Thread: The Role of Philosophy in the Modern World

As relativism and rationalism have rotted most other philosophies from the inside out, what role is there for philosophy in the modern world? Is there any reason to suppose that philosophy could help us?

Personally, I believe philosophy and science are the answers to almost everything, because understanding breeds better, wiser actions. But, the fact is that no one thinks much about philosophy anymore and no one really listens to philosophers. People are looking to leaders in the political and entertainment industries, and in the media, for their world views. Liberal and Conservative have become world views that have nearly obliterated distinctions between empiricist, naturalist, rationalist, relativist... etc.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

As relativism and rationalism have rotted most other philosophies from the inside out, what role is there for philosophy in the modern world? Is there any reason to suppose that philosophy could help us?

Personally, I believe philosophy and science are the answers to almost everything, because understanding breeds better, wiser actions. But, the fact is that no one thinks much about philosophy anymore and no one really listens to philosophers. People are looking to leaders in the political and entertainment industries, and in the media, for their world views. Liberal and Conservative have become world views that have nearly obliterated distinctions between empiricist, naturalist, rationalist, relativist... etc.

Philosophy is the search for truth, in whatever form it manifests.

It is important because knowledge is not only a good in itself, but is a necessary condition of human existence.

but it all leads to meaninglessness as i have shown in my thread refutation of christianity
kingrat and giraffe have been defeated there now they r trying to rebuild their views by creating myths on this thread
science and maths entail meaninglessnes buut that dont mean they r not true only that all products of the human mind end in meaninglessness

u ask what is the role of science
i wil tell u
they stand beside the old greek myths and perform the same function as myth
they give meaning in a meaningless universe
their explanations are no better than the myth of ancient societys

there role is to stop people from falling into meaninglesness and chaos
they are nothing but MODERN MYTH MAKERS

Originally Posted by jane699

u ask what is the role of science
i wil tell u
they stand beside the old greek myths and perform the same function as myth
they give meaning in a meaningless universe
their explanations are no better than the myth of ancient societys

there role is to stop people from falling into meaninglesness and chaos
they are nothing but MODERN MYTH MAKERS

They're explanations are in fact valid because they rely on empirical data for their explanations rather than pulling shit out of their arses like religion is wont to do.

They're explanations are in fact valid because they rely on empirical data for their explanations rather than pulling shit out of their arses like religion is wont to do.

all observation is theory laden
there r no facts only interpretations

we only confront the universe through our theories
animists
see a god faling to earth
we see the same thing and call it a comet
both are theory laden observations
all that there realy is
is an object will a big white tail

as such truth is just a judgment based upon the parameters of some theory that in the process of interpreting nature infact creates it through its explantation/myth
science is a myth maker as its explanations of the so caled facts are nothing but myths science is ciontinually reformulating its myuths-the explanations/myths 100 years ago have been abandoned - which are just myths
and the explanations/myths of today wil be abandioned in a 100 years
science is nothing but mythical thought
you problem is you are making the truth fallacy -deans idea - ie you think because it works the explanation must be true -this is a facallous way of thinking
u r mesmerised by the magic of science and believe its explanations

Originally Posted by jane699

all observation is theory laden
there r no facts only interpretations

Facts are obtained through interpretations of observations. This is the way the scientific method works.

we only confront the universe through our theories
animists
see a god faling to earth
we see the same thing and call it a comet
both are theory laden observations
all that there realy is
is an object will a big white tail

The notion that we call it a comet does not invalidate the FACT that science explains what a comet is and why it has a tail. Semantics over names doesn't strengthen your argument.

as such truth is just a judgment based upon the parameters of some theory that in the process of interpreting nature infact creates it through its explantation/myth

How illogical. We don't interpret nature itself we interpret the observations of natural or stimulated occurences.

science is a myth maker as its explanations of the so caled facts are nothing but myths science is ciontinually reformulating its myuths-the explanations/myths 100 years ago have been abandoned - which are just myths

The "reformulation" you describe with much convolution is updating knowledge in the face of new observations. Would you prefer that science accepted one thing as fact and held it as truth regardless of evidence to the contrary? We are talking science, not religion.

and the explanations/myths of today wil be abandioned in a 100 years
science is nothing but mythical thought

They may be if new knowledge is obtained through further research, but it still doesnt invalidate science.

you problem is you are making the truth fallacy -deans idea - ie you think because it works the explanation must be true -this is a facallous way of thinking

The only fallacious way of thinking in this thread is your ridiculous notions of science and mathematics being meaningless.

u r mesmerised by the magic of science and believe its explanations

No, I just prefer to trust in empirical backed theories and facts to describe and explain the world and the universe rather than sitting around and telling women they have "putrid ****s" as certain idiots prefer :whistling:

Originally Posted by jane699

but it all leads to meaninglessness as i have shown in my thread refutation of christianity
kingrat and giraffe have been defeated there now they r trying to rebuild their views by creating myths on this thread
science and maths entail meaninglessnes buut that dont mean they r not true only that all products of the human mind end in meaninglessness

Your mind operates under the assumption that human knowledge can discern truth absolutely. And since it can't, it becomes meaningless.

Nothing in christianity assumes this. In fact, it is dependent on revealed truth.

But of course, I would concede defeat. Against invulnerable stupidity, even the gods contend in vain.

How illogical. We don't interpret nature itself we interpret the observations of natural or stimulated occurences

Facts are obtained through interpretations of observations. This is the way the scientific method works.

all observation is theory laden -the theory explain the observation

The "reformulation" you describe with much convolution is updating knowledge in the face of new observations. Would you prefer that science accepted one thing as fact and held it as truth regardless of evidence to the contrary? We are talking science, not religion.

They may be if new knowledge is obtained through further research, but it still doesnt invalidate science.

as the evidence changes so does the theory and so does the facts-thus the old theory was just a myth

No, I just prefer to trust in empirical backed theories and facts to describe and explain the world and the universe rather than sitting around and telling women they have "putrid ****s" as certain idiots prefe

as the evidence changes so does the theory and so does the facts-thus the old theory was just a myth

the science of 100 years ago is just myth now
and the science today will be the myths in a 100years time

Your mind operates under the assumption that human knowledge can discern truth absolutely. And since it can't, it becomes meaningless.

this is a blatant contraditiction
to say i say A - can decern absolute truth
then say i say B cant decern absolute truth

u r begining to deconstruct yourself under my deconstruction