My response to your points about math and existentialism are the same: there's an unaccountable aspect to continental rationalism that comes forth every few years. To combat it requires knowledge of logic and mathematics, as the philosophical systems eschew empiricism in favor of an internal consistency.
Then again, rationalism vs. empiricism ends up being a personal preference. It is unsettling how accurately mathematics can address how things work. On Sep 3, 2:29 am, [email protected] wrote: > See my comments in BF, below > Billy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > message dated 9/2/2011 9:08:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > Random thing I was thinking about: > > In the era of Plato and Aristotle, philosophy encompassed (among its > many topics) rhetoric, law, aesthetics, psychology, the natural > sciences and mathematics. Philosophers were the learned individuals > in society who genuinely loved knowledge. With the maturation and > professionalization of the sciences, philosophy has increasingly > splintered itself away into a husk containing mostly metaphysics and > an obsession with word definitions and symbols. With Pragmatism's > rejection of even metaphysical vagueries and Karl Popper's objection > to the infinite definition dilemma toward the beginning and middle of > the 20th century, philosophy became the discipline of nothing. This > discipline became a series of rules of action, as if mankind was to > descend into a land of automatons, reacting in predictable patterns to > predictable stimuli. Naturally, the existentialists decided to one-up > the pragmatists by removing even rules, and entirely disconnect > philosophy from objective reality. > > I think you are making a connection that isn't there. Existentialists > were disconnected from objective reality ? ? ? Who do you consider > to have been Existentialists ? In my book, actually in the books of > classes > I took in the subject as a philosophy many years ago, the list includes > Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, etc, and not just > theoreticians like Heidegger and, to a lesser extent, Jaspers. > > For K, C, S, N, and D, how on earth can anyone say they were disconnected > from reality ? Well, Nietzsche in his last few years, but otherwise ? > > There were other philosophies that also were anything but disconnected > from reality, > like Futurism / Futurismo. Plus, still current, Philosophy of History. > Yes, this > is an entire field with a rather extensive literature. And, of course, > there > is Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, and specialities like > Buddhist Philosophy ( I had an independent studies course in the subject > ). > > Are we to say that philosophy is now solely the exploration of > logically consistent viewpoints of life? Is it the glue that holds > everything together? If so, how can a modern individual call him/ > herself a "philosopher" without attempting to reclaim science and > seeking to understand everything? Can a philosopher legitimately be > crappy at math and science and still claim some level of philosophical > legitimacy? > > Your point about science is well taken. I'm not so sure about math, > however. > OK, you need some math, and the more the better, at least usually. > But I have some real doubts. > > A friend recently became a doctor of forestry. To reach his goal he needed > to take a series of classes in higher math. But what in the world for ? > He would have been far better off with other classes, seems to me, > in geography, history of public forests, and even such things as > communications as it relates to getting the message out to > others via advertising, film, TV, and etc. > > Forestry isn't philosophy but the same principle applies. > Which does a philosopher need more ? OK, it depends on the kind > of philosophy, but for most kinds it would make far better sense to > take classes in marketing strategies, or game theory, or literature. > > If philosophy loses the study of logic to professionalization, I think > continued philosophy is as good as dead. Honestly, what else is left > for philosophy? > > Seems to me that we need a philosophy of Radical Centrism. Not sure exactly > what this would comprise, but it would necessarily include systems theory, > social psychology or equivalents, political philosophy, and so forth, > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
