosophy now (except as a historian) is like going to university to study alchemy.

     You seem to be missing a very large point. You want to show how science gets its value while philosophy is just a historical relic. In order to do that you make judgments about the utility of kinds of thinking which themselves can't be verified scientifically. In order to defend science you must engage in philosophy, and so you do! No doubt you wish you didn't have to, but it's been pointed out before in other threads that it takes some good philosophy to drive out the bad. That's also the explanation for why philosophers "waste their time" on the settled issue of the existence of gods. Philosophically the issue could be said to be settled centuries ago, though you can see that really bad ideas crop up in new clothing all the time. Each generation has to discover anew what the old battles were about.

[Haffner]

Ignorant but self-satisfied comments about the nature of Philosophy on this thread remind me of the similar comments about Music on the "What Is Quality Music" thread or about Art on the "Modern Art Is Junk" thread.  It's been said many times but still bears repeating:  It's impossible to learn anything when you think you already know.

I agree. On all levels.

[nut-job]

Ignorant but self-satisfied comments about the nature of Philosophy on this thread remind me of the similar comments about Music on the "What Is Quality Music" thread or about Art on the "Modern Art Is Junk" thread.  It's been said many times but still bears repeating:  It's impossible to learn anything when you think you already know.

If you are referring to me, I could legitimately object to being labeled ignorant, having read and studied a fair spectrum of philosophers, including Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Sartre, Hegel.  I remember being fascinated at the time, but I guess my view is that true wisdom is attained when you realize how irrelevant that stuff is to the universe we actually live in.

[Florestan]

There is nearly as great a gap between Anglo-American Philosophy rooted in empiricism and that rather mystical mish-mash of ideas known as Continental Philosophy.

You are usually a reasonable and informed poster, David, and this is precisely why that caricature puzzles me greatly.