speculative philosophy

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;93772 wrote:

Well, that is not their fault, so I forgive them. (It is John Dewey).

William James and John Dewey, yes.

@prothero,

I have some questions about the extent to which certainty is possible. It has been touched on above but might be spelt out a little more clearly: in the case of speculative, as distinct from natural, philosophy, we are considering questions and judgements about completely different kinds of subject matter.

If you take the movement of bodies as a subject in the case of natural philosophy, then clearly a high degree of certainty is both possible and desirable. I seem to recall that one of the motivations for the development of calculus was the requirement to lob artillery shells accurately. If that is your purpose, certainty is of the essence. The same would obviously apply to engineering tasks - creating buildings or bridges. In these fields of endeavour, a high degree of certainty is possible and expected. You don't want to lob an artillery shell on your own forces, or have your bridges and buildings collapse when operating at full capacity. And surely the track record is very good in these matters.

Now consider matters traditionally in the province of speculative metaphysic, such questions as the reality of God, of the soul, the existence of Universals. There are also matters of more recent vintage, including, for example, the nature and activities of the unconscious and subconscious, whether there are different levels of consciousness, whether there are different levels of reality, the real nature of matter, and so on.

It seems to me the acknowledgement of uncertainty simply amounts to an admission that although the measurement of mass and movement may offer certainty, in regards to such larger questions, knowledge is fallible, propositions impossible to verify, and objective demonstrability impossible to obtain. So doesn't the pragmatist approach simply say 'well we can't know these things, let's just stick with what can be demonstrated to work and gradually enlarge our circle of knowledge?'

kennethamy;93759 wrote:

It may be just because these questions of ultimate meaning had no answer because they were so vague and nebulous, that philosophers discarded them, and turned to issue that did make sense, and could be answered. That was not a quest for certainty, which was discarded with the rise of science, and the realization that scientific knowledge was fallible knowledge since it depended on inductive, and not deductive inference. This realization that knowledge is fallible, and not infallible, was first discussed, and argued, by C. S. Peirce, the founder of American pragmatism. In my view, though, what you call speculative philosophy is closer to science fiction, than it is to what philosophers do nowadays; at least in the English speaking areas of the world, and those areas influenced by them.

But in sticking to what can be known, or may be validated by empirical means, we're actually discarding any questions of real philosophical depth. Maybe this is why Eastern philosophy and alternative spirituality are romping it in; the field has been largely abandoned by Western philosophy. With the exception of a few popular writers such as Josien Gaarder and Alain de Botton hardly anything of Western philosophy is known in popular culture any more. (1) By declaring the search for meaning 'meaningless', Western philosophy has largely abandoned its mission, in my view.

So I agree with the premiss of this thread - I think the ground is ripe for the re-introduction a proper Western speculative philosophy. There are subjects in philosophy where, as pointed out, objective certainty is impossible, but through the right questions, subjective resolution may indeed be arrived at. There is a real hunger for that. There is a grand and rich tradition to draw on and a lot of great material to work with.

-----

(1) Do a search on 'popular philosophy' on Amazon.

Top 5 hits:

The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy
The philosophy of Film Noir
Super-villians and Philosophy
Hitchock and Philosophy
Hip-hop and Philosophy

Anyone for Plato?

---------- Post added 09-27-2009 at 10:13 AM ----------

Q: How many Western Philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Unknown. They are still undecided as to whether it exists.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;93795 wrote:

But in sticking to what can be known, or may be validated by empirical means, we're actually discarding any questions of real philosophical depth. Maybe this is why Eastern philosophy and alternative spirituality are romping it in; the field has been largely abandoned by Western philosophy. With the exception of a few popular writers such as Josien Gaarder and Alain de Botton hardly anything of Western philosophy is known in popular culture any more. (1) By declaring the search for meaning 'meaningless', Western philosophy has largely abandoned its mission, in my view.

.

It depends on why it is that the question is unanswerable. If it is something beyond our knowledge, it might be interesting to discuss it, although futile. But if is is just that the question is too vague and nebulous to make sense of, it is the fault of the question, not that the question is deep. The child's question, where does the time go, when we run out of time? is unanswerable. But it isn't unanswerable because there is an answer, but we don't know it.

@prothero,

Well, true, but on the other hand, there was, in Western philosophy up until the Enlightenment, a 'universe of discourse' which did encompass some very deep questions about meaning, ethics, ultimate values, and the like. These discussions would not necessarily culiminate in 'objective certainty' but at the same time, they might certainly help an individual to learn how to think about such issues. In my opinion, analytical philosophers and logical positivists have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. People do have real and legitimate questions about matters of ultimate value. Just to say 'well it's all too vague to form a real answer' is ducking the issue in my view. There are many philosophers in the Western tradition to whom we could refer in responding to these questions, as well as the recent thinkers that Prothero referred to - Bergson and Whitehead and some others.

