Philosophical Vegan Forum

The secular world seems to be taking a increasingly negative stance on philosophy with statements like "philosophy is dead" from some of the movements biggest supporters. It seems to be a topic on which debate only serves to decrease the middle ground. Nether the less I thought it would be useful to have a conductive discussion regarding the forums opinions of philosophy, and why they hold them. I also think it is a mistake to separate philosophy from science, it is common knowledge that science was born of philosophy, the reason for this is that sconce is philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy just as ethics is a branch of philosophy.

Please state and justify your stance on philosophy. Is philosophy dead?

I think it's due to this issue: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=17&t=572

bobo0100 wrote:The secular world seems to be taking a increasingly negative stance on philosophy with statements like "philosophy is dead" from some of the movements biggest supporters.

It's not the 'secular world', just some ill-informed scientists (and science lovers). The statement "philosophy is dead" was made by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, which was an enormous overstatement. Even for physics.

bobo0100 wrote:Nether the less I thought it would be useful to have a conductive discussion regarding the forums opinions of philosophy, and why they hold them.

Philosophy is as far as I can tell still highly relevant, in some branches more than others. A lot of issues are still unresolved and science will always need philosophy to make sense of the data and form the right question to do research on.

Some scientists that diminish the relevance of philosophy, are led to absurdities because of it. Take Social Darwinism for example, or other claims about morality from the field of biology (although not all of the claims are wrong and in some sense biology is relevant, stating that the facts about biology give the foundations of ethics surely is). Daniel Dennett would argue that some scientists are now undergoing a big mistake regarding the free will-topic, and I have to agree with him to a large extend—some scientists are reckless and make ridiculous claims about what free will is about (accepting only a Cartesian conception of free will).

bobo0100 wrote:I also think it is a mistake to separate philosophy from science, it is common knowledge that science was born of philosophy, the reason for this is that sconce is philosophy.

I heard this claim made by Sam Harris (not sure if anyone else argues for this as well), but I think it's actually a very important distinction to make. Harris does this in field of ethics, which I might even regard as dangerous (it's only because the ethical view he holds is quite solid that I'm less cynical about it though). The is-ought distinction is meaningful and crucial to point out in a discussion about ethics (whether you can solve it or not is besides the point). As I said above, it might lead to wrong interpretation of the science. You need to understand that facts and values have to be viewed as separate issues; conflating the two is a huge mistake. By making the distinction between what ethics (philosophy) has to tell, and where science comes into place, is not only the best option to minimize confusion, but it also makes more sense.

Science is about gathering empirical data by using a verifiable and falsifiable method, which makes it very practical to use. It's all about measurement and observation. Philosophy on the other hand will even work on meta-level and axioms themselves, and it's philosophy that determines the rules of how philosophical questions should be answered by scientific facts (which is why we have the 'philosophy of [...]'-branches).

I think the distinction between empirical knowledge and rational knowledge is much more important. The former being provisional and based on observations, and the latter being certain and based on logic (given the reasoning is valid).

The is-ought problem is more trivial, in that it's more conditional.

If you want to be a good person, you ought to do X to achieve that
If you want to destroy yourself and others, you ought to do X to achieve that.

I not sure if it makes sense, semantically, to talk about oughts without ifs.

"IS" can help you understand what you ought to do for a given ambition. It's not so complicated as many make it out to be.

Volenta wrote:It's not the 'secular world', just some ill-informed scientists (and science lovers).

this point is a bit unimportant to pick on. I feel that many who hold the ill defined world view I tried to refer to respect particular speakers to the point that many suspend there scepticism and don't question "is philosophy dead?" when they hear these influential speakers criticise it.

Volenta wrote:I heard this claim made by Sam Harris [...], but I think it's actually a very important distinction to make.

