Philosophy: What is it good for?

Great Debates
1

I thought about posting this in GQ, but I think it’s more of a debate than a series of questions with factual answers.

  1. I understand what the big scientific breakthroughs have been, but what were the big philosophical breakthroughs? Are there philosophical equivalents of F=ma or e=mc^2 or the theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection? I would expect that the rules of logic would count, but there has to be more, I think.

  2. How has any given philosophy made my life better (or worse) than it would have been without that philosophy? I’m not thinking so much of political philosophy, but of the more abstract or theoretical aspects of philosophy.

  3. To the extent that philosophy concerns itself with good and evil, and how one should best live one’s life (ethics), is there a point where we can envision science and philosophy merging? In particular, I am thinking of our understand of human psychology and it’s evolutionary underpinnings. As we learn more scientific facts about human nature, will we be able to develop a scientific code of ethics?

I am open to input that I might be asking the “wrong” questions, too. I will admit to knowing little at all about philosophy other than what one picks up in a liberal arts education (albeit one much more focused on science and math than any other subject). I often find debates about philosophy in this forum to be very opaque and difficult to follow.

2

:eek:
Are Questions 1,2 and 3 for real?

Books have been written on those Q’s. Many books. Let me be myself and think a spell then answer. I’ll practice restraint of tongue and pen [keyboard] now.

3

I’m not a brainiac. I am just spouting out the first stuff that popped into my little skull… Please forgive my inability to articulate my thoughts in a point by point nature as you seem to frame your OP…

How about “All men are created equal”? (I mean in the broad sense, too.)

That sounds philosophical to me, as opposed to scientific.

A belief that all humans have fundamental “human rights”. That some folks are not inherently (by accident of birth) “better” than othrs…

4

Absolutely Nothin! Say it again!

5

What is real, anyway?

That’s true of most debates we have in this forum. Please feel free to cite the ones you think are relevant.

6

First you’ll have to convince the philosophers that events that are hard-wired in our brains for us to perceive as objectively good indeed are objectively good.

And not only that, you’d also have to convince the users of whatever language you philosophize in, too, otherwise you will not be talking in the same “language” when you talk with people about your new teleological theories if they believe their deity handed down morals from on high. (Academic accusations of automatic racism fall into the same trap.)

7

Aren’t these historically derived views and philosophical expressions? To paraphrase Dershowitz: Our current systems of rights(es?) are derived from correcting past wrongs, not from some philosophical ‘ah-ha’. Though I suppose you could argue that recognizing past wrongs could be the philosophical ‘ah-ha’…

8

Isn’t “Philosophy: What is it good for?” itself a philosophical question? Can one even attempt to answer it without philosophizing?

9

There have been philosophers whose works was widely influential throughout the history of civilization: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Maimmonides, and many others. Far more humans beings have read their works than have read most of the ‘great’ scientific books. Now the great philosophers cannot sum up their achievements in one equation, or even one paragraph or one page. Nonetheless the original thoughts of the fellows listed above have percolated through to many other human beings, who have, in turn added new thoughts, and so forth, to create a structure of thought that shapes our society.

Excluding political philosophy may be somewhat unfair. A brief survey will show that virtually every great philosopher wrote some political philosophy. Furthermore, metaphysical philosophy often drives political philosophy. Hobbes’ contention that there’s no free will and that humans are bound to pursue self-interested fulfilment of their needs led him to conclude that strong government was necessary to prevent the “war of all against all”. Rousseau’s belief in free will led him to support a society based on human freedom.

Even when a single person isn’t laying down principles on both the theoretical and practical side, the one still bleeds over into the other. Calvin’s belief in predestination led his followers to support stringent morals in all areas of society. That train of thought kept going long after strict Calvinist thought had largely disappeared. Foucault’s attacks against society and specific institutions played a considerable role in the 60’s counterculture.

Science does not deal with ethics. No one can measure out 30 milliliters of good or abserve 200 watts of evil. Or as Chesterton said, “I ask my personal doctor whether this food or that food will kill me, but I ask my personal philosopher whether I should be killed.”

10

First of all, science and philosophy have different jurisdictions. Science is strictly limited to answering questions of fact. It does not, and cannot address issues of logic, meaning, value, ethics, aesthetics, and so forth. So, no, a “scientific” ethics is practically an oxymoron. Although a “rational” ethics is another matter.

This is a major confusion that many people have, when they confuse, for instance “science” with “rationality.” To use abortion as an example, science is limited to describing the processes and anatomy involved in human development, and perhaps even estimating the cognitive and perceptual capacity of a fetus. But it cannot begin to tell us what the meaning of those facts is, what importance we should place on them, what conclusions we should draw from them, or what actions are best to take. Should we care that a fetus at a given stage can feel pain? Is it important? How much? These are not scientific questions, and never could be. These questions can only be tackled via other modes of human thought and analysis, which fall under the various categories that comprise philosophy.

That sort of speaks to your first two questions. Without philosophy, we really don’t have a means for even comprehending what rationality is. Science certainly does not address this issue. Science *uses * logic and rationality (like it *uses * mathematics), but it doesn’t create or provide logic or rationality, nor tell us what logic and rational thought are. For that you need philosophy.

11

You need to read The History of western Philosophy. Bertrand Russell. He shows on the major philosophers have had great effects on their nations. From Sartre and Existentialism, in France to Mills in England and Hagel etc in Germany. The national attitude is reflected in the works of the philosophies and the government shows it too.
The concept of greater good in philosophy shows in the socialistic leanings in England. We unfortunately have a cowboy ethos. Guns and power over lawlessness is our definition. We have no intellectual philosophy and actually deride it.We are a base and dangerous.

