the state of philosophy today...

[Peter Kropotkin]

OK, now that I had breakfast, maybe I'll be slightly more
with it.. one can only hope....

so, what exactly is the state of philosophy today?
It is to be frank, a fucking mess... a greater and greater
number of philosophers writing about a smaller and smaller
amount of things.. in other words, specialist writing for other
specialist in journals no one else reads...

For philosophy to work, it must return to its roots of being much more
general, about the nature of reality and what it means to be human...
but one might say, correctly I might add, that science is taking care of
that part.. what is the nature of reality?

Think about the connection between science and philosophy.
Since the beginning of the Scientific revolution beginning in say, 1550,
philosophy has been about understanding the implications of science..
take the "new" reality of how the earth revolved around the sun, the
new science... ok, this is a fact, the earth revolves around the sun,
so, what does that mean? That has been philosophy.. what are the
implications of the new scientific theories?

Think about the next step of philosophy given the realities of science..
that the new philosophical theories were about the "watchmaker"
universe... that the universe was so beautifully built, like a watch,
that there must have been a watchmaker who built the universe...
and that philosophical theory held for quite a while...which in part,
explains the philosophical theories of both Spinoza and Leibnitz as well
as Descartes.. to their minds, the universe was created by a watchmaker...
the only question was to fully explain the movements and pieces of the
watch/universe...

As we know, Hume kicked down the scientific theories by forcing us to
doubt the validity of those theories...

So, the philosophy being created followed the science being discovered...
and this is true all the way until even Nietzsche used Darwin theories, in part,
to help explain the universe...

but look at science since 1850... beginning with Darwin, whose book about
species came out in 1859 and going through to today.. what kind of universe
does science see today? A rather chaotic universe with no real set rules...
the science says that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second,
but is that actually the rule or is that just our best guess at this moment?

Think about what science is telling us about the universe, that it is random,
chaotic, not fixed or set... think about evolution for example, it has
random elements being a central part of evolution... so what does this
mean for philosophical theories?

to be blunt, philosophy has failed to keep up with science by not
coming up with a philosophy that incorporates what science is telling
us about the universe... which is random, chaotic, nothing is fixed or set..
that there are no absolute truths given to us by science, must be understood..
again, one might say, the speed of light, but that isn't written in stone..
I for one, will be willing to bet that the theory of the speed of light will
take a turn, be changed at some point in the near future..
and I would take that bet to Vegas...
for example, in another universe, part of the multiverse,
the speed of light might be different than what we have it here..
and now what?

The point still remains that philosophy has not kept up with the science...
and that, in part, is why philosophy is in such a weak state today...
how can philosophy follow up science with an interpretation of what
the science is telling us if we don't even understand the science going on today?

What kind of philosophical theory can we come up with that matches the
science we see today? The science tells us it is a random, chaotic universe..
how do we convert that into a philosophy that makes sense of what the science
is telling us? I can't see a philosophy that can make sense of the science,
but is that a failure of mine in intellect or imagination or both?
or perhaps there isn't a philosophy that can make sense of the
science today? The question becomes can we find or discover a
philosophy that can interpret the science, as we know it today?

Or perhaps, perhaps we must work out a philosophy that avoids, makes
no mention of the science going on today? Is philosophy without science
even possible? It is possible if, if we turn philosophy into thinking about
values and what values we have (is) and what values we should be
working toward (ought).... Part of philosophy is an examination
of values and what values we have and what values we should
engage in/with? Part of what philosophy already does can become
the focus of what philosophy is.. the understanding of values
and the reexamination of values.... taking the values we consider to
be important and see if they are actually the values we want going into
the future? The question of "is" and "ought" should become, perhaps,
the main question within philosophy...we take philosophy away from its
traditional role of working out the implications of science, and turn
philosophy into an examination of the values of existence...
what values are worth having and why those values and not other values?

