misconceptions about modern philosophy

[Ivan Schitz]

Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Except that's not the case. Idealist philosophy, which states that experience and consciousness is not tied to matter, is religion and is often used to defend religion. Agnostic philosophy, which says that we can't know if consciousness is or is not tied to matter, used to be a kind of polite attack on religion, while these days is it part of the general assault on materialism. Materialist philosophy says that consciousness, rather than being independent of matter, is actually the highest product of mattering relationships.

As for why it isn't treated seriously, well since the 1800s when Newtonian physics, modern chemistry, the identification of electricity and magnetism, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, well, materialism has won. So the construction of all these weird systems has ceased. On the other hand, defense of religion, a form of idealism, is going strong. So what we see is, for the most part, idealist philosophy abandoning the university lectern and retreating to the pulpit. On the other hand, we see various new schools of idealist philosophy, like post modernism, which essentially teaches that reality, even if it exists, is a form of control, and only by asserting the common truth, the democratic truth of each person and each culture's truth, only then are we not evil imperialists. This is a conscious form of idealism, in which materialism is rejected not because they think it wrong, but because they think it bad. And who would treat that nonsense seriously except for 'edgy' teens and professional academics?

[Kiumaru]

Le Pere Duchesne

Except that's not the case. Idealist philosophy, which states that experience and consciousness is not tied to matter, is religion and is often used to defend religion. Agnostic philosophy, which says that we can't know if consciousness is or is not tied to matter, used to be a kind of polite attack on religion, while these days is it part of the general assault on materialism. Materialist philosophy says that consciousness, rather than being independent of matter, is actually the highest product of mattering relationships.

As for why it isn't treated seriously, well since the 1800s when Newtonian physics, modern chemistry, the identification of electricity and magnetism, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, well, materialism has won. So the construction of all these weird systems has ceased. On the other hand, defense of religion, a form of idealism, is going strong. So what we see is, for the most part, idealist philosophy abandoning the university lectern and retreating to the pulpit. On the other hand, we see various new schools of idealist philosophy, like post modernism, which essentially teaches that reality, even if it exists, is a form of control, and only by asserting the common truth, the democratic truth of each person and each culture's truth, only then are we not evil imperialists. This is a conscious form of idealism, in which materialism is rejected not because they think it wrong, but because they think it bad. And who would treat that nonsense seriously except for 'edgy' teens and professional academics?

"Idealism" has an actual school of thought different from what you say what it is.

[Kiumaru]

Ray Cest

Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.

I wouldn't say that modern philosophy inquires things necessarily outside of science. There are plenty of philosophers who try to base their philosophies upon science and the empirical method.

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Kiumaru

Le Pere Duchesne

Except that's not the case. Idealist philosophy, which states that experience and consciousness is not tied to matter, is religion and is often used to defend religion. Agnostic philosophy, which says that we can't know if consciousness is or is not tied to matter, used to be a kind of polite attack on religion, while these days is it part of the general assault on materialism. Materialist philosophy says that consciousness, rather than being independent of matter, is actually the highest product of mattering relationships.

As for why it isn't treated seriously, well since the 1800s when Newtonian physics, modern chemistry, the identification of electricity and magnetism, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, well, materialism has won. So the construction of all these weird systems has ceased. On the other hand, defense of religion, a form of idealism, is going strong. So what we see is, for the most part, idealist philosophy abandoning the university lectern and retreating to the pulpit. On the other hand, we see various new schools of idealist philosophy, like post modernism, which essentially teaches that reality, even if it exists, is a form of control, and only by asserting the common truth, the democratic truth of each person and each culture's truth, only then are we not evil imperialists. This is a conscious form of idealism, in which materialism is rejected not because they think it wrong, but because they think it bad. And who would treat that nonsense seriously except for 'edgy' teens and professional academics?

"Idealism" has an actual school of thought different from what you say what it is.

And yet you don't actually explain it? That's pretty odd. Unless you are complaining about the exact formulation used here, in which case stop nit picking. Nevertheless, I'm not talking about a school, like the Atomists, or cartesians, but a general tendency, of which all philosophies fall into.

[Ivan Schitz]

Kiumaru

Ray Cest

Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.

I wouldn't say that modern philosophy inquires things necessarily outside of science. There are plenty of philosophers who try to base their philosophies upon science and the empirical method.

science can and has informed philosophy but its still not doing science otherwise it would just be labeled science.

[Kiumaru]

Le Pere Duchesne

Kiumaru

Le Pere Duchesne

Except that's not the case. Idealist philosophy, which states that experience and consciousness is not tied to matter, is religion and is often used to defend religion. Agnostic philosophy, which says that we can't know if consciousness is or is not tied to matter, used to be a kind of polite attack on religion, while these days is it part of the general assault on materialism. Materialist philosophy says that consciousness, rather than being independent of matter, is actually the highest product of mattering relationships.

