Is Philosophy Obsolete?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:21 pm

Has the Philosopher, eccentrically loving wisdom -- sometimes to such an extreme degree that he no longer forms normal human loving attachments -- become a dinosaur? Does one have anything to say to the modern audience? If they do, what can we learn? Is there a reason to read dialectical masters?

Personally, I find a certain level of aesthetic beauty in philosophy. One who studies and appreciates a Descartes or a Kant is, at the very least, suffused in a marvel comparable to a work by Leonardo or Michelangelo.

I may, therefore, be biased by rose-tinted glasses. So, I ask: is philosophy obsolete?

WaltJRimmer · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **WaltJRimmer** on Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:06 pm

No. Philosophy is like fine art sometimes is. Decades, centuries or even millennia from now someone will look back on something someone said in our day and age as philosophical and forward thinking that no one else has. Now none of that may be true, but you never know where your next influential voice will come from. While today's philosophers may not be listened to by today's people nearly as much as we listen to the philosophers of old, some of their words will reach across time and touch a future people. The thing is, we usually don't see people that are alive at the same time as geniuses compared to the romanticized ideas of those that are long since dead. That passage of time makes people think it deserves more respect, like it must be important since it's survived so long. There is something to that, but at the same time it makes it so that modern wisdom is ignored when it shouldn't be with the thought that it has not yet proven itself to be true or relevant.

Some may say there is only finite wisdom in the world. But truly, there is infinite wisdom due to the constant change in people and their lives. We're all slightly unique, even though our lives in general are all similar in the long run, we're also slightly unique in our own ways. In that way, there is always room for more wisdom. Just, like I've already said, it can be obsolete before people look at it and take it seriously.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:39 pm

DWI: The philosopher is long from obsolete. The philosopher just has a smaller audience since the population is reverting back to a primitive and ignorant state of mind. Society increasingly marks philosophy as something useless, but I see lots of use in philosophy.

TheHabbadasher · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheHabbadasher** on Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:27 pm

Philosophy is far from being obsolete. The questions that are asked in philosophy are as relevant today as they ever were.
It's a question of who we are and of how we define ourselves. A question of how we understand and think of the world we live in, and of our relationship to that world. Those are questions we're going to have to be struggling with for a long time yet. And as long as we're struggling with them, philosophy will never be obsolete.

As to whether the philosopher has a smaller audience these days...
Well, I think the audience has always been quite small actually. Back in the day it was probably limited to the upper classes, and the people who could actually read.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:25 pm

Aniihya wrote:Society increasingly marks philosophy as something useless, but I see lots of use in philosophy.

Western civilization is presently in love with pragmatism. It's a cult of usefulness. I think it best to avoid looking for use in philosophy, or in anything for that matter. Nothing could be more un-American than enjoying thinking for the sake of thinking. If you can't get on welfare, work a mindless job so your mind is free to think. You are never so free as when you have nothing better to do than to simply be conscious.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:05 pm

I like to think but the job I have doesn't leave enough room for me to think what I prefer to think since I am preoccupied with a repetative job where my tasks are severely unchallenging and the workload is severely burdening. It is the worse possible combination.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:20 pm

I haven't worked in years. How does work affect your ability to philosophize? Are you unable to assess the human condition and the realities of existence while doing mindless tasks?

If so, I'd have to say that modern civilization's work ethic actively fights against people developing what I have claimed genius is (in the Genius thread).

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:17 pm

Well at work I cannot think clearly enough to do so since I have to get parts of a task through within three minutes to be on time.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:17 pm

Ugh, I don't think I'd have enough time in a day to work. I'd sooner make working obsolete than thinking.

On that note: should involuntary work be obsoleted? What is too much work?
Work Less Party

Hadespwr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hadespwr** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:58 am

DWI wrote:Western civilization is presently in love with pragmatism. It's a cult of usefulness.

No, it's a cult of wastefulness. Perhaps at one point it was dedicated to the task of assigning means to ends, but now we just skip one or the other and damn the consequences. It spends the fruit of its land sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the futures of its children, and to what end? To increase the availability of means for which there are no well thought out ends.

dealing with it wrote:Ugh, I don't think I'd have enough time in a day to work. I'd sooner make working obsolete than thinking.

A funny dichotomy because I find that the mindlessness of work sometimes eases the pain of immortal contemplation. Yes, there are times when I get tired of thinking and labor is my remedy.

dealing with it wrote:On that note: should involuntary work be obsoleted? What is too much work?

Well it would certainly make spotting the similarities between traditional slavery and wage slavery less apparent, but from a humanitarian standpoint I would say so. We can start with the human factories we rosily refer to as schools.