another important aspect of modern philosophy, as noted by every philosopher
since Nietzsche, has been the question of morals/ethics... every major
philosopher since N. has called themselves "moral philosophers" including
N. to Wittgenstein to Heidegger to Sartre.. every single one of them refer
to themselves as "Moral philosophers", that the question of morals/ethics has
been the primary question of philosophy since 1850, so let us finally admit
this as fact.... that the goal and point of philosophy to work out some moral/ethical
theory that no longer depends on a god or religion.... that morality/ethics is
a human concern, no longer dominated by a god that no longer exists...

and what is ethics/morals? nothing more than a question of values...
What is the right thing to do? Depends on the morals/values we
decide to act upon... and how do we work those out, given a
no god universe?

So, the new philosophy, modern philosophy is about understanding
values and how do we decide upon what values we use in regard to
morals/ethics? That science may no longer have a place within philosophy
must be considered...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Ok, to continue on...

What are the current problems of philosophy? Philosophy historically
has been driven by a quest to solve certain problems... after the
Scientific revolution after 1550, the philosophical problem was
epistemological... which as we know is...

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to
its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation
of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Thus after the Scientific revolution, we had, from Descartes to Kant,
an investigation into what was knowledge... Philosophy
was an investigation into epistemology... that was the problem
to be solved after the Scientific revolution...

And after Kant "solved" this problem, philosophy was able to move
into other directions.. to solve other problems as it were...

So, once again, what is the problem that modern philosophy is trying to solve?
Frankly, hell if I know... I am not even sure modern philosophers can tell
us what the problem/problems philosophy is supposed to solve today...
and that question of "what problem is philosophy supposed to solve"
is of great importance to philosophy right now....
for can anyone here tell me, what are the modern "problems of
philosophy" we are actually trying to solve?

and therein lies one of the problems with modern philosophy,
it has no idea what problem/problems it is supposed to engage with
or solve? What is the problem of philosophy today?

and until we can answer that question, it doesn't even matter what
type of or engagement with philosophy we have, if we can't tell
what problems we are trying to solve, we can't even ask the right
questions....so, tell me, what are the problems of philosophy today?

Kropotkin

[mickthinks]

1 Philosophy of language
1.1 Counterfactuals
2 Epistemology
2.1 Gettier problem
2.2 Problem of the criterion
2.3 Molyneux problem
2.4 Münchhausen trilemma
2.5 Qualia
3 Ethics
3.1 Moral luck
3.2 Moral knowledge
4 Philosophy of mathematics
4.1 Mathematical objects
5 Metaphysics
5.1 Why there is something rather than nothing
5.2 Problem of universals
5.3 Principle of individuation
5.4 Sorites paradox
5.5 Theseus paradox
5.6 Material implication
6 Philosophy of science
6.1 Mind–body problem
6.2 Cognition and AI
6.3 Hard problem of consciousness
6.4 Problem of induction
6.5 Demarcation problem
6.6 Realism
7 Philosophy of religion
7.1 Existence of God
7.2 Nature of God
7.3 Epistemology of religion
7.4 Relationship between science and religion
8 Metaphilosophy
8.1 Philosophical progress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... philosophy

[Peter Kropotkin]

what you gave me was a list, how about making sense of that list...
evaluate that list, qualify that list into what the main problems of
philosophy is... anyone make a list, give that list some meaning
and purpose...

Kropotkin

[mickthinks]

give that list some meaning

I have. The list is an answer to your question; "what are the problems of philosophy today". Of course, if you consider the question itself to have no meaning ...

[Peter Kropotkin]

give that list some meaning

I have. The list is an answer to your question; "what are the problems of philosophy today". Of course, if you consider the question itself to have no meaning ...

