Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2013, 09:42 PM
Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Philosophy comes from the Greek philosophia which means love of wisdom.

Philosophy has been an undeniably important part of the human experience for thousands of years.

Yet many people dismiss, dislike, or denounce philosophy.

Why is that?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 11:09 PM
Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(21-03-2013 09:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Philosophy comes from the Greek philosophia which means love of wisdom.

Philosophy has been an undeniably important part of the human experience for thousands of years.

Yet many people dismiss, dislike, or denounce philosophy.

Why is that?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Most people in general know very little philosophy and confuse philosophy with self help books that or new age religions.

Philosophy is far ahead of today's science or political ideas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Many people dismiss philosophy because they say it can't provide answers for scientific questions or other kind of practical knowledge.
Those people often mistake the goal of philosophy though, they usually think that it tries to achieve knowledge through some sort of mystical contemplation, but in fact it's closer to the idea of "asking the right questions" than that of trying to find the right answers.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
21-03-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Philosophy is not effective. Philosophers had 2500 years to accomplish what Science has done in the last 350 years - and the Philosophers couldn't. Instead, Philosophy became a Handmaiden of Religion and the Mystic. This is not surprising due to the fact that Philosophy does not rely on Empirical Evidence (i.e., Experiments, Observations, etc..) to validate it's conclusions: it does not anchor itself to reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
21-03-2013, 11:51 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(21-03-2013 09:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Why is that?

Is there a prize for the right answer?

Or is 'right' a too absolute term for you?

War and Hate and Apathy,

DLJ

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
22-03-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(21-03-2013 09:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Why is that?

The answer varies by individual, and even within the individual. I think we all dismiss something here and there, whether intentionally or not. Contemplate your own dismissals and maybe you'll come across some more possibilities that might explain the dismissal others treat philosophy with.

(21-03-2013 11:09 PM)I and I Wrote:  Philosophy is far ahead of today's science or political ideas.

Philosophy and science have different functions, so I don't think we can logically claim either is "ahead/behind" the other.

(21-03-2013 11:16 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Many people dismiss philosophy because they say it can't provide answers for scientific questions or other kind of practical knowledge.
Those people often mistake the goal of philosophy though, they usually think that it tries to achieve knowledge through some sort of mystical contemplation, but in fact it's closer to the idea of "asking the right questions" than that of trying to find the right answers.

I agree this is one prevalent reason.

(21-03-2013 11:32 PM)Julius Wrote:  Philosophy is not effective. Philosophers had 2500 years to accomplish what Science has done in the last 350 years - and the Philosophers couldn't. Instead, Philosophy became a Handmaiden of Religion and the Mystic. This is not surprising due to the fact that Philosophy does not rely on Empirical Evidence (i.e., Experiments, Observations, etc..) to validate it's conclusions: it does not anchor itself to reality.

Do you realize that "effectiveness" is a relative characteristic? Everything that exists is effective in some way or another. Science being more effective than philosophy in one or multiple parameters does not render philosophy ineffective.

Furthermore, when scientists fail to derive wholly objective conclusions from their experiments, does that make the scientific method ineffective? When people make illogical predictions based on statistics, does that make recording statistics ineffective? When people answer math problems incorrectly, does that make mathematics ineffective? I would say the answer to all these is "no". Likewise, philosophers reaching conclusions not anchored to reality does not render philosophy ineffective. All perception creates unique effects.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 03:44 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Do you think part of it may be the fact that not everyone needs to learn from science to benefit from it? I think it's easier to pass on an invention, such as a car, to other people than it is to pass on philosophical ideas. One person can invent a new drug to cure a disease that millions of people have, but a million people need to comprehend a philosophical idea before it has an effect on them, and even then, the effect isn't always immediately visible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chris7049's post
22-03-2013, 06:48 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(22-03-2013 01:07 AM)fat cat Wrote:  Furthermore, when scientists fail to derive wholly objective conclusions from their experiments, does that make the scientific method ineffective? When people make illogical predictions based on statistics, does that make recording statistics ineffective? When people answer math problems incorrectly, does that make mathematics ineffective? I would say the answer to all these is "no". Likewise, philosophers reaching conclusions not anchored to reality does not render philosophy ineffective. All perception creates unique effects.
I agree, people get it wrong in Science and Math all the time and yield a lot of results that are not objective, yet is not rendered ineffective. But Science does something special: it demands physical reality be the ultimate arbiter of what is effective and what is not. No amount of Peer Review or Scientific reputation or authority can trump reality.

As a result, advanced concepts in Science and Mathematics can be put to physical reality for the ultimate test. And, even if one scientist doesn't perform a good observation or experiment, the procedure can still be repeated by other Scientists in order to verify the concept.

Other than with the most basic concepts, I just don't know where in philosophy this technique could be applied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 09:01 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Science's demand that physical reality be the arbiter is itself a philosophy.

If a philosopher espouses a view, other philosophers can compare that philosopher's logic to their own observations of the universe. Isn't that, perhaps, how the scientific method developed in the first place?

I would say philosophy is just what we use to understand science, and when it comes to certain intended purposes, both science and philosophy depend on each other to be effective.

But maybe everyone else has a different idea of what "philosophy" is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 10:43 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Philosophy, like the scientific method, can neither fail nor succeed. It is a methodology for finding truth. One could say that philosophers have failed and to some extent, that's true. Did Socrates fail? We know he brought self knowledge and true wisdom to the youth of Greece but he also got himself killed in the process. But was his death indicative of a failure on his part or was it a failure on the part of those who killed him? He was charged with corrupting the minds of Athens' youth but in reality, what he actually did was expose the corrupt nature of the state, the family and all other hallowed institutions. Owing to that fact, I would argue that it was society who failed Socrates.... and the youth of Athens. Since then, society has failed the philosopher over and over and over again.

People lack self knowledge and from what I can tell, that's by design. After all, if we make an earnest effort at examining our own bigotries, hypocrisies and other irrational beliefs, we must then do something about them. Most people cannot bear the thought of doing so and it's because of that that philosophers are scorned and ignored.

So no, it isn't that philosophers have failed. It's that their task is so terrifically difficult that it has taken 2500 years to progress as far as we have.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: