TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is Philosophy dead?

Was it buried beneath pragmatic scientific discourse? Stabbed through the heart by the stake of probability. Is there any room for conjecture in the button down business of modern scientific thought? In the world of proof, what is the point of pondering?

I sometimes chuckle and think philosophers and theologians are off in a corner somewhere playing chess, while the scientific community is haphazardly reinventing our reality.

Is there truth in the evident, or are we chasing our own tail?

+10
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 22 2013: "Philosophy: n. The search for understanding of values and reality using chiefly speculative rather than observational means." Using this definition (which makes a clear distinction between the Scientific Method and Thought) I argue that thought itself depends upon Philosophy. If Philosophy is dead, so is imagination, so is curiosity, so is activity itself. Philosophy is alive and well in the active minds of Mankind. QUOTE: "Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity."--Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, 1919.
    • thumb
      Sep 23 2013: At the risk of going up against a giant in philosophy, I take issue with Wittgenstein. I think philosophy is the activity of advancing the living body of doctrine of philosophy. Such body of doctrine is shared among those practicing philosophy.
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2013: I think Ludwig was saying Philosophy does not consist SOLELY of a body of doctrine, but as active, ongoing application in life of that doctrine. He certainly did not deny that doctrine is an essential component of philosophy.
    • Sep 25 2013: The definition you cite is just plain kooky. The ancients certainly did not exclude observational means from their philosophy. Why should we?
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2013: The definition does not say "exclusively". It says "chiefly". If phenomena can be observed then it should be subjected to the Scientific Method. But if the search cannot continue without speculation then let the Scientists abandon and the Philosophers will trudge on in search of Truth and understanding. Does that sound "kooky" to you, Bryan? Thanks.
        • Sep 25 2013: The scientific method is a philosophical method. Empiricism is a school of philosophy. Excluding philosophy to the realms of "speculation" sells philosophy short. Likewise, scientists speculate all the time--the terms "brainstorming" or "hypothesis generation" are used, but it's still speculation.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2013: Speculation serves only as a stepping stone to experimentation in the Scientific Method. No mature, proper Science is based upon speculation alone. (Yes, that means quantum theory is not mature, proper Science). You may accept the revision of the Scientific Method to accommodate QT, but I do not. I say QT should accommodate the Scientific Method, or it should be called Philosophy, not Science. By the way you are wrong to say I propose "excluding Philosophy to the realms of speculation". Did you read my previous response to you?
        • Sep 25 2013: Speculation without any attempt at application is nothing better than a momentary amusement.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2013: I agree. Where did the idea of "Speculation without any attempt at application" come from? I know I didn't say it because I don't believe Philosophy precludes application, rather it seeks it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.