Philosophy is redundant

[feral chile]

So there you go then, it's what I've been saying.

Philosophy doesn't do reality, and via that it ceases to be relevant.

[eFestivals]

It still has a lot to say regarding aesthetics, religion, politics, ethics etc. though - areas of human endeavour based on value systems and beliefs rather than empirical knowledge.

Is it telling us anything new about religion? Nope. What it is doing is giving religion protection from rational analysis - the sort of rational analysis that everything else in life is subject to - and via that holding back human progression.

Is it bringing about new ethical thinking, or is it providing uncritical protection of what we already have? It's the 2nd, via which it's holding back human progression.

Humanity progresses. When I was a kid (and certainly more-true a decade previous to that) a car owner needed to know about the workings of cars to be able to use a car, while today they are just there to be used as desired: we've progressed. Is the same "we've got passed that" progression happening with (for example) health & safety requirements, or is a philosophical take on things holding back that natural human progression, and entrenching no-longer-necessary practices? There is only one correct answer.

Etc, etc, etc.

[feral chile]

Is it telling us anything new about religion? Nope. What it is doing is giving religion protection from rational analysis - the sort of rational analysis that everything else in life is subject to - and via that holding back human progression.

Is it bringing about new ethical thinking, or is it providing uncritical protection of what we already have? It's the 2nd, via which it's holding back human progression.

Humanity progresses. When I was a kid (and certainly more-true a decade previous to that) a car owner needed to know about the workings of cars to be able to use a car, while today they are just there to be used as desired: we've progressed. Is the same "we've got passed that" progression happening with (for example) health & safety requirements, or is a philosophical take on things holding back that natural human progression, and entrenching no-longer-necessary practices? There is only one correct answer.

Etc, etc, etc.

[eFestivals]

Philosophy in no way protects religion from rational analysis

You're having a laugh!

It does the exact same thing as it does with the rock: if it's within the possibilities (possibilities, not probabilities) then it's as valid as anything else in that 'possibilities' list.

That take on things is complete and utter bollox from the angle which we humans apply to all other things. We don't credit the idea that the rock might not fall as a valid one; similarly we wouldn't credit the idea of god as a valid one if we applied our normal rationality.

[eFestivals]

whether god started it all or not, we're not a lot closer to understanding how it all began than ever really, are we?

Yep, we're a lot closer. We've ceased making things up from nothing, and started to make proper investigations based on proper evidence.

We've discovered more than enough to realise that all of the god stories as traditionally told are a complete fabrication, of no greater substance than all other myths and fairy stories. On any normal rationality this is more than enough to completely dismiss those stories as having no basis, along with the god idea behind them.

And so we're far nearer, because we have a real direction to our investigations of how things began, and not a false path.

[eFestivals]

mmmm.. "as traditionally told"... that's good

so what caused the big bang then? (if that's how 'it' started)

and what was there before that?

We haven't got that far yet.

But what we do know is that god had nothing to do with it.

[eFestivals]

god "as traditionally told"?

No, any ideas of god.

Any new ideas of god are simply recent inventions to try and sustain the god myth in the light of new evidence which proves beyond all doubt those traditional versions as false.

If there were older ideas of god, they've been lost - and that will only be because they weren't sustainable either.

So a conclusion of no god is a very certain one to make for anyone who applies their rationality consistently. After all, no one with any sense credits the idea that a rock might not fall as having any validity, and a god idea is no different.

Edited September 15, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

so the very concept of something, anything, however out of the possibilities of our imagination, creating the big bang, doesn't come into it for you?

Not when the only basis for its invention in the first place is nothing other than gross ignorance, nope.

In the absence of knowledge people made something up out of nothing. That gives it only a basis in fantasy or delusion, nothing greater.

As I've said, there's no different a basis (one of 'possibility') for the idea that a rock might not fall when released from your hand. You don't credit that idea as having any worth, so why apply different rules to the idea of a god? All that we discover makes that possibility less and less likely, while not a jot thru the whole history of mankind and the earth has backed the idea up.

It's baseless from all angles, and should be treated as such until such time as there is something to give it some credibility - in the exact same way as we treat everything else in life.

Edited September 15, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

what invention..?

the invention that is any 'god'.

open your mind. I'm not talking, or even considering what anyone else has said or thought

My mind is open thanks. Open to evidence, and not open to nothings.

so, you never ask yourself, or even ponder for the slightest moment on how or why we are here?

Been there, done that. And independently (I wasn't aware of others conclusions at that time) - tho no doubt with similar or the same evidence - I arrived at the same conclusion as the best we have for 'why', which is to continue the species.

