Philosophy is redundant

[Kizzie]

This made me laugh on the 'Today' programme this morning :

Stephen Hawking has declared that religion and philosophy are no longer necessary to explain the universe.

"Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in physics and biology. As a result, their discussions seem increasingly out dated and irrelevant," he told the programme.

Me and my other half were having one of our heated debates on this very subject the other morning....I say philosophy is not redundant but my other half is vehement that it is....listening to this debate on Radio 4 this morning was like listening to a replay of our early morning natterings....I was astonished to hear Stephen Hawking theorising exactly what my other half was saying, virtually word for word....

Maybe my old man is a genius after all....

[eFestivals]

As I explained to you, philosophy is redundant because via its deconstruction of everything into (what it likes to believe) its basic subjective form it takes human thinking back to the dark ages.

Humanity has expanded its knowledge via the understanding and belief that things really are objective, and via the sharing of that objective knowledge. Via the idea that everything is subjective and the result of experience, we're left only with dark ages thinking whereby the mystical/delusional is no less valid than the best ideas and thinking in existence.

Hawking and me, we know where it's at.

[The Nal]

I don't really get Hawking...

he doth protest too much

[eFestivals]

I'd say it's no more or less redundant than it's ever been..

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. It's allowed us to better understand things and put them in place and be able to weight their relevance.

The problem now is that it's been reversed, with the idea that everything has equal relevance via subjectivity. We all know that's a crock of shit - after all, who actually lives by that idea? - so why continue?

[eFestivals]

Poor f**ker has nothing else to do in fairness.

Eh? The man's a sex god, getting divorced and remarried recently.

Edited September 8, 2010 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

I've never really got the point of modern philosophy - those who have a degree in it - seem to study it historically, and then just make up their own philosophies. I've always been of the opinion bumper car sticker writers have replaced philosophers in the department of providing something socially relevant today. Historically we were in the business of discovering the human condition - but it's pretty much been explored now and opinions seem to matter less these days the world's awash with them. Psychology - the motivation of those opinions seems a more valid 'science' than the study of the thoughts themselves. Just out of interest did a great philosopher ever write "Naughty, naughty, very naughty"?

[rabid]

Just out of interest did a great philosopher ever write "Naughty, naughty, very naughty"?

[eFestivals]

that might be how you, and possibly many others see it, but it's always been pretty subjective, and in the end just other peoples thoughts or ruminations on any given topic...

no?

No.

While I don't disagree with the idea that everything is actually subjective, that's not and never has been how people in reality treat things. If you can see a tree, then you *know* that others are seeing it too. Objective, see?

The problems start to come about with those who wish to push ideas that others won't accept. While others can be convinced via explanation and demonstration in those circumstances - and which is how human knowledge has expanded - that's not possible for all ideas, particularly religion.

Because western (if not elsewhere) philosophy has had to be formed and exist within religiously dominated societies, it's had to corrupt itself to allow religious ideas to exist, which is why it gives the subjective the weight that it does - it gives religions a place to exist which otherwise wouldn't be accepted via the normal thinking we operate by.

The result of that history is that the whole thing has become a crock of shit.

Edited September 8, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Yes. Frankie Howerd was one of the greatest minds of our time.

I thought it was Mr C.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6us61Tpu4Vg

[rabid]

I thought it was Mr C.

[jonbob]

Until 1986, my Physics department was called "Natural Philosophy", reflecting the idea that science was born out of philosophy. Now the situation is reversed, any credible modern philosophy (outside the meaningless drivel that is postmodernism) is directly informed by scientific method, a good example being philosophy of language.

I wouldn't say philosophy is redundant per se, rather it evolved into something far more useful, objective and accurate.

[Purple Monkey]

Philosophy is as relevant as an individual wishes it to be, as is science, as is religion.

[eFestivals]

so no philosphy is at all relevant anymore..??

Philosophical investigations nowadays tell us nothing new and useful.

As for "no philosphy is at all relevant anymore", it depends what you're calling philosophy. Philosophers like to claim the whole world as theirs, tho it's nowt more than the standard power-grab by someone wearing the emperor's new clothes.

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't say philosophy is redundant per se, rather it evolved into something far more useful, objective and accurate.

I agree wholeheartedly.

It's just a shame that those who like to regard themselves as philosophers are still a few centuries from catching up.

