On Medium: Compared to Science, is Philosophy Just a Nuisance?
Here's an article about scientism as a downside of the mastery of modern techniques, and whether philosophy only disgraces itself compared to the progress of pragmatic science and engineering.
The scientific method itself is founded on philosophical underpinnings like empiricism, naturalism, etc. The only nuisance is when scientists make philosophical assertions without realizing they are making philosophical assertions and then dismiss any philosophers who care to challenge what they've said. Imagine if a prominent philosopher like Sam Harris just flippantly asserted one day that "Science is dead".
ReplyDeleteSaying that philosophy is dead might seem like a more flagrant imposition because it's a case of kicking a group when it's down. Indeed, as unglamorous as it might be, science has so much more cachet that it's hard to picture philosophy as having any negative effect on science or engineering. Philosophy would be a mere nuisance at best, the way a buzzing fly might be.
DeleteSaying that science is dead would be ludicrous, which is why the charge of scientism against some prominent scientists might hit home more and become a (mere) nuisance.
But yes, that lingering positivism or dilettantism in science (as in Jordan Peterson's case) is annoying to philosophers.
I think, when we live in models of society that are clearly anti-philosophical and, for so long, there's no way philosophy can't be diminished from its role or potential.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think that philosophy itself, or self-declared philosophers, is to blame for this.
Philosophy, since a long time ago, has become a place for arrogant individuals, endowed with great verbal capacity, to spend their time and egos, to look in the mirror and think, "Oh, how smart and sensible I am", than to look at reality and tell inconvenient truths, caring less what others will say/think, to serve as beacons of sanity in the midst of the human world.
I have a degree in geography, and one of the things that impressed me most from this time when I attended a university was the constant complaint from geographers about how other disciplines were appropriating areas originally related to geography and reducing their fields of employment.
One of the causes is inherent to the multidisciplinary nature of geography.
Well, I think something, not only similar, but much worse, happens with philosophy.
But, here, it would not just be a matter of other areas appropriating "pieces" of your area, but, for a long time,''yourselves'' distorting, making your own field irrelevant, at least from a more superficial view.
If the most you can say, summarizing texts or long comments, is: ''the questions are more important than the answers'', then it is inevitable that the sciences end up becoming more attractive, even to smarter individuals.
I am not saying that something has to pass the sieve of popularity to be objectively evaluated.I refer especially to the public that would be most interested in the field, perhaps even lower than the number of graduates in philosophy nowadays.
Philosophy itself, at least "modern," has been mechanized, turned into a technique that can be grasped by anyone who engages in it.
The criteria for calling yourself a “philosopher” are, to say the least, sad:
Graduating in the area or work in the academy, producing works related to the area;
Having a higher verbal IQ;
Becoming famous in the area...
??
A philosophy teaching tends to mean: of the biography of the most famous philosophers, and bit of ideological indoctrination, if the teacher, ''philosopher of diploma'', or according to what is written in the book.
Emphasizing that ideological indoctrination is not the same as ''left'' as many semi-literate people think.
It is any pseudo-educational method that aims to distort facts or hide certain truths, no matter if from the left or from the right.
Philosophy, therefore, remains present and influential within the sciences. For example, when we think about the problem of climate change, the ethical issues involved clearly have a philosophical origin. The worst scientists, even when they are technically successful, are precisely those who despise the role of philosophical judgment in scientific judgment.
ReplyDeleteMore than ever, this excess of information and stimuli that we live, we need people who look deeply, objective, impartial and honest to reality.
The vast majority of individuals who specialize as scientists, even though they may develop a more philosophical mindset, are still overly specialized in their fields.
The genuine philosopher is the only one who manages to specialize in philosophy, although this is, apriori, an extremely holistic, multidisciplinary area, such as geography, because everything that involves the human being is of interest to philosophy, even though, no philosopher has the ability to understand each area.
As I have already commented here, philosophy, unlike the sciences, is relatively easy to understand, but very difficult to be fully accepted by the average citizen.
People love science because it gives them everything they can buy, or enjoy. Their love of science has a capitalist bias.
But they tend to despise philosophy precisely because the only thing it can offer is the desire to possess wisdom, but for that, it is necessary to fight against the illusions that accumulate over a lifetime. Very difficult for most of them.
I think we're on the same page there. Your last three paragraphs are especially intriguing to me. I'd add that philosophy might be less popular than science because philosophy draws out the unpleasant, subversive upshot of scientific theories, which means philosophy is implicitly antisocial. Yet we shouldn't shoot the messenger.
DeleteWe should also distinguish philosophy from its professionalization. Academic philosophy may have a downside that has more to do with academia and professionalization than with philosophy itself.
The best idea of what philosophy itself is, I think, starts with Plato's account of Socrates and his distinction between those who love knowledge and those who love opinion. Scientists also pursue knowledge, but as you say, the sciences are more specific and fragmented, whereas philosophical questions are general, transcendental, or perennial.