K: so, you consider each "problem" on your "list" as the main problem in
philosophy today?.. which is actually what I asked for... for example,
between Descartes and Kant, the main problem of philosophy was
epistemology... the problem of knowledge... and how is each of those
things on your list a problem? Your pretend list tells us nothing, not
a single thing.... for example, on your list you mentioned "realism"
ok, great, how is that a problem? As the question of "realism" has
been discussed for over 1000 years, the Medieval writers were engaged
in the problem of realism...so how do their answers impact
the modern day problem of "realism"...so, maybe, next time, try a real answer
instead of a glib response with a list stolen from some site or another...

Kropotkin

[mickthinks]

You appear to be denying that you asked about problems of philosophy, even though I cut and pasted the question from your second post. Is that how you 'win' philosophical debates—by lying about your own words?

[Peter Kropotkin]

You appear to be denying that you asked about problems of philosophy, even though I cut and pasted the question from your second post. Is that how you 'win' philosophical debates—by lying about your own words?

K: and cut and paste seems to be the limit of your philosophical abilities...
I specifically asked about what is the "modern" philosophical
problems and you cut and pasted some list...
without any sense of, are those "problems" even problems?
who knows, you certainly don't... as for "winning" philosophical debates",
I have no interest of any kind in "winning" anything, I am asking a legitimate
philosophical question which you don't seem to understand.. of the list you
cut and pasted, which one of those is a legitimate modern philosophical problem?
and why that one problem is the problem we should be looking at? You seem to think
that posting random list is philosophy.. it isn't... try to engage in one of those
problems you listed.. say something about what you have listed...
From your list, I mentioned "realism", is that a modern problem and why?
and that is just an example, you can try one of your own...

Kropotkin

[FlashDangerpants]

what I asked for... for example,
between Descartes and Kant, the main problem of philosophy was
epistemology... the problem of knowledge...

Bit of antique ask. You want to tell a simplified story about modern philosophy based on a heroic but false recollection of past philosophy being about some single thing. But even if that were a plausible tale, it would have been in an era before science got complicated and spawned disciplines like computational neuroscience. But also before history got complicated, and the social sciences, and nobody had made any truly great movies in those days either.

There are more discrete disciplines today because there is a wider range of questions, which is the result of several generations of exponential increases in educational availability. Why would one single field of study be so out of touch as to roll back the clock to a time when only European men in powdered wigs could be educated enough to study it?

[Iwannaplato]

First off I'd be interested in knowing what research you did to draw the conclusion that....

and therein lies one of the problems with modern philosophy,
it has no idea what problem/problems it is supposed to engage with
or solve?

Or how did you reach this conclusion?

I think there are many enagaged philosophers focusing on issues they think are important. More than at any time in history.

And they certainly are focusing on the nature of the human.

The OP seems to assert that after the scientific revolution philosophers focused on one issue. I don't think that's true. I think they focused on a lot of issues, and that includes the philosophers who were named above. Philosophers today also focus on a lot of issues and problems:
Off the topic of my particular head I would guess that philosophers are affected by some technological areas:
so questions around AI - and things like when is there sentiences and perhaps moral issues around possible artificial sentient creatures a
transhumanism - and identity, and ethical issues around this
social media and what it is to be human
epistemology around the effects of technology - how do we include the precautionary principle in relation to extremely complicated new technologies - nanotech, gm-products, gene therapies. Sort of a combination of predictive epistemology and ethics.
identity in general, given social media/diverse cultures' ideas about identity, the vast range of ways to express/be social
gender related problems and issues - what is a woman or man or _____________________and how to conclusions relate to trans issues as just one set of topics.
I think the hard problem of consciousness with continue to be an issue until it isn't or just always is. Any new neuroscience around brains is potential stimulus for more speculation and arguments around that issue.
Crosscultural ethics - how does one engage across cultures and determine what is right. How much does one respect the other culture when engaging with it's members - at any level, political, social, interpersonal relationships....

And many of the 'old' issues will keep on coming up: free will vs determinism, body/mind dualism or not, what is beauty and so on.