I do understand why Moore and Russell revolted against idealism, which had indeed become incomprehensible in many respects. But I have always thought that Russell had his own agenda in rejecting traditional metaphysics, which was that it did not sit well with his libertarian outlook on life. And his was only part of the larger cultural move towards secularism and individualism which is generally antagonistic towards metaphysics of any kind. It is after all very difficult to sustain a metaphysic outside of a confessional orientation, because of its necessarily ethical dimension and its foundation in some form of contemplation or spirituality. That to me is the largest underlying issue.

So it is more convenient for secular modernism to confine itself to those matters on which everyone can agree, and about which sensible arguments can be framed - and which, in my view, excludes a great deal of value in traditional philosophy. I suppose you will come across individual lecturers here and there who are able to engage across this broader area but in my opinion academic philosophy has become a very lifeless discipline on account of this attitude. People are looking for answers to deep questions, and they won't always ask the question in the form that can be answered by a 'verifiable proposition'.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;93825 wrote:

Well, true, but on the other hand, there was, in Western philosophy up until the Enlightenment, a 'universe of discourse' which did encompass some very deep questions about meaning, ethics, ultimate values, and the like. These discussions would not necessarily culiminate in 'objective certainty' but at the same time, they might certainly help an individual to learn how to think about such issues. In my opinion, analytical philosophers and logical positivists have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. People do have real and legitimate questions about matters of ultimate value. Just to say 'well it's all too vague to form a real answer' is ducking the issue in my view. There are many philosophers in the Western tradition to whom we could refer in responding to these questions, as well as the recent thinkers that Prothero referred to - Bergson and Whitehead and some others.

I do understand why Moore and Russell revolted against idealism, which had indeed become incomprehensible in many respects. But I have always thought that Russell had his own agenda in rejecting traditional metaphysics, which was that it did not sit well with his libertarian outlook on life. And his was only part of the larger cultural move towards secularism and individualism which is generally antagonistic towards metaphysics of any kind. It is after all very difficult to sustain a metaphysic outside of a confessional orientation, because of its necessarily ethical dimension and its foundation in some form of contemplation or spirituality. That to me is the largest underlying issue.

So it is more convenient for secular modernism to confine itself to those matters on which everyone can agree, and about which sensible arguments can be framed - and which, in my view, excludes a great deal of value in traditional philosophy. I suppose you will come across individual lecturers here and there who are able to engage across this broader area but in my opinion academic philosophy has become a very lifeless discipline on account of this attitude. People are looking for answers to deep questions, and they won't always ask the question in the form that can be answered by a 'verifiable proposition'.

Children seek answers to questions like, how high is up? and, where does the light go when it goes out?. But there are no answers to those questions for obvious reasons. Just because people want answers to questions, or rather, what look like questions, it does not follow that there are such answers, because the questions are not real questions. Ponce de Leon, who looked for the Fountain of Youth, was bound to be disappointed.

@prothero,

well I must say the comparison of the questions of classical or speculative philosophy with the questions children ask seems to me both childish and condescending. But I suppose it depends on whether you really believe philosophy really does deal with questions of meaning and value, or just games with words.

---------- Post added 09-27-2009 at 04:46 PM ----------

Sorry for the testy response. I guess different people seek different things in philosophy.

(Must be more patient.)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;93828 wrote:

well I must say the comparison of the questions of classical or speculative philosophy with the questions children ask seems to me both childish and condescending. But I suppose it depends on whether you really believe philosophy really does deal with questions of meaning and value, or just games with words.

---------- Post added 09-27-2009 at 04:46 PM ----------

Sorry for the testy response. I guess different people seek different things in philosophy.

(Must be more patient.)

The comparison was intended to illustrate cases of pseudo-questions. Naturally, I could not give cases from philosophy without begging the question. I am afraid that I do not know what "games with words" are. Have you any clear examples of "games with words" that philosophers play You ought to be able to support your allegation that certain philosopher "play games with words" with examples of what you mean. Else it remains an allegation. I seek from philosophy what Socrates, or Descartes, or Pierce sought, namely understanding important and key concepts which we use in thought and language. As Wittgenstein replied to the accusation that he seems to talk only about words, "Well, you use words, so I have to talk about words".

There is nothing wrong with speculation, just as long as it is realized that it is speculation, and that speculation is unlikely to attain the kind of understanding philosophers have always sought to attain. In fact, the understanding can come only from the process of the analysis necessary for it.

@kennethamy,

HI,

I agree that philosophy has put itself into a straight-jacket. I'm for expressing oneself and see where it goes. Philosophy should be about who we are and where we are, and that should encompass everything - including our imagination and creativity.

As for rational thinking - as can be seen on this forum - one person's rational thinking is another person's irrational. So, I have long forsaken this idea of trying to appear rational. I just do the best I can in expressing my views.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;93916 wrote:

HI,

I agree that philosophy has put itself into a straight-jacket. I'm for expressing oneself and see where it goes. Philosophy should be about who we are and where we are, and that should encompass everything - including our imagination and creativity.

As for rational thinking - as can be seen on this forum - one person's rational thinking is another person's irrational. So, I have long forsaken this idea of trying to appear rational. I just do the best I can in expressing my views.

