Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Stephen Hawking is a great theoretical physicist, but his philosophical position may have been expressed only to attract attention, since even with a cursory analysis, it has no value.
It is possible to say that philosophy is dead only if all philosophical questions are closed, and it will not be able to raise new ones, but at the moment it is difficult to imagine such a situation.
Philosophy has indeed “distributed” some of its knowledge to other sciences, but at the same time new directions are emerging in it – for example, media philosophy, which only says that philosophy is alive.
Hawking's statement is true only if philosophy is equated with natural philosophy – the “philosophy of nature”, and this direction has not been relevant for several centuries.
Stephen Hawking in 2010 [in one of his books] essentially repeated the idea of Auguste Comte [the philosopher who founded positivism], expressed one hundred and sixty years earlier. Hawking does not refer to Comte and considers his idea ultramodern [he links the death of philosophy to the fact that it does not keep up with the latest achievements of natural sciences].
This means, first of all, that he was not interested in philosophy and was ignorant of it. This is also confirmed by the adjacent list of issues that Hawking believes philosophy deals with.
Secondly, it means that he did not apply the scientific method to get this judgment — he did not analyze the material, did not study the empirical reality of philosophy [in the form of printed texts or in the form of living philosophers with whom one could communicate], that is, he changed himself and showed inconsistency.
Third, it means that Hawking did not realize that his thought was not his own original thought, but was conditioned by some philosophical tradition. That is, he was a narrow-minded and narrow-minded person, alien to reflection.
This does not detract from his scientific and popularizing achievements. Sometimes narrow-mindedness and narrow-mindedness are just what you need to focus on your specialty. But they also take away all weight from more general judgments. That is, the statements of even a great physicist about philosophy have no more value than the statements of a great shoemaker about politics, a great politician about physics, and so on.
Love of wisdom… The ancient Greeks revealed to the world many names of philosophers who at different times were revered by people as authorities in the development of human thought. But was it the love of Wisdom as a manifestation of divine truth, or was it the ordinary love of oneself, of one's own idle mind's reasoning?
It is necessary to identify the source from which philosophy emerged in Other Greece. Then we can see the purpose that philosophy serves.
The basis of Greek philosophy is their mythology. Like all peoples living on earth, the Greeks had a religion that conveyed to the consciousness of people that the world was created by a Higher Being or a multitude of beings that did not belong to the human race.
The whole life of the ancient Greeks proceeded in accordance with these ideas, and the worship of the Olympian celestials was an integral part of the life of Greek society . We can read about this from extant literary works of that era : Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, Hesiod's Work and Days, Theogony, the tragedies of Sophocles, Euripides, and others.
Over time, man began to disregard the established laws of Divine justice (dike), following his own will. It is enough to recall the Delphic Oracle, which expressed the supreme will of the gods through pythias, priestesses-soothsayers.
Gradually getting rid of the idea of Divine justice, a person had to somehow explain his actions, justifying them in the eyes of the community.
The ancient Greeks, as we know, were very gifted with the ability to express their thoughts beautifully. They brought this ability to perfection and successfully monetized it. Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius created their own schools of philosophy, which taught wisdom for a lot of money. It has become a profession of sorts.
The initial mythological ideas about the world gradually gave way to logical-conceptual analysis. In this regard, the attitude towards man as a citizen of the state, and not as an object of the will of the gods, has changed. The sophist Thrasymachus believes that: “Justice, I say, is what is suitable for the strongest.”
That is, the deity is pushed aside, and a person takes his place. But not all of them, but only those who have the power.
Philosophy appears essentially in the form of a generally binding state religion, aimed at establishing the consensus of citizens and strengthening the socio-political system and the legal order of the state.
Where is the love of wisdom? Here we see the first beginnings of early bourgeois ideology.
For many bourgeois interpreters, Greek philosophy is the starting point for many modern liberal political doctrines.
Therefore, the goal of philosophy is not to love Divine Truth, but to justify the existing injustice in society and try to find a consensus between wolves and sheep.
That's why clever Stephen Hawking said that philosophy is dead.
Philosophy is a beautiful, elegant piece that does not adorn the entire apartment, but only the bookcase or chest of drawers on which it stands, and therefore absolutely useless. It doesn't answer the main question: what is the meaning of life? Therefore, everyone solves this issue for themselves in their own way, and therefore there are many fools, scoundrels, thieves, murderers, rapists, incompetent careerists and traitors in our lives. I am a writer and poet, and for me the meaning of life is to fill it with high meaning.
