Is Capitulation All That Remains For Philosophy?

  • 33 Replies
  • 16288 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« on: May 29, 2014, 03:26:47 am »
Etienne Gilson once said, "Philosophy always buries its undertakers" and it seems this will be put to the test. Neil Degrasse Tyson doesn't think people should study philosophy. Krauss has said philosophers that aren't willing to bend down and fellate Science are just an annoyance.

Whether one gleefully evangelizes self-aggrandizing New Atheism with its questionable Return on Investment, takes up Mad Maxian rants in the style of Benjamin Cain, or jerks off to one's own tears while clinging to the very Scientism that apparently obliterates intentionality...is all that's left for philosophy acceptance that reductionism is the undertaker that philosophy cannot bury?

And, if so, what should materialist philosophers do with themselves? Argue with immaterialist contemporaries they expect to drop like flies in the wake of neuroscience? Fight off the Nihilists?

It would seem that philosophy still has something to tell us about what apparently illusory choices we should make with our apparently illusory free will to be in accord with apparently arbitrary morality.

One might think the Is-Ought Problem, Symbol Grounding, the Hard Problem, the criticism of Memory Traces, and so on would give more philosophers some reason to take pride in their profession, but as Berlinski notes the "desire to think of themselves as scientists" goads them into "accepting their irrelevance."
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 10:50:10 pm by sciborg2 »

Phallus Pendulus

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2014, 03:13:54 pm »
Quote
is capitulation all that remains for philosophy?

Yes.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2014, 09:42:41 pm »
Quote
is capitulation all that remains for philosophy?

Yes.

What does science have to say about morality?

mrganondorf

  • *
  • The Mouth of Bakker Fans
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Nurse Leweth
  • Posts: 2002
  • PSUKHE ALL THE THINGS!
    • View Profile
    • R. Scott Bakker Fans (on Twitter)
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2014, 09:15:20 am »
I think its more a question of degree--philosophy has less to say every day and I don't think the trend is going to change.  Seems like science is going to eat us all up.  Bakker had that cool blog post about the future where we discover the exact right way to artificial produce "good literature" and there's nothing left to write.  :(  Can't remember what that one was called...

Murphy

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2014, 12:54:34 pm »
A good question, although in some ways it's the one that has been asked since logical positivism decided that philosophy could not offer a description of the world, that was science's job, and all of ethics and aesthetics were literally meaningless. And that was in the 1920s, so philosophy could trundle on for a long while yet.

As to what science says about morality, well, we know what it says! It says nihilism, no? And nihilism implies general acquiescence to power, since there’s no basis to criticize murder, rape, slavery, etc, therefore no grounds for objections to what a foolish moralist would call abuse of power. Practical nihilism is what we would call Machiavellianism and essentially devolves to power-worship, which if translated into successful toadying makes it by far the most sensible position (from a suitably cynical viewpoint). If you can’t beat ‘em, and it is more or less stipulated that you can’t, then join ‘em, regardless of what they’re up to. It also allows for guiltlessly switching sides when the power-balance tips, so it shares something in common with the “game theory” view of life that was discussed on a thread at TPB. It hasn’t been explicitly advocated on TPB yet, but it’s the only real option once you’ve concluded everything else is fraudulent (eg Scott’s once professed feminism, which is not worth supporting on his own argument, since there’s no such thing as right/wrong, etc. I assume he’s abandoned it as his position has evolved). Combined with the other implication of BBT (fatalism, according to Scott, which I quite like), it becomes quite an easy sell in an American context, esp American business of course! If they play it right, BBT advocates could enjoy a bright future.

Phallus Pendulus

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2014, 03:09:11 pm »
Quote
is capitulation all that remains for philosophy?

Yes.

What does science have to say about morality?

Nothing at all, other than showing morality doesn't objectively exist. It proves moral nihilism.

Kellais

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • The True Old Name
  • Posts: 201
  • Damnation Dealer
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2014, 03:24:27 pm »
The thing is, no one is objective anyway. Every person has his/her own view on the world and is therefore, by definition, subjective in all aspects. So if a group of people (read - whole cultures) agree on some moral standards that they should adhere to, that is all it needs. And people who violate it will be punished accordingly.
So in other words, i couldn't care less what all those fancy neuroscientist say. As long as it affects our lives only in theory, why should i care?

The problematic point will be reached when/if some cultures start to "use" the "morality is non-existant so nobody has to adhere to it"-stance. Or in other words the "i can't be made accountable for my actions because there is no free will" and all the other scary-bull-shit excuses people will surely start to make up after this "knowledge" is starting to spread.

