GENIUS FORUMS

Hello, I was wondering what sort of accomplishments can be attributed to philosophy.

Its easy to see the accomplishments of other fields, like science, art, math, etc.
But what has philosophy contributed, what has it solved and how has it bettered humankind?

From what I have seen it seems to just go around in circles, asking subjective or unanswerable questions that really add up to nothing in particular and just help some people pass time...

Thnx

Philosophy is the root of all sciences and arts -- in fact, all human thought in general.

Otherwise, it accomplishes social change, which is a lot harder to measure. Where a physicist might build a rocket, a philosopher might build physicists.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Philosophy is the root of all sciences and arts -- in fact, all human thought in general.

Otherwise, it accomplishes social change, which is a lot harder to measure. Where a physicist might build a rocket, a philosopher might build physicists.

I'm asking for particular examples, specifics, with good reasoning behind them. Not vague blanket statements.

Thnx.

You mean you want a history of philosophy lesson? Can't you do that yourself? And when speaking of "philosphy" do you include natural philosophy?

without it,as with Art,there would be great evils.and knowledge is "justified" only as a model for greed.

Dan Rowden wrote:You mean you want a history of philosophy lesson? Can't you do that yourself? And when speaking of "philosphy" do you include natural philosophy?

Nah, no history lesson, nothing that detailed. Just a good specific list of accomplishments by philosophy...things that it has contributed to humankind, or problems it has solved?...because it seems to me that we can still honestly ask the same questions socrates did, and hume or neitzsche and all the others without coming up with a straight answer or making any progress at all.

Sure, but philosophy is like that. Every philosopher essentially has to reinvent the wheel. However, philosophy has given us given us different ways to view the world which has shaped our political and scientific paradigms. I'll put together a short list for you.

Two things that come to mind right away, however, are that we wouldn't have our modern system of democracy if not for people like John Locke, or modern science if not for Bacon:

Francis Bacon is known as a philosopher, one of the first order. Bacon delineated the principles of the inductive method, which constituted a breakthrough in the approach to science, even though philosophers and scientists of the day, - and seemingly today, yet - repudiated both his theories and methodology, alike. Bacon argued that the only knowledge of importance to man was empirically rooted in the natural world; and that a clear system of scientific inquiry would assure man's mastery over the world. He was the originator of the expression, "Knowledge is power." He was quite taken up by the "materialist" theories and the resultant discoveries of both Copernicus and Galileo. Bacon, along with Galileo are known in the literature as "the great anti-Aristotelians who created the 'modern scientific' view of Nature."

average,

I'm asking for particular examples, specifics, with good reasoning behind them. Not vague blanket statements.

Thnx.

In that case, I suppose you will have to be a bit specific too. What do you mean by Philosophy? And what does ‘accomplishments’ mean to you?

On the other hand, since you have already realized that philosophy takes one around in circles, why do you inquire about the accomplishments of philosophy? I’m afraid you will be yet again engaging yourself in a philosophical discourse, which shouldn't make logical sense to you any ways.

And yet, on the other hand, you may be a natural philosopher... who knows...

It would be fair to say that the field of Philosophy could take credit for ushering in one of man's greatest periods-The Age of Reason,and Age of Enlightenment.What sprung from that in so many other fields brings us to where we are today.

I'm asking for particular examples, specifics, with good reasoning behind them. Not vague blanket statements.

Thnx.

That wasn't a vague blanket statement, though. That was specific, except you seem to have a very poor grasp of how abstract thought works, so I guess it isn't surprising you thought it wasn't referring to anything in particular. Every single accomplishment of human thought -- in sciences and arts and elsewhere -- is the direct result of philosophy. All of the natural sciences (and the deductive, inductive, hypothetico-deductive, etc. reasoning behind them) is due to the tireless efforts of philosophers. Nearly all useful social change is due to philosophic texts.

John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism had huge consequences in the handling of all branches of law. Nietzsche's writings helped effect massive society-wide change in art, religion, and politics -- besides being spectacular literature. David Hume affected modern religion, empirical science, ontology (and hence, physics), and much more -- and his sayings are often quoted, unknowingly, in the scientific community. Socrates was a huge voice in early moral thought, and Plato can be directly linked to all Christian theology. Even Diogenes can be blamed for the cynical tradition -- such as that present in such movies as "Fight Club". As much as it might seem like a lot of different points of view are common sense, it is actually the work of philosophers that has made all these different points of view seem reasonable.

So, in other words: fuck you. I wasn't making a "vague blanket statement", you liar. You just don't know how to read abstract thought.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

I'm asking for particular examples, specifics, with good reasoning behind them. Not vague blanket statements.

Thnx.

That wasn't a vague blanket statement, though. That was specific, except you seem to have a very poor grasp of how abstract thought works, so I guess it isn't surprising you thought it wasn't referring to anything in particular. Every single accomplishment of human thought -- in sciences and arts and elsewhere -- is the direct result of philosophy. All of the natural sciences (and the deductive, inductive, hypothetico-deductive, etc. reasoning behind them) is due to the tireless efforts of philosophers. Nearly all useful social change is due to philosophic texts.

John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism had huge consequences in the handling of all branches of law. Nietzsche's writings helped effect massive society-wide change in art, religion, and politics -- besides being spectacular literature. David Hume affected modern religion, empirical science, ontology (and hence, physics), and much more -- and his sayings are often quoted, unknowingly, in the scientific community. Socrates was a huge voice in early moral thought, and Plato can be directly linked to all Christian theology. Even Diogenes can be blamed for the cynical tradition -- such as that present in such movies as "Fight Club". As much as it might seem like a lot of different points of view are common sense, it is actually the work of philosophers that has made all these different points of view seem reasonable.

So, in other words: fuck you. I wasn't making a "vague blanket statement", you liar. You just don't know how to read abstract thought.

Even this last post fails to reflect any sort of specificity beyond "philosophy influenced this subject, while this philosopher had an effect on that subject"...
What sort of change did Nietzsche start in society, and art, and politics?
How did Hume affect science and physics and what was a direct result of that?
A statement like "Every single accomplishment of human thought -- in sciences and arts and elsewhere -- is the direct result of philosophy." is another example of a vague generality that really means nothing...Try again though.

Check Dan Rowden's post on Francis Bacon, see how he is being specific and to the point? Thats a good example right there, try something like that.

Thnx

Don't lecture me, you bullshitter. I know I'm being incredibly specific, and I'm not going to bother catering to the demands of someone who neither understands nor appreciates abstract thought. I've already been more patient with you than you deserve. You wouldn't know specificity if it bit you in the ass.

I think we make a mistake by evaluating the accomplishments of philosophy as we would those of science or other fields. The greatest triumphs in philosophy are perhaps best shown by demonstrations of why once compelling philosophical notions are now regarded as silly or absurd. Who ascribes to Cartesian rationalism anymore? Locke destroyed it by simply suggesting our mind was a 'tabula rosa' or blank slate at birth. Does anyone who's studied philosophy buy into Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities of objects? Not after Berkeley demonstrated that no clear distinction could be made between them. Would any philosopher today accept Berkeley's suggestion that God must be the necessary cause of our perceptions? Not after Hume mangled the naive view of causality behind it. Philosophers have accomplished much within the realm of philosophy, just as scientists have accomplished much within the realm of science, and artists in the realm of art. Asking why philosophy doesn't build bridges is absurd. It isn't supposed to.