I think the emphasis on which areas of philosophy has changed though:

Areas such as metaphysics and philosophy of religion have become replaced by science.

Ethics and philosophy of politics remain just as essential as when they began

In the public dialogue metaphysics probably never had any importance ever in the entire history of humankind. I mean people may puzzle about a metaphysical question here and there, but in the entire metaphysical continuity from antiquity to the present, I doubt metaphysics (at an academic level) EVER meant anything much to the common person.

As for philosophy of religion, it remains important unto itself but mainly from a sociological point of view. The current Muslim extremism is absolutely not by any cogent argument a continuation of ancient religious rivalries and conflicts -- it's a 100% modern geopolitical problem that is rooted in part in the philosophy of religion and how that plays into group identity.

And yes, science has displaced religion as a source of understanding for many people. And the reason for that is that science is so damn pragmatic and easy to see. I mean ever since Newton showed that he could predict the tides, the ability of science to demonstrate its veracity has been extremely appealing to people -- to the point that they rely on science even beyond the things it can show with confidence. And science is now so well developed, and shows itself through all our inventions that we surround ourselves with, that when knowledge is absent we usually do not assume that it therefore must be answered through religion or metaphysics -- we assume that the answer just isn't known to science yet.

Here's the link to the full article from the Guardian
The rise in stock of philosophy graduates | World news | The Guardian
Makes some interesting points and is rather comforting for those like me who plan on doing a Philosophy degree.

Speaking from experience, the philosophical traits mentioned in the Guardian are greatly desired in many different professions, especially when presented that way. In business, the ability to analyze and to understand all sorts of disparate data , to then organize it to a purpose, and finally to make thoughtful and clear proposals, as well as to sympathetically question those made by others is something that, unlike the use of MS Office, cannot be learned internally and quickly, and consequently is sought after in many different levels of management.

Don't try to prove your worth ..us mortals respect your intellect..be grateful you serve our desires and dont be tooo aloof..

but metaphysics and philsophy of religion should have a direct bearing on our view of politics, ethics, society and culture; it should be a complete ans synthesised whole.

**** the common person

The rise of Islamic extremism is linked to earliar movements and problems within and without Islam, emerged with wahibism in the 18th century, and grew out into terroism is the late half of the twentieth century.

Yes the common herd is always convinced by arguments such as 'it makes your widescreen TV work, so it must answer the most fundamental questions in the universe.'

Conveniant.

And you wonder why philosophy is disrespected.

And you wonder why philosophy is disrespected.

And you wonder why philosophy is disrespected.

Oneday soon, the certainty of philosophy or truth will reign again supreme.
Until then, the uncertainties of theories and faiths rule the today.
Nothing is more powerful than truth, and truth will come again.
Amen,

=
MJA

Just because you repeat yourself three times doesn't make it clever.

And just because you scorn the rest of humanity and their crude ideas doesn't make you a philosopher.

Let us stop this rhetoric. Most people don't understand how astrophysics works, nor does it matter to them, but that is not to the denegration of astrophysics. People should respect those who have knowlage they don't understand, not abuse them. I do not understand the intricies of mathematics, but I do not assume these people are wasteing their time simply because I do not understand what they are doing. In the precense of the mysterious we should be reverant, not contemptuous.

I think we should be neither. We should be inquisitive. That's the root of all human contemplation, inventiveness, science, and speculative philosophy. Reverence is only useful if it motivates accomplishment.

We should seek to understand, I agree, but reverance (in this context and to me) would mean caution and respect, at least until I understood further- this is the way we should treat anything until we have a fuller understanding of it- then we can judge it.

We probably largely agree. Reverence can take many forms, and seeking understanding is in itself a form of reverence.

But I would still feel contempt for those who mock what they do not understand.

I only feel contempt for people who harm others.

I feel pity for people who dish out contempt like bread crumbs.

Thanks for the beautiful thought.

I believe One should be equally reverant to All for All is surely One.

=
MJA

The responses in this thread all seem in defense of philosophy, but if we are to be objective thinkers don't we also have to consider if any the critics' complaints are legitimate? I think there are at least a couple of serious flaws with, not so much philosophy, but philosophers.

But before I give my opinion on that, I'd agree that the general population would greatly benefit from understanding the best of what is found in philosophy. The recent US elections, for example, had to make anyone knowledgeable of logic principles cringe at the use of one fallacious argument after another.

Of course, the problems go much deeper because, in general, I find that most people don't want to think. They have their beliefs, it's all settled, and so all one's energies are channeled into family, careers, recreation, etc. Ssuch a head-in-the-sand attitude deserve our scorn since it is the basis of ignorance. However . . .




