5 Answers

  1. Philosophy is the search for answers to eternal questions. Do we know the world, and if so, to what extent and how? What is good, is the human being good by nature? What is the world we live in? All such questions are eternal, firstly in the sense that it is impossible to give definitive answers, and, secondly, each person faces these questions in one way or another, and the person is forced to answer by choosing one or another position (even if unconsciously copying the position of the majority).

    Why does a person need answers to these questions? This is also one of those “eternal” questions.

  2. Aristotle:”And just as we call a man free who lives for his own sake and not for another, so this science is the only one that is free, for it alone exists for its own sake.”�

    This idea of Aristotle's is extremely accurate, especially when you consider that it refers to the definition not so much of science as a whole, but directly to philosophy. After all, it seems to me that science is a multi-faceted concept,and the answer to the question “is philosophy a science” will directly depend on what definition of the word “science” we take as fundamental.�

    Moreover, if you call philosophy a science, then first of all it is necessary to denote that which is important to you. what she's studying. But, quite probably, philosophy is just a fundamental human need, along with breathing, eating, movement, etc. In our case, philosophy is the need to explain, analyze what you see, what society, nature and the universe present to you, in the end.�

    But I must say that philosophy is interesting because it turns out that it does not reflect reality (after all, it cannot do this, and it should not), and, moreover, it is not needed for anything. It is here that we should recall the words of Aristotle: “it alone exists for its own sake.” Thus, it is worth understanding that philosophy should not give anything, should not be necessary or unnecessary for someone. It is initially a certain value. And things that have value initially can't be valuable for anything else.

  3. To what George Panin said, it is worth adding that the fundamental part of any science is directly related to philosophy. As soon as the researcher turns from applied problems to rethinking the foundations of the discipline within which he works, he begins to engage in philosophy. Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Lobachevsky, and Mandelbrot were philosophers to the extent that they justified the extension of physics and mathematics to the new limits they set.

    In addition, the developments that emerged as philosophical ones directly shaped modern logic (logical positivism and analytical philosophy), linguistics and cultural studies (structuralism and post-structuralism), systems theory and cybernetics. Modern philosophy is integrated into the solution of a wide range of applied and technological problems-from the preparation of a corporate non-financial report to cryptanalysis. That is, the philosophy covers a range from simple logical and ethical justification to the direct implementation of unethical and illegal practices (such as the activities of the Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland, which is part of the complex of US national security agencies). Plus, philosophy is the basis for constructing and describing a methodology in absolutely any field of activity.

  4. It may seem strange, but we encounter philosophy more often than with a coffee machine. We operate with philosophical concepts everywhere and need it literally every second of our conscious life. They just aren't used to calling it so grandiloquently. In addition, living in the here and now, we take for granted things that are the fruit of millennia of generalizations (and generalization is a category of philosophy), as if we see the tip of the iceberg (sorry for the stamp), most of which is hidden in the thickness of time. The structure of matter – knowledge obvious to a schoolboy, at the same time, is relatively fresh, although the concept of “atom” originated before our era. Another obvious thing is the value of human life. Was it the same for the Ryazan serf peasant? And for a Japanese samurai? For a Wehrmacht soldier? An ISIS mujahideen? An LNR volunteer? A philosophical question, isn't it?

    Despite the commonality of human structure and physiology, there are no two people who are mentally identical. One and the same fact or event is perceived and interpreted differently by different individuals: even such a simple everyday thing as a flying plane in a native of Polynesia, a Rwandan Hutu, a German Burgher, a Vyatka eunuch and a Moscow hipster will evoke a complex of thoughts and emotions of varying complexity, emotional intensity and color. This is not to mention the interpretation of more complex events, such as the Second World War. Almost certainly, the assessment of the Holocaust by Hutu representatives, who have slaughtered more than a million Tutsis in the past few years, will be radically different from the assessment of a Muscovite. Or a German. A less radical example: the perception of events in Ukraine by our compatriots of the same gender, age and income can be diametrically opposed. Why? Because of different worldviews, worldviews – what ultimately constitutes a worldview – a holistic, stable system of views about the world and the laws of its existence, about the phenomena and processes of nature and society. In other words, it is one of the key functions of philosophy – to be the basis of a worldview-mythological, religious-mystical, or philosophical proper.

