Some say that one of the main differences between science and philosophy is that science makes progress while philosophers go round in circles endlessly discussing the same questions. Toni Vogel Carey isn’t convinced.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Is_P ... rogressive
Is Philosophy Progressive?
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Is Philosophy Progressive?
Have you ever played a computer game called Civilizations 5? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_5)
To the question of the title (as a side-note, I also read the article), in that game you have types of core straight-forward progressions (besides the more situational making of cities, armies and buildings), that is: Science and "Culture". As science progress you get more technologies rising your power of knowledge about "how to", like progressing from WW2 fighters to modern Stealth Bombers, but as culture progresses, and you choose between what direction of culture you want to progress in (at the end you have to choose between three "main" directions for instance, those are: Order, Autocracy and Freedom), you will alter the efficiency of all accumulated technology, work-force, growth-rate, monetary value etc.
In this sense you could say, that if you name an end, cultural "ideas" manifesting as philosophy, art of sculptures, art of installations, art of paintings, art of modelling, art of writing, and so on, will, depending of which sets of "ideas" you favour, they will alter the rest of your tools for achieving that goal. If you want to be a world dictator then autocracy with fascism and totalitarianism is probably the preferred ideas of your society, while if all your life is about granting purchasing power then capitalism in most forms and most situations are better than communism in most forms and most situations, and so forth.
You can call it a "progress of efficiency", whereas technology would be more of a "progress of possibility". Philosophy is by Oxford dictionary defined as "efficiency of knowledge" after all.
To the question of the title (as a side-note, I also read the article), in that game you have types of core straight-forward progressions (besides the more situational making of cities, armies and buildings), that is: Science and "Culture". As science progress you get more technologies rising your power of knowledge about "how to", like progressing from WW2 fighters to modern Stealth Bombers, but as culture progresses, and you choose between what direction of culture you want to progress in (at the end you have to choose between three "main" directions for instance, those are: Order, Autocracy and Freedom), you will alter the efficiency of all accumulated technology, work-force, growth-rate, monetary value etc.
In this sense you could say, that if you name an end, cultural "ideas" manifesting as philosophy, art of sculptures, art of installations, art of paintings, art of modelling, art of writing, and so on, will, depending of which sets of "ideas" you favour, they will alter the rest of your tools for achieving that goal. If you want to be a world dictator then autocracy with fascism and totalitarianism is probably the preferred ideas of your society, while if all your life is about granting purchasing power then capitalism in most forms and most situations are better than communism in most forms and most situations, and so forth.
You can call it a "progress of efficiency", whereas technology would be more of a "progress of possibility". Philosophy is by Oxford dictionary defined as "efficiency of knowledge" after all.