has philosophy lost its way?

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost Its Way?
John Lachs thinks it can get back on track.

Philosophy has lost its way. At one point, it was the queen of the sciences, but the sciences grew up and, like naughty children, came to believe they didn’t need her.

Need her pertaining to what factors in what set of circumstances? And hasn't science basically shrugged off moral and political conflagrations as beyond the reach of "natural laws"? Instead, for those like Plato and Aristotle and Descartes and Kant, it all comes back around to God...and not the scientific method.

Many once thought she was the guide to life, rivaling religion but offering a more rational way.

If only up in the theoretical clouds. For many here in my view. Something is rational simply because someone believes that it is reasonable "in their head". And for the objectivists among us, if something is rational that makes it moral.

However, philosophy could not match the emotional power of the offer of salvation. Then philosophy fell in love with physics and tried to imitate the precision of its inquiry. But it was incapable of discovering a single new fact.

There you go. That again. The No God political ideologues, the deontologists and those who intertwine the "right thing to do" with biological imperatives are only interested in demanding that everyone else must subscribe to their own set of facts. Then one or another rendering of "or else".

That’s when the siren sang and told philosophers to move into the safe, sacred confines of the university. The siren explained that sufficient technical virtuosity would secure philosophers an entire department in the knowledge factory. There would be jobs, and they would be accorded the same honor as scientists (or almost the same). To be sure, they would have to teach a few students, but they could spend their time in the classroom discussing technique with little reference to results.

I really have no idea how "for all practical purposes" this is understood by others. All I can do is to ask those here who think their own moral philosophy, as grappled with theoretically and technically, is reasonable once brought down to Earth and exposed to the complex realities of actual human interactions.

[phyllo]

John Lachs thinks it can get back on track.

Philosophy has lost its way. At one point, it was the queen of the sciences, but the sciences grew up and, like naughty children, came to believe they didn’t need her. Many once thought she was the guide to life, rivaling religion but offering a more rational way. However, philosophy could not match the emotional power of the offer of salvation. Then philosophy fell in love with physics and tried to imitate the precision of its inquiry. But it was incapable of discovering a single new fact.

That’s when the siren sang and told philosophers to move into the safe, sacred confines of the university. The siren explained that sufficient technical virtuosity would secure philosophers an entire department in the knowledge factory. There would be jobs, and they would be accorded the same honor as scientists (or almost the same). To be sure, they would have to teach a few students, but they could spend their time in the classroom discussing technique with little reference to results.

To those who love philosophy, much of it spreads delight: it is an end in itself that is fun to do. But it should also be good for something, and it is if viewed in the proper light. Nevertheless, philosophy is always in crisis, and its death is frequently announced. Yet it is a survivor and tends to outlive its murderers and morticians. The reason becomes obvious upon even short reflection: at its best, philosophy deals with the most persistent and most difficult questions of human life. In inquiring about the nature of mind, the foundation of knowledge, the justification of morality, the proper organization of the community, and the finality of death, we are at the limit of our capacity. We have theories, but so far we have found no way to confirm them. We do a better job criticizing each other, but no positive truth emerges from the rubble of the systems. Disappointment and cynicism abound as philosophers surrender the quest and settle for work in logic or the history of thought.

We should not be surprised at our inability to answer the ultimate questions of existence, and we should not be disappointed that our theories are only stabs in the dark. We are, after all, finite beings – a fact we assert not as an excuse but as an assessment of our chances of getting final answers. Yet there is a great opportunity we overlook: we have, ready at hand, a laboratory for learning something about the problems of life. Each of us is a test subject in the great experiment of living. Each of us is in a position of getting answers to what is valuable in the world and what actions yield satisfaction in a more than temporary way. The choices we make from early childhood on reveal and revamp the values we hold dear. The infant’s love of shiny objects is soon superseded by more permanent and reliable fascinations. Young people’s confidence in their strength or attractiveness gives way to a painful sense of limits. Self-seeking often yields lamentable results, as does mindless commitment to unachievable tasks. As the pragmatists have pointed out again and again, experience is a series of experiments. To learn from the experiments, we have to move a notch or two beyond turbulent emotions: we need to be in sufficient possession of ourselves to gain calm understanding. For many, this is impossible without a healing distance, but it is more likely to occur if we enter the fray with the prior conviction that we are trying something that may not work.