For the 'how' I did the same thing and again arrived at the same best conclusion as others: coincidences.

All the evidence points to *just* those things, and nothing else. Nothing has come along since my pondering to knock those ideas off their perch.

If and when there's reasons - new evidence - to revisit then I will do.

Edited September 15, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Which I guess is why, for you, philosophy is dead.

Not dead, redundant. Redundant until it has something worthwhile and interesting to add to human knowledge.

It's a very long while since it has, it keeps itself going by pretending it has useful things to add to views on religion and suchlike when it doesn't.

I'm not talking about the beginning of life on earth, it's the beginning of everything that we can concieve of is what I'm curious about. Us continuing our species is a bit of a vague , or possibly irrelevant, explanation for me. It'll do for why 'we' might be here, but the rest of it..?? Me, or anyone else having kids doesn't go very far to explaining the beginning of existence of everything else.

We have the answer to that one, and I've already given it to you - coincidence. Simply just a set of random circumstances that happened to cause everything.

As someone mentioned earlier, we humans have difficulties grasping certain concepts such as nothingness. Coincidences are also in that list, and you're demonstrating it by wanting an answer that you can better understand.

I suspect that if we were to properly grasp those concepts we'd also at the same time properly grasp the futility of life, as shown by the words "you live until you die".

Me, I'd rather spend my time doing what I consider to be useful than what cannot be at this time anything more than pointless naval gazing.

Edited September 15, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Well, realist philosophy is alive and well in here isn't it. Any attempt at explaining the purpose of anything (like the procreation of the species or coincidental fate) can be considered a philosophy. This is perhaps why Hawkins says what he says. So I can understand his point.

As to how redundant philosophy is depends entirely upon the effect it has on something, from a scientific perspective anyway. The only valid questions are therefore 'redundant in relation to what?' and 'which philosophy in particular?'.

If you're looking at some outdated duplicity between the real and the ideal, as some have here, then you certainly aren't talking about modern philosophy. Modern philosophy isn't concerned with the real and the ideal, but with how language and experience create both. Within this, it is primarily concerned with how we create abstractions, such as politics, ideologies and histories and how we perceive reality on the basis of these findings. So for instance, how the experience of scientific discoveries inform the way we perceive reality and ourselves within that reality. It can explain art and behaviours and all other aspects of human life living under a specific set of realities. This is because unlike modern'ist' philosophies, modern philosophy does not try to explain a metaphysical reality. As an aside, I've no idea why anyone would take modern philosophy as something that uses anything but what is evident within human experience as has happened in this thread.

So as I say, it depends which philosophy you're talking about and what you are referring to when you say redundant. My opinion is that modernist philosophies, i.e. those that attempt to explain an essential truth to everything, are redundant. More importantly, I believe that this form of philosophy is what Hawkins is referring to in particular. However, I believe that modern philosophy is vital and I also believe that he might think so to.

[feral chile]

You're having a laugh!

It does the exact same thing as it does with the rock: if it's within the possibilities (possibilities, not probabilities) then it's as valid as anything else in that 'possibilities' list.

That take on things is complete and utter bollox from the angle which we humans apply to all other things. We don't credit the idea that the rock might not fall as a valid one; similarly we wouldn't credit the idea of god as a valid one if we applied our normal rationality.

Edited September 15, 2010 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Any attempt at explaining the purpose of anything (like the procreation of the species or coincidental fate) can be considered a philosophy.

philosophers claiming the whole world as theirs. Who'd have thought it eh?

Meanwhile the world keeps on turning without the need to call on philosophers for why I went to the chippie last night.

One day you really must show me those new clothes of your emperor.

As to how redundant philosophy is depends entirely upon the effect it has on something

And there we have the full and clear admission of its redundancy.

If you're looking at some outdated duplicity between the real and the ideal

do please tell us when reality became outdated.

Modern philosophy isn't concerned with the real and the ideal, but with how language and experience create both.

well, apart from the part it can't answer so pretends isn't there of course. And which destroys the whole idea.

Because reality isn't any part of it.

My opinion is that modernist philosophies, i.e. those that attempt to explain an essential truth to everything, are redundant.

Yep, you're correct. Because they've failed at being valid philosophies, and not for any other reason. That's the failing of the self-proclaimed 'philosophers'.

Do please show me those new clothes won't you.

[eFestivals]

You're looking at it from an empirical perspective

No, I'm looking at it with just perspective, as all sane humans do for everything.

