The Future of Philosophy in Society

[iconoclast]

p.s. no need to reply as i'm done here.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

This is just factually incorrect. Scientific knowledge is objective

THIS is factually incorrect. Nothing is objective. Science provides a methodology that limits the impact of subjectivity, but to call it "objective" is only to state its aim.

[AtheistDeity]

It is hard to tell exactly what will happen in each individual aspect, as people tend to often go along with any new reasonable sounding proposition they may come across.
Human philosophy will, as it always has, continue to alter largly on the few most popular ideas, and trends that happen to be revolving throughout the particualr time.
It is a part of human nature to seek knowledge, and understanding of the environment around them-it is how we have evolved, and survived. It is not, however, to achieve this on their own effort, and realiziation.
New barriers of science, art, and ways of understanding will no doubt be broken-as well as new forms of rationalization, defences, delusion, and ideas people will refuse to accept.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

THIS is factually incorrect. Nothing is objective. Science provides a methodology that limits the impact of subjectivity, but to call it "objective" is only to state its aim.

Well said... Fred

[Trevor_C]

In my humble opinion I feel that philosophy has a bright future, but for how long could be anyone's guess. When I was young I had not even heard of philosophy let alone study it, and the transfer of information to exchange ideas was so slow. It used to take six months by steam ship to get a reply from a letter written in New Zealand to someone residing in the United Kingdom. (air mail was not available at that time) Now we have emails, forums such as this one, plus the internet to glean information from. The younger ones today (even though some of us older ones grumble about them at times) are a great deal smarter than the young ones were in my day. I would attribute this larger to the changed attitude to children's education today, plus the nearly instant availability of information for their studies.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Trevor_C

In my humble opinion I feel that philosophy has a bright future, but for how long could be anyone's guess. When I was young I had not even heard of philosophy let alone study it, and the transfer of information to exchange ideas was so slow. It used to take six months by steam ship to get a reply from a letter written in New Zealand to someone residing in the United Kingdom. (air mail was not available at that time) Now we have emails, forums such as this one, plus the internet to glean information from. The younger ones today (even though some of us older ones grumble about them at times) are a great deal smarter than the young ones were in my day. I would attribute this larger to the changed attitude to children's education today, plus the nearly instant availability of information for their studies.

The more we are presented with seemingly insoluble problems the more the tools of thought become our own...

[Rose]

Philosophy, the answers to all those big questions we have, will always be there. But we are being encourage more and more today to come up with our own personal philosophy in which to live by.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Rose

Philosophy, the answers to all those big questions we have, will always be there. But we are being encourage more and more today to come up with our own personal philosophy in which to live by.

I have two big questions... How old am I and how much do I weigh... I can remember when I couldn't count that far, and now I are.

[Khethil]

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?

I'm not sure that the core areas/core concerns of philosophy will alter much over time. At its basis, philosophy asks questions - and is concerned with issues - that have badgered the human mind for millenia. I'm not sure there's any reason to believe this will change. The wrapper changes - as industrialization's infection spreads, civilizations rise and fall, as technology and science tweeks our world and religions (and their associated mind-set fads morph time and again), but the core concepts of thought, themselves, seem to remain.

I wouldn't ever expect to see philosophy's role in the human condition change. As a means for understanding and learning, philosophy could almost be considered something everyone engages in (to some greater or lesser extent); almost as if one can't avoid philosophy all together. Part of what differentiates the "philosopher" is the conscious endeavor.


But at the risk of derailing us a tad, I'd like to address this:

Originally Posted by Aedes

Nothing is objective. Science provides a methodology that limits the impact of subjectivity, but to call it "objective" is only to state its aim.

Aedes and Fido: As you both so stated and agreed, the above quote is correct; however, it lacks an important element (and seems to interject a note of fatalism) that I feel is counter-productive. Although nothing the human animal could ever endeavor for could logically be called "objective", that is not to say that it never has any element of objective success. Even if in some small way, to some small extent, a scientific study is able to reveal some objective knowledge, this is important to acknowledge.

Now let's not go down the silly "How would we know if X was really objective"-road. It's conceded that in all of humanity, complete and ultimate objective thought can't be conclusively known. But isn't it important to give worth, credit and legitimacy to the quest for same? Could we not, as a matter of course, acknowledge that when Study Y was performed, we learned that <bleh> is <bleh> in this situation? Or shall we, through language, inculcate that because we're human nothing (ever, in any way and to any extent) could be called "objective"?

I know its fashionable to say "we can't know anything", "nothing really exists" and "everything is subjective", but this fatalistic mindset has implications that demoralizes the very effort. Besides, any of these statements (including "we can never achieve objectivity"), is self-defeating and only has worth insomuch as it helps us to keep perspective. Else, 1) The statement itself could never be true; 2) No motivation for learning anything could ever have worth -and- 3) As a non-falsifiable concept, the very statement is virtually meaningless.

I'll leave off on this guys, but I think it important - in these types of statements - to keep one's "feet on the ground". Let us not (by our very effort at accepting our human failings) short-circuit what measure of objectivity we can achieve and have achieved.

Thanks

[Fido]

I am not saying we can't know anything as a practical reliable matter... Because reality, what ever it is, does not change all so suddenly it cannot be learned, but the essential certainty of objective knowledge is lacking, and this is not happy or sad as facts go, but only what is; and you see it does not suit many who seek out religion because faith gives them a sense of certainty regardless of their level of knowedge, and ultimately that is demoralizing because people do not get the truth from their churches, and the whole of truth goes out of focus for a given truth; for which people need not labor, but only accept...

To me, that is the fun part, and the challenge, to labor hard for what I know and have it to show I am not lazy, which may be my particular vice, but be able to say, there is my discovery which I labored hard for...

What matter that it is not certain... nothing is really certain out of all we know, but only more or less certain... Certainty is easy... I can give you certainty if you will only believe; but no one can give another knowledge no matter how certain... You get only what you reach for, and it must hurt a little to make an impression...