Many experiments fail and it is good that they do. Young people may try a night of drinking and know, by the middle of the next morning, that it is better to look for pleasure in other ways. There is always something to learn, either to avoid or to replicate. Unfortunately, not everyone is a quick study. Circumstances may be so compelling that one has to resist seeing the lesson of the event, yet some people manage to go through life making the same mistakes again and again. Individuals who start businesses repeat naïve errors, and second wives/husbands often look and act strikingly like the first.

Of course it doesn’t have to be this way. We can learn about our weaknesses and our values, and thereby acquire tools for a better life. The more consciously we approach the experiments, the more likely it becomes that, whether they succeed or not, we will profit by the undertaking. Here is where philosophers come in. Because they specialize in the analysis of evidence and the examination of values, they can offer a dispassionate, global view of proposed courses of action. They can help us to envisage the likely consequences of what we do and understand the human responses to our experiments. They have useful things to say about the dangers of ideologies. Most important perhaps, they can draw on a vast tradition of successful lives by reference to which we can plan and execute our own.

Of course, the credibility of philosophers is proportional to the visible relevance to their lives of what they claim to believe. This places a heavy burden on anyone who would help with vital decisions: those in need of assistance can reasonably ask, “How successful have you been in the experiments of life?” This is the most frightening question for philosophers. If they don’t want to be convicted as frauds or charlatans, they had better be able to show the power of their ideas deployed first and foremost in their own lives. Philosophers who recommend charity have to be able to show what difference good works make to their lives. Friends of democracy must engage in civic conversations; pragmatists in projects of improvement. Thinkers who reject the significance of individuals cannot make an exception of themselves, and those who believe in immortality cannot act as if they’ve surmised that death finishes it all. Most importantly, persons who claim to be devoted to science or reason must not act in haphazard or irrational ways. There are over 12,000 credentialed philosophers in the United States, and perhaps over 25,000 globally. How many of this staggering number can hold themselves up as exemplars of reason whose lives could be examined with the same profit as their teachings? How many would have reason to fear that they are no different from ordinary people, whose words and deeds live in cozy disagreement?

The world is no less perplexing now than it has ever been. The proliferation of social workers, counselors, therapists, advisors, psychologists, psychiatrists and life coaches testifies to the desperate need of people for guidance, or at least intelligent advice. A vital job of philosophers consists precisely in providing such guidance, first for themselves and then for whoever feels crushed by the pressures of the modern world. Philosophy has ample resources for this task: many of the great classics of the field are manuals for how to lead good lives. We need to refocus our efforts and substitute concrete help for dreamy theorizing.

The time has come to understand that not every field in the knowledge factory is in the business of discovering new facts. The physical and the social sciences largely are, but art practice and music composition are not. Philosophy belongs with these creative fields. Their products are gorgeous works of art and lovely music; its valued results consist of beautiful or at least satisfying lives. If philosophy took this turn, could anyone ever announce the death of philosophy?

© Dr John Lachs 2013

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Has ... st_Its_Way

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost Its Way?
John Lachs thinks it can get back on track.

To those who love philosophy, much of it spreads delight: it is an end in itself that is fun to do. But it should also be good for something, and it is if viewed in the proper light. Nevertheless, philosophy is always in crisis, and its death is frequently announced. Yet it is a survivor and tends to outlive its murderers and morticians.

No doubt some here suspect I'm here to "murder" it. When in fact I am mainly interested in bringing philosophical discussions pertaining to moral and political value judgments down out of the theoretical clouds. In particular regarding those who are convinced that philosophers are qualified in providing us with a deontological moral philosophy. Adamant, of course, that it is their own.

And I'm not arguing this cannot be done...only that "here and now" I am not myself convinced this is possible given a No God universe.

If anyone here does believe their own One True Path to moral enlightenment is in fact the optimal frame of mind, let's explore that given a set of circumstances of their own choosing.

The reason becomes obvious upon even short reflection: at its best, philosophy deals with the most persistent and most difficult questions of human life. In inquiring about the nature of mind, the foundation of knowledge, the justification of morality, the proper organization of the community, and the finality of death, we are at the limit of our capacity.

