This article has little to do with the clickbait title of philosophy being over. It's mostly just a review of a book of revisionist history of Enlightenment-era Western philosophy.
The book apparently attacks the popular idea that philosophy is over.
And that word "revisionist," used so frequently to dismiss what one thinks they already know -- how useful is that word in advancing anything but maintenance of the status quo?
Very clickbaity. I agree, of course, that philosophy isn't dead, though people may have become dead to it, and that's the problem. Philosophical questions always surface, regardless of whether the person who forms the question or makes a claim in that regard is aware that he is treading on philosophical ground. Of course, without the awareness and without the education, his philosophy is bound to be mediocre and, if it isn't blatant bullshit, a rehash of something previously explored. Those who do not study philosophy are bound to repeat its mistakes.
I haven't read these books, but if the article is correct, then I find the grandiose claims that everyone's gotten all of these major philosophers wrong over the lat 2500 years (not just one or two) and that Gottlieb has properly comprehended all of them is suspect, at the very least. Worth noting is that people debate over what a given philosopher means by X all the time. While it's fine to say that a philosopher has been misunderstood in some way for centuries (and here, Aquinas stands as an example; the existential Thomists of the early 20th century made just that claim about the so-called principle of existence), the kind of broad claims being made here raise eyebrows. To understand just one philosopher thoroughly (not counting the research that goes into expanding their theories) can occupy a philosopher for a lifetime. There was one quite well known philosopher who said that he only truly "got" Aristotle in his 50s.
I read the original book about 8 years ago (which is still 6 years after it was published). Highly recommend it as a very readable but still fairly deep introduction to philosophy in antiquity.
Bit blown away that he's finally published the second part.
It's an understandable mistake (if it was one), as Plato wrote most of his works as dialogues between Socrates and other Athenians (including Republic, where the Allegory of the Cave originates).
From another angle, the paragraph in reference is a summary of what the article's author believes the author of the book being reviewed alleges is the macro-narrative in regards to philosophy as presented today and understood by philosophy-averse intellectuals. As the article-author explicitly mentions Plato later in the article (in reference to an earlier work by the book-author extolling Ancient Greek philosophy) and distinguishes between the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, it seems impossible that either author doesn't realize the Cave isn't Socrates' idea. Although sloppy, it seems that the article-author is simply implying that there is so little familiarity with the full breadth and depth of philosophy that the average individual with passing knowledge of the ancients might know of the Allegory of the Cave/theory of the Forms/etc but would wrongly attribute it to Socrates as he is the mouthpiece in Republic.
Depends whether you think the Republic is a depiction of Socrates views or Platos. I think (?) most people think Plato (as with most of the late texts) but not unreasonable to say Socrates as he is the interlocutor who puts it forward.
The only lasting source of enlightenment seems to come from science, and “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” -Feynman
I would be very interested to know how much Feynman actually knew about the philosophy of science. My guess would be not very much at all.
Feynman, like some other famous scientists, gave in to the temptation of pontificating on subjects he knew very little about. Philosophy in general was something he seemed to have contempt for, without knowing much about it. I'd take his pronouncements on it with a huge grain of salt.
For one, I think Feynman had a more complex perspective on the situation than what that single quote would indicate. He probably would not have written The Character of Physical Law otherwise. You can see, however, from how it's written that he's not working in the tradition of academic philosophy of science—but that's probably more an issue with their methods than with the validity/interest of their subject matter.
Also, it seems like there are increasingly many places in science where having a sort of self-awareness about what one's doing while practicing is useful. Formalization of observation and measurement in physics would be part—but what sticks out to me even more is the way competing theories are weighed against one another. We've generalized beyond particular theories to working in a framework capable of evaluating and comparing various competing theories using standard measures (and aesthetic judgement)—much like evaluating software architectures. This has occurred somewhat in parallel with philosophy of science increasingly pointing out that scientific formulations have a degree of arbitrariness to them (in a similar manner to how you can express a single algorithm many many different ways)—rather than being either truth or not truth.
Well, he's partially correct. You don't study the philosophy of science (or philosophy for that matter) because of some utility it has in relation to something else (here, empirical science). You study it for its own sake. That's what theoretical sciences (including philosophy, though ethics is also practical) are about, truth for its own sake. That philosophy may have a beneficial influence on the practice of science is not negated, but it's important to understand the primary aim.
