I propose that philosophy is about contemplation or metacognition. I feel it is not about cause and effect as much as it is about the perception, conceptualizing or ideation of cause and effect. Science is about measurement. I suggest that philosophy is the contemplation of that result and it’s implications.
The article itself supposes that the entire philosophical activity somewhat works like an accepted view of epistemology (Popper-like or Hempel-like). I really like Deleuze about this, the philosopher works and creates concepts within a philosophical system or frame of reference. Also I don't see how the article demonstrate the lack of advancement (as it doesn't really define it properly in the first place).
I think we are making tremendous progress the last years on the question of time (a little stuck but at least it's being worked on), on political philosophy (Lordon for example on Spinoza and social sciences). As we go further we need to be aware of what has been done. I think for example that Nietzsche killed the field of morals and Wittgenstein killed logic (like I don't know, Grothendieck killed functional analysis in mathematics). I quite understand then why some questions are being avoided.
Maybe too academic philosophers should do the effort to communicate better also, might be an issue ?
I've wondered why academic philosophers don't do a very good job of communicating. There are a lot of misconceptions about science, which the scientists are quick to correct. There are a lot of misunderstandings about philosophy, and you almost never see a professional philosopher stand up to clarify it.
Even this article, written by decent philosophy popularizers, doesn't do a very good job of clarifying that.
The problem, as I see it, is that "philosophy" is like AI: it consists exclusively of the problems we haven't solved yet. They don't rule out a lot of the haphazard musings made by people who have read very little philosophy because they can't do so. If they could, they'd stop calling it philosophy and call it something else -- like economics or physics. Philosophy consists of the problems that resist solution, by definition.
3 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 487 ms ] threadI think we are making tremendous progress the last years on the question of time (a little stuck but at least it's being worked on), on political philosophy (Lordon for example on Spinoza and social sciences). As we go further we need to be aware of what has been done. I think for example that Nietzsche killed the field of morals and Wittgenstein killed logic (like I don't know, Grothendieck killed functional analysis in mathematics). I quite understand then why some questions are being avoided.
Maybe too academic philosophers should do the effort to communicate better also, might be an issue ?
Even this article, written by decent philosophy popularizers, doesn't do a very good job of clarifying that.
The problem, as I see it, is that "philosophy" is like AI: it consists exclusively of the problems we haven't solved yet. They don't rule out a lot of the haphazard musings made by people who have read very little philosophy because they can't do so. If they could, they'd stop calling it philosophy and call it something else -- like economics or physics. Philosophy consists of the problems that resist solution, by definition.