I couldn't agree more. And that's because to this day philosophers have not resolved any of these things. And why would we expect them to given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule"? Physicists argue that the universe has been around some 13 billion years. As for the human condition...less than 200,000 years. You do the math. And, even here, the Big Bang may or may not be the equivalent of actually pinning down the existence of existence itself.

We have theories, but so far we have found no way to confirm them. We do a better job criticizing each other, but no positive truth emerges from the rubble of the systems. Disappointment and cynicism abound as philosophers surrender the quest and settle for work in logic or the history of thought.

Logic. Now that is certainly something philosophers may well be best equipped to grapple with systemically. Logic revolves around the rules of language. And, in connecting words and worlds, some propositions are clearly more logical -- rational? -- than others.

As for the history of thought...where to begin?

And given a particular context, what ought it all lead up to?

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost Its Way?
John Lachs thinks it can get back on track.

We should not be surprised at our inability to answer the ultimate questions of existence, and we should not be disappointed that our theories are only stabs in the dark. We are, after all, finite beings – a fact we assert not as an excuse but as an assessment of our chances of getting final answers.

Tell that to, among others, roydop? I merely argue that an inability to answer ultimate questions is not something that really concerns all that many of us. Or not all that much. That's what God and religion are for by and large. Instead, there are any number of questions pertaining to our actual day to day interactions that produce far, far, far more divisive and conflicting answers.

Yet there is a great opportunity we overlook: we have, ready at hand, a laboratory for learning something about the problems of life. Each of us is a test subject in the great experiment of living. Each of us is in a position of getting answers to what is valuable in the world and what actions yield satisfaction in a more than temporary way.

And wouldn't it be amazing if we all ended up being able to resolve those problems once philosophers were able to reach a deontological assessment. Sure, some may choose not to embody it, but they can't say the most rational -- virtuous -- resolution doesn't exist. Instead, philosophers are no less themselves all up and down the moral and political spectrum. And that speaks volumes regarding objective morality.

The choices we make from early childhood on reveal and revamp the values we hold dear. The infant’s love of shiny objects is soon superseded by more permanent and reliable fascinations. Young people’s confidence in their strength or attractiveness gives way to a painful sense of limits.

Same thing. If philosophers were able note those values that all reasonable men and women were obligated to embrace if they wanted to be thought of as rational human beings, we really would be living in a world very, very different from one we inhabit now. Philosopher kings and queens would be around to propound the one true path to enlightenment. And if some resisted taking it at least it could be demonstrated that they were in fact being irrational.

Self-seeking often yields lamentable results, as does mindless commitment to unachievable tasks. As the pragmatists have pointed out again and again, experience is a series of experiments. To learn from the experiments, we have to move a notch or two beyond turbulent emotions: we need to be in sufficient possession of ourselves to gain calm understanding. For many, this is impossible without a healing distance, but it is more likely to occur if we enter the fray with the prior conviction that we are trying something that may not work.

We'll need a context of course.

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost Its Way?
John Lachs thinks it can get back on track

Many experiments fail and it is good that they do. Young people may try a night of drinking and know, by the middle of the next morning, that it is better to look for pleasure in other ways.

Of course, for any number of philosophers, the experiments revolve almost entirely around what they are thinking. Thought experiments we call them. Indeed, any number of them involve sets of circumstances that, often enough, are not likely to be encountered in "real life". Like the Trolley Car conundrum.

Worlds of words. In fact, as soon as the Trolley Car and the track become filled with people that you might know and care about, this can change everything. Who is being sacrificed and who is being saved?

There is always something to learn, either to avoid or to replicate. Unfortunately, not everyone is a quick study. Circumstances may be so compelling that one has to resist seeing the lesson of the event, yet some people manage to go through life making the same mistakes again and again. Individuals who start businesses repeat naïve errors, and second wives/husbands often look and act strikingly like the first.

When points like this are made the first thing I always point out is that lessons learned for some are lessons rejected by others. Those behaviors some avoid are precisely the behaviors that others insist be replicated. Whether in regard to operating a business or second marriages or anything else in which conflicts often occur regarding what some will deem to be errors others will not.

