Is There Progress in Philosophy?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by cladking » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:26 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
cladking wrote:This sounds more like fragmentation than progress.
So what? There's no reason why fragmentation can't be progress. Nobody said the goal of philosophy was to have one philosophy, so progressing towards any goal in philosophy would not depend on whether there's one or more philosophies.

(Philosophy also has no goal, so you can progress through any intention you make of it. Philosophy is a tool, and progresses in the same way as a hammer does to a job. It can be used in one particular job, and the job can either be completed or abandoned or changed along the way, and then it can work on a different job, or expand upon the job already done.)

Truth and reality may be highly fragmented and the only way to understand them may be through many avenues. Perhaps truth is simple enough but the fastest way to get there is many ways at once. I'm not suggesting that the division is necessarily a sign we are wrong and going off in all different directions so much as I'm suggesting that going off in many directions is prima facie evidence we're wrong.

I think if you review much of this work you'll see plenty more evidence we're wrong.

The goal of philosophy is to determine the nature of man and his place in reality. It's also to discover the nature of reality and how its nature affects man and the interests of man. There is no progress, I believe, because there's no language of philosophy. We're hundreds of years behind science, while science is stuck in the 1920's. If we could remove the logjam in philosophy I believe science would start flowing again.

Jaded Sage
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Jaded Sage » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:53 pm

There is progress in individuals.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:44 pm

cladking wrote:The goal of philosophy is to determine the nature of man and his place in reality. It's also to discover the nature of reality and how its nature affects man and the interests of man.
An opinion, nothing to do with facts.
cladking wrote:There is no progress, I believe, because there's no language of philosophy.
Factual error. Philosophy is the creator of a lot of language, and philosophy has a very unique vocabulary that separates it from other ways of thinking.
cladking wrote:We're hundreds of years behind science,
Also factual error. Philosophy is closely connected with science today, and moves with it in the academia. You must either have not been paying attention to the zeitgeist or you must mean something else than your writing implies.
cladking wrote:, while science is stuck in the 1920's.
Ridiculous claim, I'd like to see how you can justify claiming something so obviously wrong.
cladking wrote:If we could remove the logjam in philosophy I believe science would start flowing again.
You seem to be affected by a problem many people experience: they don't understand postmodernity. One of the things you should know about postmodernity is that grand theories and the great person ideal has been eroded. Philosophy today is a collaborative discipline with dozens to hundreds to thousands of academics, politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, journalists and other people engaged in the public- and academic forums.

The accessibility to philosophy, including reading, learning and discussion, has made a lot of people able to challenge philosophic activity, which puts very high standards to philosophy, so that only collaboration can achieve lasting results. This makes philosophy a mess to anyone who is used to the old model of one person, one set of ideas, standing out in the crowd and being worshipped like a god of wisdom.

Another aspect of postmodernity is that philosophy is less attractive as a culture in itself. Being able to express ideas in philosophy is becoming harder because of the high standards and great vulnerabilities, therefore people are more attracted to subcultures, social- and political movements, where expression of ideas is easier and carries more weight and power.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by cladking » Tue Mar 01, 2016 9:13 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
cladking wrote:The goal of philosophy is to determine the nature of man and his place in reality. It's also to discover the nature of reality and how its nature affects man and the interests of man.
An opinion, nothing to do with facts.
OK, philosophy just doesn't matter then.
cladking wrote:There is no progress, I believe, because there's no language of philosophy.
Factual error. Philosophy is the creator of a lot of language, and philosophy has a very unique vocabulary that separates it from other ways of thinking.
I should have been more specific. I meant there is no vocabulary where each individual is in complete agreement as to the definitions of words.
cladking wrote:We're hundreds of years behind science,
Also factual error. Philosophy is closely connected with science today, and moves with it in the academia. You must either have not been paying attention to the zeitgeist or you must mean something else than your writing implies.
What are the philosopical implications of relativity?
cladking wrote:, while science is stuck in the 1920's.
Ridiculous claim, I'd like to see how you can justify claiming something so obviously wrong.
How are gravity and the weak charge related?
cladking wrote:If we could remove the logjam in philosophy I believe science would start flowing again.
You seem to be affected by a problem many people experience: they don't understand postmodernity. One of the things you should know about postmodernity is that grand theories and the great person ideal has been eroded. Philosophy today is a collaborative discipline with dozens to hundreds to thousands of academics, politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, journalists and other people engaged in the public- and academic forums.