And what can you think about what the person said? He could say that this is his opinion and I respect him, but I have my own vision of this judgment. I believe that for a long time philosophy as wisdom has taken a break. Perhaps Nature believes that in our time it is not necessary not to load humanity with something new, until it realizes what it was given earlier. The main task of humanity is to improve and learn the previously known!!! With respect
Hawking hints – don't expect a weakened philosophy to provide serious solutions to serious problems.
The disadvantages of philosophy are party-political orientation, ignoring all actual practical problems.
The advantages of philosophy are its enormous scientific and practical potential, which is still in a preserved state.
I think that Hawking was not interested in philosophy and therefore did not seek to understand it. To interpret what he wanted to say with the phrase “Philosophy is dead” is not a grateful thing. For example Nietzsche wrote”God is dead” and interpreters have broken many spears trying to prove that their vision of this phrase is the only correct one.
I myself respect philosophy, especially the practical part of it, rather than the academic part, which places a great emphasis on the history of philosophy. It is impossible to know the whole philosophy, and therefore many people, as in the parable of the elephant and the blind, often confuse the elephant's tail with the elephant itself.
I am interested in the applied aspect of philosophy, which includes the skills of working with thinking: argumentation, problematization, conceptualization, etc. These meta-thinking skills will be useful in both communication and self-reflection.
If you would like to get to know this area better, please contact us. I can conduct a philosophical consultation session that is close to cognitive psychology, and then say,” is philosophy alive or not?”)
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that philosophy has not developed in any way over several thousand years, has not come to anything, has not made any discoveries, and has not answered the questions posed by its subject.
The philosophical system of Kant, as well as other classics of German philosophical thought, was formed under the influence of the development of natural sciences and mathematics. Unfortunately, by this time the questions of the relationship between mathematics and philosophy, to which the forerunner of all German classical philosophy, G. Leibniz, turned his attention, had become declarative. Even Kant, losing this connection, once said that ” there is as much truth in every natural science as there is mathematics in it.” Although, being an outstanding philosopher of his time, he should have understood that mathematics itself contains as much truth as philosophy does. Nevertheless, it was this idea of his that was accepted by science “with a bang” as a maxim in the formation of its methodology. As a result, with the progress of applied science, the only “correct” opinion that the process of acquiring new knowledge is unidirectional and irreversible was finally established. Most scientists in the 21st century now think that their culture of thinking is determined solely by the orientation of knowledge from simple to complex. The modern scientist is convinced that he can assign the simple (for example, axioms in science), and only learn the complex. It has become customary to believe that to know the simple is equivalent to declaring it. There is a false belief that it is unnecessary to know the simple, it is enough to declare it, or, in extreme cases, having learned the next “complex”, it can be called “simple”. And if suddenly, for some reason, such a “simple” ceases to suit, it is enough to replace it with another one that is more loyal to new ideas about reality. Thus, in the famous theorem of K. Godel, such a leapfrog from “simple” to “simple” is hidden by numerous interpreters of its meaning behind the concept of” minimum level of complexity ” of a certain theory. However, such a mentoring attitude to the process of cognition makes it more and more elitist, subjective, limiting the ability of fundamental development of science, giving it an exclusively applied character.
He said this because science proves a lot, philosophers say something, and then science somewhere refutes, and somewhere confirms, but the main thing is that there are some facts, philosophers do not have such arguments. Of course, now there are still no facts, for example, that after death, science cannot know this, but judging by the fact that many things that it would seem can not be proved, proved, maybe in the future science will put everything in its place in death, then philosophers will go nafig)))
The paradox is that everyone is right and … everyone is wrong. Everyone interprets the term “philosophy “in their own way, as a result, all conversations turn into disputes like”who is about Thomas and who is about Yerema”. What was Hawking talking about? What does each commentator mean? I dare to suggest that Hawking, being a doctor of philosophy (Ph. D.), did not speak at all about the philosophy that the commentators of the post have in mind. When Hawking said that philosophy is dead, he probably meant philosophy as a concern for the investigation of the nature of things and the knowledge of truth (according to Pythagoras). Commentators of the post mean philosophy as the love of wisdom or wisdom. So Hawking is right. Philosophy as a concern for the investigation of the nature of things and the knowledge of truth is dead. Philosophy, like the love of wisdom, lives and thrives. True, this speculation is of no use and does a lot of harm, but the philosophy is alive and well.