Bosch · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Bosch** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:48 am

I’ve deliberately held back on posting here because I know Deal really enjoys philosophy and I’m not so convinced, we’ve discussed it in the past. I wanted to see how the discussion panned out before I gave my opinion.

Philosophy is not obsolete I just think it lacks relevance to modern people. For example the discussion above most people, by that I mean everyday people who do not have an interest in philosophy, would find the conversation above pointless rambling as it does not affect their lives in a way they can relate to. That’s because philosophy is not clearly engaged in their lives. If you want to make this stuff relevant people need to understand it.

dealing with it wrote: the Philosopher, eccentrically loving wisdom -- sometimes to such an extreme degree that he no longer forms normal human loving attachments -- become a dinosaur?

I don’t know if philosophising and Wisdom are necessarily the same thing but maybe that’s a discussion for another time. Point is the person described in that quote is a dinosaur and I actually pity them, they sound like a reclusive nut job. A person who no long forms loving human attachments is not a person I’ll be taking advice from any time soon, unless it’s how make a better tin foil hat. A Philosopher should engage the people to butter understand them and spread whatever message they have.

dealing with it wrote: Ugh, I don't think I'd have enough time in a day to work. I'd sooner make working obsolete than thinking.

It’s comments like that which give Philosophy a bad rep among regular joes. Are you saying people that do work can’t think? How would someone make thinking obsolete? Why should some people stay home and think while others keep the lights on, educate, practice medicine, or keep the public safe? Why would making work obsolete be a good thing? There has never been a time in history when humans haven’t had to work it’s just the nature of life. Caveman gotta hunt, a serf gotta farm and a data entry guy gotta enter data. They do this for food or these days money that they can turn in to food.

As for involuntary work that’s slavery and that’s evil. I checked out that website and it’s pretty sparse on actual ideas. I guess they are all in the video but I just don’t have time to watch a four part internet documentary. Could you bottom line the ideas? Although we might be straying into the domain of one of your other topics about work.

TL;DR. Philosophy is not obsolete it just lacks clear relevance to our lives that people can see and understand. This in part due to lack of public education about the topic, Philosophers having a PR problem and the language used by classical Philosophers being a barrier to entry.

Deal who would you class as a modern day Philosopher? We’ll define modern as someone from the last 40 years.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:42 pm

Hadespwr: Do not quote DWI and then write my name above it. I do not take credit for the work of others.

Bosch: Even though wisdom does not equate with intelligence, it requires a specific basic amount. It is based mostly on observation, experience and how well you can view reality. Philosophy can be difficult at times but for people who think and prefer challenges it is a brilliant way to spend time.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:06 pm

Bosch wrote:A person who no long forms loving human attachments is not a person I’ll be taking advice from any time soon, unless it’s how make a better tin foil hat.

Some people are just too busy. This would be argumentum ad hominem if you used it against someone. Here, it's just a strawman.

Bosch wrote:Are you saying people that do work can’t think?

I'm admitting that it's really hard to think deeply while working. And often when finished working, one is then too tired to think. If you are an exception to this rule, I apologize.

Bosch wrote:Why should some people stay home and think while others keep the lights on, educate, practice medicine, or keep the public safe?

Master/slave dynamic. Which would you, personally, rather be?

Yes, I do consider most work slavery. Only if you have the option not to work is it otherwise.

Bosch wrote:TL;DR. Philosophy is not obsolete it just lacks clear relevance to our lives that people can see and understand. This in part due to lack of public education about the topic, Philosophers having a PR problem and the language used by classical Philosophers being a barrier to entry.

If someone avoids reading challenging books, that's their problem. It's not the philosophers' problem for dealing with difficult concepts. Although I do like the idea of philosophy being taught in school.

Bosch wrote:Deal who would you class as a modern day Philosopher? We’ll define modern as someone from the last 40 years.

I would classify John Rawls as a modern philosopher. He died about 10 years ago. His Theory of Justice is required reading for anyone who wants to understand modern political philosophy.

Michel Foucault died close to 30 years ago. His ouevre aims at making power dynamics relatable. He talks about crime, madness, knowledge, and sexuality.

As well, the last 50 years of feminism have shaped how educated people think about gender and sexuality. It'd be hard to reduce this to the work of a single philosopher; rather, those barriers of entry into philosophy opened to women, so there is now a whole new breed of philosophers. (Not to imply all female philosophers talk about is feminism.)