[Peter Kropotkin]

First off I'd be interested in knowing what research you did to draw the conclusion that....

and therein lies one of the problems with modern philosophy,
it has no idea what problem/problems it is supposed to engage with
or solve?

Or how did you reach this conclusion?

I think there are many enagaged philosophers focusing on issues they think are important. More than at any time in history.

And they certainly are focusing on the nature of the human.

The OP seems to assert that after the scientific revolution philosophers focused on one issue. I don't think that's true. I think they focused on a lot of issues, and that includes the philosophers who were named above. Philosophers today also focus on a lot of issues and problems:
Off the topic of my particular head I would guess that philosophers are affected by some technological areas:
so questions around AI - and things like when is there sentiences and perhaps moral issues around possible artificial sentient creatures a
transhumanism - and identity, and ethical issues around this
social media and what it is to be human
epistemology around the effects of technology - how do we include the precautionary principle in relation to extremely complicated new technologies - nanotech, gm-products, gene therapies. Sort of a combination of predictive epistemology and ethics.
identity in general, given social media/diverse cultures' ideas about identity, the vast range of ways to express/be social
gender related problems and issues - what is a woman or man or _____________________and how to conclusions relate to trans issues as just one set of topics.
I think the hard problem of consciousness with continue to be an issue until it isn't or just always is. Any new neuroscience around brains is potential stimulus for more speculation and arguments around that issue.
Crosscultural ethics - how does one engage across cultures and determine what is right. How much does one respect the other culture when engaging with it's members - at any level, political, social, interpersonal relationships....

And many of the 'old' issues will keep on coming up: free will vs determinism, body/mind dualism or not, what is beauty and so on.

K: Don't mistake numbers with quality... sure, there are more people
''doing philosophy" than ever before... specialist writing for other specialist
writing in ever smaller specialist magazines or websites...

The fact is I have asked, several times in fact, what is the primary
philosophical issue today and no one seems to even understand the
question... as if the 21 plus small philosophical questions are even worth
asking?

Ok, let us try this...you have mentioned transhumanism, as a philosophical
question beings worked on today....and who exactly is answering this
question of transhumanism, in terms of the overall philosophical questions
of existence... in other words, it is small research area into a small area that
leads us nowhere closer to what it means to be human in terms of
ALL human beings....as I have a "vested" interest in "transhumanism"
and I can't even see how that subject can answer my questions of existence,
for example, "What am I to do?" ''What should I believe in?" "What can I know?"
"Who am I?" how does this question of 'TRANSHUMANISM" answer the questions
of existence that I have posed? As interesting the question might be,
it still doesn't tell us who we are and what is possible for us as human beings?

that is one example, other examples exists....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: Don't mistake numbers with quality... sure, there are more people
''doing philosophy" than ever before... specialist writing for other specialist
writing in ever smaller specialist magazines or websites...

Numbers was one thing I wrote now taken out of context. I also said that there are more traditional types of investigations of the general questions you seem interested in AND there are people using topics, like the ones I mentioned, to focus on those questions.

The fact is I have asked, several times in fact, what is the primary
philosophical issue today and no one seems to even understand the
question... as if the 21 plus small philosophical questions are even worth
asking?

We've also pointed out that back then Kant and Descartes focused on a number of different issues, not just THE problem of their time. Apart from not agreeing with your assertion about past philosophers -that they were focused only on THE PROBLEM OF THEIR TIMES, nor do I think there is THE PROBLEM OF OUR TIMES.
Some of the Issues descartes wrote about:

. A New Metaphysics
3.1 How do our minds know?
3.2 The mark of truth
3.3 The nature of reality
3.4 Mind–body relation
3.5 God and error
4. The New Science
5. Theory of Sense Perception

Which one is THE issue of his time?
Kant wrote about:

2.1 The crisis of the Enlightenment
2.2 Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy
3. Transcendental idealism
3.1 The two-objects interpretation
3.2 The two-aspects interpretation
4. The transcendental deduction
4.1 Self-consciousness
4.2 Objectivity and judgment
4.3 The law-giver of nature
5. Morality and freedom
5.1 Theoretical and practical autonomy
5.2 Freedom
5.3 The fact of reason
5.4 The categorical imperative
6. The highest good and practical postulates

6.2 The postulates of pure practical reason
7. The unity of nature and freedom
7.1 The great chasm
7.2 The purposiveness of nature

Which one of those was the issue of his time? and why did he waste time on the others?