I had a strange incident with the Einstein of our day. He was given a chance to read my article on non-Euclidean dynamic codes. Stephen Hawking made a statement that if the dynamic codes of life are discovered, humanity will suffer a man-made catastrophe.
In his, Hawking's, world, maybe (but this is not certain), she is dead. But then it was necessary to say: “in my world, philosophy is dead.” This is radically different from the existing statement. Philosophy is a medium for understanding the world, that is, thinking is an organizational tool in the “hands” of research. Philosophy can, although very conditionally, be called an applied component of faith (in the working capacity of an idea/theory/teaching). As long as faith is alive (as an objective necessity), philosophy will also be alive. The death of faith and philosophy is possible only on one condition-everything has become known, that is, it has been fully investigated and known. The fact that the function of vision became available to a person (“their eyes were opened”), a person was caught in the most sophisticated dependence on his own property. And the essence of this trick is that something is shown to a person not so that he understands the essence of what is being shown, but in order to banally play on the feelings of the “seer”. A person, thinking: “to me (and not to someone else!) SHOWN”, begins to think about himself at random, as off-scale (from seeing what was shown) feelings do not allow “cold” approach to the analysis – “what, who and why showed”. So don't fall for this trick. The best way to understand the essence of events and speculatively calculate the most likely scenarios is to become the embodiment of the law yourself and speculatively research yourself, examining your reactions and deciphering them as responses from the law itself. Looking at something external in this case is not necessary, and it is harmful, as it distracts from focusing on your inner self. An example is the hourglass process. The process starts BY INVERTING the position and state of the hourglass. When the external (for sand) is turned “upside down”, then the internal (the sand itself) begins to GRADUALLY overflow/move inside its external, eventually flowing completely and thus showing the completion of the process. With the human inner, they do the same in essence, but in different forms. This is not known by faith alone; we need a philosophical approach and practical experimentation (cases based on faith, but organizationally ordered by philosophical conclusions).
To my great joy, I observe the opposite – Hawking is dead, philosophy is alive! Another Nietzschean prophet. Watching Hawking, I asked myself: why does he hate people so much?
Man is a philosopher by nature, as well as an experimenter. And if this is so, then between the death of philosophy (as the love of wisdom) and the death of humanity, we can put an equal sign.
But another question… why do such judgments arise? In my opinion, they are based on the eternal game (which sometimes resembles a war) between intuition and intelligence. It is common for an intellectual to question these intuitions, just as it is common for a scientist to question the conclusions of a philosopher. In this connection, we can recall that what modern science has come close to, philosophers knew many millennia ago. If S. Hawking said this in the context of the fact that everything has already been said and nothing fundamentally new can be added to what has been said,then he misunderstands philosophy. In philosophy, as well as in life, there is no goal (it is not necessary to come to some new and unusual conclusions). By philosophy, a person awakens himself.
«[… almost all of us sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Traditionally, these are questions of philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not coped with the modern development of science. In particular, with physics. Scientists have become the ones who carry the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” – this is the context of Hawking's thesis.A statement of the fact of modern reality, no more.
He meant that she was infertile. Philosophy is an environment, a conceptual environment, for freeing the human mind from the dictates of concepts about the world order. This is the original goal of philosophy, but by now, Western philosophy has long forgotten it and Western society has lost its way. What you see around you in today's turbulent world is the result of this delusion. The error itself is expressed by the futile (and sometimes bloody futile) attempts of Western philosophy to become the source and cause of the evolution of the human spirit. The attempt of a servant to become a master has never led to anything good and will not lead to anything.
Hawking is a product of Anglo-Saxon propaganda. In fact, this is a banal vegetable and does not represent anything. But, he was “promoted” to the lights of scientific thought, so that no one in the world would doubt the narrow-mindedness of Anglo-Saxon figures. In any field!
When philosophy was alive, it tried to operate on everything we know. Now it requires a physical and mathematical education and thinking skills, just to understand many of the basic facts. Therefore, unfortunately, we do not receive from classical philosophers the interpretation of time, entropy, mass, symmetry, space, consciousness, and the observer, and they are replaced by physicists. And what is the result? Working formulas and their contradictory interpretations… physical theories do not stand up to criticism, but some formulas work in some places)). In general, everyone knows this, but sometimes we (physicists) try to pretend to be philosophers… Pathetic picture. Sorry. But, gentlemen philosophers, it's your own fault, learn math and understand this nightmare already) and teach us how to think about it, and read our attempts to philosophize ( including Hawking and Penrose) and bring at least a little bit of everything to life. And death is not the end, but a good motivation. The king is dead, long live the king!
Either this is an ill-considered statement. Well, really, how can the “love of wisdom” be dead, and the process of understanding itself?
Or philosophy was understood as something limited in form and content. Something similar to a logic calculator. But even in this case, the “calculator” has the right to life.)
Most likely, the category of deadness can be attributed to” sucked out of the finger ” conclusions based on conditions that are out of touch with life. Conclusions that do not give anything but a vain “victory” of the mind and the defense of dissertations.
Philosophy is not dead, but stupid. It is not able to answer more than one question of Existence. Her job is to formulate questions. making hypotheses, any other reasoning that ends without questions or hypotheses, is not philosophical. And to put forward hypotheses, formulate questions, you need to have scientific knowledge.
This is how stupid you have to be to formulate the concept of Information in this wording: Information is necessarily embodied in an object, there is no information outside the object. Haha, after describing one attribute of Information, consider yourself a philosopher who formulated the definition of the concept of Information. Once again, HAHA. And on the basis of this idea to write a whole book, which, of course, all consists of false statements.
Yes it is! But only for the material body, in addition to which there is also a soul.But the violation of the forms that philosophy speaks of consistently leads to the problems of the physical body as well
Has philosophy come to the big bang? Or did you discover a singularity? While philosophers think about God, science shows us his birth and becoming as our universe
Once upon a time, philosophy was the only way to systematically understand the world. The only universal science.
Gradually, specialized sciences began to separate from it. Each with its own subject of study. Each set its own goals and developed its own method. I got results much more efficiently and in a much more user-friendly form. Even each specialized science created its own philosophy within itself separately.
Now the subject of philosophy is essentially philosophy itself. Instead of philosophy, they study its history. Any attempt of philosophers to look into the territory of other sciences demonstrates complete helplessness. This gives rise to such statements.
I'll answer simply. No philosophy is also a philosophy, a philosophy of positivism. Regardless of desire and awareness, a person consumes and produces ideas and meanings. If he refuses to consciously comprehend them, they do not grow to affect him, but are perceived blindly, past consciousness.
The European school of philosophy is dead. That's all. But this is not the only possible way of looking at life 🙂 Some “philosophical” schools of Europe had nothing to do with philosophy at all from birth, they produced entities, their representatives spent their lives doing not science but bullying opponents.
It can be argued that philosophy has no subject matter, but only after you stop calling mathematics a science, the content of which is a game of the mind that has nothing to do with reality.
Right. “Philosophy” is an imitation of intellectual activity. Meaningless in all its forms and completely useless today (and in the past).
In my opinion, this makes sense.
Philosophy was the mother of many sciences, along with Mathematics. From them came Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Psychology, from these in turn Chemistry, Biology divisions (Microbiology, Biochemistry), Geography and Geology, and many others. The key of these sciences is that they have learned not only to create certain statements, but also to confirm them in a scientific way. The essence of Philosophy is the knowledge of the external world and the internal world, and modern sciences have advanced in all these areas, sending Philosophy into retirement.
Personally, I think that philosophy is still a very effective way of learning. With the help of philosophy, you can find answers to many emotional questions, and in clear words. Philosophy is a useful, voluminous and informative way of self-development. I found a lot of important and useful things for myself, learning with the help of philosophy. So I don't agree with S. Hawking. Come on, fly in with the minuses.
The modern scientific understanding of space is wrong, muddled and as stupid as the ancient idea of the Earth, on the turtle and elephants, and completely abstract, because it does not have a precise and logically correct definition…
An exact definition of space is possible only in mathematical values, physical characteristics and properties, only then can you clearly and accurately understand what it is and why it is so, and not in any other way, and such a definition already exists, with a reasonable proof and absolutely logical explanation!!!
The universe with all its structures – occurred not only in space itself, which has always been, is and will be absolutely unchanged, but also from space itself, which is really possible to prove in a practical way. A precise definition indicates not only what exactly space is, but also its special criteria-absolutely unchangeable opposites, confirmed by both values and characteristics, which determine the only real possibility and reason for the unique origin of all the energy of the Universe, in a completely accurate definition, both space itself and energy itself, with a single cause and unique possibility for unlimited time conservation, and, of course, the Universe – it has not only a certain shape, but also a space-bound limit, from the moment of origin. It is precisely and only because the Universe has an origin – it has a limit, and a magnitude, and a complex shape with a constant interaction-providing it with an unlimited order of changes in time and a special preservation in space, but not such an origin as in Bada Boom, but-a clear and absolutely accurate definition = from what? why? and how?…
Everything, without exception, always happens, is located and changes – in space, and even time, and space has a completely accurate and only correct definition – in absolutely unchanged values, characteristics and properties. It is impossible to leave the space, it is impossible to remove it, as well as it is impossible to exclude it, or replace it with something else, and only it makes it possible to distinguish any details, any quantity and different quality… All events, experiments, anything, without any exception, can occur and change only in space, but science still does not know its exact definition and designation, and this is the main scientific error and problem…
SPACE can have an exact definition – only in mathematical values and physical characteristics, otherwise it will be just another abstract and erroneous representation in which there is no understanding of absolute values and unique features – the unchangeable basis of Everything, without exception, as it is now in modern science!!!
Space is always different from everything else, from everything that is necessarily and always in it, happens and changes, but no scientist still knows this… – what mathematical values define and denote space? what are the physical characteristics of space? what are its properties and what are its features? = that is why modern science still has mistakes, paradoxes, a lot of stupid theories, paradoxes and hypotheses…
Even if you firmly believe in the Big Bang theory, and even if you accept and agree with this stupid and completely illogical assumption about the origin of the Universe from this Bad Boom, because no one will ever be able to give an exact answer – from what? – and why?, which means logic = THERE is NO and never will be!…, then, try to understand something else – WHERE?, where did this Big Bang happen…, because even in the picture you can not get rid of space, you can never get rid of it, but stupidly, and still do not notice it. Only when you can and want to understand what exactly it is, that very place, that very-unchangeable WHERE? with which any definition begins, in an exact designation, in which everything is always located, happens, moves and necessarily changes from the moment of origin, only then will you be able to clearly, correctly and unmistakably understand and – everything else!!!
One of the physical characteristics (visual) of space is absolute transparency, that's right, space is not black, not white, or anything else, but it is only = absolutely transparent. Therefore, even now, you see but do not notice it, and just because it is just like that, you can not only see everything that is in it, but also distinguish in any other way everything that you can, And it is precisely and only space that gives you the opportunity to understand the diverse difference of everything, from the smallest to the largest, from the closest to the – where it all is always located, because space is always = volume, an unchanging volume that has a clear and precise definition!!!
Without an accurate understanding of the definition of space, it is impossible to accurately and accurately understand everything else, what exactly is the source of energy and gravity, although it is elementary, which means that it can be created and used for sure, right now, what is the absolute basis of any atom, or without which it is impossible to create a single atom, what is a full-fledged unit of information, what is a black hole, from what, how and why the Universe, all the planets, Stars and Galaxies came from, and in what exceptional sequence it All happened – and it could have a unique chance for successful preservation, namely, the preservation of a consistent order from randomness, with unlimited change and development in time, etc., and this is a separate topic-what was before the origin of the Universe? as well as many other things…
Science still has an erroneous and incorrect understanding of the minimum and maximum, where negative and positive infinity is the stupidest misunderstanding of a clear and precise definition of real infinity and the invariable difference from any infinity. An erroneous and incorrect understanding of zero and absolute emptiness, as well as an incorrect definition of the opposite of negative and positive values, which is not in the magnitude, but in the direction of the magnitude, and this is completely different, as well as a completely incorrect and incorrect numerical designation of the coordinate system, etc…. Errors in the very basis of all scientific understanding, both in mathematics, and in some physical laws, and in other sciences, which as a virus do not make it clear – the absolute beginning of the evolutionary sequence and the continuous relationship in the existing reality… In modern science, until now, there is no exact understanding of the absolutely unchangeable basis – space, without which this whole World is impossible!!!
Everything has an exact and logically interrelated explanation, precisely because there is an absolutely accurate and only correct definition of space = the formula of space, which I am ready to explain, show and prove, but in Ukraine – there is no science and no scientists, and stupidity still prevails over reason, and there is nowhere and no one to present this topic with reasonable evidence and accurate explanations of completely new practical possibilities, so this topic, in essence and meaning, has never been discussed anywhere, although it is incredibly interesting, very extensive,and more promising than all the existing ones combined… Without a precise definition of space, it is impossible to understand everything else correctly and accurately!!!
Space is the absolute basis of everything, without exception, without it there can be no origin, no existence, and even more so life, and it is everywhere the same, absolutely the same and unchangeable-both here and now, and in any Galaxy, even the most distant, and far beyond the Universe… This is the only real opportunity to learn absolutely accurate answers to all fundamental questions and understand the entire logical sequence and continuous relationship in the existing reality!!!
Space is absolute, everything else is relative!!!
Philosophy is dead and generally useless and highly subjective. It's like alchemy, which gave rise to many other sciences and went into oblivion. In general, I don't understand why it is studied in institutes. This is just a collection of opinions of various people with different psychology and upbringing, based, for the most part, on the public opinion of that time, which is already outdated and extremely controversial. As part of the story, it is useful to read, but no more.
Any actively unused organ in the human body gradually ceases to function. In the same way, Philosophy is gradually dying in the world of Facebook/Instagram/tiktok and clip thinking. It is being replaced by the corporate agenda, the Unified State Exam, and the opinions of popular beeuloggers. Although there is hope that in such an information vacuum, it will be revived again, as they say … “A holy place is never empty.”..
The answer to this question, in my opinion, does not require so much stress on the brain activity of the left hemisphere, and lies in the applied significance of philosophy as a method of cognition of objective reality, in the development of scientific thought. It is obvious that in the course of his scientific research, Hocking did not advance further with the help of those methodological foundations of philosophy, with the help of which he tried to solve the questions of universal existence raised, and therefore defined them in the category of the dead. But this does not mean that philosophy, as a method, will be useless to another mind in solving such problems. After all, who knows which way scientific thought will go further, answering the questions that Hawking himself struggled with, but could not solve.
It is interesting that almost everyone considers themselves entitled to speak “authoritatively” about philosophy. While philosophy is no simpler than physics, for example. Try to speak “authoritatively” about the problems of quantum mechanics. Don't take the risk of sounding like an arrogant fool. But in the eyes of someone who is a professional student of philosophy, that's what you look like.
Philosophy is not dead because it does not keep up with the development of the natural sciences . This is finally a social category . Each philosopher responded to a request of a certain layer of sponsors,readers , and the public that arose in a certain period of time in a certain culture .A thought born yesterday, uttered today, will inevitably be replaced tomorrow by another thought, born of other requests and circumstances .Philosophy is essential for understanding the development of thought, the movement of thought, and the movement of social change in thought consumers .Therefore, a Marxist or Schrodinger dogmatist is dead to modernity .Great philosophers set the vector of understanding life, but not the answers to tomorrow's life . It is difficult to develop the mind without understanding the development of philosophical ideas in retrospect and in the present . You can't study medicine like this without studying anatomy . Hawking is right-philosophy is dead , but its value lies precisely in this deadness of a frozen cast from the past of social consciousness .Knowing-from where, we know-where .
Alas, Hawking himself is dead…And philosophy will only die together with the genus Homo sapiens.
I think he just expressed his idea incorrectly – after all, he himself was engaged in philosophy all his life!
Science is Philosophy, everything else is its applied disciplines: Philology is its language, Physics is its “body”, Mathematics is the language of Physics, History is the development of Philosophy in time, and so on..
I don't touch the spiritual aspects – it's not my diocese (I'm stuck somewhere between dialectical materialism and Buddhism), but I intuitively understand that this is just a branch of Philosophy.
Yes, philosophy is not making any breakthroughs right now. To move forward, we need new data that are provided by “subsidiaries”, and not fragmentary, like a constant change in the set of elementary particles, but complete, allowing us to describe a complete picture.
Remember how many years Philosophy “chewed” the discovery of Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo-100, 200 years? Do you want the Higgs boson to change the understanding of a person's place in this world overnight?
PS: and don't throw bath brooms at me for the term “applied disciplines” – this is just a designation of a level in the hierarchy of Philosophy, and not an assessment of their significance: Philosophy without “daughters” is like a square of a number without a number…
Hype! Personally, based on my experience, I call philosophy “ancient superscience”. Although mathematics, geometry, and astronomy were born out of her, it is puzzling to know that she did not know it.To Hawking, that physics and cosmology themselves were born, precisely, in its bowels! Moreover, how did he imagine physics, for example, without dialectics, logic and epistemology–classical philosophical disciplines?! Truly, he was rightKarl Marx: “The Greeks will always be our teachers……...“. Pobolee outstanding theorist of the twentieth centuryRichard Feynman, considered the ancient Greek philosophical “atomic hypothesis” to be the crowning achievement of all physics!!! It's the same as ” PUNKS NOT DEAD!”
it's like the idea of “God”- no one can even explain what philosophy is in the modern world, when all the sciences have already separated from it.
And all the local commentators are philosophizing – they won't even be able to prove that they are philosophers, and that philosophers even exist ))
Alas, philosophy cannot present the result of its research, it cannot show either the scope of application or a scientific experiment that is repeatable and verifiable. There are no meaningful practical actions in philosophy.
And since Logic has long been separated, there is nothing left in philosophy except the artistic stories of philosophers about each other.
Hawking did not speak out on philosophy, but on his misconceptions about what philosophy is.
It is very easy to distinguish a person who understands what they are talking about from a person who replaces the Dunning-Kruger effect with competence: you need to ask for a definition of the concept they are talking about.
In the case of philosophy and some other fields of knowledge, this will be enough to multiply the value of any continuation of the discussion on the topic by zero in one move, because it will immediately expose people whose reasoning is based on misconceptions about their subject. This is worse than the lack of knowledge, it is a place for knowledge filled with stupidity.
Note to the hostess: people who say something like “philosophy is dead” will not pass the test of asking for a definition of philosophy, even if these people are mastodons in their fields of knowledge. Simply because a person who is familiar with the meaning of the concept of philosophy and its place in the hierarchy of knowledge will see that the thesis “philosophy is dead” does not make sense. More precisely, it makes no more sense than “language is dead”, “thinking is dead”, “cognition is dead”, “imagination is dead”, “invention is dead”, etc.
However, in order not to judge a thought by two words, it is worth looking at the context in which it was expressed. In Hawking, they are part of a short argument made up entirely of typical stereotypes and misconceptions about philosophy. There is no double bottom, it's just not the Hawking quote that should be repeated — when repeating nonsense that a great physicist said, greatness is not transmitted — only stupidity.
1) он противопоставил философию работе с данными (“…said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research.”)
2) reduced it to specific very specific questions: “Most of us don’t worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from?
3) stated that philosophy does not keep up with the natural sciences: “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
4) Противопоставил философию науке: “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
5) And did not notice how he ended his thought with the conclusion that he himself used above as an example of the novelty of philosophy: “He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”. In fact, he said that scientists are looking for answers to questions that he himself attributed to dead philosophizing (“Why are we here? Where do we come from?”).
Philosophy is a system of people's opinions based on their worldview. The subjectivism of human representations is generalized by philosophy to different schools of knowledge that recognize different grounds for understanding reality. In fact, the entire history of philosophy is a search for a methodology for understanding the world order of things. With the development of science and technology, the priorities of philosophical reflection have shifted to the sphere of scientific knowledge. From this point of view, “dead Hawking is right – philosophy” is dead as an instrument of methodical knowledge. However, philosophy has acquired the incentive of a special “science”, remaining “a method of cosmological abstraction and thinking “of the biological Mind, which” in the image and likeness ” creates the knowledge of the Wisdom of God.�
Vladimir Osipov.
I think Hawking is dead.
And philosophy is the most alive of all living things, because it works with questions that cannot be touched with your hands, measured with an ammeter, or examined with a microscope. Moreover, the more natural scientific discoveries are made, the more existential, ethical and other problems fall under the umbrella of philosophy.
The “abandonment of philosophy” led the so-called progressive society to its own cargo cult with a developed eschatological concept, which Musk is already implementing, promising to save all the faithful on Mars from a global war on Earth. This perfectly shows that humanity needs both philosophy and religion, and in their absence, ersatz texts are immediately constructed, often of lower quality.
Every thought has a right to exist. When Hawking writes that “Philosophy is dead,” he is already philosophizing.�
Hawking's thought is very similar to that of Fukuyama, who announced that history was over. The end of the development of culture, philosophy, revolutions, wars and ideologies. This does not mean that the eventfulness of the story has ended.�
Both thoughts are debatable. First, regarding Hawking, there are a number of unfinished (Modern!)problems for philosophy. questions. For example, the psychophysical problem, the philosophy of language, the problem of democracy. The latter leads us to the problem posed by Fukuyama.�
P.S. Francis Fukuyama “The End of History and the Last Man” 1992.