The accessibility to philosophy, including reading, learning and discussion, has made a lot of people able to challenge philosophic activity, which puts very high standards to philosophy, so that only collaboration can achieve lasting results. This makes philosophy a mess to anyone who is used to the old model of one person, one set of ideas, standing out in the crowd and being worshipped like a god of wisdom.

Another aspect of postmodernity is that philosophy is less attractive as a culture in itself. Being able to express ideas in philosophy is becoming harder because of the high standards and great vulnerabilities, therefore people are more attracted to subcultures, social- and political movements, where expression of ideas is easier and carries more weight and power.
It doesn't matter how thinly you spread BS it still stinks.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:21 pm

The Voice of Time wrote: Philosophy is closely connected with science today, and moves with it in the academia.
This statement is false. The philosophy of physics has been my life's work and I can assure you that there is no more reviled a figure in the physics academia than a philosopher of any description. There are exceptions amongst some of the more enlightened theoretical physicists but they are few and far between and their voice is seldom heard.
cladking wrote: What are the philosopical implications of relativity?
It depends on the theoretical framework within which you interpret the evidence.
cladking wrote: How are gravity and the weak charge related?
Relativistic gravitational interactions at the Planck scale encode for higher-order emergent informational structures which physics defines as subatomic particles. These emergent entities have emergent physical properties such as mass, charge, and spin but these are merely epistemic constructs devised to conform to a theoretical narrative which has been specified in advance by a theorist. The short answer is that gravity CAUSES the weak charge but although this is a true statement it leaves a few steps out in between.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12306
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:32 am

Obvious Leo wrote:... he philosophy of physics has been my life's work and I can assure you that there is no more reviled a figure in the physics academia than a philosopher of any description. ...
When are you going to put-up then and make your experiment and prove your thesis?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Obvious Leo » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:45 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:... he philosophy of physics has been my life's work and I can assure you that there is no more reviled a figure in the physics academia than a philosopher of any description. ...
When are you going to put-up then and make your experiment and prove your thesis?
I'm a philosopher and theorist, Arising, not an experimental physicist. I have neither the credentials nor the influential contacts needed to ensure that this experiment is conducted correctly, so essentially I'm relying on somebody else to be sufficiently persuaded by my thesis to put it to the test. It's an all or nothing theory because if this particular prediction is not validated then my life's work is down the toilet, in which case I can piss off back into my garden where I belong. Luckily I harbour not the slightest nuance of doubt.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by A_Seagull » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:33 am

Obvious Leo wrote:[I'm a philosopher and theorist, Arising, not an experimental physicist. I have neither the credentials nor the influential contacts needed to ensure that this experiment is conducted correctly, so essentially I'm relying on somebody else to be sufficiently persuaded by my thesis to put it to the test. It's an all or nothing theory because if this particular prediction is not validated then my life's work is down the toilet, in which case I can piss off back into my garden where I belong. Luckily I harbour not the slightest nuance of doubt.
Sorry, did I miss something? What is this experiment?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Obvious Leo » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:44 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:[I'm a philosopher and theorist, Arising, not an experimental physicist. I have neither the credentials nor the influential contacts needed to ensure that this experiment is conducted correctly, so essentially I'm relying on somebody else to be sufficiently persuaded by my thesis to put it to the test. It's an all or nothing theory because if this particular prediction is not validated then my life's work is down the toilet, in which case I can piss off back into my garden where I belong. Luckily I harbour not the slightest nuance of doubt.
Sorry, did I miss something? What is this experiment?
You are late to the conversation, Seagull.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by cladking » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:39 pm