Rich

Hmmm. I already know who I am, and where I am. I don't need philosophy to tell me that. I don't have amnesia, nor am I lost.

@richrf,

richrf;93916 wrote:

HI,

I agree that philosophy has put itself into a straight-jacket. I'm for expressing oneself and see where it goes. Philosophy should be about who we are and where we are, and that should encompass everything - including our imagination and creativity.

And why do you think that it should that?

Quote:

As for rational thinking - as can be seen on this forum - one person's rational thinking is another person's irrational. So, I have long forsaken this idea of trying to appear rational. I just do the best I can in expressing my views.

Rich

You seem to be conflating the above with "what one person thinks is rational thinking is what another person thinks is irrational.".

@Emil,

Emil;93935 wrote:

And why do you think that it should that?

Philosophy, for me, is about everything.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;93954 wrote:

Philosophy, for me, is about everything.

Rich

And that means that (you think) it is about nothing in particular. That explains a lot too.

@prothero,

I agree with that assessment. Saying philosophy is about 'everything' is like asking for directions and being given an atlas. A definition only has meaning because it says what something is not.

As regards my remarks about 'word games', without repeating the arguments that I have already put forward, the emphasis of analytical philosophers on purely linguistic and logical questions does, in my mind, undermine the relevance of the western philosophy in terms of its ability to encourage us to consider the 'big questions' of philosophy. For example, when philosophy asks 'who are you' it is not asking you for your name and address. It is asking whether the human being might comprise something more than just a personal identity that comes into existence and then ceases forever. What role does consciousness have in the construction of what we consider to be real and the nature of the universe? Can 'consciousness' be understood as a modern rendering of the ancient term 'spirit'? These are some of the big questions in mind.

The original post was about the consideration of just such 'big questions' and about a rational, speculative framework within which they can be addressed. It seems to me that the analytical philosophers who wish to restrict the discussion to propositions which are empirically demonstrable or logically sound will always seek to deprecate this approach. It may well be that you have no interest in such questions, and have a different idea of what constitutes the subject of philosophy, I suppose, but to compare it to 'science fiction' is, as I said before, condescending.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;93961 wrote:

I agree with that assessment. Saying philosophy is about 'everything' is like asking for directions and being given an atlas. A definition only has meaning because it says what something is not.

This is why I prefer the Easter philosophies which seek a fundamental view of everything. It includes spiritual life, space planning (Feng Shui), relationships, health, medicine, exercise, diet, etc. Everything comes under the umbrella and everything is explained by a single perspective. Extremely practical. It is all about unity of thought and vision. Much different from Western philosophy which likes to split things up arbitrarily. Even the human being is considered a single entity, not a bunch of arbitrarily defined parts.

Rich

@prothero,

I too am an adherent of Eastern philosophy, but with respect to this thread, the topic is 'Speculative Philosophy' in the Western philosophical tradition.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;93966 wrote:

I too am an adherent of Eastern philosophy, but with respect to this thread, the topic is 'Speculative Philosophy' in the Western philosophical tradition.

Yes, and my criticism of Western philosophy stands on the basis that it is too constraining.

If one is to have a unified understanding of everything, then one must look for that unifying principle. One cannot just think about it, one must also experience it and put it to practical use. Western philosophy does not have that unifying principle any longer. However, it did have it in pre-Socratic times, which is why I enjoy reading about philosophers such as Heraclitus.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;93986 wrote:

Yes, and my criticism of Western philosophy stands on the basis that it is too constraining.

Even existentialism?? The whole philosophy is that there are no constraints.

@Aedes,

Aedes;93988 wrote:

Even existentialism?? The whole philosophy is that there are no constraints.

One must be able to apply it to everything in life. I use Eastern philosophy in diet, medical treatments, singing, tennis, floor plan layout, painting, dancing, relaxing, personal relationships, personal understanding, universal understanding, exercise, etc. The single unifying principles are applicable and useful in every aspect of my life. There is no separation anywhere.

Rich

@prothero,

You could apply existentialism to everything in life. You have complete freedom to pursue anything, any system, and you are beholden only to your own authentic self-assessment. The single unifying principle is the individual's judgement and freedom. This is why people can have internal consistency among apparently incompatible beliefs (for instance I am a practicing Jew but I'm also in a sense an atheist -- because it works in my way of balancing things).

@prothero,

I think the point of the original post, and one which I wholeheartedly support, is that there is a perspective unique to Western, speculative, intellectual, rational philosophy, which is NOT shared by the all-singing all-dancing feelgood new age movement (of which incidentally I am a card-carrying member). This is the idea of the human as "a rational soul in an intelligible universe" which has come down through the ages from Pythogoras, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Kant, Whitehead, et al. It IS hard to understand, it does ask very difficult questions, and demands considerable study and perserverance to appreciate. I am not claiming any special qualification in it but at least I am starting to understand some aspects of it. And for various reasons it has practically been written off in the modern world. ('too hard', 'too obscure', 'not provable', 'like science fiction', etc etc)...

Philosophy Forum

speculative philosophy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know