New Trends/Innovations in Philosophy

[speed]

What are the new trends, areas of innovation and interest, schools, and so forth, of philosophy today? And thus, what is being discovered, improved, and expanded upon? And, how do these innovations affect philosophical and even real-world understanding?

(I hope some of our truly philosophical members can start this one: Justin S., Cythraul, Demiurge, and others--who I hope forgive me for forgetting their names).

 

[Omnis_Sathanas]

What was actually kind of annoying to me is that it seems most of academia is currently concerned with epistemology/analytic philosophy which is very abstract and impractical (IMHO). I find ethical issues about implementing technology, biotechnology, and the possibility of artificial intelligence more interesting.

Another interesting issue to me is how popular culture affects identity (or even possibly replaces it). But very few people even seem to be concerned with authentic personal identity, as they act like it's much more fun to just emulate movie stars.

 

[speed]

What was actually kind of annoying to me is that it seems most of academia is currently concerned with epistemology/analytic philosophy which is very abstract and impractical (IMHO). I find ethical issues about implementing technology, biotechnology, and the possibility of artificial intelligence more interesting.

It seems they've (philosophy) left such issues to the scientists and science fiction writers. I dare say Isaac Asimov is more influential in the field of artificial intelligence ethics than any philosopher.

 

[veil the sky]

What was actually kind of annoying to me is that it seems most of academia is currently concerned with epistemology/analytic philosophy which is very abstract and impractical (IMHO). I find ethical issues about implementing technology, biotechnology, and the possibility of artificial intelligence more interesting.

abstract and impractical? or transcendent and fundamental?

Another interesting issue to me is how popular culture affects identity (or even possibly replaces it). But very few people even seem to be concerned with authentic personal identity, as they act like it's much more fun to just emulate movie stars.

i disagree.

only the first point was interesting.

 

[Justin S.]

Its difficult to say what "movement" or trend one is in the midst of when there is no distance to reflect upon (the now). Each person I talk to says something different. Maybe this is fitting considering our time; "philosophy" mirroring general society- extreme (trivial) divergence, bureaucratization, impotency.

 

[Cythraul]

It seems they've (philosophy) left such issues to the scientists and science fiction writers. I dare say Isaac Asimov is more influential in the field of artificial intelligence ethics than any philosopher.

There are plenty of philosophers still discussing and raising questions about artificial intelligence, even regarding the ethical considerations that pop up in these kinds of issues. As far as more "down to earth" applied ethical issues go, I've read some of the current philosophical literature in that domain and to be quite honest, it's not terribly impressive work. That's not to say there's no impressive or important work in the field since I don't even pay much attention to that area anyway...so don't even listen to my judgment on this, I guess.

It's hard to really say what are the current trends/innovations going on. I'll try to think of some examples later. But it's surely easier than answering the question "What are the most important movements/developments currently?"

 

[speed]

There are plenty of philosophers still discussing and raising questions about artificial intelligence, even regarding the ethical considerations that pop up in these kinds of issues. As far as more "down to earth" applied ethical issues go, I've read some of the current philosophical literature in that domain and to be quite honest, it's not terribly impressive work. That's not to say there's no impressive or important work in the field since I don't even pay much attention to that area anyway...so don't even listen to my judgment on this, I guess.

It's hard to really say what are the current trends/innovations going on. I'll try to think of some examples later. But it's surely easier than answering the question "What are the most important movements/developments currently?"

Perhaps, one of you--Justin S. Cythraul--ought to make this your area of expertise? One could have a significant impact, or place in the philosophical canon.

 

[Cythraul]

Perhaps, one of you--Justin S. Cythraul--ought to make this your area of expertise? One could have a significant impact, or place in the philosophical canon.

At this point I can't really say it interests me much, but who knows, that may change.