Mistake after mistake? Pertaining to what? There are mistakes that one can make over and again. And these mistakes are easily recognized because one fails to achieve a particular goal. But what if you come upon someone who insists that the goal itself is irrational or immoral?

Of course it doesn’t have to be this way. We can learn about our weaknesses and our values, and thereby acquire tools for a better life. The more consciously we approach the experiments, the more likely it becomes that, whether they succeed or not, we will profit by the undertaking. Here is where philosophers come in. Because they specialize in the analysis of evidence and the examination of values, they can offer a dispassionate, global view of proposed courses of action.

If only up in the theoretical clouds? In an exchange of definitions and deductions? An exchange of thought experiments? Where weaknesses and strengths revolve almost entirely around the arguments themselves? That sort of "evidence"?

They can help us to envisage the likely consequences of what we do and understand the human responses to our experiments. They have useful things to say about the dangers of ideologies. Most important perhaps, they can draw on a vast tradition of successful lives by reference to which we can plan and execute our own.

You're rendition of this or mine?

Now all we need is a context.

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost Its Way?
John Lachs thinks it can get back on track

Of course, the credibility of philosophers is proportional to the visible relevance to their lives of what they claim to believe. This places a heavy burden on anyone who would help with vital decisions: those in need of assistance can reasonably ask, “How successful have you been in the experiments of life?”

Yes, in my view, there's the relevance of what philosophers convey theoretically in a world of words here and how effective they are in connecting the dots between theory and practice in regard to their own day to day social, political and economic interactions in which value judgments come into conflict.

Thus, all we can do is to exchange the experiments that we have pursued and the experiences that we have had with others here...attempting to narrow the gap when confronting [over and again] "failures to communicate". I merely suggest that in a No God world objective morality seems out of reach. And that the "best of all possible worlds" seems to revolve around one or another rendition of democracy and the rule of law. Accepting that political economy -- the deep state -- will always be around.

This is the most frightening question for philosophers. If they don’t want to be convicted as frauds or charlatans, they had better be able to show the power of their ideas deployed first and foremost in their own lives.

Or, rather, in my view, the most perturbing question for those who prefer to keep discussions of moral and political interactions up in the theoretical clouds.

Philosophers who recommend charity have to be able to show what difference good works make to their lives. Friends of democracy must engage in civic conversations; pragmatists in projects of improvement. Thinkers who reject the significance of individuals cannot make an exception of themselves, and those who believe in immortality cannot act as if they’ve surmised that death finishes it all. Most importantly, persons who claim to be devoted to science or reason must not act in haphazard or irrational ways.

Whatever that means "for all practical purposes"? After all, your assessment of haphazard and irrational behaviors may be quite different from mine or from others. Charity for who? Democracy in regard to what set of circumstances? And what is the optimal distinction to be made between "I" and "we" in particular contexts? And believing in immortality is not the same as demonstrating that it does exist.

There are over 12,000 credentialed philosophers in the United States, and perhaps over 25,000 globally. How many of this staggering number can hold themselves up as exemplars of reason whose lives could be examined with the same profit as their teachings? How many would have reason to fear that they are no different from ordinary people, whose words and deeds live in cozy disagreement?

All I ask of the philosophers here is that they bring their theoretical assessments of human morality down to Earth.

[Iwannaplato]

Lach wrote:
Of course, the credibility of philosophers is proportional to the visible relevance to their lives of what they claim to believe.

I'm don't think I agree. He seems to be saying, later in the paragraph, that the work of philosophers who aren't role models, applying their own ideas well, cannot be valuable. Someone can have insights that others can apply but be poor at applying these ideas themselves. If the insights are correct or help, they need not help every single person, including the philosopher. The philosopher can certainly be called out for not living up to his or her own values or suggested practices or having the attitudes they espouse, but the work helps others....the philosopher's failures do not diminish this.

[phyllo]

Lach wrote:
Of course, the credibility of philosophers is proportional to the visible relevance to their lives of what they claim to believe.