I noted also that while there are specialized topics, there are also more general books taking on larger issues, some within the issues discussed going back to Kant and Descartes and before, since they have not been resolved.

Ok, let us try this...you have mentioned transhumanism, as a philosophical
question beings worked on today....and who exactly is answering this
question of transhumanism, in terms of the overall philosophical questions
of existence... in other words, it is small research area into a small area that
leads us nowhere closer to what it means to be human in terms of
ALL human beings....as I have a "vested" interest in "transhumanism"
and I can't even see how that subject can answer my questions of existence,
for example, "What am I to do?" ''What should I believe in?" "What can I know?"
"Who am I?" how does this question of 'TRANSHUMANISM" answer the questions
of existence that I have posed? As interesting the question might be,
it still doesn't tell us who we are and what is possible for us as human beings?

Tell me: what answer did Kant give you that you feel satisfied with? That you feel set to rest an issue in his time or in ours?
You asked a question and I answered it, specifically mentioning issues that I have seen philosophers grappling with, off the top of my head, as I said.
Your question...

What are the current problems of philosophy?

And I tended to focus on new issues. IOW ones that Kant and Descartes could not look at in the way recent philosophers can for obvious reasons. Current philosophers are using new technologies and globalization and cross cultural interactions to look at classic philosophical issues
that, guess what have not been resolved.

Transhumanism can be used as topic to bring up identity issues - just like your questions above - ethical issues and more. It offers a new way to reask questions that you seem to respect.

But why don't you tell us, what is the question/topic a paper writer or book writer today should be writing about?
I also asked you how you reached the conclusion that modern philosophy has no idea what questions to ask?
Yes, there are more philosophers and yes many write quite specialized papers. But there are also non-specialized works and papers and books produced on traditional questions. You just skip by parts of what people write to. That's fine. But when you present my response in the slanted way you do, as if I haven't said other things also, it is a misrepresentation.

But show us how it is done. What is the problem modern philosophers should be focuing on, and how do you know they are not.

IN another thread you wrote a list of questions which it seemed you respected...

''What does it mean to be human?''
''What are my/our possibilities as a human being?''
''What am I to do?''
''What beliefs/values should I/we hold?''
''What can I/we know?''
''What is my/our goal going into the future?''
''What is the point/meaning of all this?''

You really think current philosophers aren't grappling with these questions??????

[mickthinks]

mick: You appear to be denying that you asked about problems of philosophy, even though I cut and pasted the question from your second post.
Peter: and cut and paste seems to be the limit of your philosophical abilities...


lol You win, Peter ... You win.

[Peter Kropotkin]

mick: You appear to be denying that you asked about problems of philosophy, even though I cut and pasted the question from your second post.
Peter: and cut and paste seems to be the limit of your philosophical abilities...


lol You win, Peter ... You win.

K: and you mistake me for another... I don't care about winning
or losing...I seek questions, not even answers, I am just trying
to ask the right questions....one cannot find an answer until one
asks the right question...what made Einstein or Newton great
scientists? They asked the right questions...that is why Socrates
is the greatest philosopher of all time...did he ever give us
answers? Nope, all he did was ask questions...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: Don't mistake numbers with quality... sure, there are more people
''doing philosophy" than ever before... specialist writing for other specialist
writing in ever smaller specialist magazines or websites...

Numbers was one thing I wrote now taken out of context. I also said that there are more traditional types of investigations of the general questions you seem interested in AND there are people using topics, like the ones I mentioned, to focus on those questions.

