Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Progress in Philosophy

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Progress in Philosophy

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

What is progress in philosophy? Notice that this question assumes there is progress in philosophy. But I think there has been progress in philosophy in the last 100 or so years, and especially lately. I think that philosophers have, for one thing, become more aware of the nature of philosophical problems, and have seen that in many cases, philosophical problems are not solved so much as they are dissolved by clarification which demonstrates that confusion was the source of the problem. And when the philosophical problem is real, and requires solution, the solution comes about through understanding the problem and dealing with it piecemeal, rather than trying to give a sweeping solution all at once.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153410 wrote:

What is progress in philosophy? Notice that this question assumes there is progress in philosophy. But I think there has been progress in philosophy in the last 100 or so years, and especially lately. I think that philosophers have, for one thing, become more aware of the nature of philosophical problems, and have seen that in many cases, philosophical problems are not solved so much as they are dissolved by clarification which demonstrates that confusion was the source of the problem. And when the philosophical problem is real, and requires solution, the solution comes about through understanding the problem and dealing with it piecemeal, rather than trying to give a sweeping solution all at once.

:shifty: Pepijn thinks you are very right... It's just so tempting.

@kennethamy,

there is a progress in philosophy but the question is:
is that progress have an end? if that so philosophy is limited?

if not then philosophy is unlimited,

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153410 wrote:

What is progress in philosophy? Notice that this question assumes there is progress in philosophy. But I think there has been progress in philosophy in the last 100 or so years, and especially lately. I think that philosophers have, for one thing, become more aware of the nature of philosophical problems, and have seen that in many cases, philosophical problems are not solved so much as they are dissolved by clarification which demonstrates that confusion was the source of the problem. And when the philosophical problem is real, and requires solution, the solution comes about through understanding the problem and dealing with it piecemeal, rather than trying to give a sweeping solution all at once.

I don't see philosophy and lix count being greatly different in that sense that human mind has it limitations in both things, we will only learn so much before we feel content with what we know. Most will go through life with only a very limited amount of knowledge, but still be content.

@kennethamy,

Whether there is "progress" in philosophy seems to depend upon what philosophical definition or perspective of progress is used to determine the criteria for it.

One could as well argue that progress in philosophy is not achieved by dividing its subject matter into smaller and smaller pieces in an attempt to solve limited problems, but that what only philosophy can provide is an encompassing framework for understanding how the parts can fit into a larger whole.

@jgweed,

jgweed;153538 wrote:

Whether there is "progress" in philosophy seems to depend upon what philosophical definition or perspective of progress is used to determine the criteria for it.

One could as well argue that progress in philosophy is not achieved by dividing its subject matter into smaller and smaller pieces in an attempt to solve limited problems, but that what only philosophy can provide is an encompassing framework for understanding how the parts can fit into a larger whole.

But sweeping theories in philosophy have never been much good up to this time. Why, then, should they be better in the future. On the other hand, the strategy of divide and conquer is used by science, and the success of science is indisputable. Furthermore the only attempt to solve philosophical problems by the divide and conquer method has been analytic philosophy, which has achieved successes.

@kennethamy,

Well,

I'm new here and I tried to start a thread, but it won't let me. I just didn't want to barge in is all, but I can relate.

We are talking about Progress in Philosophy. As of now, it is very limited, concerned basically with ethics, religion and morality. So I was going to start a
thread asking about Reasons for Philosophy, but I guess I'll just jump in here.

If you really think you can Progress with one Grand Sweeping Gesture, I suppose you had better try. This is referred to as Motif, like George Lucas. There is always a Motif or Underlying Theme to his Movies. On the other hand, if Progress can only be accomplished through measured steps, then this is alright as well. It's the little things that count.

What is truly Arguable is Quality. Anybody here ever read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence' - Robert M. Pirsig

I've been heavily inspired by Pirsig, David Hume and Alan Watts. I am also Writing my own Book on Philosophy. I'm actually more of a Writer than anything, but this is where I came from. Lol! My book is concerned with Reasons and why we Need them to Survive.

Long Winded Enough?

Dave

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 11:36 AM ----------

jgweed;153538 wrote:

Whether there is "progress" in philosophy seems to depend upon what philosophical definition or perspective of progress is used to determine the criteria for it.

One could as well argue that progress in philosophy is not achieved by dividing its subject matter into smaller and smaller pieces in an attempt to solve limited problems, but that what only philosophy can provide is an encompassing framework for understanding how the parts can fit into a larger whole.

Hi jgweed,

I tend to agree with this notion. I also think there should be a blending of philosophies in order to achieve a certain ideology. Let's face it, science and religion inevitably comes into the picture and one should not bias their own Personal philosophy based upon one Particular Philosopher. Even though there are conflicts, there are also agreements. A True Philosophy is entirely Relative to the Individual.

Dave

@kennethamy,

Progress? How would we know of the true progress?

Perhaps we have already reached the peak long time ago, but it's buried in a book somewhere on Earth.

Smile

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;153645 wrote:

Progress? How would we know of the true progress?

Perhaps we have already reached the peak long time ago, but it's buried in a book somewhere on Earth.

Is that true of physics too? If not, why not?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153661 wrote:

Is that true of physics too? If not, why not?

