Philosophy Now Forum

Hi,

I am not sure how to write this and not get misunderstood. But, ancient philosophy was concerned with questions on how the world was constructed, but later philosophy really only work with humans way of interpreting the world? Does this make sense? This is assumed that you are not religious and believe in science.

Sorry for the bad English and lack of terms, please read between the lines.

M.

the ancients did not consider the filter that the senses provide... they believed they dealt directly with the thing-in-itself...

-Imp

Yes, but what about now, is there anyone dealing with the thing, really? I mean you can have and work with a platonistic attitude. You can think of a thing like it exists although it is not present. Like a (theatre) play even if it is not played at the moment. But then that is just how we picture it, in the physical reality it does not exist. And this would apply to all branches of philosophy?

Metafisk wrote:Hi,

I am not sure how to write this and not get misunderstood. But, ancient philosophy was concerned with questions on how the world was constructed, but later philosophy really only work with humans way of interpreting the world? Does this make sense? This is assumed that you are not religious and believe in science.

Sorry for the bad English and lack of terms, please read between the lines.

M.

My english stinks more than yours, but I make no excuses. English is an International language now, and I usually get understood.

What you write about the philosophy shows why philosophy is the First Science. Back in the days of Aristoteles they had no telescopes or microscopes, and the philosophers had still not invented the scientific methods. Now we have. We have left the figuring out of the details to the nerds. We have moved into still undiscovered territory. What love is, what language and communication really is and so forth. The nerds are making progress here too, MRT's and what not but they are not there yet to take over. And remember that a scientist does a fair bit of philosophy-like thinking too, in the early and late phases of a science project.

Thanks for replying! I didn't mean mean "only" in a negative way.

Metafisk wrote:but later philosophy really only work with humans way of interpreting the world?

I guess I will never find out!

Metafisk wrote:Hi,

I am not sure how to write this and not get misunderstood. But, ancient philosophy was concerned with questions on how the world was constructed, but later philosophy really only work with humans way of interpreting the world? Does this make sense? This is assumed that you are not religious and believe in science.

Sorry for the bad English and lack of terms, please read between the lines.

M.

Science has replaced the superstitious nature of ancient philosphy.

So what would you say modern philosophy is about? Science?

Metafisk wrote:So what would you say modern philosophy is about? Science?

Modern philosophy has only extremely limited use, honestly I dunno where philosophy really has relevance anymore, but most other here on this forum will babble and rave about how useful it is and live in a deluded reality.

Haha, well I think that at least in combination with other disciplines it has it value (but I am not the one talk on this matter). It's fun too!

The problem is that people who don't like philosophy want nice little truths. Clear answers. Fast decisions. Philosophy deals with questions that don't have nice answers, and it's OK to be wrong. Philosophy should be the first science, because in the beginning of a project you should investigate the problem. Something like that.

There is not a single branch of modern philosophy that deal with anything else than how we humans picture the world.

All else is on other sciences tables.

...

Metafisk wrote:There is not a single branch of modern philosophy that deal with anything else than how we humans picture the world.

All else is on other sciences tables.

...

Not only how we picture the world, but it also discusses how to behave in the world. And Philosophy (at its best) does also try to summarize things like politics and religion, where most people side up for one or the other side of something. They almost made Zizek prime minister or something like that.

A philosopher's proper place should maybe be as an advisor to men or women in power. Science don't have all the answers.

But what you wish for is that philosophy should come up with new thoughts on how the universe works? Well, I think that Science is the way forward there.

One thing is sad about philosophy, as I see it defined sometimes. The search for "truth". It suggests to me that you want a nice, final answer to something. Well, read Plato's dialogues. That's philosophy! You discuss things, try to see them from different perspectives and so on. If there in no answers, no conclusions, thats ok! You have shed light on different sides of something.

Actually, there is a series of radio programs in Central Scandinavia, where different urgent questions, like terrorism, immigration, environmental questions are brought up. And discussed in an orderly manner. It's such a relief after hearing the normal shouting from people who has sided up for this or that side of a conflict. Ok, there are maybe one or two journalists who actually try to do that too, and what I hear then is something like Political Philosophy.

The different subjects in PN is also good example of areas where you discuss different matters that not easily can be described using mathematics and laws of nature. Like Humour, Art and so on.

I have been working for a multinational company for 25 years, in different positions, managerial ones from time to time. And what I definitely miss is more discussions of a philosophical nature. Sometimes during the years, there has been initiatives to do that, and I have appreciated such discussions much. It's definitely the case that many people absolutely detest such discussions. They want fast decisions, a fast way forward, dig into a timeplan to get a sense of readiness when they are ready, and a possibility to get a raise or a career move. Thing is, the more philosophical people gets ready just as fast as the duracell rabbits.

Ansiktsburk, thanks for your reply.

You talk about relevant issues for what I am thinking about, however, I am not talking about value, but I am looking for a definition.

Personally I think that there is nothing lesser and nothing larger, at all, about dealing with the human thinking, than dealing with the physical world. I am just out for a really reduced definition of what modern philosophy is, and I was maybe hoping for an example that would prove my statement right or wrong. This would help me while studying philosophy.

To me, it seems like many modern philosophers exist in the realm of social science (like Karl Marx) and those are then obviously not dealing with science. There is the philosopher Karen Barad who has a background as a quantum physics scientist and use that knowledge as a philosopher. But as far as I know she is using that knowledge for the purpose of social science.

I think that my question might be hard to understand because it is so obvious, and odd.

Metafisk wrote:Ansiktsburk, thanks for your reply.

You talk about relevant issues for what I am thinking about, however, I am not talking about value, but I am looking for a definition.

Personally I think that there is nothing lesser and nothing larger, at all, about dealing with the human thinking, than dealing with the physical world. I am just out for a really reduced definition of what modern philosophy is, and I was maybe hoping for an example that would prove my statement right or wrong. This would help me while studying philosophy.

To me, it seems like many modern philosophers exist in the realm of social science (like Karl Marx) and those are then obviously not dealing with science. There is the philosopher Karen Barad who has a background as a quantum physics scientist and use that knowledge as a philosopher. But as far as I know she is using that knowledge for the purpose of social science.

I think that my question might be hard to understand because it is so obvious, and odd.

Definition of philosophy? Ok, I'll give it a shot - explore the world through rational/logical reasoning.

With that definition I find it obvious that exploring of the "physical world" has no lower or higher value than "human thinking" but since science is so successful (especially compared to old time philosophy) in describing the physical world, philosophers hesitate to say too much about the physical world. Does that make sense?

Ansiktsburk wrote:
Definition of philosophy? Ok, I'll give it a shot - explore the world through rational/logical reasoning.

With that definition I find it obvious that exploring of the "physical world" has no lower or higher value than "human thinking" but since science is so successful (especially compared to old time philosophy) in describing the physical world, philosophers hesitate to say too much about the physical world. Does that make sense?

It indeed does, that I can use. I'll take your advice and explore PN. I'm going to lurk the Philosophy of Science section, it looks good!

Thanks!