[eFestivals]

Philosophy is as relevant as an individual wishes it to be, as is science, as is religion.

Thank you for the definitive proof that philosophy is redundant.

[dakyras]

Philosophical investigations nowadays tell us nothing new and useful.

As for "no philosphy is at all relevant anymore", it depends what you're calling philosophy. Philosophers like to claim the whole world as theirs, tho it's nowt more than the standard power-grab by someone wearing the emperor's new clothes.

[eFestivals]

Mr Hawking? What is he, if not a philosopher?

I think you're generalising way too much

You're doing precisely what I'd just said - claiming the whole world for philosophy.

If you said to joe public that Hawking is a philosopher, they'd look at you as tho you're mad. Say he's a scientist tho, and they'll get you.

Philosophers wanting to claim everything as theirs is the power-grab I was talking about. If we're going down that angle of claims then the amoeba's get to win and not philosophers.

[eFestivals]

even the ones who don't claim to be philosophers

Care to show me a single person that's not a philosoper (and actually, even those that are) who makes the claim that everything is derived from philosophy without that claim being able to be surpassed by something else of at least an equal basis?

If you want to accept that everything is derived from philosophy then you'd also have to accept that philosophy is derived from other earlier things - which makes the claim that everything is derived from philosophy as meaningful as everything else about philosophy.

[eFestivals]

I know that sounds contradictory...

Hawking doesn't claim to be a philosopher (I don't think), but he makes philosophical statements.....

They might be considered as that by those who wish to suck themselves up into their own shit, but that's not what's driving him to make them.

It's something else entirely, and something with a meaningful basis rather than a regressive basis - which is precisely what he's recognised with this latest thing.

[eFestivals]

as has been asked, what's relevant?

For philosophy, the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

It's a damn shame that modern philosophers seem to have forgotten that central part.

[eFestivals]

the conclusion is yours factually correct

corrected for you.

Edited September 8, 2010 by eFestivals

[Ed209]

Modern science is born out of metaphysics, and has the same core aims as philosophy, i.e. a search for the truth through reasoned and logical arguments (which is where it differs from Religion, who search for truth blindly without the logic or reason). Its why when someone gets a doctorate in a scientific subject, academia awards them with a PhD, which stands for philosophy doctorate. Science and philosophy are intrinsically linked and much of the same thing with the main difference that science performs experimentation. However when you get to theoretical physics there is very little experimentation, and is just following reasoned arguments to get to a truth, using mathematics as your language.

Hawkings is a philosopher

[eFestivals]

Modern science is born out of metaphysics, and has the same core aims as philosophy, i.e. a search for the truth through reasoned and logical arguments (which is where it differs from Religion, who search for truth blindly without the logic or reason). Its why when someone gets a doctorate in a scientific subject, academia awards them with a PhD, which stands for philosophy doctorate. Science and philosophy are intrinsically linked and much of the same thing with the main difference that science performs experimentation. However when you get to theoretical physics there is very little experimentation, and is just following reasoned arguments to get to a truth, using mathematics as your language.

Hawkings is a philosopher

I don't disagree with any of that.

However, modern philosophy has thrown off the "search for the truth through reasoned and logical arguments", because it doesn't reference how humans actually operate. It follows thru on logical ideas until they go beyond reason, and beyond having meaning.

Just because someone is able to come up with an idea that works and holds itself together doesn't make it a good or worthwhile idea, as proven by so much which is nothing more than the emperors new clothes. It's a power-grab - "hey look at me, I'm so clever and if you dare disagree that's only because you're not clever enough to understand what I can, so defer to me". It's bollox.

[llcoolphil]

Aren't Philosophy and Science just different sides of the same coin? Philosophy surely can't be redundant if we accept that our current scientifc understanding is exactly that - our current understanding. Especially when we know that our current understanding is wrong - science still cant tell us why anything has mass or how gravity works for instance. And whilst we might find a Higgs Boson at CERN, we might not. We might find what we currently know is completely wrong - which would mean that we dont actually know anything now. And if we dont know anything now, philosophy can't be redundant. And just as the quantum world was completely meaningless to the ancient greeks - they did not have the ability to even know of its existence - it might just be that there is stuff we can never know because we dont have the ability to understand it.

And that Hawking is a f*cker for changing his mind - it was black holes before.