Who cares about physics.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;153667 wrote:

Who cares about physics.

A number of people, I think. But that is not the point.

@platorepublic,

Hi there.

I care about Physics an awful lot. I'm not stupid about
such matters. I know enough to know that Progress in
Physics is always based upon the assertation that Cause
leads to Effect. However, as a Philosopher of both Eastern
and Western perspective, I also understand the Essence of
Non-Dualism.

Progress might be thought of in Non-Dualistic terms in order
to understand fully the Locus of what we are Striving towards
in terms of Progress.

Otherwise it is only Brick upon Brick on a Wall stretching upwards
to Infinity, which is okay so long as one knows what they are doing.

@doswizard,

doswizard;153671 wrote:

Hi there.

I care about Physics an awful lot. I'm not stupid about
such matters. I know enough to know that Progress in
Physics is always based upon the assertation that Cause
leads to Effect. However, as a Philosopher of both Eastern
and Western perspective, I also understand the Essence of
Non-Dualism.

Progress might be thought of in Non-Dualistic terms in order
to understand fully the Locus of what we are Striving towards
in terms of Progress.

Otherwise it is only Brick upon Brick on a Wall stretching upwards
to Infinity, which is okay so long as one knows what they are doing.

Ah ha! You should have told me all that before.

@kennethamy,

Well,

I am rather new, but I've been around awhile.

I don't like the way Philosophy is a two edged
blade, but that is how it is. The Philosophy of Non-
Dualism is entirely One Pointed. It is this sort of
Awareness that Modern Philosophy needs to
incorporate. A One Pointed Awareness of Quality.

Furthermore, we need to discover the Reasons
why we need this Quality in order to Survive.

@jgweed,

jgweed;153538 wrote:

Whether there is "progress" in philosophy seems to depend upon what philosophical definition or perspective of progress is used to determine the criteria for it.

Bingo! Can there be a neutral answer to such a question? Are neutral answers as rare as unicorns?

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 05:46 PM ----------

doswizard;153671 wrote:

Progress might be thought of in Non-Dualistic terms in order
to understand fully the Locus of what we are Striving towards
in terms of Progress.

I must respectfully disagree. I don't see how progress can be conceived of nondualistically. If we say that non-dualism is superior to dualism, for instance, we are talking dualistically. However, the nondual issue is a great one, and ultimately I see synthesis/fusion as the goal. I just agree with Hegel that man is time is of the essence (and that time is a byproduct of essence).

It just struck me today that any spatial dimension is necessarily bi-directional. The number 2 becomes a bit more fascinating. Duality as a matrix or womb within which synthesis evolves "away" from this same duality. If we think of a baby developing within the womb, I think we have an image of the history of philosophy. Does not the individual thinker have to repeat this same journey, but with the benefit of those who have come before? (Standing on the shoulders of giants, but we have to climb up these giants to get on their shoulders...)

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 05:48 PM ----------

doswizard;153684 wrote:

I don't like the way Philosophy is a two edged
blade, but that is how it is. The Philosophy of Non-
Dualism is entirely One Pointed. It is this sort of
Awareness that Modern Philosophy needs to
incorporate. A One Pointed Awareness of Quality.

I can dig it. I think Hegel addressed this, and succeeded. My signature is H in a nutshell.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;153721 wrote:

Bingo! Can there be a neutral answer to such a question? Are neutral answers as rare as unicorns?

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 05:46 PM ----------

.

Why can't there be an objective answer to this? Isn't there an objective answer to whether there is progress in science? If there isn't, then I am content that there should not be one to whether there is in philosophy. As long as there can be as much progress in philosophy as in science, and we can tell as well, that's fine with me.

@kennethamy,

Rorty also talked about our desire to present our own history as a story of progress. We can escape positing some goal? Including those crafty and paradoxical goals like goallessness?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;153731 wrote:

Rorty also talked about our desire to present our own history as a story of progress. We can escape positing some goal? Including those crafty and paradoxical goals like goallessness?

So what? Why should we bother with what Rorty said? The question is whether we know better what it means to say that something exists (or does not exist) after Russell's theory of descriptions, than we did before. And the answer to that question is, of course. And if that is so, then we have progressed in philosophy in that respect.

@platorepublic,

All depends if philosophy is science form over imagination spirit.
We do not have as hard a time as proving science and form over imagination spirit.
I think you are a proponent of philosophy as a science more than a dream, and therefore with the advancement of science you have there fore been able to understand and prove yourself more.

Surly exercise is achievment orrientated.

Is there a difference between someone trying to prove their selfs over proving selfs over their?

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;153740 wrote:

All depends if philosophy is science form over imagination spirit.
We do not have as hard a time as proving science and form over imagination spirit.
I think you are a proponent of philosophy as a science more than a dream, and therefore with the advancement of science you have there fore been able to understand and prove yourself more.

Surly exercise is achievment orrientated.

Is there a difference between someone trying to prove their selfs over proving selfs over their?

I'll jump in and suggest this whole science/poetry distinction is questionable. As soon as philosophy looks at the foundations of science (implicit metaphysics) or into ethics or politics, it's already, in my view, "poetry." True, it's a poetry that strives toward nonfiction, but perhaps non-fiction is a fiction.

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Progress in Philosophy

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Progress in Philosophy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know