12

All your abase are belong to us!

13

At some point, there had to be a “Eureka” moment, one where somebody thought “Ya know… us hopping into our boats, sailing over there, and stealing their crops seems… wrong somehow.”

Admittedly, it’s easier to see what’s wrong with it when you are the victim of the “bad stuff”.

For a long time, those in the position of strength used it. At some point, “Might makes Right” lost favor, and those people who possessed the ability to go smash their neighbors’ chapels for the fun of it began to restrain themselves, even though they were in the position of strength, and hence had no real motive for restraining themselves. They restrained themselves because they 1) believed that the target victims had a right to keep their quaint little chapel intact, and 2) began to empathise with the target victims perspective.

Humans could easily rationalise that “Hey, I got a pointy stick, and it’s bigger than his. As a matter of fact, I got buddies with pointy sticks, too. I need his tanned kodo hides. I go get 'em. He can just tan more, if he needs them. If he was smart, he would have already done so…”. Further, when they are on the receiving end of such activity, they could have adopted the viewpoint “Well, today, or this year, the Bear Claw Clan seems to be top dogs, and they are throwing their weight around. But just you wait, the tables will turn, and when they do, I’m gonna get some payback!”

But that’s not what happened, and I think (philosophically, of course) that we are better off for it.

In a strict scientific/Darwinian sence, “might makes right”, “only the strong should live”, and so on, are valid viewpoints and philosophies that could have been (or continued to be) pursued, but were not. The “All Men Created Equal” carries a stronger(?) philosophical message, I think.

14

I can think of a couple.

First, at the riskof sounding like a kindergartener, the Golden Rule is an excellent example of a philosophical breakthrough, or at least a formalization of the concept of “morals through empathy.” It is a single moral statement which encourages one to mentally step outside oneself and place the good of the group (or another human being, or anything that might have self-awareness and feelings) above that of the individual. This is a huge philosophical step. It has been stated in a thousand ways, and it always means the same thing. Whether you say “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or you answer the question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” with a definite yes, you’re doing the same thing: showing empathy with the circumstances of another being. “I should not hit some guy in the face, because it would really suck if it happened to me, and I can relate to that.” This, to me, is the real, natural basis of all morality.

Second, it is, at its root, extensible not only to individuals, but also all living things. As such, it forms the roots of many philosophies, from Zen to Christianity. All is One. Love they neighbor, where “neighbor” is defined as “everyone.” Science, in fact, is literally proving this supposition true. All is One. Everything affects everything else. We all literally come from the earth and go back there. The molecules of my body have walked this earth in a living system before, and will do so again. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because they ARE you, they HAVE BEEN you, and you ARE, in literal fact, them.

15

Also, science (and logic) builds on what has come before.

So, dont knock philosophy for doing the same.

16

Sigh! Sorry John - I know you were asking earnestly, I have a terrible charactor trait which is to take the literal quickly.

Anyway -

Oh there are so many - I think when Plato was thinking about Human Justice, and wrote his Republic, all ten volumes…And when DesCartes was postulating about his ball of wax and why oh why when it melted could he not call it the same thing… I wish I had more time to write, I’ll come back to this again when I can sit down and wonder a bit, and the write some of it down.

17

Although most of the prominent philosophers have considered themselved to have made specific advances, so they would probably agree with me. These advances are generally looked on as flawed and incomplete by future generations.

The funny thing is, despite the fact that none of the systems developed by particular philosophers have survived intact, I think the process of philosophical investigation has done enormous good for mankind. Philosophers are really good at showing what’s not true, how to apply logic to break down prevailing ideas. They help enforce an intellectual honesty in our pursuits. Take the classic dorm-room conversation about how we can’t know whether things outside ourselves are real. That’s a mind-bending experience for many people, and while it doesn’t teach you anything specific about the world, it does point out how much broader the possibilities are than we might think – makes you realize how little you can really know for sure. Which is why we’ll never have a philosopher-king.

18

I don’t think it’s possible to be a functioning human being without philosophy. *Everybody *has a philosophy, whether they realize it or not.

Everybody has some assumptions and conclusions about the nature of reality. How can you walk or eat without some pretty basic interactions with reality? That’s philosophy.

Everybody has their own personal epistemology, whether or not they’re conscious of it. Why do you believe what you believe? When you encounter a new idea (your own or someone else’s), how do you decide whether or not to accept it? And if you accept it, how do you integrate it with all your previous knowledge? That’s philosophy.

Everybody makes thousands of decisions every day, from tiny, mundane ones to life-altering ones. By what standard do you weigh your options and decide on one alternative rather than others? That’s philosophy.

Everybody’s life interacts with other lives throughout our lifetimes. We interact with people one-on-one; we make ethical decisions so often that we’re usually not even aware of it; and we interact with people through business and politics. That’s philosophy.

And sometimes we just ponder abstractions like life, freedom, love and “the human condition.” It’s all philosophy.

19

Philosophy, narrowly defined, is of no practical use, except insofar as all other intellectual disciplines are rooted in it and could not exist without it.

20

I know I’ve posted this before, but my PHI 101 professor told us: “Philosophy isn’t about finding the answers, it’s about learning how to ask the questions.” Simplistic, maybe, but it’s a start.