As far as quotes are concerned, here's one from Feyerabend that explicitly names Feynman:
"The withdrawal of philosophy into a 'professional' shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth"
In other words, the ignorance of philosophy so prevalent among scientists has rendered them a class of boorish technicians. And it seems to be getting worse. Just look at Lawrence Krauss and friends.
It would be difficult to argue that science is the only lasting source of enlightenment. Science certainly helped to disentangle us from religious dogma and to provide a new, rational foundation for interpreting the world. It has led to an unprecedented advancement of technology and a deeper understanding of the universe. But in what way does science in the 21st century continue to advance and preserve human enlightenment? It isn't difficult to acknowledge the opposite effect -- that science has led to a certain disenchantment with the world and our place in it. It would also be difficult to argue that the philosophy of science is useless. Philosophy is more important to science than ever as it struggles to meaningfully interpret its data, especially in quantum mechanics and neurology. I know it upsets scientists to think about receiving help from a philosopher. That's why instead scientists are just becoming professional philosophers themselves!
[+] [-] pmoriarty|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sverige|9 years ago|reply
And that word "revisionist," used so frequently to dismiss what one thinks they already know -- how useful is that word in advancing anything but maintenance of the status quo?
[+] [-] bobthechef|9 years ago|reply
I haven't read these books, but if the article is correct, then I find the grandiose claims that everyone's gotten all of these major philosophers wrong over the lat 2500 years (not just one or two) and that Gottlieb has properly comprehended all of them is suspect, at the very least. Worth noting is that people debate over what a given philosopher means by X all the time. While it's fine to say that a philosopher has been misunderstood in some way for centuries (and here, Aquinas stands as an example; the existential Thomists of the early 20th century made just that claim about the so-called principle of existence), the kind of broad claims being made here raise eyebrows. To understand just one philosopher thoroughly (not counting the research that goes into expanding their theories) can occupy a philosopher for a lifetime. There was one quite well known philosopher who said that he only truly "got" Aristotle in his 50s.
[+] [-] calpaterson|9 years ago|reply
Bit blown away that he's finally published the second part.
[+] [-] misotaur|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SnakePlissken|9 years ago|reply
From another angle, the paragraph in reference is a summary of what the article's author believes the author of the book being reviewed alleges is the macro-narrative in regards to philosophy as presented today and understood by philosophy-averse intellectuals. As the article-author explicitly mentions Plato later in the article (in reference to an earlier work by the book-author extolling Ancient Greek philosophy) and distinguishes between the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, it seems impossible that either author doesn't realize the Cave isn't Socrates' idea. Although sloppy, it seems that the article-author is simply implying that there is so little familiarity with the full breadth and depth of philosophy that the average individual with passing knowledge of the ancients might know of the Allegory of the Cave/theory of the Forms/etc but would wrongly attribute it to Socrates as he is the mouthpiece in Republic.
[+] [-] calpaterson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] M_Grey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|9 years ago|reply
Feynman, like some other famous scientists, gave in to the temptation of pontificating on subjects he knew very little about. Philosophy in general was something he seemed to have contempt for, without knowing much about it. I'd take his pronouncements on it with a huge grain of salt.
[+] [-] westoncb|9 years ago|reply
Also, it seems like there are increasingly many places in science where having a sort of self-awareness about what one's doing while practicing is useful. Formalization of observation and measurement in physics would be part—but what sticks out to me even more is the way competing theories are weighed against one another. We've generalized beyond particular theories to working in a framework capable of evaluating and comparing various competing theories using standard measures (and aesthetic judgement)—much like evaluating software architectures. This has occurred somewhat in parallel with philosophy of science increasingly pointing out that scientific formulations have a degree of arbitrariness to them (in a similar manner to how you can express a single algorithm many many different ways)—rather than being either truth or not truth.
[+] [-] bobthechef|9 years ago|reply
As far as quotes are concerned, here's one from Feyerabend that explicitly names Feynman:
"The withdrawal of philosophy into a 'professional' shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth"
In other words, the ignorance of philosophy so prevalent among scientists has rendered them a class of boorish technicians. And it seems to be getting worse. Just look at Lawrence Krauss and friends.
[+] [-] b-orges|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vaags|9 years ago|reply