Does Philosophy Get Out of Date?

[Philosophy Now]

Mary Midgley says philosophy is about understanding the context and about understanding how we came to be where we are.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/103/Doe ... ut_of_Date

[spike]

I think this article by Mary Midgley is more about the relevance of philosophy than whether it goes out of date. And I think that in general philosophy is relevant but some does go out of date. Some philosophy is time sensitive and should be marked as such, not to be uses after a certain expiry date, like the philosophies of Marx and Plato. But who's to know when a philosophy gets out of date? I mean, sometimes it's like food, if you consume it after a certain date you might get sick and die. And some social orders have died off because they continued to follow the principles of those two instead of adapting to new ones.

The philosophies of Marx and Plato were fashioned on the notion of the world someday reaching a completion, that once a certain plateau of enlightenment and progress is reached the job is done. Not so. The world is always a work in progress, something the followers of those two never seem to cotton on to.

And here we have Wittgenstein on the cover of the latest issue of PN. I think his philosophy is out dated. Plus, it is irrelevant in today's world, if it ever was. Nevertheless, it can still be interesting in mulling it over, like that of Marx and Plato.

[WanderingLands]

I think this article by Mary Midgley is more about the relevance of philosophy than whether it goes out of date. And I think that in general philosophy is relevant but some does go out of date. Some philosophy is time sensitive and should be marked as such, not to be uses after a certain expiry date, like the philosophies of Marx and Plato. But who's to know when a philosophy gets out of date? I mean, sometimes it's like food, if you consume it after a certain date you might get sick and die. And some social orders have died off because they continued to follow the principles of those two instead of adapting to new ones.

The philosophies of Marx and Plato were fashioned on the notion of the world someday reaching a completion, that once a certain plateau of enlightenment and progress is reached the job is done. Not so. The world is always a work in progress, something the followers of those two never seem to cotton on to.

And here we have Wittgenstein on the cover of the latest issue of PN. I think his philosophy is out dated. Plus, it is irrelevant in today's world, if it ever was. Nevertheless, it can still be interesting in mulling it over, like that of Marx and Plato.

Though I may agree with the fact that philosophers like Marx and Plato are too much of 'perfectionists', there still may be some relevant points that they talk about which are still interesting in many peoples' heads. Ideas include Plato's Theory of Forms, where he finds the commonality of qualities within the things in the universe and calls it a 'form', or innate concept. For Marx, I don't adhere to Marxism or his ideas of 'revolution', but he nevertheless points out the flaws of the capitalist system and that the elites manipulate and control those of the 'lower class' (as if, though, he's somehow the only one). And Wittgenstein, although I have not explored him myself, should also still be studied. If anything, language may be the main problem in how to define reality and organize our perceptions of it into a coherent manner.

For me, the philosophers are secondary to their ideas and concepts, which to me are eternal as they are shared by the beholder (in the historical context, though, it may be vice versa). So really, whether or not there are flaws in the philosophers, they still have great ideas which resonate with many people, depending on their perception on reality, which means that 'philosophy' is never outdated and is never irrelevant.

[Arising_uk]

...
The philosophies of Marx and Plato were fashioned on the notion of the world someday reaching a completion, that once a certain plateau of enlightenment and progress is reached the job is done. Not so. The world is always a work in progress, something the followers of those two never seem to cotton on to. ...

Not heard of Mao or Lenin then?

[Ansiktsburk]

Didn't read the article until now. Quite liked it. I'll comment it, but first some words on what has been said above:

if you read anthing like reading the bible(if your orthodox) you will end up in trouble. Yeah, Platon and Marx took mouthfuls, especially Marx in his historicism. But you never know. If you read Popper's criticism of Marx, he held that the national states would regulate laissez-faire. But look and behold, what has happened? Globalization. Big Business doesn't have to care about states any more. They just move production(or R&D) to another country. They're baack...

Regarding the article - more or less how I see things. There are business for bits and pices and truths. Natural Science. And the philosophical faculties seem to try to adhere to science, being piecemeal and searching for truths as opposed to Rousseau and Locke that looked upon the world with fresh eyes, and really invented new ways of thinking. And there is a biig need for new thinking now, in this revolving world. Who actually tries to find the global solutions nowadays? Who can find ways for Islam to exist in the new world? How to handle environmental questions, how to handle the existence of internet? You will not find nice little truths, but you will use concepts like the ones Locke and other philosophers brought forward, and there is a need for people thinking big now too. All the isms in use are from the 19 th century. But due to the hickups in the 20th there seem to be a tabu of thinking anything new in terms of political systems. What about the philosophical faculties coming up with something new there?

[HexHammer]

This is only what I've preached all along, nothing new.