The Future of Philosophy in Society

[Zetetic11235]

Well, I don't feel like quibbling over that little point anymore either.

Specifically, I was more concerned with the lack of acknowledgement that analytic philosophy essentially is the sole contributor to basic computer science. It seems that as analytic philosophy develops, as formal logic falls into this category, the fundamentals of computer science might continue to feel the effect. One interesting development is the push for dialethiesm(paraconsistent logic) and for fuzzy or infinetary logic.

Since analytic philosophy does still have strong ties to mathematics, specifically mathematical logic/foundations and computer science and psychology(which is the domain of quite a bit of philosophical debate), what might be on the horizon as far as new developments in these fields.

I would say that to even discuss this it is necessary that everyone in the discussion have fairly extensive knowledge of modern philosophical debates/problems and current problems in logic. Therefore, I am staying out of this one.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Well, I don't feel like quibbling over that little point anymore either.

Specifically, I was more concerned with the lack of acknowledgement that analytic philosophy essentially is the sole contributor to basic computer science. It seems that as analytic philosophy develops, as formal logic falls into this category, the fundamentals of computer science might continue to feel the effect. One interesting development is the push for dialethiesm(paraconsistent logic) and for fuzzy or infinetary logic.

Since analytic philosophy does still have strong ties to mathematics, specifically mathematical logic/foundations and computer science and psychology(which is the domain of quite a bit of philosophical debate), what might be on the horizon as far as new developments in these fields.

I would say that to even discuss this it is necessary that everyone in the discussion have fairly extensive knowledge of modern philosophical debates/problems and current problems in logic. Therefore, I am staying out of this one.

I don't know of any time where thought did not add to technology, and where technology did not add to thought. As we better concieve of reality we build more sensitive measuring divices and they in turn inspire more illuminating questions. Do you ever wonder at the physics coming out of the turn of the last century. And wasn't it hopeful to think that a more advanced technolgy would lead to peace and prosperity for all. In any event, the philosophy that becomes physics is unlike the the philosophy of morals. They are nearly as different from one another as theology and philosophy; and each are equally philosophy. Those who first adventured in physics started far behind the moral philosophers, but they now have an understanding greater than is their need. Those who started ahead could never get further ahead than a snake can get from his tail. But our understanding of physics; even of computer physics, always gives to those who own it great destructive power, and the ability to give a moral argument against its use is never allowed.

[iconoclast]

I wonder if I might interject into this discussion a thought for your cosideration: the idea that epistemology, ontology and identity are all causally linked.

What I hold to be true tells me what exists, and these in turn tell me who I am. Thus, while the philosophy of computer science may not have direct moral implications - it has epistemological implications, that applied to ontology has implications for identity, that as a social creature has moral implications.

iconoclast.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

I wonder if I might interject into this discussion a thought for your cosideration: the idea that epistemology, ontology and identity are all causally linked.

What I hold to be true tells me what exists, and these in turn tell me who I am. Thus, while the philosophy of computer science may not have direct moral implications - it has epistemological implications, that applied to ontology has implications for identity, that as a social creature has moral implications.

iconoclast.

Everything is a moral question, even 2+2=, so certainly, computer science fits into a moral or immoral framework. No one, and no society can be moral one question at a time. It is not a place one gets going half way.

What I hold to be true are concepts measured against reality and found accurate. I have a concept called fishing. A pole, a line, a hook, some bait, some fish for supper; but if the fish don't bite, the concept is disproved to an extent. My dog catches mice. Actually rodents of all sorts like big ground hog yesterday. To the extent mouse catching is not thought natural to a dog, his behavior disproves the concept of Dog. So, a concept that proves true proves the identity, and ours to an extent, since as long as we can concieve we live.

[iconoclast]

Fido,

You say:

Everything is a moral question, even 2+2=

Then I think our conceptions of 'moral' are different. I'd call that a mathematical question, and while there are right and wrong answers, a wrong answer is not immoral, but merely incorrect.

Morality, for me, is about the rights and wrongs of human behaviour in its implcations for self, other people and society.

Unlike the mathematical question, I don't believe there is any correct or definitive answer to any moral question, but only the possibility of balancing all intrests as fairly as possible - to the wisest end.

Is morality just right and wrong for you?

iconoclast.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Fido,

You say:

Then I think our conceptions of 'moral' are different. I'd call that a mathematical question, and while there are right and wrong answers, a wrong answer is not immoral, but merely incorrect.

Morality, for me, is about the rights and wrongs of human behaviour in its implcations for self, other people and society.

Unlike the mathematical question, I don't believe there is any correct or definitive answer to any moral question, but only the possibility of balancing all intrests as fairly as possible - to the wisest end.