cladking wrote: What are the philosopical implications of relativity?
It depends on the theoretical framework within which you interpret the evidence.
Everything is dependent on perspective but when the assessment is correct then the perspectives can be reconciled scientifically or will be able to be reconciled when more is known. Of course, "correct" is an ephemeral term in all cases that involve modern language.
cladking wrote: How are gravity and the weak charge related?
Relativistic gravitational interactions at the Planck scale encode for higher-order emergent informational structures which physics defines as subatomic particles. These emergent entities have emergent physical properties such as mass, charge, and spin but these are merely epistemic constructs devised to conform to a theoretical narrative which has been specified in advance by a theorist. The short answer is that gravity CAUSES the weak charge but although this is a true statement it leaves a few steps out in between.
I certainly agree but I believe emergent properties like "electrons" are very real beyond just their observed properties. Perhaps on the scale at which we observe them these properties have aspects that are very dissimilar to what we know and experience.

My real point wasn't so much that modern science isn't able to properly define these forces mathematically but that they don't see how they might be interrelated. That the weak force arises through gravity is quite interesting.

Frankly I have to believe that everything originates in time which is somehow the basic building block of reality. But my line of reasoning here isn't nearly so well thought out as your's. Interestingly these perspectives are similar enough that we could both be largely correct.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Obvious Leo » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:30 pm

cladking wrote: "correct" is an ephemeral term in all cases that involve modern language.
It's an ephemeral term regardless of language. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle demonstrated that the properties of an electron are emergent . To put it simply electrons are simply quanta of energy which are configured in a particular way because of processes which are occurring at the Planck scale. It is these processes which encode for the properties of the electron at a higher order of informational complexity but the nature of these properties must then be defined by the observer of them in accordance with a pre-defined narrative, or theory. It's OK to say that the electron has the properties of mass, charge and spin as long as we understand that these definitions are a function of the subjective theoretical narrative and not an objectively real construct. This is intrinsic to the nature of science, and I'm not suggesting it could be done any other way, but maintaining a clear distinction between noumenal and phenomenal reality is pivotal to the philosophical discourse. Electrons are phenomena, and are thus observer-specified confections with no ontological status. An electron is only an electron because that's the way the physicists have mutually agreed to codify their observations and if they can devise a better way of codifying their observations the electron will soon find its way into the wastebasket of science history, there to join phlogiston and the luminiferous aether.
cladking wrote: Perhaps on the scale at which we observe them these properties have aspects that are very dissimilar to what we know and experience.
I regard this as a flawed Platonist perspective because it assumes that at some level of interpretation the self-organising patterns in nature must have a single objectively "correct" explanation. This is a creationist paradigm which specifies for a universe which is insufficient to its own existence and is therefore an artefact of transcendent cause. A universe which depends on the existence of an external causal agent is placed beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry by its very definition, and is thus anathema to a natural philosopher of applied metaphysics. However I concede that ultimately this is a question of conceptual taste because the existence or non-existence of such a transcendent cause can never be established, even in principle. However what can be established is that such a transcendent cause is not necessary. Mine is a model of a self-determining reality, and a self-causal universe is one which is sufficient to its own existence. The convention in both philosophy and science is that such a model should be preferred on the grounds of Occam economy.
cladking wrote:My real point wasn't so much that modern science isn't able to properly define these forces mathematically but that they don't see how they might be interrelated. That the weak force arises through gravity is quite interesting.
We ignore Kant at our peril so be careful not to conflate the map with the territory. Physicists are free to invent whatever particles, fields, waves and forces they like in order to model their observations. These are not properties of the physical world but convenient heuristics used to embed these observations within a theoretical narrative. Don't forget that all of the particles,waves, fields and forces which are currently being used in the Standard Model of Particle Physics can only be applied at the sub-atomic scale. Not even the most reactionary of physicists can deny that this is NOT the most fundamental level of physical reality and that these observed phenomena are being specified for at the Planck scale, some 20 orders of magnitude below. At this fundamental scale time, energy and gravity is all there is.

