Do you think philosophy will become impossible in the future?

>>8433410
really makes you think

>>8433410
> in natural sciences there is a constant process of pruning the old ideas so that students only have to learn the contemporary state of their field

Don't know about the rest of your dumb post, but this is wrong. Physics students still learn Newton, because his equations are approximately correct and are simpler to use when describing phenomena that isn't relativistic and so on and so on.

Philosophy has more or less been chosen to discuss only topics that are too general to be delimited in a field of its own (and then leave philosophy, like the sciences and a few of the humanities), so I disagree with the more knowledge equating less interest in the field. Our most instinctual questions will remain there, no matter how much we advance in specialized knowledge, and for the most part they are philosophic questions.

File: 1428789704953.jpg (47KB, 662x498px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 662x498px

Within a few generations, pop-culture trivia will replace ideas and wordly knowledge as the bulk of what any average Western schmuck knows. Enjoy your philosophy class and your book club, because in 2040 that shit is cancelled.

>>8433410
No, it will just become further categorized into more specialized traditions. It's already happening: western vs. eastern, continental vs. analytic, etc.

>>8433477
Yes, you learn his specialised equations in a modern setting, as one or two chapters of a text-book. Science taught in the style of philosophy would be more like forcing all students to read the following list in the following order multiple times:
0984 - On Burning Mirrors and Lenses - Ibn Sahl
1543 - On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres - Copernicus
1570 - Theatrum Orbis Terrarum - Abraham Ortelius
1596 - Mystery of the Cosmos - Johannes Kepler
1600 - De Magnete - William Gilbert
1605 - The Proficience and Advancement of Learning - Francis Bacon
1617 - The Dutch Eratosthenes - Willebrord Snellius
1619 - The Harmony of the World - Johannes Kepler
1627 - Rudolphine Tables - Johannes Kepler
1628 - De Motu Cordis - William Harvey
1632 - A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - Galileo
1638 - Two New Sciences - Galileo
1661 - The Sceptical Chymist - Robert Boyle
1665 - Micrographia - Robert Hooke
1687 - Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy - Isaac Newton
1704 - Opticks - Isaac Newton
1705 - Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets - Halley
1758 - 10th edition of Systema Naturae - Carl Linnaeus
1786 - The Sanscrit Language - Sir William Jones
1789 - Elementary Treatise of Chemistry - Antoine Lavoisier
1819 - Deutsche Grammatik - Jacob Grimm
1821 - Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics - Michael Faraday
1830 - Principles of Geology - Charles Lyell
1832 - Experimental Researches in Electricity
1852 - A Comparative Grammar - Franz Bopp
1858 - Gray's Anatomy - Henry Gray
1859 - On the Origin of Species - Charles Darwin
1865 - Experiments on Plant Hybridisation - Mendel
1865 - A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field - James Maxwell
1877 - Eine ausnahme der ersten lautvershiebung - Verner
1885 - A Comparative Grammar (etc.) - Franz Bopp
1891 - The Principles of Chemistry - Mendeleev
1899 - The Interpretation of Dreams - Freud
1903 - Research on Radioactive Substances
1914 - The Theory of Heat Radiation - Max Planck
1923 - The Principle of Relativity - Albert Einstein
1923 - The Ego, and the Id - Freud
1926 - Stellar Atmospheres - Cecilia H. Payne
1976 - The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

>>8433751
Not that anon but we do often glance over the history but we deal with the practical and what will get us results. Been told more than once to read Newton's Principia and others but it has little relevance in a modern teaching environment or syllabus.

The problem with philosophy I guess might be that it struggles to be practical or give meaningful results. Also unless someone makes a philosophy that outdoes the older ones then the older ones remain relevant to some degree. Discarding old philosophies would actually decrease the potential outreach and application of philosphy as a whole because it isn't in the state of constant renewal and overhaul that the sciences are.

Also old cunts that talk about old cunts would no longer be paid to talk about old cunts. I doubt there are many philosophy lecturers looking to downsize their department.

>>8433410
>Do you think philosophy will become impossible in the future?
No.
> I mean, in natural sciences...
You still learn about people from thousands of years ago and their ideas in STEM, you just do it in Jr High or High School.

Only a few people stick with History of Philosophy after their undergrad, and most know they wont be doing that by the end of their undergrad. So not even philosophy does what you are claiming, it just seems like that compared to the sciences because the two are in the different situations.

>>8433477
>>8433751
This is incorrect because philosophy does its work differently than the sciences in several ways.

A chem major has to go through hours of labs that in one perspective will seem pointless because they aren't actually doing work that is worth while to the science community or an outsider, but they are learning how to do science. A philosophy major does the same, only they have to practice reading and writing rather than working in a lab.

I don't know why people say things like what is in the OP or something like this
>>8434124
>The problem with philosophy I guess might be that it struggles to be practical or give meaningful results.

Is having a code of law practical? Is having that code of law function practical? Is having computer science practical? Is advancing maths practical? Is having cognitive science practical?

Philosophy self prunes desu.

You can skip almost all the rationalists and empiricists because you read Kant; only returning if you come upon some question of interest one asked in particular.

There is theoretically a point where all essentials are collectivity so large it's impossible but we are nowhere close.

>>8434169
>Is having a code of law practical? Is having that code of law function practical? Is having computer science practical? Is advancing maths practical? Is having cognitive science practical?

I'm not saying it's devoid of practicality or effect but it has a much smaller global effect than the sciences. There aren't many people passing laws, solving equations or running experiments because it falls in line with philosphy X. There is no best philosophy however there are empirical indicators that show the best way to make a law, program a computer, solve an equation or examine cognitive behaviour and those indicators are generally best understood by the people in that discipline.

Nobody makes a molecule or process then sends it to the philosopher to check it :P

Philosophy can be said to have an input but it is rarely necessary.

>>8433410

Yeah, and then history. Take a hike pal.

>>8434198
>Philosophy can be said to have an input but it is rarely necessary.
Then your notion of philosophy is very narrow, not that I care about whether philosophy is useful or not.

>>8434233
Or not. Care to expand at all?

>>8434198
>There aren't many people passing laws, solving equations or running experiments because it falls in line with philosphy X
Yes there are

>:P

Kill yourself

>>8434277

No they are passing laws because of loopholes X or X demographic is treated unfairly not because Neitsche said so. While it is always possible to attribute something to philosophy when ethics are involved it does not make it the deciding factor. If it did then people would care about philosophy. Any economical decision you could say is philosophically decided but to me it just seems like using retrospect and semantics to try and seem relevant. No one is saying get the philosopher!!! We can't pass this law til the philosopher gets here. Hey we can predict the el nino effect but go ask the philosophy department first. Hey we've cracked fusion, thanks Schopenhauer. People need scientists, engineers, economists, mathematicians and lawyers. Philosophy is akin to maths in my head in that it ranges from simple or practical to the fantastically ivory tower except maths has proof and rigour. Philosophy often falls to rhetoric, no?

Again I'm not saying philosophy is useless and anything which cultivates a strong, capable mind is good but if you want to do something you're best learning that discipline. It isn't the driving force of nature, humanity or progress.

Also XD

>>8433751
Damn the fools who heedlessly plunge the world into war. Look at the end of the list, 50 years of nothing, and on the end of that hellish interlude, alas, come the memes.

>inb4 some post glorifies machines of war as essential to human progress

If the current inertia continues, I think philosophy will live, and it will be known to a shrinking minority that becomes desperately afraid for the rest of the world.