As for why it isn't treated seriously, well since the 1800s when Newtonian physics, modern chemistry, the identification of electricity and magnetism, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, well, materialism has won. So the construction of all these weird systems has ceased. On the other hand, defense of religion, a form of idealism, is going strong. So what we see is, for the most part, idealist philosophy abandoning the university lectern and retreating to the pulpit. On the other hand, we see various new schools of idealist philosophy, like post modernism, which essentially teaches that reality, even if it exists, is a form of control, and only by asserting the common truth, the democratic truth of each person and each culture's truth, only then are we not evil imperialists. This is a conscious form of idealism, in which materialism is rejected not because they think it wrong, but because they think it bad. And who would treat that nonsense seriously except for 'edgy' teens and professional academics?

"Idealism" has an actual school of thought different from what you say what it is.

And yet you don't actually explain it? That's pretty odd. Unless you are complaining about the exact formulation used here, in which case stop nit picking. Nevertheless, I'm not talking about a school, like the Atomists, or cartesians, but a general tendency, of which all philosophies fall into.

Yet, all philosophies do not fall into the realm of idealism. Idealism is actually a school which says that, ultimately, what the world is depends upon mind and consciousness. In some sense, yes, this does reject the idea that everything is matter, but idealism is more than that.

(One particular recent philosophy that doesn't fall under the banner of idealism is phenomenology.)

[Kiumaru]

Ray Cest

Kiumaru

Ray Cest

Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.

I wouldn't say that modern philosophy inquires things necessarily outside of science. There are plenty of philosophers who try to base their philosophies upon science and the empirical method.

science can and has informed philosophy but its still not doing science otherwise it would just be labeled science.

But you're saying that it's "beyond" or "outside of" science. This is not necessarily true. There are philosophers who pave the way to investigating a certain philosophical theory with science (particularly in fields like the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind).

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Kiumaru

Le Pere Duchesne

Kiumaru

Le Pere Duchesne

Except that's not the case. Idealist philosophy, which states that experience and consciousness is not tied to matter, is religion and is often used to defend religion. Agnostic philosophy, which says that we can't know if consciousness is or is not tied to matter, used to be a kind of polite attack on religion, while these days is it part of the general assault on materialism. Materialist philosophy says that consciousness, rather than being independent of matter, is actually the highest product of mattering relationships.

As for why it isn't treated seriously, well since the 1800s when Newtonian physics, modern chemistry, the identification of electricity and magnetism, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, well, materialism has won. So the construction of all these weird systems has ceased. On the other hand, defense of religion, a form of idealism, is going strong. So what we see is, for the most part, idealist philosophy abandoning the university lectern and retreating to the pulpit. On the other hand, we see various new schools of idealist philosophy, like post modernism, which essentially teaches that reality, even if it exists, is a form of control, and only by asserting the common truth, the democratic truth of each person and each culture's truth, only then are we not evil imperialists. This is a conscious form of idealism, in which materialism is rejected not because they think it wrong, but because they think it bad. And who would treat that nonsense seriously except for 'edgy' teens and professional academics?

"Idealism" has an actual school of thought different from what you say what it is.

And yet you don't actually explain it? That's pretty odd. Unless you are complaining about the exact formulation used here, in which case stop nit picking. Nevertheless, I'm not talking about a school, like the Atomists, or cartesians, but a general tendency, of which all philosophies fall into.

Yet, all philosophies do not fall into the realm of idealism. Idealism is actually a school which says that, ultimately, what the world is depends upon mind and consciousness. In some sense, yes, this does reject the idea that everything is matter, but idealism is more than that.

(One particular recent philosophy that doesn't fall under the banner of idealism is phenomenology.)

Er, I didn't say all philosophies are idealist, I said idealism, along with agnosticism and materialism, are the general philosophical tendencies, and every philosophy falls into one of those three. It would be hard for me to say that materialism is the antithesis of idealism, but as a philosophy is by definition idealist... Nevertheless, the core idea that the universe is a product of Mind, means that Mind cannot be a product of matter, and therefore the two are separate. The human Mind, directing the body, and yet not one with it, is the most immediate example of the identity of the two definitions. Seriously, don't try to manufacture differences out of nothing.

From what little I know of phenomenology, it is rather agnostic, ignoring the question of whether experiences are related to matter, and as such is not independent of the broad schema I outlined.

[Ivan Schitz]

Le Pere Duchesne

Except that's not the case. Idealist philosophy, which states that experience and consciousness is not tied to matter, is religion and is often used to defend religion. Agnostic philosophy, which says that we can't know if consciousness is or is not tied to matter, used to be a kind of polite attack on religion, while these days is it part of the general assault on materialism. Materialist philosophy says that consciousness, rather than being independent of matter, is actually the highest product of mattering relationships.