I'm don't think I agree. He seems to be saying, later in the paragraph, that the work of philosophers who aren't role models, applying their own ideas well, cannot be valuable. Someone can have insights that others can apply but be poor at applying these ideas themselves. If the insights are correct or help, they need not help every single person, including the philosopher. The philosopher can certainly be called out for not living up to his or her own values or suggested practices or having the attitudes they espouse, but the work helps others....the philosopher's failures do not diminish this.

That's a very good point.

It can be seen in coaches of games and sports and teachers of all sorts of endeavors. They are not necessarily particularly good at the skill they are teaching but they can 'make' a student perform well.

I suppose the question is ... how do you identify a good philosopher and a good philosophy? 'Good philosopher' in the sense that he/she is able to coach/teach the philosophy effectively. 'Good philosophy' in the sense that it is useful to the student.

One would need to point to people who have gained a benefit from the philosophy. That's possible but given the complexity of life and how little we know of people, it can be difficult and unreliable. And it's unclear if you would benefit even with the best teacher. A philosophy would need to be suitable to a person's personality.

Then identifying the appropriate philosopher would require looking at his/her track record with students.Were some successful students produced?
But again, a good coach for one person, may be a terrible coach for another person.

One can do some research but in the end ... One really has to go out and try something. Get feedback. Continue on or try something else.

[Iwannaplato]

I suppose the question is ... how do you identify a good philosopher and a good philosophy? 'Good philosopher' in the sense that he/she is able to coach/teach the philosophy effectively. 'Good philosophy' in the sense that it is useful to the student.

And 'useful' can mean so many different things and also what reading a book and mulling over it causes would be very hard to track.

One would need to point to people who have gained a benefit from the philosophy. That's possible but given the complexity of life and how little we know of people, it can be difficult and unreliable.

Right, there you said it in your way.

And it's unclear if you would benefit even with the best teacher. A philosophy would need to be suitable to a person's personality.

Yes, and I guess your values. I mean someone might find a depressing philosophy right for them. In some way they value that feeling of rightness even over feeling better or being more effective or whatever.

Then identifying the appropriate philosopher would require looking at his/her track record with students.Were some successful students produced?
But again, a good coach for one person, may be a terrible coach for another person.

One can do some research but in the end ... One really has to go out and try something. Get feedback. Continue on or try something else.

I think we can get a quick sense what philosophers we resonate with. On the other hand, perhaps the ones that we don't seem to resonate with are the ones we ought to try or some of us ought to try.

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost Its Way?
John Lachs thinks it can get back on track

The world is no less perplexing now than it has ever been. The proliferation of social workers, counselors, therapists, advisors, psychologists, psychiatrists and life coaches testifies to the desperate need of people for guidance, or at least intelligent advice.

Again, however, what this will always come back around to is guidance that is rooted in either the either/or or the is/ought world. There are those who can guide you intelligently when playing the stock market, if your goal is to become wealthy. But where's the book that will guide you intelligently in defending capitalism? Similarly, there are books that can intelligently guide doctors when performing abortions or those who manufacture and sell guns. But the books that pin down the morality of either livelihood?

A vital job of philosophers consists precisely in providing such guidance, first for themselves and then for whoever feels crushed by the pressures of the modern world. Philosophy has ample resources for this task: many of the great classics of the field are manuals for how to lead good lives. We need to refocus our efforts and substitute concrete help for dreamy theorizing.

Dreamy theorizing like the above? Are there or are there not any number of "schools of philosophy" intent on guiding mere mortals onto any number of paths one is obligated to take if they wish to embody the good life? Does the good life revolve more around capitalism or socialism, big government or small government, liberal policies or conservative polices, the individual or the collective, nature or nurture?

The time has come to understand that not every field in the knowledge factory is in the business of discovering new facts. The physical and the social sciences largely are, but art practice and music composition are not. Philosophy belongs with these creative fields. Their products are gorgeous works of art and lovely music; its valued results consist of beautiful or at least satisfying lives. If philosophy took this turn, could anyone ever announce the death of philosophy?

On the other hand, for any number philosophers I have come across over the years, living a beautiful or satisfying life means thinking like they do. And then more or less "or else". And even then, for many, these lives [here] revolve almost entirely around a world of words.

[Impenitent]

...On the other hand, for any number philosophers I have come across over the years, living a beautiful or satisfying life means thinking like they do. And then more or less "or else". And even then, for many, these lives [here] revolve almost entirely around a world of words.

