The Problem With Modernity

[speed]

In the 17th century, Rene Descartes persuaded his fellow philosophers to renounce fields of study like ethnography, poetry, history, which are rich in content and context, and to concentrate entirely on abstract decontextualized fields like geometry, dynamics, and epistemology. Philosophy became a pursuit of mathematical exactitude and logical rigor, intellectual certainty and moral purity--purely theoretical.

What is called into question today is the tradition founded by Rene Descartes. Wittegenstein's main argument is directed at the "theory-centered" style of philosophy--one that poses problems, and seeks solutions, stated in timeless universal terms. Rorty and Heidegger, make incredibly similar arguments to Wittegenstein about the last 400 years of philosophy (although, I clearly prefer old Ludwig, who retains his skepticism, and does not go about building Heideggerian dreams of the meaning of life).

Hence, we are left with the question, shall modernity continue? Where shall philosophy go? It can go on down the path towards modernity and thus follow its own demise; it can follow some less theoretical, more practical postmodern route; or it can return to the skeptical humanism of pre-Descartes--this study of poetry, history, humanity, practical issues free from universal absolutes. The choice, I think, is obvious.

 

[Cythraul]

Gosh, thanks for giving us so many choices.

 

[speed]

Gosh, thanks for giving us so many choices.

Yeah Im quite charitable.

No, this is a paraphrasing and thread-formatizing of Stephen Toulmin's Cosmopolis (with a little Speedian opinion). Toulmin was Wittegenstein's pupil, and the three paths listed are more or less his choices.

And this thread is sort of an addendum to my previous threads Heidegger, and What Is to Be Done.

 

[Seditious]

"less theoretical, more practical postmodern route." I don't know specifically how 'abstract'/'dead issue' you're talking here, but I think the "theory-centered" style isn't a problem at all (I don't see practical and theoretical as a dichotomy as if you're either Hegel or a urilitarian), maybe some of the content is bad, but free from a solid system in some free thinking poetic metaphysical speculation not all the content is good either, like say... I dunno... all the rubbish the Positivists tried to shut up! lol.

If there's one thing I do agree about Objectivism it's that too many people have mongral philosophies---a belief in ghosts here, a faith in a single religion there, a 'doing bad will come back to haunt you' (they love to misname 'karma') for their sense of injustice, a soul for a nightlight, a little ESP for stoner amusement with a reference to a long refuted concept of brain usage---. This is how people end up as hypocrites I believe, it's as if they compartmentalize ideas they gain throughout life and it is only when challenged and they're revealed as a hypocrite that the process of comparing all the ideas they accept actually takes place so as to incorporate them into any kind of common sense system where they realise if they have contradictions and sky hooks.

I'm sure plenty of philosophy is nothing but a good ground for science, rather than the replacement for religion, but I hardly think that need condemn the process and welcome in all the midnight drunken banter as if it is necessary for our culture to have as a part of philosophy to avoid demise. next we'll be showing porn and pairing off for practical exams in Sex-Ed because it's currently too systematic, theoretical, and abstract.

so what was the obvious choice?

 

[Cythraul]

the Positivists

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well, these days it seems weird to consider mathematics and science as a part of philosophy, due to their having become so formalized and surrounded in empirical thought. Back in Descartes' day, people didn't see math and science as being separate from other forms of philosophical inquiry (or so I've been told).

I kind of see philosophy as the drawing board for the sciences. Any philosophically-born theory which serves as the best explanation for an unexplained natural phenomenon, and which can be tested for empirical verification, will most likely be absorbed into the sciences. Thus, philosophy is often left dealing with unsolvable questions - that is, questions which are epistemically inaccessible.

I can't imagine philosophy being destroyed by modernity. That just sounds too black-and-white to make sense. I think as long as there are questions about the world which science fails to address (which will probably be forever), then there will always be a place for philosophy.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Well, these days it seems weird to consider mathematics and science as a part of philosophy, due to their having become so formalized and surrounded in empirical thought. Back in Descartes' day, people didn't see math and science as being separate from other forms of philosophical inquiry (or so I've been told).

I kind of see philosophy as the drawing board for the sciences. Any philosophically-born theory which serves as the best explanation for an unexplained natural phenomenon, and which can be tested for empirical verification, will most likely be absorbed into the sciences. Thus, philosophy is often left dealing with unsolvable questions - that is, questions which are epistemically inaccessible.

I can't imagine philosophy being destroyed by modernity. That just sounds too black-and-white to make sense. I think as long as there are questions about the world which science fails to address (which will probably be forever), then there will always be a place for philosophy.

If anything deserves to be called philosophy, it is pure science and especially math. Philosophy began with Thales and Pythagoras. I find it unfortunate that now when you mention philosophy people think you mean
existence and ethics, Aristotle and Kant instead of Newton and Copernicus.

 

[Justin S.]

If anything deserves to be called philosophy, it is pure science and especially math. Philosophy began with Thales and Pythagoras. I find it unfortunate that now when you mention philosophy people think you mean
existence and ethics, Aristotle and Kant instead of Newton and Copernicus.

uke:

 

[hibernal_dream]

uke:

Nice argument

 

[Justin S.]

Next time I'll draw up a cute syllogism, just for you.

 

[Cythraul]

Well, this thread is degenerating pretty quickly.

 

[Scourge of God]

In certain circles, the 'problem of modernity' is a phrase that pops up quite frequently. However, its use is a little vague, and seems to describe at least two very different phenomena.

1. The Intellectual Crisis of Modernity: Much has been made of the 'death' of the old verities, but what it comes down to is a crisis of confidence among that class of people professionally shielded from any contact with reality by their ensconcement in the academy. It isn't a real crisis, but it's the best that Ivory Tower dilettantes can manage, so they moan about it endlessly despite its utter insignificance.