In the past I debated extensively at a science site that had a philosophy area, and the science crowd didn't want philosophy to be part of their site. Only because a couple of the founding moderators supported philosophy (especially epistemology) did it survive as a full forum (though eventually the hardcore science types forced philosophy into the mostly-social "general discussion" area).

Some of the same ignorance as we see in the general population was partly responsible for resistance (i.e., they had their beliefs firmly in place and didn't want to mess with them), but another reason for their disdain became clear. They tended to characterize this complaint of theirs as philosophy being "mental masturbation"; I'd rephrase their complaint to say they had lost respect for philosophy because of observing unrestrained rationalization. That explains why, for example . . .




Exactly, because the passion behind such debates keeps participants focused on the subject in such a way that a practical answer might be found.




Yes, because reason directed towards a specific goal, while applying known facts and examples to help the discussion move along, is a wholly different process than philosophers' volumes-long abstract discourses (that few people can follow) attempting proofs of some obscure principle.




Well, here's where I think today's philosopher-aspirants have to take responsibility for a problem with philosophy, and not just blame the disrespect we hear all on the ignorant masses.

The science-philosophy conflict at the site I mentioned above is a great study because it was an unintended recreation of the old empiricism-rationalism debate (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a pretty good article on that: Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ). I say that conflict is worthy of study because of what the philosophy behind science, empiricism, has taught us about knowing.

If, as UnMechanics says, philosophy is about seeking truth, then that determines philosophy is first and foremost an epistemological exercise. And that means how well philosophy produces truth is central to its effectiveness. Jumping back to science, why has it been so successful? Precisely because ideas are inseparably linked to verification via experience (as observation); that is, if you claim it is true, then you have to have reliable reports of observing what's been hypothesized as true.

The scientism believer is quite certain that truth seeking must be linked to experience and so asks, "just how much truth have philosophers discovered by merely thinking about things?" It's a very pertinent question. Centuries of trying to figure out truth by assuming a priori truths often led to one mental giant challenging another mental giant, with no real proof either was right (or wrong). Such discussions never ended, never got anywhere, never decided anything for certain. ONLY when ideas were tied to observable results did learning take off (exponentially).

What the successes of science has done, then, is create a rather stark contrast with all those centuries of fruitless philosophical rationalization (I'm not saying all philosophy was fruitless, only that far too much of it decided nothing compared with how much we are discovering today). And the "mental masturbation" complaint of science practitioners? It is directed at philosopher's claim of truth seeking because it is done without a verification process.

I am not suggesting (since science only seems to reveal physical truths) that physical exploration is most worthy of our attention. What I AM saying is that we can learn something from science; specifically, why empirical epistemology "works." I say it works because we finally realized that experience is the secret to knowing.

If we accept that whatever we philosophize about is only confirmed by the experience of it, then philosophy can acquire a constraint that will not only make it more fruitful, but will also make it more accessible to all those so consumed by the practicalities of life.

Does that mean we can't, say, explore possibilities, where sufficient supportive experience is lacking? Not at all. In that case, we try with all our mental determination to link our ideas to every bit of experience we can find, and then we conservatively reason from facts instead of leaping light years via rationalization to factually unsupported conclusions and grand philosophies. That way ideas can be more quickly challenged factually and must proceed more carefully as we try to construct theories/philosophies which rest on experience-supported pillars.

Well, that's my philosophy anyway :flowers:

I believe I know what site you are talking about:shifty:, I often go there to discuss mathematics.

I think you raise a good point. There is a tendency to rationalize without direction and to wander about in one's own thoughts. Now, this may or may not lead to anything. In this context, philosophy becomes more an intellectual exercise, and I would justify it as such in the same manner as Hume.

This is often what happens, especially with continental philosophers and many of those would-be philosophers and students of philosophy. It is fun to rationalize, abstract and play with ideas, but it is no more object oriented than a simple game. Wittgenstein believed than philosophy of this type is useless, and it is aside from the pure entertainment of it. When one takes a question about a concept that arises from a question about a concept ad infinitum, we have in actuality a system which has outgrown its purpose, to seek understanding of the world around us.

In the words of Wittgenstien:

6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be
put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at
all, it is also possible to answer it.


6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it
tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist
only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and
an answer only where something can be said.


6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been
answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there
are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.


6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the
problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long
period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been
unable to say what constituted that sense?)


6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.


6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them,
on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he
has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he
will see the world right.


7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.