Mick Jagger aside

-Imp

[iambiguous]

...On the other hand, for any number philosophers I have come across over the years, living a beautiful or satisfying life means thinking like they do. And then more or less "or else". And even then, for many, these lives [here] revolve almost entirely around a world of words.

Mick Jagger aside

-Imp

I won't ask him/her what this means, if he/she promises not to tell me.

[Impenitent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzYWTIHqutA

-Imp

[iambiguous]

Hawking contra Philosophy
Christopher Norris presents a case for the defence.

Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space.

Would I go that far? Or, perhaps, even farther, as some might suggest?

Actually, in regard to the limitations of philosophy, how are they really all that different from the limitations of science itself? In other words, in regard to conflicting value judgments, both philosophers and scientists would seem no less the embodiment of dasein once the technical arguments are made. Analytic philosophy in particular seems far, far removed from the lives that we actually live.

More precisely, he wrote that philosophy is ‘dead’ since it hasn’t kept up with the latest developments in science, especially theoretical physics. In earlier times – Hawking conceded – philosophers not only tried to keep up but sometimes made significant scientific contributions of their own.

On the other hand, contributions pertaining to what? I think that, above all else, science steers clear of the is/ought world. Where's the equivalent of ethics among physicists and chemists and biologists? Categorical imperatives for them become contentious only out on the edge of the very, very big and the very, very small.

However they were now, in so far as they had any influence at all, just an obstacle to progress through their endless going-on about the same old issues of truth, knowledge, the problem of induction, and so forth.

And, even here, the analytic assessments can go on and on and on almost entirely up in the theoretical clouds. The dueling definitions and deductions that, for page after page, scarcely make any references at all to the lives we live.

Had philosophers just paid a bit more attention to the scientific literature they would have gathered that these were no longer live issues for anyone remotely au fait with the latest thinking. Then their options would be either to shut up shop and cease the charade called ‘philosophy of science’ or else to carry on and invite further ridicule for their head-in-the-sand attitude.

Instead, any number of philosophers that I have come upon over the years, choose [in a free will world] to become one of Will Durant's epistemologists. Either that or, God or No God, they insist that their own moral and political dogmas are in fact no less reflective of the objective truth.

[iambiguous]

Hawking contra Philosophy
Christopher Norris presents a case for the defence

Predictably enough the journalists went off to find themselves media-friendly philosophers – not hard to do nowadays – who would argue the contrary case in a suitably vigorous way. On the whole the responses, or those that I came across, seemed overly anxious to strike a conciliatory note, or to grant Hawking’s thesis some measure of truth as judged by the standards of the natural science community while tactfully dissenting with regard to philosophy and the human sciences.

Of course, what I'd be interested in exploring is the extent which Hawking and the media-friendly philosophers took their conflicting conclusions down out of the intellectual clouds and examined the extent to which they were applicable to the sort of contexts that are of most interest to me: conflicting goods at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

Is there anyone here familiar with these exchanges? Are there particular contexts that attempt to intertwine the "standards of the natural science community" and the standards of "philosophy and the human sciences"?

I think the case needs stating more firmly and, perhaps, less tactfully since otherwise it looks like a forced retreat to cover internal disarray. Besides, there is good reason to mount a much sturdier defence on principled grounds. These have to do with the scientists’ need to philosophize and their proneness to philosophize badly or commit certain avoidable errors if they don’t take at least some passing interest in what philosophers have to say.

I'm at a forum now where bona fide scientists try to intertwine "the scientific method" and what some construe to be principled philosophical grounds. And the conclusion [so far] seems to be it's not just a coincidence that in regard in conflicting moral and political value judgments, there is no equivalent of the scientific method. Instead, you have Objectivists of Ayn Rand's ilk insisting that their own subjective, rooted existentially in dasein prejudices really do reflect a "metaphysical" truth.

As for those scientists who philosophize "badly", is there someone here who can give us examples of this pertaining to the is/ought world?

My own contention is that any number of philosophers here behave "badly" when they do insist that only their own One True Path is the real deal...or when they almost never bring their own theoretical assessments down out of the didactic -- pedantic -- clouds.