As for why it isn't treated seriously, well since the 1800s when Newtonian physics, modern chemistry, the identification of electricity and magnetism, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, well, materialism has won. So the construction of all these weird systems has ceased. On the other hand, defense of religion, a form of idealism, is going strong. So what we see is, for the most part, idealist philosophy abandoning the university lectern and retreating to the pulpit. On the other hand, we see various new schools of idealist philosophy, like post modernism, which essentially teaches that reality, even if it exists, is a form of control, and only by asserting the common truth, the democratic truth of each person and each culture's truth, only then are we not evil imperialists. This is a conscious form of idealism, in which materialism is rejected not because they think it wrong, but because they think it bad. And who would treat that nonsense seriously except for 'edgy' teens and professional academics?

I don't want to even bother correcting most of your numerous errors for now due to lack of time but will adress one.

You say that materialism has won but that's false and inaccurate. A good example I'd go with comes from the philosophy of mind. Materialism has failed thus to provide an explanation for qualitative conscious experience as well as other aspects of subjective experience like self , free will, intentionally.

I'd assume by materialism you mean the idea that reality reduces to space-time and particles, but there is still great debate over what exactly the fundamental stuff of reality actually is. Some doubt that fields are reducible to particles and such.

[Kiumaru]

Le Pere Duchesne

Er, I didn't say all philosophies are idealist, I said idealism, along with agnosticism and materialism, are the general philosophical tendencies, and every philosophy falls into one of those three. It would be hard for me to say that materialism is the antithesis of idealism, but as a philosophy is by definition idealist... Nevertheless, the core idea that the universe is a product of Mind, means that Mind cannot be a product of matter, and therefore the two are separate. The human Mind, directing the body, and yet not one with it, is the most immediate example of the identity of the two definitions. Seriously, don't try to manufacture differences out of nothing.

From what little I know of phenomenology, it is rather agnostic, ignoring the question of whether experiences are related to matter, and as such is not independent of the broad schema I outlined.

I suppose my biggest problem with your statement, then, is that just because one doesn't accept a simple materialistic view of the world doesn't mean that they're going to reject science. And "post modern" thinkers do not necessarily try to make the reality into something of mind and rejecting matter.

(There are also philosophies which try to reconcile matter and mind by trying to unify them or saying that there isn't as much of a distinction as we might think.)

Edit: And to be fair, I did misread your argument. For that, I apologize.

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Ray Cest

Kiumaru

Ray Cest

Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.

I wouldn't say that modern philosophy inquires things necessarily outside of science. There are plenty of philosophers who try to base their philosophies upon science and the empirical method.

science can and has informed philosophy but its still not doing science otherwise it would just be labeled science.

Actually, no. Kant, a few decades before Laplace, formulated the 'nebular hypothesis' for the creation of the solar system, while also describing the effects of the total forces of the moon on the slowing of the Earth's rotation on its axis, both of which have been subsequently proven and accepted.

Other agnostic philosophers have made claims about the lack of identity between our senses and reality, to which the most basic scientific experiment is suggested to refute them: kick a rock and see if it moves.

I understand that you are talking about 'modern philosophy' and not what a bunch of English aristocrats said in the 1700s, but it is wrong, because 'modern philosophy' isn't a thing. In western philosophy we have the oft raised distingction between Anglo philosophy and continental european philosophy, each of which contain various schools, and this isn't raising the various eastern philosophies which dominate these days... So yeah, if I ignore your designation of 'modern philosophy', it is because it isn't real.

[Ivan Schitz]

Kiumaru

Ray Cest

Kiumaru

Ray Cest

Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.

I wouldn't say that modern philosophy inquires things necessarily outside of science. There are plenty of philosophers who try to base their philosophies upon science and the empirical method.

science can and has informed philosophy but its still not doing science otherwise it would just be labeled science.

But you're saying that it's "beyond" or "outside of" science. This is not necessarily true. There are philosophers who pave the way to investigating a certain philosophical theory with science (particularly in fields like the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind).

umm yes, science and philosophy converge sometimes like in philosophy of the kind but science is limited to the material and even has trouble there. Certain stuff like subjectivity and phenomenological experience are forever beyond science because of the limits of science.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I just think people aren't open minded enough.

They want to pretend they care and then shun all religion.


Like pfft, you just like the things you like, that doesn't make you open minded.

Also it's more of a counter culture issue than actually hating the religion.


They hate religion becuase they think the religion hates them, or the people, or whatever.

But in reality they don't really look into pretty much anything to do with it.

[Kiumaru]

Ray Cest

umm yes, science and philosophy converge sometimes like in philosophy of the kind but science is limited to the material and even has trouble there. Certain stuff like subjectivity and phenomenological experience are forever beyond science because of the limits of science.

But aren't we talking of "modern philosophy"? I'm saying that your definition of "modern philosophy" fails to account for the fact that there are some philosophers who make objects of science their main concern.