Is morality just right and wrong for you?

iconoclast.

If you do not recognize it as a moral question you have failed a moral test. In fact, since math has moral implications it is all bound up with moral questions. And it helps to explain why science often leads to conclusions that are immoral.
The rightness or wrongness of a particular action only point out moral failings across society. It is perfectly natural in a society like ours to look at people and say: Not my society! And you see people in various religions, or having a shade of skin color who look at others as so much of cattle for milk or meat. And that is normal enough, but you have to wonder if they do not begin, after denying the humanity of others, in the end, denying their own humanity, and even the humanity of those nearest to them.

The thing is, to present people with the moral problem is not much good. Hypothetical problems are not real problems. So, the only way to make people moral is to make them good, and that is, again, no place one gets to going half way. No one is made good who does not make themselves good, and no one is good without self knowledge, and no one has self knowledge unless they understand who they are whatever the moral situation they are presented with. For example, we all live in this instant, but this instant is no place we can live. We need the future, and the first suductive thing anyone is led to believe going into immorality is: there is no future.

There is a future if one survives their past. But my future would be different, just for example, if every girl I did not care for that I bedded for lust trailed along behind me everywhere instead of haunting my conscience. I suppose some people can form relationships and as quickly abandon them. I guess I cannot, and I should have known as much. But, what if it were deaths. What if I was in a war, and celebrated the deaths of many? Thank God, if there is such a beast, that the dead do not hound me into my dreams and out.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

If you do not recognize it as a moral question you have failed a moral test.

The fact that something by extension can have moral implications doesn't make it intrinsically moral. The whole concept of morality loses any and all definition if you apply it that broadly and nonspecifically.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Faun147

What are your thoughts on philosophy in the future. Will it decline? Will it grow? Will major subjects of interest change? Into what?

Also, given developments of science, technology, society, and art, how will philosophy be effected.

This may be in terms of the near future or the distant future.

It the relative future, environmental philosophy should have a major impact on society. How do humans fit in with nature? How will we power our societies? What do we owe future generations in environmental terms? What will the economies of the future look like? These are many questions that need to be addressed in the future, and the sooner that quest begins, the better off the future will be.

I also think that aesthetics will be a huge part of the future of philosophy. Everything from architecture, to music, and the visual arts will be examined. I think it may lead to a push towards a cultural revival. Look at how much stuff that is produced today is not meant to last. Most of the living quarters, places of business, and places of manufacture built today are not meant to last. Much of modern music is here today gone tomorrow. Aesthetics needs to be a foundation of the future because the present is ugly and will only get worse as time erodes and ages.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

The fact that something by extension can have moral implications doesn't make it intrinsically moral. The whole concept of morality loses any and all definition if you apply it that broadly and nonspecifically.

If you have churches, and government, and environmentalists, and activists across the board holding an opinion of moral right that usually differs to some extent from all others, that tells you that they are all talking about the same quality, under a common name, but without a generally accepted definition. So, If the word morals needs a generally accepted definition perhaps it is because the definitions that are accepted are accepted because they exclude. In fact, everyone is an acting moral agent. We need a common definition because to be useful it must embrace all of humanity. Let me put it another way.

The definition of dog covers all dogs, large and small, mean and docile, spotted or solid. If only my dog, or my favorite type of dog were defined as a dog, I would be happy enough since it does not depend upon a definition to hunt. But it would be useless since in attempting to exclude some dogs it would exclude some humans who hold their unaccepted dogs as a dog. Now granted, we do that with morals. We say, only My Morals are moral, and yours are not. Good, now get people to accept you definition after telling them they are full of beans. There is a common element to all morals just as there is to dogs. I know what it is. Do you?

[iconoclast]

If you do not recognize it as a moral question you have failed a moral test. In fact, since math has moral implications it is all bound up with moral questions. And it helps to explain why science often leads to conclusions that are immoral.

I did say that our conceptions of moral are different - and defined what I think moral refers to. Mine is the most widely accepted definition, and excludes mathematics. Thus the obligation is on you to explain a conception of morality that includes matehmatics. Saying that failure to acknowledge this unusual idea constitutes failing a moral test is simply bizzare.

In fact, since math has moral implications it is all bound up with moral questions. And it helps to explain why science often leads to conclusions that are immoral.

This is just factually incorrect. Scientific knowledge is objective and only takes on moral implications in the way it is used. Science may be put to moral or immoral uses, but like mathematics is itself morally neutral.

I do think one might argue that science employed for scientifically concieved purposes is less likely to be immoral - but you'd still need a moral value as an end, if only the continued existence of humankind.

iconoclast.