    Close to the worldview is the value-oriented function of philosophy. One can even say that value orientations directly stem from the worldview, but this is not entirely correct, rather they are in dialectical interaction (which is also a philosophical problem area).

    Philosophy sets the rules of the game for scientific research, acting as a methodological arbiter in theoretical and experimental-applied [scientific] search. Under what conditions can the conclusion be considered correct and the results of the experiment valid? A neo-positivist philosopher will answer: provided that the facts are consistent, the experiment repeatable, and the experimental data reducible. It seems to be obvious, but it has become obvious over the past 100-150 years, thanks to philosophy, namely the epistemological (cognitive) and methodological function that it implements.

    Like any science, philosophy is valuable for its predictive ability. Traditional societies were replaced by the formation of the New Age, which was followed by Postmodernism and postmodernism with its abolition of genre boundaries, the death of the author, eclectic banter, and intellectual play with secondary meanings. What will happen next? Return to pre-written patterns? But the audio-visual culture with clip-based thinking, which is replacing verbal culture, is increasingly acquiring features of pre-written culture. This is a question that neither a sociologist, nor an anthropologist, nor a historian can answer – this is the area of search for philosophical science.

    I started with the image of an iceberg. We sit at the very top, and below us are at least 2,800 years of written European culture and several thousand years of global history-a history of observation and search, reflection and insight. This is not a distant abstraction, but a slender and very high structure of the most complex architectonics, which provides on the one hand an extraordinary stability and adaptability to the humanity living in it, and on the other – it does not have unnecessary elements. Any cataclysms, from environmental disasters, the Great Migration of peoples, the small glaciation of the late Middle Ages, Great Geographical discoveries and collisions of civilizations-this magnificent structure is able to perceive, absorb and in response to the challenge give a solution (ideological and methodological), thanks to which humanity takes another step forward and up. But pull a brick out of it – and the building will lose its stability, making further construction difficult. violates the integrity of the masonry. Ancient culture and science stand on the shoulders of Mesopotamia, medieval natural philosophers inherit the Greek tradition (and lawyers-Roman law), the New time stretches out from the blessed olive cradle of the Balkan Peninsula rethinking childhood in the strict Gothic mirror of the Middle Ages, The Newest-awkwardly jokes and looks around in search of new sincerity, being afraid of its reflection with bloody smudges of two world wars and totalitarian lawlessness. Galileo stands on the shoulders of Archimedes, Newton on the shoulders of Galileo, the demon of Maxwell leans on the shoulders of the infuriated dean of Trinity College, Sir Isaac, and so on: Planck, Landau, and Einstein… Adam Smith stands on the shoulders of Aristotle, Marx on the shoulders of A. Smith, Recardo and Mill-all three (three, Karl!).

    It is philosophy that carries out this pyramidal, complex construction, integrating useful, polished knowledge into the supporting structures of this magnificent, infinitely self-complementing building-a building of human culture, outside the walls, outside the context of which we are all just a very large population of primates on the verge of their own destruction.

  5. Philosophy studies many issues that are relevant in the modern world; among them: ethics and morality, the meaning of life and conclusions from the answer to this question, the question of personality (if the brain of person A is transplanted into the head of person B… and so on), the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of language and many others.

    Perhaps the amount of practical philosophy is limited, but this is not a reason not to be interested in it, for some reason questions about the harm of “why history in the 21st century” are much less common.

    Whether in the scientific world or in the world of philosophy, it takes time for an idea to become influential; and 15 years is a very short time.

    Perhaps a good example of a modern influential philosopher would be Saul Kripke.

Leave a Reply