Science or empiricism is a branch of philosophy. the study of ethics is another branch. I am not arguing that science is ethics, I'm arguing that science, and ethics are separate sections of philosophy. there are also other branch of philosophy mainly; epistemology, aesthetics, politics (systems of government), and physics (in philosophy this refers to everything regarding the nature of reality, out of philosophy it is refereed to as science).

To state that philosophy only deals with ethics is simple minded. I do agree that it was a mistake of Sam Harris to call his ethical theory science, its ethics not physics, but his mistake is conflating branches of philosophy NOT conflating science and philosophy.

Volenta wrote:I heard this claim made by Sam Harris (not sure if anyone else argues for this as well)

Richard Carrier, secular bible historian, and philosopher, has given at least one lecture on this topic, much of what i have said comes directly from him.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The is-ought problem is more trivial, in that it's more conditional.

currently talking with a hard relativist/egoist trying to defend negative preference utilitarianism. I used very similar logic to you. personal I think the is ought problem is one of the strongest arguments against objective morality.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think the distinct between empirical knowledge and rational knowledge is much more important.

But empirical knowledge is still in the field of philosophy. the branch of philosophy that deals with empirical knowledge is called physics.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think the distinct between empirical knowledge and rational knowledge is much more important. The former being provisional and based on observations, and the latter being certain and based on logic (given the reasoning is valid).

I'm not sure though that the combination of empiricism and rationalism are able to cover science and especially philosophy in it's full form. Empiricism and rationalism are born out of philosophical thought, and are in some sense 'merely' schools of epistemology.

It is a meaningful distinction to make though, yes. And it will cover a lot—if not all that exactly really matters.

bobo0100 wrote:this point is a bit unimportant to pick on. I feel that many who hold the ill defined world view I tried to refer to respect particular speakers to the point that many suspend there scepticism and don't question "is philosophy dead?" when they hear these influential speakers criticise it.

The point is that people in the so-called 'secular world' is widely diverse by holding lots of different views and opinions. I think it's important to notice where this particular view finds it's origin and supporters—not to make a genetic fallacy, but to understand the motives and reasoning behind it.

bobo0100 wrote:Science or empiricism is a branch of philosophy. the study of ethics is another branch. I am not arguing that science is ethics, I'm arguing that science, and ethics are separate sections of philosophy. there are also other branch of philosophy mainly; epistemology, aesthetics, politics (systems of government), and physics (in philosophy this refers to everything regarding the nature of reality, out of philosophy it is refereed to as science).

I got that. But instead of just stating your opinion again, could you give reasons for why I should consider it like a branch of philosophy? It's a semantic issue at it's core, but that doesn't mean that there is no need for arguments. I see no functional, useful or meaningful reason to prefer to conflate the two.

Also, I'm not quite sure whether I understand you right, but are you conflating physics with science? Because science covers a lot more than just physics.

bobo0100 wrote:To state that philosophy only deals with ethics is simple minded.

I actually did not make that straw man. I merely used ethics as an example to demonstrate my point of view. It's an example of where it has gone wrong many times, and it's of utmost importance to get it right.

If you'd noticed, I argued for the bigger picture the paragraph below it.

bobo0100 wrote:I do agree that it was a mistake of Sam Harris to call his ethical theory science, its ethics not physics, but his mistake is conflating branches of philosophy NOT conflating science and philosophy.

Fair enough—although you're presenting it like you've successfully reduced science back into a branch of philosophy.

Volenta wrote: I'm not sure though that the combination of empiricism and rationalism are able to cover science and especially philosophy in it's full form. Empiricism and rationalism are born out of philosophical thought, and are in some sense 'merely' schools of epistemology.

Now you're doing the same thing bobo0100 is doing.

You can't appeal to definitional hierarchies to dismiss things like that, particularly when those hierarchies are arbitrary and incoherent categorizations.

This kind of stuff: http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~barsp59601/ ... lchart.jpg
Is bullshit.

That's what's wrong with philosophy. People trying to box things up in neat little categories, or magisterium, which they thing need not overlap.