The fact is I have asked, several times in fact, what is the primary
philosophical issue today and no one seems to even understand the
question... as if the 21 plus small philosophical questions are even worth
asking?

We've also pointed out that back then Kant and Descartes focused on a number of different issues, not just THE problem of their time. Apart from not agreeing with your assertion about past philosophers -that they were focused only on THE PROBLEM OF THEIR TIMES, nor do I think there is THE PROBLEM OF OUR TIMES.
Some of the Issues descartes wrote about:

. A New Metaphysics
3.1 How do our minds know?
3.2 The mark of truth
3.3 The nature of reality
3.4 Mind–body relation
3.5 God and error
4. The New Science
5. Theory of Sense Perception

Which one is THE issue of his time?
Kant wrote about:

2.1 The crisis of the Enlightenment
2.2 Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy
3. Transcendental idealism
3.1 The two-objects interpretation
3.2 The two-aspects interpretation
4. The transcendental deduction
4.1 Self-consciousness
4.2 Objectivity and judgment
4.3 The law-giver of nature
5. Morality and freedom
5.1 Theoretical and practical autonomy
5.2 Freedom
5.3 The fact of reason
5.4 The categorical imperative
6. The highest good and practical postulates

6.2 The postulates of pure practical reason
7. The unity of nature and freedom
7.1 The great chasm
7.2 The purposiveness of nature

Which one of those was the issue of his time? and why did he waste time on the others?

I noted also that while there are specialized topics, there are also more general books taking on larger issues, some within the issues discussed going back to Kant and Descartes and before, since they have not been resolved.

Ok, let us try this...you have mentioned transhumanism, as a philosophical
question beings worked on today....and who exactly is answering this
question of transhumanism, in terms of the overall philosophical questions
of existence... in other words, it is small research area into a small area that
leads us nowhere closer to what it means to be human in terms of
ALL human beings....as I have a "vested" interest in "transhumanism"
and I can't even see how that subject can answer my questions of existence,
for example, "What am I to do?" ''What should I believe in?" "What can I know?"
"Who am I?" how does this question of 'TRANSHUMANISM" answer the questions
of existence that I have posed? As interesting the question might be,
it still doesn't tell us who we are and what is possible for us as human beings?

Tell me: what answer did Kant give you that you feel satisfied with? That you feel set to rest an issue in his time or in ours?
You asked a question and I answered it, specifically mentioning issues that I have seen philosophers grappling with, off the top of my head, as I said.
Your question...

What are the current problems of philosophy?

And I tended to focus on new issues. IOW ones that Kant and Descartes could not look at in the way recent philosophers can for obvious reasons. Current philosophers are using new technologies and globalization and cross cultural interactions to look at classic philosophical issues
that, guess what have not been resolved.

Transhumanism can be used as topic to bring up identity issues - just like your questions above - ethical issues and more. It offers a new way to reask questions that you seem to respect.

But why don't you tell us, what is the question/topic a paper writer or book writer today should be writing about?
I also asked you how you reached the conclusion that modern philosophy has no idea what questions to ask?
Yes, there are more philosophers and yes many write quite specialized papers. But there are also non-specialized works and papers and books produced on traditional questions. You just skip by parts of what people write to. That's fine. But when you present my response in the slanted way you do, as if I haven't said other things also, it is a misrepresentation.

But show us how it is done. What is the problem modern philosophers should be focuing on, and how do you know they are not.

IN another thread you wrote a list of questions which it seemed you respected...

''What does it mean to be human?''
''What are my/our possibilities as a human being?''
''What am I to do?''
''What beliefs/values should I/we hold?''
''What can I/we know?''
''What is my/our goal going into the future?''
''What is the point/meaning of all this?''

You really think current philosophers aren't grappling with these questions??????

K: ok, name me one modern philosopher and the issues he/she is grappling with?

Kropotkin