Philosophy has progressed dreadfully slow compared to its lovechild science. Most philosophers think this is due to the lack of an equivalent to the scientific method.
So what would a scientific method for philosophy look like? The socratic method, and then some? Some sort of programming language that can have logic used instead of loops, and data structures? What do you all think?
philosophy is not about answers, it is about asking question, like why should we do science when even the scientist admits that he has no clue about what he is doing.
Understand that our brain is not enough to get the answers we want and many questions imposed are meaningless in our universe.
If any philosopher wants to make a claim about science he should know the subeject at heart.
Develop critical skills that don't only revolve in muh pure argument.
Nuke french philosophers
And don't encourage every 18 year old retard to waste his life if he has no idea of what the subject is about but has read nitchi and kant so he is deep.
>And don't encourage every 18 year old retard to waste his life if he has no idea of what the subject is about but has read nitchi and kant so he is deep.
if someone reads kant and nietzsche and actually understands them, they're probably really fucking educated on everything related to philosophy.
Φ 5. The systematic development of truth in scientific form can alone be the true shape in which truth exists. To help to bring philosophy nearer to the form of science – that goal where it can lay aside the name of love of knowledge and be actual knowledge – that is what I have set before me. The inner necessity that knowledge should be science lies in its very nature; and the adequate and sufficient explanation for this lies simply and solely in the systematic exposition of philosophy itself. The external necessity, however, so far as this is apprehended in a universal way, and apart from the accident of the personal element and the particular occasioning influences affecting the individual, is the same as the internal: it lies in the form and shape in which the process of time presents the existence of its moments. To show that the time process does raise philosophy to the level of scientific system would, therefore, be the only true justification of the attempts which aim at proving that philosophy must assume this character; because the temporal process would thus bring out and lay bare the necessity of it, nay, more, would at the same time be carrying out that very aim itself.
– Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit
The answer is Hegel's philosophy, OP.
Philosophy is not something that really evolves in the same way science can, because it is not as reproducible and is not really structured.
reminder that logics and maths are conventions from a few in order to manufacture a safe space formalizing their view on how ''truth'' should be and behave.
=>math and logic is the safe space of the degenerate who fantasizes about ''truth'', once he becomes anxious in failing to find a ''necessity'' in life, concerning his ''choices'' in life, because he is scared of casting a choice about anything.
I would argue that philosophy (at least analytic) is reproducible in the same way that mathematics is. Math just happens to have fewer variables that are easy to keep track of.
If philosophers ask "what is good" and "what's the best ways to run a state" then is surely want answers. I get that a lot of philosophy is the therapy and the skills that come from asking the questions but we clearly value the answers too. That being said, it seems like there has been almost no progress in systematically creating a way which answers those questions in a logically valid manner.
For example, what if you could transcribe all of Kant's work to something akin to a programming language. Then this "scientific method equivalent compiler" would check the code for logical leaps and assumptions. Then philosophers can pick up from this point and say what assumptions are argument shattering or simply just reasonable assumptions.
>Philosophy has progressed dreadfully slow compared to its lovechild science
What. The state of philosophy is incredibly advanced compared to the Greeks. I know it's hard to read this stuff but if you look at the 21st centuary philosophy's big guys like Focaulst's theory of knowledge & power it's a super advanced way of understanding just about anything.
>Most philosophers think this is due to the lack of an equivalent to the scientific method
Who is this "most philosophers"? I've never heard this
>Some sort of programming language that can have logic used instead of loops, and data structures
We tried this, it was called logical postivism and it was denounced by everyone including it's creators
>The socratic method
The problem with the Socratic method is it assumes everyone is using words in the exact same way. Euthyphro gives several different diffenations of piety but Socrates refuses to accept that there are no absolutes in meaning and it's all contextual and relative. Even when Plato himself gets around to defining his terms he has to admit that the forms are elusive and cannot be articulated absolutely or even proven to be a thing.
>What if we made all words have strict definations
You can't. Wittgenstein showed us that definations are never fixed and only make sense in context, this part of what called postivism
the whole story is the knowledge of the Greek/Egyptian mystery schools being brought to light. For instance Jesus was born in a manger but early on it was as common to have him born in a cave (which he also leaves after resurrection)
To preface, I'm not one to think that science is the end all be all. I'm majoring in philosophy and science for that very reason. That being said:
>The state of philosophy is incredibly advanced compared to the Greeks
I completely agree. But I did say it advances incredibly slow in comparison. So it does advance, just at a slow pace. The fact that philosophy has advanced pretty far compared to the Greeks makes sense since its been over 2000 years. But compare that to biology, chemistry or psychology which have only really been around for ~100 years and you can see lightning advances since then.
>Who is this "most philosophers"? I've never heard this
I read that from the wikipedia page on philosophical progress. I know SEP is much better and Wikipedia is shit comparatively, but I just wanted a quick and dirty reference. That being said, there has to be at least some truth to it.