All of philosophy is about knowledge. It's all logical. It's all epistemology.

I'm not talking about -isms.
I'm talking about means of knowing, to which extent knowledge or wisdom has any basis, use, or relevance.

Now, if you were a theist or a woo, you might append, to Empirical and Rational, Revelation or the "deep knowing". You might accept dogma or simple certainty without any substantiation from reason or evidence to be a legitimate field of knowledge.
But make no mistakes: That is pseudophilosophy. There is no wisdom or knowledge to such blind dogma, and a love of such things is precisely the opposite of the love or real wisdom and knowledge.

Which is why I say that Rational/Logical knowledge, and Empirical/Observational knowledge is the sum of all legitimate philosophy.
There is nothing beyond that with any legitimacy, and taking seriously anything beyond that undermines philosophy as a whole.

To go a little further, Empirical knowledge also draws its legitimacy from scientific methodology, which is derived from a logical practice to optimize correct knowledge in a world of bias and uncertainty.

Volenta wrote: I got that. But instead of just stating your opinion again, could you give reasons for why I should consider it like a branch of philosophy? It's a semantic issue at it's core, but that doesn't mean that there is no need for arguments. I see no functional, useful or meaningful reason to prefer to conflate the two.

More or less my point. Traditional categorization is bunk. It's an accommodationist attempt to please everybody, to the effect that it undermines the whole system.

I believe Harris' view of science comes down to scientific methodology -- which is, eliminating bias in our evaluations of reality -- and that is very much relevant to ethics. Ethics is inherently practiced in reality, and relies on correct empirical knowledge to yield correct results.

Volenta wrote: Also, I'm not quite sure whether I understand you right, but are you conflating physics with science? Because science covers a lot more than just physics.

It's all pretty much the same thing.

e.g. Psychology relies on Biology which relies on Chemistry which relies on Physics. Physics being the foundational science under all sciences.

bobo0100 wrote:I do agree that it was a mistake of Sam Harris to call his ethical theory science, its ethics not physics, but his mistake is conflating branches of philosophy NOT conflating science and philosophy.

Your mistake is in drawing false divisions where there are, in reality, none. The "branches" were fabricated. At best, it is a way to break up one's study to be more digestible, but that does not indicate a true division. Just as Chemistry is not truly distinct from Physics, though for ease of study, people may focus on one or the other artificial field as a matter of practical necessity, because it's hard for one person to learn the whole.

At worst, it's accommodationist garbage which serves no purpose other than to confuse people and equate pseudophilosophy and philosophy in a way that destroys the credibility of the whole.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Your mistake is in drawing false divisions where there are, in reality, none. The "branches" were fabricated.

Because there are no clear lines does not negate the idea of caricaturization. because there are colours between red and purple does not destroy our ability to distinguish between red and purple. The fact that there are links between spices does not cloud the difference between bird and bacteria. Likewise a statement may walk the line between ethics and political theory that does not stop us from distinguishing between the two.

[quote = "Volenta"]Also, I'm not quite sure whether I understand you right, but are you conflating physics with science? Because science covers a lot more than just physics.[/quote]

no the term physics was originally a branch of philosophy. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/F ... sMain.html although this site states metaphysics, physics is applied metaphysics. Its strange to me that it states ethics instead of meta-ethics, its inconsistent. I'm not sating that science only deals with physics. I'm saying that all things concerning the existence or nature of existence of things is refereed to by philosophers as physics, and scientist's as science.

[quote = "Volenta"]I got that. But instead of just stating your opinion again, could you give reasons for why I should consider it like a branch of philosophy? It's a semantic issue at it's core, but that doesn't mean that there is no need for arguments. I see no functional, useful or meaningful reason to prefer to conflate the two.[/quote]

historically science has been refereed to as philosophy. Even as late as Charles Darwin. The split between science and philosophy has never been justified. This is not voiding the burden of proof fallacy, as the burden of proof is not in my hand.