So in conclusion - i do not see why the new discoveries really make philosophy redundant. Sure, as above, in theory maybe it is ...not so important anymore. But for the real live out there, why should it all be irrelevant? I mean just because science seems able to "prove" that there is no free will does not mean we really feel like that in our everyday lives etc etc .
I'm trapped in Darkness
Still I reach out for the Stars

"GoT is TSA's less talented but far more successful step-brother" - Wilshire

Murphy

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2014, 03:38:32 pm »
 Kellais,

Yes, on a day-to-day problem-solving basis, society can function okay. But there is a reigning assumption that there is some argument for moral action that we might roughly be able to agree on if we think it over hard enough. And the problem of nihilism is that it says no, there is no reason why anything is right or wrong. And if science is on nihilism's side, then for society to resist going nihilist, it will have to be actively at odds with its own method of progress. Which is unlikely. This is the Pessimistic Induction argument, anyway. There is of course a  Counter-Pessimistic Induction argument which says that science is constantly finding out it's been completely wrong, and so it's just as likely that a few years from now the trend of research will suddenly point to objective values - we have no idea what science will find out.

Kellais

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • The True Old Name
  • Posts: 201
  • Damnation Dealer
    • View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2014, 03:48:54 pm »
Murphy,

the last sentence of your post is one of the most important ones for my view of those...discussions. Neurosciences are pretty new...and just because they think they have it figured out it doesn't mean they do.
And, to be honest, not our whole society works under the scientist method...so the at odd part is not really a convincing argument. For the field of science, sure, for us as a society, not so much.
On top of it, we would descend into anarchy if our societal standard would be based on nihilism (there is no right or wrong etc. pp.). So i'm kind of hoping we will stick to our guns and will see those discoveries as interesting and discussion worthy but not as our compass to what we as a race will have to do.
I'm trapped in Darkness
Still I reach out for the Stars

"GoT is TSA's less talented but far more successful step-brother" - Wilshire

Murphy

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2014, 04:37:40 pm »
Oh, I'm sure most people are hoping that we'll find a way to stick to non-nihilism, it's just there's a creeping sense of doom about whether that's realistic or not. The proposition might be phrased like this: if capitulation to science is all that's left for philosophy, then capitulation to power is all that's left for society.

Having said that, I do think that a quick glance at the history of science suggests the CPI is about right. Whatever science thinks now, you can be fairly sure it won't think that in the future.

Phallus Pendulus

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2014, 05:06:23 pm »
Oh, I'm sure most people are hoping that we'll find a way to stick to non-nihilism

Most people probably will. I'm fairly sure the average nihilist isn't a sociopath who lives his life entirely by moral nihilism, even though he intellectually admits that there isn't any objective morality.

Humans are moral creatures, for better or worse. It's hardwired in our system.

mrganondorf

  • *
  • The Mouth of Bakker Fans
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Nurse Leweth
  • Posts: 2002
  • PSUKHE ALL THE THINGS!
    • View Profile
    • R. Scott Bakker Fans (on Twitter)
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2014, 05:07:24 pm »
I'm not sure that philosophy will be rendered meaningless so much as its meaning will come be nothing more than relevant science.  Ethics is the study of how x brain reacts to y behavior.  "Treat others the way you want to be treated" can be declared a true moral universal at the point that we can demonstrate that a high enough threshold of brains finds it positive.  That's what I imagine will happen.  Then Skynet.

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2014, 07:14:55 pm »
There is a relevant documentary called Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century.

The things done in the name of science is really disturbing.

If you are curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp1hi2lHoRU#t=43

Murphy

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2014, 07:29:34 pm »
"Then Skynet". Love it.  ;)

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2014, 04:00:42 pm »
Quote
The proposition might be phrased like this: if capitulation to science is all that's left for philosophy, then capitulation to power is all that's left for society.

Society capitulated to power when national states with ruling governments became the norm.

I think Murphy is right about this being an issue of power. How many people on this planet have the time,luck,brains to even consider these kinds of questions? 2%? 3? maybe 5 if I can allow myself to exaggarate a bit. So it is the intellectual elite(and us!:) who decides what to do with this kind of knowledge.

John B Watson(the behaviorism guy) experimented on infants years ago, and found out that fear plays a decisive role as a ruling emotion of behaviour. Not love, but fear.

So, given that the elites in business and elsewhere were aware of this handy knowledge, television and advertising soon came as useful tools of control by spewing out fear, violence and sex in every household in the western sphere(its tentacles is getting more and more global every day of course).

My point here is simply that if the elites have the knowledge that humans are just biological machines, dolls of flesh that can be exploited and used(for whatever purpose) on a mass scale, we suddenly are living in Bakkers neuropath novel. To me that is scary as fuck. If the "wrong" people impose the rule of "no free will" on the general population, what are we left with then? MK ULTRA as a reality show on a saturday night?

It will be very interesting to follow this process further, that is for sure.