Anyway, back on topic. Sometimes I wonder if it's better to talk about the development of philosophy in terms of its failures rather than its successes or innovations. I guess I'd rather ask a question like "What distinctions and arguments are philosophers rejecting this week?" I'm sort of under the impression that in the english speaking tradition there hasn't been anything really significant since the heyday of Quine and Kripke (of course Quine and Kripke were two very different philosophers). At my school they basically drill the views of Kripke and Quine into your head. I guess I'm not really equipped to answer your question adequately. I mean, philosophy has gotten quite a bit more involved with other disciplines (see philosophy of mind and cognitive science). I'm sure you could find some very definite developments in logic (see intuitionist logic, paraconsistent logic), but then again logic isn't philosophy proper. Well, the last time any philosopher really blew me away was when I read Quine for the first time, and he did his most important work from the 1950s to the 1980s I guess, so I suppose I'm not too in-the-know.

edit: but I think the really big topic right now is philosophy of mind and consciousness. But I think the people working on this topic are just arguing in circles and repeating themselves these days. Maybe it's time to hang up the towel.

Also, Hilary Putnam, one of the most important philosophers of the late 20th century is apparently obsessed with pragmatism these days. Maybe pragmatism will get big; it never really caught on that well with the analytics.

 

[derek]

Increasingly I find that philosophy has been drawn into clarifying less and less relevant topics in a more and more pedantic way.

I'm not claiming all the argument, counter-argument and conclusions are pointless, only that the larger narrative seems to have been lost much of the time.

To be the dialectic process that leads us to new and groundbreaking philosophy is on hiatus. It is possible I believe that because my research interests moved from philosophy a while ago, though.

I think Cythraul has a point, insomuch as no philosophy as really affected me since the 1980s. Mackie, Hare, Rawls...and they were all very much in the last century.

 

[Justin S.]

Its very important to point out that Cythraul is coming from a decidedly analytic perspective, which I am highly critical of (to the point of physical revulsion). The analytic conception (almost cult like) of "philosophy" castrated itself long ago by positing thought as the bitch of "science" (human thought and essence as a second rate tool to merely "clear up confusion"). I cannot find words to express the monstrosity here.

Cythraul is right that many analytic departments are intertwined with neuroscience, philosophy of mind/cognitive science, and logic (mine certainly is). I have caught a variety of lectures from non-analytics at the UofC and it seems that there isnt a coherent direction, or that there even should be (in their minds).

 

[speed]

Its very important to point out that Cythraul is coming from a decidedly analytic perspective, which I am highly critical of (to the point of physical revulsion). The analytic conception (almost cult like) of "philosophy" castrated itself long ago by positing thought as the bitch of "science" (human thought and essence as a second rate tool to merely "clear up confusion"). I cannot find words to express the monstrosity here.

Cythraul is right that many analytic departments are intertwined with neuroscience, philosophy of mind/cognitive science, and logic (mine certainly is). I have caught a variety of lectures from non-analytics at the UofC and it seems that there isnt a coherent direction, or that there even should be (in their minds).

This brings up a good question. Wouldnt it be interesting if everyone listed their philosophical background (if one is a philosophy student or grad, or even an active philosopher), or their philosophical preference (if one is a philosophical dilletante like myself, or in anyway connected to philosophy)?http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198623

 

[Cythraul]

Its very important to point out that Cythraul is coming from a decidedly analytic perspective, which I am highly critical of (to the point of physical revulsion). The analytic conception (almost cult like) of "philosophy" castrated itself long ago by positing thought as the bitch of "science" (human thought and essence as a second rate tool to merely "clear up confusion"). I cannot find words to express the monstrosity here.

Make no mistake, I'm equally critical of that. I guess it's fairly easy to conflate analytic philosophy with logical positivism, but I don't think it's justified. That would be like me dismissing continental philosophy because of the travesty of postmodernism. I'm not sure that there are many analytic philosophers around these days who would even agree with the doctrines you criticize. Kripke never accepted any of that, Putnam doesn't. Lots of important analytic guys didn't and don't. As far as I'm concerned, analytic philosophy is really just definable in points of method, not subject matter or metaphilosophical doctrine. I do think analytic philosophy is too compartmentalized though. That's why I admire Putnam's efforts

 

[Cythraul]

Actually, after reading justin's comments I think the following might make a good thread topic: the (epistemic) status of philosophy and its relation to scientific knowledge.

 

[speed]

Its very important to point out that Cythraul is coming from a decidedly analytic perspective, which I am highly critical of (to the point of physical revulsion). The analytic conception (almost cult like) of "philosophy" castrated itself long ago by positing thought as the bitch of "science" (human thought and essence as a second rate tool to merely "clear up confusion"). I cannot find words to express the monstrosity here.

Cythraul is right that many analytic departments are intertwined with neuroscience, philosophy of mind/cognitive science, and logic (mine certainly is). I have caught a variety of lectures from non-analytics at the UofC and it seems that there isnt a coherent direction, or that there even should be (in their minds).

Well, Im no expert here, but I would fall under continental lines. First of all, I'm not a huge proponent of logic as the anayltical school uses. Second of all, I do not care about that almost scientific method of refuting theses. Third, in stating the first two, I agree with you Justin S, it seems purely analytical philosophy is merely a part of science itself, and not part of the philosophical tradition. Whereas continental philosophy, is still philosophy (a part of the philosophical tradition, using thought to create etc), but prone to the ridiculousness of extremely esoteric and academic obtuseness--especially in their writing. And this is one of principle complaints against Heidegger.

Saying that, I still enjoy Popper, Russell and Wittegenstein from the analytical school. I should realy expand my reading here.

 

[speed]

Actually, after reading justin's comments I think the following might make a good thread topic: the (epistemic) status of philosophy and its relation to scientific knowledge.

Please make said thread!

 

[Justin S.]

Make no mistake, I'm equally critical of that. I guess it's fairly easy to conflate analytic philosophy with logical positivism, but I don't think it's justified.

And you are right about that (my over-generalization/misrepresentation). Most analytics are not positivists. However, I dont see them as truly fundamentally different, and do see them working from many of the same foundations, albeit less extreme. Either way, I sigh a lot.

That would be like me dismissing continental philosophy because of the travesty of postmodernism. I'm not sure that there are many analytic philosophers around these days who would even agree with the doctrines you criticize. Kripke never accepted any of that, Putnam doesn't. Lots of important analytic guys didn't and don't.

Very accurate comments (aside from postmodernism being a travesty, as I dont really see it as a "movement" like positivism was) and I do appreciate some of the analytic works individually (which is all im reading at the moment due to my classes, yay!). However, my original sentiments still stand (analytic tradition as monstrosity)

 

[Justin S.]

Please make said thread!

Cythraul making a thread...?

 

[Justin S.]

Well, Im no expert here, but I would fall under continental lines. First of all, I'm not a huge proponent of logic as the anayltical school uses. Second of all, I do not care about that almost scientific method of refuting theses. Third, in stating the first two, I agree with you Justin S, it seems purely analytical philosophy is merely a part of science itself, and not part of the philosophical tradition. Whereas continental philosophy, is still philosophy (a part of the philosophical tradition, using thought to create etc), but prone to the ridiculousness of extremely esoteric and academic obtuseness--especially in their writing. And this is one of principle complaints against Heidegger.

Saying that, I still enjoy Popper, Russell and Wittegenstein from the analytical school. I should realy expand my reading here.

Dude, for the last time: Heidegger isnt the problem, its the reader. Im sure you'll love that!

Im actually sick to death of the name game, terms and categories about movements or schools of thought. Let the thinking stand, read the primary works etc. Nothing pisses me off more that the industry and bureaucracy of "Philosophy" (all the while existence is completely ignored).

 

[Cythraul]

And you are right about that (my over-generalization/misrepresentation). Most analytics are not positivists. However, I dont see them as truly fundamentally different, and do see them working from many of the same foundations, albeit less extreme. Either way, I sigh a lot.

So what exactly are the foundations that you think they all share?

 

[Cythraul]

First of all, I'm not a huge proponent of logic as the anayltical school uses.

Second of all, I do not care about that almost scientific method of refuting theses.

Are you opposed to good arguments?

Third, in stating the first two, I agree with you Justin S, it seems purely analytical philosophy is merely a part of science itself, and not part of the philosophical tradition.

I'm sure some would take that as a compliment. I see things differently however. I see the analytics carrying on some of the most important traditions begun by the ancient greeks, while neglecting other aspects of the philosophical tradition. The same can be said of the continentals (or non-analytics more broadly). Neither the analytics nor the continentals can each be said to embody the spirit of philosophical enquiry entirely.