2. The Crisis of Modern Values: This is the real crisis of Modernity. The values of our society suck. They encourage weakness, failure, pity for the undeserving, short-sighted decision making processes and dysgenic behaviors of every sort. Our values have led to the desecration of the earth and the devolution of human culture into a simpering product to sell the the mouth breathing masses. It is this real crisis that contemporary philosophies cannot and will not face. Analytic philosophy merely proposes more of the same failed values, and the Continental philosophers wouldn't be caught dead advocating for something as suspiciously metanarrative-esque as 'values.'

If we're honest with ourselves, we'd acknowledge that the last 100 or so years of human history produced only two philosophers of note: Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

 

[speed]

In certain circles, the 'problem of modernity' is a phrase that pops up quite frequently. However, its use is a little vague, and seems to describe at least two very different phenomena.

1. The Intellectual Crisis of Modernity: Much has been made of the 'death' of the old verities, but what it comes down to is a crisis of confidence among that class of people professionally shielded from any contact with reality by their ensconcement in the academy. It isn't a real crisis, but it's the best that Ivory Tower dilettantes can manage, so they moan about it endlessly despite its utter insignificance.

2. The Crisis of Modern Values: This is the real crisis of Modernity. The values of our society suck. They encourage weakness, failure, pity for the undeserving, short-sighted decision making processes and dysgenic behaviors of every sort. Our values have led to the desecration of the earth and the devolution of human culture into a simpering product to sell the the mouth breathing masses. It is this real crisis that contemporary philosophies cannot and will not face. Analytic philosophy merely proposes more of the same failed values, and the Continental philosophers wouldn't be caught dead advocating for something as suspiciously metanarrative-esque as 'values.'

If we're honest with ourselves, we'd acknowledge that the last 100 or so years of human history produced only two philosophers of note: Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

If one considers philosophy rooted to real change/practical power, then I suppse Lenin and Hitler would be more important than Heidegger and Wittgenstien (name known philosopher, etc). You need to add Mao however. But yes, they saw their philosophies through...to horrific results.

 

[speed]

If anything deserves to be called philosophy, it is pure science and especially math. Philosophy began with Thales and Pythagoras. I find it unfortunate that now when you mention philosophy people think you mean
existence and ethics, Aristotle and Kant instead of Newton and Copernicus.

I disagree completely.

When wittegenstein and Rorty argued that philosophy was "at a dead end", they overdramatized the situation. The present state of philosophy marks the return from a theory-centered conception, dominated by a concern for stability and rigor, to a renewed acceptance of practice, which requires us to adapt action to the special demands of particular occassions.

 

[Scourge of God]

If one considers philosophy rooted to real change/practical power, then I suppse Lenin and Hitler would be more important than Heidegger and Wittgenstien (name known philosopher, etc).

It's less a question of 'power' and more a question of seeing that the values of modernity had failed and trying to develop a new value set to replace that which didn't work - you know, the problem that both major schools of 20th century philosophy avoided like the plague.

You need to add Mao however.

'Maoism' isn't fundamentally distinguishable from Leninist thought, it is an adaptation of Marxist Leninism to agrarian conditions.

But yes, they saw their philosophies through...to horrific results.

And the academic philosophers saw nothing through...to even more horrific results.

 

[speed]

It's less a question of 'power' and more a question of seeing that the values of modernity had failed and trying to develop a new value set to replace that which didn't work - you know, the problem that both major schools of 20th century philosophy avoided like the plague.



'Maoism' isn't fundamentally distinguishable from Leninist thought, it is an adaptation of Marxist Leninism to agrarian conditions.



And the academic philosophers saw nothing through...to even more horrific results.

I would say their philosophies (Lenin, Hitler), were inspired by or totally contingent upon modernism. Both, even in their revolt, were still modernists.

Mao's little red book is probably the most widely-read book of philosophy in the world (helps its mandatory reading to those chinese), and he did revolutionize the most populous country in the world, under the banner of his ideas.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If anything deserves to be called philosophy, it is pure science and especially math. Philosophy began with Thales and Pythagoras. I find it unfortunate that now when you mention philosophy people think you mean
existence and ethics, Aristotle and Kant instead of Newton and Copernicus.

Uh, well the reason philosophy isn't synonynous with science and math is because those fields are limited to what can be proven and/or tested. There is a shitload of important fundamental questions which science and math aren't going to help us at all in answering. What kind of mathematical formula are you going to use to describe what is moral and immoral, for example?

 

[Seditious]

Uh, well the reason philosophy isn't synonynous with science and math is because those fields are limited to what can be proven and/or tested. There is a shitload of important fundamental questions which science and math aren't going to help us at all in answering. What kind of mathematical formula are you going to use to describe what is moral and immoral, for example?

egalitarian
1:1 = moral
2:1 = immoral

utilitarian
2a + 2b + c = ab > c = moral
(2a - a) + (2b - b) + c = immoral

*Shrug* don't force me to write Beyes theorum or sumn

 

[zabu of nΩd]

egalitarian
1:1 = moral
2:1 = immoral

utilitarian
2a + 2b + c = ab > c = moral
(2a - a) + (2b - b) + c = immoral

Very funny. :Smug:

edit: Pretty liberal use of operators in those utilitarian equations there. 2a + 2b + c = ab?

 

[Seditious]

Very funny. :Smug:

edit: Pretty liberal use of operators in those utilitarian equations there. 2a + 2b + c = ab?

equals "ab>c"


perhaps "a+a+c = a>c" would have been clearer. I kick myself for not putting more thought into it