The string theorists wasted forty years trying to jam a square peg into a round hole by modelling these Planck-scale processes within the spacetime paradigm. They may as well have been trying to fly to Mars by flapping their arms, because a self-causal universe has no spatial extension other than within the consciousness of the observer of it.
cladking wrote:Frankly I have to believe that everything originates in time which is somehow the basic building block of reality.
The truth of time is the only truth needed for the unification of physics because time and gravity are simply two different ways of expressing the same thing. Time is a metric for specifying the rate of change in a physical process and gravity is simply an alternative metric for the same thing. The rate of change in the physical world is thus defined as the speed at which reality is continuously re-making itself, otherwise known as the speed of light. This is quantum gravity.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by The Voice of Time » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:39 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:This statement is false. The philosophy of physics has been my life's work and I can assure you that there is no more reviled a figure in the physics academia than a philosopher of any description. There are exceptions amongst some of the more enlightened theoretical physicists but they are few and far between and their voice is seldom heard.
Why are people so obsessed with physics? Hello, there's like a huuuuge ton of other sciences out there! Also, maybe you've had your share of experience, but that's subjective! In my country of Norway, philosophers are actively engaged with scientific projects, there's even an own category for philosophers in the official job market search engine (and last time I checked, it had full-time paid jobs in it)! But I can't speak for any other specific country.

One way in which I understand it to popular as of late to use philosophers, is to study the phenomenology of scientific experiments and research. I can remember, a couple of years ago or so, there was a big research project being launched in the capital, cross disciplinary with philosophers among them. I can't remember what the research project was about, but phenomenology is highly relevant for physics.

In Norway philosophy is held in esteem, and academic philosophy is supported by the state, and treated as relevant for science.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by The Voice of Time » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:51 pm

cladking wrote:OK, philosophy just doesn't matter then.
Sarcasm = hostility. Take your sarcasm elsewhere.
cladking wrote:I should have been more specific. I meant there is no vocabulary where each individual is in complete agreement as to the definitions of words.
That's also wrong, but just because you used the word "definition" instead of meaning. We can agree on the definition, but the word, and all the words used to define it, can be attributed different meaning, with different implications.
cladking wrote:What are the philosopical implications of relativity?
The philosophy of physics has never interested me very much. But considering science fiction writes about it all the freaking time, I'd point you to basically any major science fiction movie or film dealing with relativity, which is a lot of them.
cladking wrote:How are gravity and the weak charge related?
Strawman. You said science. You didn't say any particular question hadn't been answered since 1920. Also, ask a theoretical physicist, he'd probably be able to tell you the most recent theories and science on the subject.
cladking wrote:It doesn't matter how thinly you spread BS it still stinks.
So you deny the existence of postmodernity? What does this mean?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by Obvious Leo » Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:04 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:Why are people so obsessed with physics?
Which people are you referring to? Of the entire world's population only a vanishingly small minority know anything at all about it and most of those who know nothing of the subject care even less. I have no problem with this because physics is not for the faint of heart when it comes to serious thinking.

However a philosopher who doesn't take the trouble to acquaint himself with the arcane mysteries of physics is nothing but a self-indulgent navel-gazer. The goal of physics is to unravel the nature of the physical world and without philosophy this is an impossible task. Physics is useless without metaphysics and metaphysics is just as useless without physics. The two are inseparable.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Is There Progress in Philosophy?

Post by The Voice of Time » Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:10 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:However a philosopher who doesn't take the trouble to acquaint himself with the arcane mysteries of physics is nothing but a self-indulgent navel-gazer.
If you intended an insult, I should inform you that I literally currently, in this very week, study the mathematics and theories of general relativity in school as part of my program. But that's beside the point. Nobody can know everything, and no philosopher can specialize in everything. My interests are not in physics, and I would've done fine without my current studies which I personally find rather boring since they have few engineering applications, unless you want to make equipment for the ISS.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests