16 Answers

  1. Science cannot answer philosophical questions. Philosophy is a rationally grounded and theoretically developed worldview. There are many worldviews. Therefore, there is no definitive answer to philosophical questions, there are only many points of view, each of which is rationally justified and criticized. Philosophy is needed so that each individual person thinks about his own position on a particular issue and learns to understand the opponent. Let's say your question absolutizes the role of science, and you claim that science has found (can find) all the answers. This is also a philosophical position, the position of a scientist. By defending it in a strictly rational way and denying the importance of philosophy, you will be doing philosophy yourself.

  2. PHILOSOPHY works at the intersection of all sciences and synthesizes all these sciences, establishes important connections between them – on this path, the most important discoveries are made.

    Any one particular science does not give a comprehensively harmonious worldview and thinking, so you can often observe a one – sided and lopsided disabled worldview and thinking of narrow specialists.

  3. Science without philosophy is a blind man in the steppe. Science is what studies history, philosophy opens the future. Eastern philosophy 2-3 thousand years ago, discovered what science is trying to prove today. This is that our world and people, including, consists of energy and that our world is an illusion. Reality is a projection of the mind! And now judge for yourself whether we need philosophy or let a blind man lead us to the steppe!!! With respect.

  4. Let's just say that philosophy, classical philosophy, has no other question than: how to live in the best possible way? No science has yet given an answer to this question. The fact that we are rubbed in the lessons of khvilasofii on the topic ” the main question of philosophy: what is primarily soul or matter”, about this I have long since wiped not only my feet, but then flushed them down the drain. It was very far-sighted to come up with a theory, justify it, and then declare it a question and safely “find the answer”. Especially interesting is the fact that the difference between “soul” and “matter” is the same as between “atom” and “stone block”. That is, none other than the size. The soul is such a subtle matter that in comparison with it some components of an electron, proton, neutron, like these components themselves with, for example, an ant. The fact that no one has seen it yet doesn't make it wrong and nonexistent. Just 300 years ago, no one believed that a molecule existed. We managed to see them later. And the atoms are quite recent.

  5. First of all, science cannot explain the phenomenon of the inner world of a person in accordance with how a person feels about himself. Science does not meet the following questions: “Why do I live?”, ” Is it worth living or is it worth dying?”, “What is the purpose of man?” just like other existential questions. Generally speaking, science cannot justify itself, it does not reflect on its own beginnings, it has its own subject, method, categorical apparatus, task: it is cooked within its own borders, if something useful is cooked – it has expanded the baggage of a certain science, raised a new question, opened a new problem – science is cooked further. Philosophy looks at science from above, it is philosophy that provides science with its tools-elementary analytical and synthetic, inductive, deductive methods have their origin in the natural philosophy of antiquity. Once born from the bosom of philosophy, science goes hand in hand with it. Modern philosophy clearly expands the horizons of understanding the relationship between science and philosophy: then philosophy stopped asking questions about the origin of the world and its research, because the sphere of functioning of these questions began to belong to mathematical natural science and other sciences. Philosophy at that time was trying to answer the question of the origin of knowledge and find a criterion for the general significance of knowledge – that is, the very criterion of its scientific character. The answer to the question – what is scientific knowledge and what is not scientific – is the answer given by philosophy.

    Philosophy reflects on the origins, on the duration, its business is to comprehend in all its diversity and details. It is a huge project of humanity. She is his vast experience. It unobtrusively shows that man is humanity – what is not alien to man is not alien to humanity. Philosophy poses actual questions, eternal questions, to which the person of each individual context (first of all, the historical situation) answers differently. Where there is a person, there is a philosophy in a developed form or in embryo. Your question suggests many answers, and this is one of them.

  6. Modern empirical science cannot answer many questions of human existence and consciousness. For example, such a science cannot explain the nature of sensory experience and human awareness. This is where new branches of philosophy like the analytical philosophy of consciousness come to the rescue.

  7. There is an opinion that philosophy is a search for truth about truth. Obviously, in the case of real objects, the structure of such a statement turns out to be degenerate. Search for stone by stone, search for hand by hand. But when it comes to non-material objects, such linguistic constructions have a downright sacred meaning and frightening depth. There are also sections of philosophy that study thinking as something immaterial. I.e., in fact, philosophers study and create (fence) the above-mentioned ideas about their ideas.�

    Unlike the ancient philosophers, who had an advanced (albeit erroneous) understanding of the physical world at that time, today's philosophers are usually completely ignorant of this. Their training is limited to the study of ideas about the ideas of their predecessors, and they try not to touch reality from the word at all.�

    Then why do we need them at all? Why train and support them at state expense?�

    But because they think within paid paradigms, they are criticized and blamed for their deviations. Soviet philosophers have worked to justify the superiority of socialism / communism/the planned economy, while Western philosophers are working to justify the way of life of their society.

  8. The idea that science has given answers to all questions is a deep misconception.

    Philosophy must and must serve humanity as an institution of forward-looking people in developing humanity.

    Developing humanity often has ideas-suggestions for further development.Philosophy is bound to study them for their safety.

    Philosophy is a very necessary science. However, it is stuck at the level of the Middle Ages. After all, philosophy in its development must grow into an institution of Wisdom, and then Wisdom. I do not observe such tension in philosophers.

    Peace To All.

  9. For a full-fledged discussion, you need links to (at least):

    List of all problems of philosophy

    A list of articles in which each problem from the list is compared with its solution in the framework of those sciences that the author considers higher than philosophy

    Well, no one but philosophy will give answers to questions in the spirit of the primacy of matter or consciousness and various other ontological and not only ones, due to the fact that they are no longer studied so comprehensively by any science

  10. Philosophy is also a science and its main purpose is to give a person the basis for understanding and understanding the world around them. Without working on your consciousness, etc., the world around you will remain unconscious.

  11. What science can answer the question: What is the meaning and purpose of human existence in the world? No one but a truly scientific philosophy, which bears the name “Philosophy of Pure Reason” and I, i.e. a Philosopher, its creator, then my philosophy answers scientifically to any eternal philosophical question, then who is interested, then go to my page Vladimir Babushkin Yekaterinburg in Odnoklassniki, then find my group “Lovers of Wisdom” on it, then you will find the text of my “Philosophy of Pure Reason”, then read, study and become absolutely reasonable, i.e. wise as a Philosopher. If it is not clear to anyone, please contact us, I will be happy to help. A philosopher who knows what no one else sees. 3-12 12.10. 2018

  12. Science hasn't found all the answers. I didn't find it very far.
    One of the goals of philosophy is not to find answers, but to put the question correctly. Philosophy, it seems to me, sets the direction vector for science.

  13. Philosophy as a dominant of evolutionary progress and further ascent is necessary for the world, religion as a relic of the 13th century is doomed to extinction and only faiths in their true form can coexist in parallel with science and complement what science cannot explain! Even the much-disliked Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said that “religion is the opium of the people” and was damn right! If we want our world to have a future, then we need to break the vicious thread of eternal wars and religious selfish dogmas based on GNOSTICISM! If we correctly assess the situation, then we need to dig a little deeper into history and then we will see the following picture – the 13th century, the era of the birth of the vicious ambitions of popes and self-proclaimed churches and exorcists. Further, since there was no clear vision of the legislative power and executive structures, the forced implantation of a false ideology and the deliberate subordination of the consciousness of the people as an individual as a whole to the level of “Slave – Master” from the position of ” Leader – Brother in labor “followed! As a result of the fact that religion was trampled upon and fucked up so called sects began to appear in the world and the largest sectarian elite began to be called Orthodoxy! At the same time, faith still exists and Religion is on the verge of destruction, and only the so-called prophecies of Optina elders and elders from Mount Athos keep it from being completely destroyed, because demand creates supply!

    and finally a couple of philosophical sayings said in Ancient Rome:

    1) “- Not the gods burn pots”.

    2)” I think, therefore I exist ” by Rene Dacart, French philosopher of 1596-1650.

  14. Philosophy is not needed for any reason at all, and this has nothing to do with what questions science has given answers to, what questions it has not given, and whether it has given them to all of the questions, etc.Philosophy is a completely useless occupation, which (useless occupations) a person has a lot of different ones.

    For example, Kant once asks: why do ladies read French novels, weep over them, and waste so much energy and nerves? And he can't even give an answer, but only, sighing, concludes: “Nature should stop all this, but she is wise and therefore will not do it” (???).

    Well, this is his, Kant's, “why?” can be continued indefinitely: why do people have love? why do people need art? why… why…

    — And nizachem!

    What makes humans different from other animals is that they are given to idleness and do a lot of useless things – from the point of view of the global goal of the survival of the species. In particular, it is also attached to idle and completely useless philosophizing. I won't mention the various ballerinas and other composers here…

    And some, especially gifted with the gift of useless work, are given to idle theorizing – a bowl called “fundamental science” in the world. True, there are still engineers among people who sometimes come up with ways to use the fruits of useless and disinterested theorizing of fundamental scientists for some benefit (or, conversely, for harm). But the fundamental scientists themselves have nothing to do with it, they theorize exclusively without any purpose or even hypothetical benefit, and tokmo – out of love for the Truth.

    Here are some pies, kittens.

  15. Science will never be able to answer all the traditional philosophical questions. First, science cannot replace the philosophy of knowledge, because science cannot explain itself — there must be some more general discipline that will do this (many scientists, however, believe that this is not really necessary: science can be done without delving into how exactly the process of knowledge occurs). Secondly, science cannot replace ethical philosophy: any scientific statement is neutral about how to act in a particular situation (because science is not able to define the concepts of “good” and “bad”). In addition, philosophy is useful as a source of questions. For example, in the human sciences, the question of free will is often discussed-scientists can find new specific data on this problem, but the question was originally asked by philosophers and there is no scientific definition of free will yet.

Leave a Reply