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:48 pm

DWI: Philosophy is taught in many German secondary school, only it is an optional subject that is not exactly popular. There were seven students in my philosophy class and in my school like many, you had to choose between the optional yet compulsory classes Catholic religious education, Protestant religious education, Alevi religious education, ethics (aka the rather secular variant to religious education) or philosophy. I was close to picking Alevi religious education or ethics but found philosophy to be more adequate for me. It was my more better subjects in school even though I finished Realschule (equivalent to non-A-courses high school) with a GPA of 2.0 (or by American standard a GPA of 3.0 since in Germany the lowest number equals the highest score). Yet due to the grade of difficulty in college prepatory school and the compulsory mathematical subjects, I did bad enough in these mathematical subjects (with exeption of Physics) to not get my baccalaureate. Now I am here working a frustrating job with a lower middleclass pay (average pay is at like 36000 dollars annually in Germany). hoping that I would at least get the same or better if I moved to a subtropical country (since I hate winter).

Hadespwr · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hadespwr** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:39 pm

Aniihya wrote:Hadespwr: Do not quote DWI and then write my name above it. I do not take credit for the work of others.

An honest mistake, I apologize, to both you and dealing with it. I have corrected the error. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Lifecharacter · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Lifecharacter** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:16 pm

dealing with it wrote:Master/slave dynamic. Which would you, personally, rather be?

Yes, I do consider most work slavery. Only if you have the option not to work is it otherwise.

So, because most people would likely prefer to be the master in that dynamic, it's suddenly okay for people to sit at home, comfortably thinking about stuff, while others perform utilitarian tasks that allow these thinkers to live as they do?

And work is not slavery, as you always have the option to not work, it's called unemployment. If your thoughts actually lead to something, then congratulations you've just done something productive and will be rewarded for your intellectual work. If not, then you don't deserve any rewards or aid from the people who are actually working, because all of your thinking has accomplished absolutely nothing where society is concerned. Don't expect all the people spending their days working to help you out just because you would rather stay home and think thoughts that don't help them at all.

dealing with it wrote:If someone avoids reading challenging books, that's their problem. It's not the philosophers' problem for dealing with difficult concepts. Although I do like the idea of philosophy being taught in school.

"Difficult concepts" is giving them a bit too much credit. Most of their concepts are pretty easy to understand when worded in a way that favors making a clear, concise point rather than writing more than necessary. I completely understand why they write that way though, as style and presentation were probably very important to their works, it's just that now, since the only important thing is what their ideas were, we don't need to actually care about such things. Creating difficult reads for the people is always the writer's fault, if they want their ideas to reach people they should attempt to make their works easily accessible to the people.

Bosch · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Bosch** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:26 pm

dealing with it wrote: Some people are just too busy. This would be argumentum ad hominem if you used it against someone. Here, it's just a strawman.

Some people are too busy to form loving human attachments? I'm not buying that. Loving attachments just happen, it’s not a logical decision. As for the Ad Hominem stuff keep in mind you came up with the example and asked for our opinions on it. I’m responding to your example and question, not taking a shot at all philosophy. I think it sounds like the person you described is crazy and possibly a sociopath. Do you think it’s normal not to form loving relationships? I also don’t see how somebody like that can pontificate about the human condition.

Of course that was just an example and I’m sure most Philosophers are just normal people that are perfectly capable of forming loving relationships.

dealing with it wrote: I'm admitting that it's really hard to think deeply while working. And often when finished working, one is then too tired to think. If you are an exception to this rule, I apologize.

I was making a point about how Philosophy is sometimes inaccessible to normal people and how statements like the one you made can give them the wrong idea. Obviously I don’t think that’s the point you were making, I was just pointing out how it could be construed.

dealing with it wrote: Master/slave dynamic. Which would you, personally, rather be?

Yes, I do consider most work slavery. Only if you have the option not to work is it otherwise.

Didn’t follow you here. Are you saying educators, doctors, nurses and cops are slaves? I’m sure that’s not the case. At least I hope it’s not. Work isn’t slavery. Slavery is slavery, trust me flipping burgers is a whole lot different from being property. Of course that’s the western world, go to the third world and slavery is alive and well.

dealing with it wrote: If someone avoids reading challenging books, that's their problem. It's not the philosophers' problem for dealing with difficult concepts. Although I do like the idea of philosophy being taught in school.

Like you said above some people are too busy. I think the difference between not forming a loving relationship and not reading up on Philosophy is clear enough. It is the Philosophers problem though, if they want respect show the public why they deserve it.

You know that show the big bang theory. Like it or loathe it at least it’s getting people some information about science. A better examples are people like Brian Cox in the UK and Neil Degrasse Tyson in the US who keep science relevant to people that wouldn’t normally be interested in it. Heck you know Richard Dawkins? While his job title these days is Atheist Jesus it wasn’t always. Back in early 2000’s his job was Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Oxford deemed public understanding important enough they made it a guy's job. What makes philosophy so special ?

Engaging the public and making sure they understand your findings is vital otherwise whats the point?