>We tried this, it was called logical postivism
Wow, I never really understood positivism until I just now tried to create it. From my understanding positivism is pretty much dead but I do have a few questions.
1) Excuse me if I get too technical here but can't we just have a file with all the definitions in it. Simply #include that header file whenever we wish to use those definitions, and then just change that dictionary file whenever linguistics tells us there's been a shift. Or at the very least, the "programmer philosopher" could alter it under his own free accord by overwriting that segment of the file, but that overwrite would be clearly stated to anyone reading his code.
2) I understand progress has been made, but how can it be made if we can't agree on definitions?
>1) Excuse me if I get too technical here but can't we just have a file with all the definitions in it. Simply #include that header file whenever we wish to use those definitions, and then just change that dictionary file whenever linguistics tells us there's been a shift. Or at the very least, the "programmer philosopher" could alter it under his own free accord by overwriting that segment of the file, but that overwrite would be clearly stated to anyone reading his code.
But there are unlimited definitions which can't be reproduced since the circumstances are different
I do, i did, i would have done,etc
it doesn't matter if it understand them, the problems transcend our understanding
Can you think about the exact same thing twice given that everything is mutable through space and time?
Can we reach the fundamentals of knowledge given every time we thought about an idea we would reach a similar but different?
You thought about something ≠ you thought about what you thought ≠ what you would have thought ≠ what you could have thought
>I read that from the wikipedia page on philosophical progress
This isn't even entry level knowledge. And no this opinion is not common in philosophy which just shows how skimming wikipedia pages is not how you learn.
>I understand progress has been made, but how can it be made if we can't agree on definitions
The general view is that truth is a relationship between subjects and objects. Words do not need to be defined in universial sense, only in a local sense. If everyone in the conversation knows what you mean by 'justice' than we can all talk about it. If a new person comes into the conversation they must observe context to figure out what 'justice' means. Later on the word will be used differently and mean something else entirly. Remember that language is just a human invention. The analytics thought words were the real thing and forget they were just a signifer.
An example would be what I gave you about 'truth'. Truth used to be something very different in modernism philosophy. It wasn't a perspective thing, it was an absolute that existed independently of the observer.
>why can't we have a limited use of strict language
You can only do this when you using somewhat common terms. Much of philosophy is about introducing new ideas and applying them in ways that have never been used before. Such new ideas cannot have simple explanations, they only become simple when one is familiar with their context. If you want to know what Hegel means by 'spirit' you need to know 10 other things about his philosophy. That's why in the introduction to his book he writes introductions are usless, you need to swallow the whole thing at once.
Because words are going to vary from philosophical system to system (including basic things like truth) words only acquire formal definations in a local sense. When a post-modernist uses the word 'truth' he always means the perspectivist version for instance, while when Plato uses it always refers to an absolute.
The equivalent actually is the scientific method.
It's a mistake to assume that science and philosophy are different. Philosophy is the search for knowledge and understanding, and the scientific method, borne of millennia of philosophical guesswork, is the most effective tool for pursuing those goals yet devised. The dichotomy is false and moronic, the latter being extended to those who perpetuate that dichotomy. Science is the most efficient and effective branch of philosophy.
>Philosophy hasn't progressed.
What the fuck is the definition of philosophical progress? I'm sorry that philosophers aren't making the chips in your phone faster so you can shitpost on 4chan at the speed of light.
>So what would a scientific method for philosophy look like? The socratic method, and then some? Some sort of programming language that can have logic used instead of loops, and data structures? What do you all think?
>ctrl + f "symbolic logic"
seriously guys? This is exactly what OP was looking for.
this, an ad hominem is only considered to be a fallacy when it is used in exclusion to an actual argument.
not ad hominem
>karl marx was an idiot, his labor theory of value doesn't match up to reality in these examples x y and z.
>karl marx's labor theory of value doesn't match up to reality because he was an idiot.
This doesn't solve the problem, it's simply a different way of writing out the same ideas. You are still going to have people contextualizing the same word to mean different things because that's how language fucking words.
When Zivek says "ideaology" it means something totally different than what anyone else uses the word for. If he were to write his ideas out in logistic language it wouldn't become more clear (infact it would become less clear because he communicates his ideas better using anecdotes).
Part of the reason is slow is that it can't be done on auto-pilot. You don't need bright scientists to advance the field. Get a couple hundred mediocre ones have them run all sorts of permutations on things and record the results. Eventually you will find something interesting. You can't do the same with philosophy.
>If everyone in the conversation knows what you mean by 'justice' than we can all talk about it
>words are going to vary from philosophical system to system
Then you could simply have a header file with the definitions you're going to use within that context. Problem solved.
Because, by product of investigation, the scientist can ascertain both the correct questions and the appropriate answers?
Why the correct questions? I'm studying geology and unfortunately we're exposed to the answers a need to work out the question..... Darn rocks.
>Because, by product of investigation, the scientist can ascertain both the correct questions and the appropriate answers?
the question is why do you consider what you call investigation as leading you to appropriate answers.
and so far, nobody has a clue.