Hacker News Reader

Comment by mpweiher | Hacker News Reader

Well...Philosophy ("love of wisdom") originally encompassed all of science. In a sense, once a discipline was able to be conducted more empirically, it split off. So at any particular stage, Philosophy will be trying to answer those questions we can't answer empirically.

So I find the "free-ride" a little harsh. What happens over time is that more and more questions that used to be purely "philosophical" have more and more empirical answers.

I think it might be useful for Philosophy to be less its own specialty and more an umbrella for the whole enterprise of "love of wisdom".

View on HN

>What happens over time is that more and more questions that used to be purely "philosophical" have more and more empirical answers.

I sometimes think this might be a bit of a positivist myth. Most of the domains where we've gained a great deal of empirical knowledge are domains which people always investigated empirically, albeit less systematically and with fewer available resources (e.g. astronomy). On the other hand, most of the big philosophical puzzles that Aristotle engaged with remain largely untouched by developments in science. E.g. Is it possible to make true statements about the future? How is change possible?

>I sometimes think this might be a bit of a positivist myth.

How so? For example: http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s3.htm

Looks like an astronomy problem to me. Aristotle is also considered one of the early astronomers.

>On the other hand, most of the big philosophical puzzles that Aristotle engaged with remain largely untouched by developments in science

Exactly my point. Of the problems they worked on (and they worked on everything they could think of), the ones that we have solved we now consider science, the ones that are still unresolved we consider philosophy.

Sort of like the definition of AI: if we solve it, it's no longer considered AI.

>Looks like an astronomy problem to me. Aristotle is also considered one of the early astronomers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My point was that Plato and Aristotle (and other early astronomers) realized that astronomy had to be based on observation. No-one (except perhaps a few cranks that no-one remembers) has ever tried to do "armchair astronomy".

>the ones that we have solved we now consider science, the ones that are still unresolved we consider philosophy.

I think the distinction is really just the distinction between empirical science and metaphysics, which is a distinction that Aristotle would also have made, though perhaps in slightly different terms. For this reason, I think the image of armchair philosophy gradually yielding ground to science is wrong. Broadly speaking, philosophers have always worked on philosophical problems using philosophical methods, and scientists have always worked on scientific problems using empirical methods. There hasn't been any great shift from one to the other. What has occurred of course is a shift in prestige: society currently values empirical science much more than it values philosophy.

You are equating "philosophy" with what philosophy looks like today ("armchair astronomy").

The point is that this wasn't the case, philosophy was the umbrella that included everything.

Heck, just look at the title "Doctor of Philosophy", which is the name for doctorates in both the sciences and the humanities. Not just for doctorates in today's specific sub-discipline of philosophy.

Well sure, but I take it that the change in the way the word 'philosophy' is used is not the interesting development. That's not what people usually mean when they talk about philosophical problems becoming scientific problems.

The two are the same thing.

I don't think so. The suggestion is usually that questions which used to be in the realm of philosophical speculation are now being addressed using empirical scientific methods. That would amount to more than just a change in terminology.

Philosophy doesnt add anything to society

That's not even wrong.

Philosophy has been pivotal in shaping human civilization, laws, morals, government, arts, and even science itself.

Its time has passed

Because thinking went out of style?

Cause quadruple Nobel laureate ycombinatorMan thinks so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com