The Future of Philosophy in Society

[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.

[boagie]

Faun,

The wellspring of philosophy is now and will be for some time in the future, the science of neurology, old barriers, as human limitations will be broken through. Human limitations in specualation will aquire new boarders. There are perhaps other areas of discovery, but none so promising I believe, as that of neurology. Even the organic nature of our being will be altered I believe, to improve if you like, on gods poor design. We will hopefully be better at being human.

[GoshisDead]

In the near future Philosophy will stray from the metaphysical and abstract much the way that education is straying from the arts and humanities. It will be replaced for a generation with sci/tech/vocational specific pursuits. Philosophy like anything else seems to follow trends in education which itself follows trends in economics. The money in education is being made in science and tech, and more people are opting out of liberal arts educations for vocational degrees. This is probably a result of the "information age's" globalization and its resultant minimalization of superfluous educational ideology.

But this is just an opinion

[iconoclast]

Faun147,

I have been posting on these forums for some time now. My subject of interest/concern is the continued existence of the human species in face of threats of extinction from the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation.

I have argued that these are not mere technical issues - but systematic of social, political and economic systems that employ/embody/promote false conceptions of reality.

This has implications for a number of philosophical areas: religion/epistemology/science, science/politics, science/economics, ethics, social theory and on and on...hardly any branch of philosophy, except perhaps aesthetics, escaping notice.

However, there seems to be little interest. I appreciate that it is a difficult topic to consider, but one I would have thought philosophers above all people would recognize as significant and embrace as a means of explicating all these subject areas and ideas.

Instead I find myself somewhat isolated - if chipping away at the coal face with conviction, ultimately making little headway on my own. Thus, I think the future of philosophy is behind it - looking backward upon a time when men were more brave in thier thinking.

iconoclast.

[Deftil]

I hope philosophy has a bright future. It seems like much of what was once under the scope of philosophy is now science. I think we'll see much development in those fields. Fields of philosophy that aren't able to be studied in a particularly scientific way however, seem likely to be largely neglected. Who know what the future holds though. Some of the most profound discoveries may be yet to be made.

[Aedes]

Philosophy doesn't change society. It simply comments about society. Never (at least in modernity) has a biologist or physicist changed a line of inquiry because of a philosopher's suggestion. Never has the human mind changed its conception of good and bad because of a philosopher. It's always the other way around -- what science suggests provokes philosophical interest, and what humans consider good and bad provokes philosophical interest.

So insofar as society will always be dynamic, there will always be things to philosophize about.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Philosophy doesn't change society. It simply comments about society. .

Tell that to the guys who considered John Stuart Mill in creating the fantastically synthetic country, the U.S.A. Besides, why can't it do both? It changes society through it criticism and direction of thought. Look at how Karl Marx influenced china, russia, vietnam, cuba and all of the moderately socialist countries. All based upon an economically/socially defunct philosophy of politics.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Never (at least in modernity) has a biologist or physicist changed a line of inquiry because of a philosopher's suggestion..

Tell that to Einstein. It seems to me more the case that philosophy is being called upon by physicists quite often, in fact, nearly everytime there is a huge leap in the field of physics it is due to a philosophical conjecture or prompt. I do not know about the less abstract sciences.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Never has the human mind changed its conception of good and bad because of a philosopher. It's always the other way around -- what science suggests provokes philosophical interest, and what humans consider good and bad provokes philosophical interest.

So insofar as society will always be dynamic, there will always be things to philosophize about.

The pull of morality is a two way expenditure of force, as are all expenditures of force. You do not think that an ideology is behind every social/moral/political movement, but rather it is that the spring out of nothing? Every movement has a philosophy at its base. There is an ebb and flow to idealogical transactions between the few and the many. It is the dropping of a time bomb into still waters, a philosophy which resonates with a people.

I would argue that no philosopher worth reading has not shaped some aspect of the modern world.

[urangutan]

Philosophy has and always will be a conversation piece. Sadly, it is more often taught rather than learned. I am a grassroots type. I have picked up a shovel and I have learnt to dig, pretty much all that can be done with a shovel , including to lean on, I have now done. I haven't read much but I do listen and when I have something I think I should share I most often do. I am here for the conversation, I am not a philosopher but philosophy isn't going anywhere. Be aware.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Tell that to the guys who considered John Stuart Mill in creating the fantastically synthetic country, the U.S.A.

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806, my friend. The USA was 50 years old before he wrote a thing. You're probably thinking of John Locke, who influenced Thomas Jefferson. But it was NOT the influence of Locke that created the country -- it was the need to create a country that provided protections against the unchecked power of the state as manifested by the British Monarchy.

Look at how Karl Marx influenced china, russia, vietnam, cuba and all of the moderately socialist countries.

Mao, Lenin, etc were tyrants who created civil wars. They paid lip service to Marx, but their main interest was subjugation of the populace. Why do you think Naziism and Communism, while philosophically completely opposed to one another, were in practicality almost indistinguishable?

Tell that to Einstein. It seems to me more the case that philosophy is being called upon by physicists quite often, in fact, nearly everytime there is a huge leap in the field of physics it is due to a philosophical conjecture or prompt.

Hmm, Einstein revised the previous physics because they were mathematically unsatisfactory. He proved his own theories mathematically. I don't see how philosophy has any importance here.

I do not know about the less abstract sciences.

Sure you do -- everyone here loves to have debates about evolution, genetics, and embryogenesis. But you don't find biologists altering their research based on the speculation of philosophers (with the SOLE exception of ethical considerations). You do, however, find philosophers considering the meaning of these findings.

I would argue that no philosopher worth reading has not shaped some aspect of the modern world.

And I would argue that they didn't shape a thing, they just encapsulated the intellectual movements of the time. Hume and Berkeley didn't create the enlightenment, but the enlightenment philosophers were sure influenced by Newton. Machiavelli didn't create the brutally practical political state. Sartre and Camus didn't create the idea that life is meaningless. Nietzsche didn't create the idea that we're irrational.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Philosophy doesn't change society. It simply comments about society. Never (at least in modernity) has a biologist or physicist changed a line of inquiry because of a philosopher's suggestion. Never has the human mind changed its conception of good and bad because of a philosopher. It's always the other way around -- what science suggests provokes philosophical interest, and what humans consider good and bad provokes philosophical interest.

So insofar as society will always be dynamic, there will always be things to philosophize about.

To the extent that philosophy gives us new forms and redefines old forms it changes society because it facilitates change. Who wouldn't change their societies, which at best are always cobbled together, or falling apart, IF they only had the knowledge to do so. It is never possible to change society with any sure progress without some model, or ideal to guide it. Without a new idea, people are forced to cling to what they know, terrified of the future, and cursing their existence. When it is effective, philosophy is the light at the end of the nightmare.