Philosophy needs to do something similar. In fact they had a great opportunity when this happened. One pop singer probably brought Socrates to the attention of more people than all the Philosophers currently working today. It speaks volumes about how relevant philosophy is to modern culture that people were so shocked by this meeting. To remain relevant Philosophy has gotta engage with the modern world.

I agree Philosophy should be at least mentioned in school although if Philosophy wants to regain relevance in modern conversation it needs to update its image and become more accessible. A good start would be ditching specialised jargon and showing people how philosophy applies to their own lives.

dealing with it wrote: I would classify John Rawls as a modern philosopher. He died about 10 years ago. His Theory of Justice is required reading for anyone who wants to understand modern political philosophy.

Michel Foucault died close to 30 years ago. His ouevre aims at making power dynamics relatable. He talks about crime, madness, knowledge, and sexuality.

As well, the last 50 years of feminism have shaped how educated people think about gender and sexuality. It'd be hard to reduce this to the work of a single philosopher; rather, those barriers of entry into philosophy opened to women, so there is now a whole new breed of philosophers. (Not to imply all female philosophers talk about is feminism.)

Awesome. I’m not going to pretend to have deep understating of these people because Philosophy isn’t my bag, I know Foucault because my background is in criminology, that was while ago now, but that’s about it.

To me your list suggests philosophy needs to get out there and into the public eye, that’s the only way to remain relevant. Seeing Philosophers with pop stars is a good thing.

Bosch · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Bosch** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:30 pm

<EDIT: Sorry for the double post it was not my intent. I meant to edit the one above but apparently I am lame.>

Lifecharacter wrote: Creating difficult reads for the people is always the writer's fault, if they want their ideas to reach people they should attempt to make their works easily accessible to the people.

This guy gets it. I read the whole post but this sums up the issue of Philosophy’s relevance perfectly.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:18 pm

Bosch: Do you think philosophers intend to have PR? No. Often it is the case, that philosophers don't have any intention to interest anyone else than a select amount of people. It's not always about popularity and popularity nowadays is overrated. Everyone seems to want to be famous, popular and wealthy. I do not need such things as may life is enriched to be among people who can understand what I think about. Many may think they understand me and my thoughts but they don't. DWI is probably one of the people who understand or come close to understanding.

Additionally, I do not agree with Lifecharacter as you cannot simplify difficult works to serve to the common folk who haven't cared about the topic in their life whatsoever. It's like explaining what something is but not why it is that way or how it came to be that way. Imagine a book on quantum mechanics in simple English that only describes it but does not explain its processes, formulas or how to build up on it.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:40 pm

There are books that you need to read several times, slowly, to understand. There are others that have prerequisites. Still others are only available in translation. And you need to struggle through all this to have original thoughts; philosophy requires of each new practitioner to reinvent the wheel.

So, to Lifecharacter's comment that people shouldn't be allowed to sit around thinking useless thoughts unless they are original, I strongly disagree. If you want people to have original thoughts, you have to give them a lot of free time to waste. They need to have incorrect thoughts to learn how to have correct ones. They need to have an abiding desire not to be wrong: in time, that becomes a sense for truth. Deep thought has nearly always been the domain of people who, by wealth or other accident, don't have to work.

There are many philosophers that are near-incoherent -- I have been stuck on opening paragraphs more than I'd like to admit -- but usually this problem is caused by a writing style that speaks too clearly of abstractions. Kant and Sartre, in particular, were very difficult nuts for me to crack. I recommend anyone reading any philosopher to read it three times at three different times. If it's still troublesome, you may need to read other philosophers first.

Presently, I'm reading Hegel, and even though I've read the philosophers that had inspired him, it is slow-going. A couple pages a day.

Some philosophers have written literature. Iris Murdoch, Ayn Rand, and Jean-Paul Sartre come to mind (Sartre turned down a Nobel Prize in Literature because "a writer is not an institution.") But most are more interested in the concepts than, as Aniihya rightly calls it, popularity. Schopenhauer is an exception. He had his followers scour journals for any mention of his name, and it's kind of pathetic.

Bosch wrote:Engaging the public and making sure they understand your findings is vital otherwise whats the point?

It happens occasionally that philosophy gets sucked into the mainstream. But between Descartes' Meditations and the Matrix, I choose the former as the premier work of art. Matrix is derivative, and just muddies the waters of Cartesian doubt.

There is a book series called "[something] And Philosophy". Pop philosophy exists. It's fun to read once in a while. But I don't think it's going to supplant philosophy, any more than a roadside billboard is going to supplant Van Gogh.

Anyway, philosophers can have fun.

Is Philosophy Obsolete?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Re: Is Philosophy Obsolete?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online