Except religion, where insanity takes over. As shown by the rejection of normal rules for just this one thing.

Philosophy has more to say on the subject of First Cause - there's no more validity in arguing that God created the universe than saying that the Universe just happened. Why? Because if you accept the premise that anything, including God, can exist without a cause, then that could apply to the universe as much as it could apply to God.

One doesn't have its basis only in fairy stories tho.

A simple fact that philosophy deems irrelevant.

[worm]

The world keeps on turning without the need to call on philosophers for why I went to the chippie last night.

Edited September 17, 2010 by worm

[worm]

One doesn't have its basis only in fairy stories tho.

A simple fact that philosophy deems irrelevant.

Edited September 17, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

No, I'm looking at it with just perspective, as all sane humans do for everything.

Except religion, where insanity takes over. As shown by the rejection of normal rules for just this one thing.

One doesn't have its basis only in fairy stories tho.

A simple fact that philosophy deems irrelevant.

Edited September 16, 2010 by feral chile

[rfs]

Not dead, redundant. Redundant until it has something worthwhile and interesting to add to human knowledge.

[eFestivals]

I don't ever remember calling a scientist to assist in my last chippy run either.

But if you want to know why I went to the chippy then you're being philosophical and if you want to know how I went to the chippy then you're being scientific. They're both abstractions of our experiences, from which we create a reality of going to the chippy.

Then you're a fool. Scientists enabled the chip shop to be there, and for you to get to it.

But meanwhile, those philosophical abstractions got created from nothing, and the power-grabbers said "everything is mine".

Yet before anyone had thought up grabbing power by inventing philosophy and claiming everything for it, nothing different happened. People still went to the chippie (or its predecessor).

Given that you believe that philosophy didn't exist until it was labelled as such (we've had that argument over capitalism, marxism and others, don't forget) it gets to show that even philosophers fully recognise the redundancy and pointlessness of philosophy.

Meanwhile, something different DOES happen from science. It produces extra products while philosophy produces none.

[eFestivals]

Incidentally, modern philosophy deems fairy stories relevant as they exist. What it deems irrelevant is that which does not exist i.e. the fairy object.

Blimey, your philosophical take on the idea of god has changed.

A 100% u-turn, and in such short time too. You're admitting philosophy made a major error, or at least, your take on it was 100% wrong. I'd have never have believed it.

Modern philosophy is only interested in that which exists and both the belief in God as creator and coincidence as creation exist. What it gives no interest to is the reality of a God object or a birth of coincidence because there is no evidence of either.

And a 100% u-turn again, within the same post. Priceless.

The existence of a fairy story does not remotely demonstrate the existence of the fairy object - god. A belief in something does not bring into existence the object of that belief. It only brings a delusion into existence.

I can believe there's a ferarri of mine parked outside my door - yet when I look outside it's not there. That philosophical take on things is proven as the empty bollox that it is.

Edited September 17, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Incidentally, it's not philosophy per se that says evidence can't disprove God - I'm sure science would say the same if it thought God-proof was part of its remit.

But I imagine science would also agree that empirical evidence is impossible to obtain.

i think sometimes you think you're defending science but you misinterpret what science irself would claim. No discipline, including science, can exist without its own philosophy, and sometimes you criticise philosophy for something science would agree with, like the above. Science doesn't claim truth ot certainty for itself, that would go against the whole falsifiability principle.

[Kizzie]

Another debate about the usefulness of Philosophy on Radio 4 this morning, this time whether philosophy can ever be populist….should philosophy be the preserve of academia, or whether philosophers have a responsibility to communicate with the general public…..basically can normal plebs really understand it ?

The gist being on the one side that they can't understand it and therefore do not have the skills to discuss or debate it, and on the other that by making philosophy populist it gives us plebs half a chance….. and stops us all barking up the wrong proverbial tree and making fools of ourselves….

It crossed my mind that the two debating philosophers had been up all night digesting this thread….

I was waiting for Worm to post his diatribe in response before I posted this but I got bored waiting....he must have some weighty tome to study....

[worm]

Then you're a fool. Scientists enabled the chip shop to be there, and for you to get to it.

[worm]

The existence of a fairy story does not remotely demonstrate the existence of the fairy object - god. A belief in something does not bring into existence the object of that belief. It only brings a delusion into existence.

[eFestivals]

True science would say nothing of God.

Not completely accurate.

True science would say nothing of god unless asked about god. If asked it would say "there's no evidence of a god. Therefore there is no god until such time as there's evidence to suggest there might be one".